Sunrise — 5:41, 5:44, 5:45.

"Florida is at the forefront of a dizzying and contentious array of statewide bans..."

"... outlawing lab grown meat, certain books from school libraries and classrooms, and most abortions after six weeks. But the balloon ban is rare for garnering widespread bipartisan support.... The new legislation makes it clear that balloons can pose an environmental hazard, supporters say. It equates intentionally releasing a balloon filled with a gas lighter than air with littering...."

"Balloons Harm Wildlife. Florida Is Set to Ban Their Release/In an effort to curb microplastics and marine pollution, lawmakers in the Sunshine State voted overwhelmingly to make it illegal to intentionally let a balloon fly away" (NYT).

Of course, releasing a balloon is littering! How did people ever convince themselves that it wasn't? Well, they just didn't think about it, did they?

Side note: Did you spot the free-range "garnering" released into the wild?

"Across the country, power companies are increasingly using giant batteries the size of shipping containers to address renewable energy’s biggest weakness..."

"... the fact that the wind and sun aren’t always available.... When power companies first began connecting batteries to the grid in the 2010s, they mainly used them to smooth out small disruptions in the flow of electricity.... But power companies also use batteries to engage in a type of trading: charging up when electricity is plentiful and cheap and then selling power to the grid when electricity supplies are tighter and more expensive. In California power prices often crash around midday, when the state produces more solar power than it needs.... Prices then soar in the evening when solar disappears...."

From "Giant Batteries Are Transforming the Way the U.S. Uses Electricity/They’re delivering solar power after dark in California and helping to stabilize grids in other states. And the technology is expanding rapidly" (NYT).

"It is a really bad feeling to have your Constitutional Right to Free Speech, such a big part of life in our Country, so unfairly taken from you..."

"... especially when all of the sleazebags, lowlifes, and grifters that you oppose are allowed to say absolutely anything that they want. It is hard to sit back and listen to lies and false statements be made against you knowing that if you respond, even in the most modest fashion, you are told by a Corrupt and Highly Conflicted Judge that you will be PUT IN PRISON, maybe for a long period of time. This Fascist mindset is all coming from D.C. It is a sophisticated hit job on Crooked Joe Biden’s Political Opponent, ME!. Judges Engoron and Kaplan, also of New York, are equally Corrupt, only in different ways. What these THUGS are doing is AN ATTACK ON THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, AND OUR ONCE GREAT NATION ITSELF. OUR FIRST AMENDMENT MUST STAND, FREE AND STRONG. 'GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!'"

Writes Donald Trump at Truth Social.

"I would say that augmentation reached a peak in 2007 — there is a sense that the really big boobs look old-fashioned."

"Augmentation also skews more working class nowadays — actually, I would say conspicuous boob jobs skew working class. In one study, a segment of British working class women, for example, see fake tits as a form of consumption that gives them status and signals that they are independent women in command of the male gaze. And then similarly, a contingent of Brazilian women who began their lives in poverty want people to know they have implants as a form of financial accomplishment...."

Said Sarah Thornton, quoted in "Why Are We Obsessed With Breasts? After her own mastectomy, sociologist Sarah Thornton sought to answer the question" (NYT).

Thornton's book is called "Tits Up: What Sex Workers, Milk Bankers, Plastic Surgeons, Bra Designers, and Witches Tell Us About Breasts."

Her mastectomy — which was done as a precaution against a hereditary form of breast cancer — included breast implants — large ones that she later had replaced with smaller ones.

"But critics like me aren’t asking the Times to abandon its independence. We’re asking the Times to recognize that it isn’t living up to its own standards..."

"... of truth-telling and independence when it obfuscates the stakes of the 2024 election, covers up for Trump’s derangement, and goes out of its way to make Biden look weak."

Writes Dan Froomkin, in "New York Times editor Joe Kahn says defending democracy is a partisan act and he won’t do it." (Press Watch).

Froomkin is reading "an interview with obsequious former employee Ben Smith, now the editor of Semafor," where Kahn said: 

"To say that the threats of democracy are so great that the media is going to abandon its central role as a source of impartial information to help people vote — that’s essentially saying that the news media should become a propaganda arm for a single candidate, because we prefer that candidate’s agenda."

Small worm the size of a large worm.

RFK Jr. is my presumptive choice for President, so I'm keeping track of what the mainstream media has to say about him. They seem to be heightening the scrutiny, so let's take a look:

New York Times: "R.F.K. Jr. Says Doctors Found a Dead Worm in His Brain/The presidential candidate has faced previously undisclosed health issues, including a parasite that he said ate part of his brain."

In 2010, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was experiencing memory loss and mental fogginess so severe that a friend grew concerned he might have a brain tumor.... Several doctors noticed a dark spot on [his] brain scans.... The doctor believed that the abnormality seen on his scans “was caused by a worm that got into my brain and ate a portion of it and then died,” Mr. Kennedy said in [his 2012 divorce] deposition.... In the interview with The Times, he said he had recovered from the memory loss and fogginess and had no aftereffects from the parasite, which he said had not required treatment.... Several infectious disease experts and neurosurgeons said... they believed it was likely a pork tapeworm larva.... Though it is impossible to know, [one doctor said] it is unlikely that a parasite would eat a part of the brain.... 

Washington Post: "RFK Jr’s ‘history lesson’ on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine flunks the fact test/A line-by-line dissection shows he’s often echoing Russian talking points" (by Glenn Kessler, the "fact checker")(free access link). Excerpt from a long piece:

A reader asked us to fact-check a four-minute “history lesson” posted by presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on YouTube. International events — and the causes of war — are often open to interpretation. But Kennedy’s lecture, about how the United States allegedly provoked the Ukraine war, was filled with so much misinformation and Russian talking points that it seems worthy of a detailed look....

“When the wall came down in the Soviet Union and Europe, [Soviet President Mikhail] Gorbachev destroyed himself politically by doing something that was very, very courageous. He went to [President George H.W.] Bush. He said, ‘I’m going to allow you to reunify Germany under a NATO army. I’m going to remove 450,000 Soviet troops. But I want your commitment. After that, you will not move NATO one inch to the east.’ And we solemnly swore that we wouldn’t do it.”

"The grandson of President John F. Kennedy this week savaged his presidential-candidate cousin, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in a series of mocking, meant-to-be-funny videos..."

"...that were, inarguably, uncharacteristically un-Kennedyesque, escalating a civil war within America’s most storied political dynasty. In a series of Instagram posts, the grandson, Jack Schlossberg, 31, variously called Mr. Kennedy, 70, a 'prick,' suggested he was using steroids, said he was 'lying to us' and portrayed him as a Russian stooge and a stalking horse for Donald J. Trump. But what viewers may be more struck by, or even insulted by, are the heavily accented caricatures the young scion used to dramatize his points. He impersonates a Massachusetts fan of the Kennedys named Jimmy.... 'You know, I’m a fan of his father,' Mr. Schlossberg says, as Jimmy. 'And you know his uncle? Rest in peace, I remember where I was the day he was killed, I mean it was a tragic day, the entire country wept. But listen, that guy, he’s a prick. The new guy, the young guy, he’s a friggin prick.' He channels a southerner named Wade.... And he conjures an Italian-American Long Islander named Anthony....What may be the edgiest impression, though, is Mr. Schlossberg’s depiction of Joshua, an older New York Jewish man...."

From "Using Cartoonish Accents, J.F.K.’s Grandson Insults and Mocks Robert F. Kennedy Jr./In an escalation of the family feud, the son of Caroline Kennedy portrayed heavily accented characters who suggested that his cousin, the presidential candidate, was on steroids, not too smart and a liar" (NYT).

Wow! Here's this famously handsome, hyper-privileged young man and he imagines it would be a good idea to put these cheap ethnic stereotypes on Instagram! How did this happen? It can't be merely that he's insanely out of touch with present-day standards of diversity and inclusiveness. And leave to one side the delusion that insults like "he’s a friggin prick" count as publicly shareable comedy. It must also be that the family and friends who surround him have been laughing at this stuff and encouraging him to post it, telling him it will be great for his future career in politics. Oh, Jack, you're so funny! And please, help us bring down RFK Jr. You can do it like no one else, because everyone is devastated by your good looks and your genetics. 

Here he is, defending himself in the voice of Wade, the southerner. Watch it, watch his long hair flapping in the breeze, and try to imagine the people who pumped up his ridiculous confidence over the years:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Jack Schlossberg (@jackuno)

ADDED: Over at Daily Beast, you can see the encouragement in the raw: "Everyone Is Thirsting Over Kennedy Grandson Jack Schlossberg—for Good Reason/The Camelot heir’s goofy shirtless videos and ridiculing of cousin Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign has made Schlossberg the internet’s biggest crush of the moment" ("It’s so charming that I’m ready to vote for whoever Schlossberg tells me to").

Sunrise — 5:34, 5:38, 5:41, 5:43, 5:45, 5:47.

"Banning TikTok is so obviously unconstitutional... that even the Act’s sponsors recognized that reality, and therefore have tried mightily to depict the law not as a ban at all..."

"... but merely a regulation of TikTok’s ownership.... In reality, there is no choice.... [A forced sale ] is simply not possible: not commercially, not technologically, not legally.... If Congress can do this, it can circumvent the First Amendment by invoking national security and ordering the publisher of any individual newspaper or website to sell to avoid being shut down...."

So reads the filing quoted in "TikTok files court challenge to U.S. law that could lead to ban/The filing citing First Amendment and other grounds could prove to be an existential fight for one of the world’s most popular apps" (WaPo).

"Congress has never before crafted a two-tiered speech regime with one set of rules for one named platform, and another set of rules for everyone else.... [The government acted without] proof of a compelling interest, but on speculative and analytically flawed concerns about data security and content manipulation — concerns that, even if grounded in fact, could be addressed through far less restrictive and more narrowly tailored means."

"Stormy Daniels is talking about going to the bathroom in Trump’s hotel suite... Daniels keeps chuckling as she describes the scene, as if she's giving an interview."

Writes Maggie Haberman at the NYT.

I think "keeps chuckling... as if she's giving an interview" reveals Haberman's opinion that Daniels is not a good witness.

Then there's this from Jonah Bromwich, one of the other NYT reporters watching the trial:

"Is it possible that the prosecution thinks this works as a way to humiliate Trump?"

I wrote at the end of the last post, which is puzzling over why the prosecution has called Stormy Daniels to the witness stand. The desire to humiliate others is a very low form of self-gratification. It's a big theme in porn — or so I've read — but I won't further expound on the parallels between porn and politics.

I'm just starting a new post on this theme because the very next thing I read was a display of the desire to humiliate Trump. It's Jennifer Rubin, at The Washington Post, in "The New York trial is wearing down Trump — and it shows/His nodding off in court is a sign that he is weaker and more vulnerable than ever":

The trial is aggravating Trump’s lifelong fear of humiliation and his insistence on being the toughest bully on the block.... Any objective observer would acknowledge that things have not been going his way, to put it mildly....

"The dramatic decision to call Ms. Daniels to the stand would carry both possible benefits and definite risks for prosecutors...."

"Her presence would let Mr. Trump’s defense lawyers attack Ms. Daniels as an extortionist.... Ms. Daniels could also offer context about the environment in which she sold her story of their 2006 encounter, which Mr. Trump denies. She was shopping the story as Mr. Trump’s campaign was reeling in 2016 from the disclosure of a recording on the set of Access Hollywood in which he bragged of groping women. Michael Bachner, a New York City defense lawyer not involved in the case, said that if prosecutors did not call Ms. Daniels to testify, 'it would just be a glaring hole' that the defense would question.... Mr. Trump’s lawyers contend that he did not know that the checks he signed for Mr. Cohen were not for legal fees, and that Mr. Cohen and Mr. Trump’s employees were responsible for any false records. They would be likely to portray Ms. Daniels as someone whose only real connection to Mr. Trump was wanting to be a possible contestant on his reality show...."

From "Stormy Daniels, Once Paid to Keep Quiet, Could Testify Against Trump/Ms. Daniels could take the stand this week, allowing jurors to see and hear from the person at the center of the criminal case against the former president" (NYT).

I would think the prosecutors want to avoid calling her:

"Respectability politics."

If that's a term of art, it's new to me. I'm seeing it, with a link to another article, in "Senators Need to Stop the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act," a NYT column by Michelle Goldberg. Context:

Some pro-Palestinian demonstrators seem to believe, given the moral enormity of mass death, displacement and starvation in Gaza, that deferring to mainstream Jewish sensitivities means buckling to so-called respectability politics, which whitewash horror in the name of civility. “To the Jewish students, faculty and trustees blocking divestment and urging the violent crackdowns on campus: You threaten everyone’s safety,” said a recent communiqué from the Columbia Law chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, a left-wing group that’s been providing legal support to the protesters.

The statement disdains the ethos of nonviolence, quoting Black Panther leader Kwame Ture, formerly Stokely Carmichael: “In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none.” Within the movement, I imagine such rhetoric functions as a sign of total commitment, a no-going-back rejection of hollow liberal pieties. Outside of it, to the extent that anyone takes this language seriously, it serves to stoke a raging panic about the protests that both distracts from the war and feeds a growing backlash that threatens academic freedom....

The linked article is "What are the politics of respectability during a genocide?" by Maryam Iqbal in the Columbia Spectator. Excerpt:

Sunrise — 5:37, 5:39, 5:42, 5:45.

"Justice Merchan acknowledged that jailing Mr. Trump was 'the last thing' he wanted to do, but explained that it was his responsibility to 'protect the dignity of the justice system.'"

"The judge said that he understood 'the magnitude of such a decision' and that jailing Mr. Trump would be a last resort. He noted: 'You are the former president of the United States, and possibly the next president as well.' ... Mr. Trump stared straight at [the judge].... The violation for which he was punished on Monday stemmed from an incident on April 22, when Mr. Trump [said the jury]... had been picked 'so fast' and was 'mostly all Democrat,' adding, 'It’s a very unfair situation.'... Although [those comments] came before the judge issued his first contempt order — and initially warned Mr. Trump of jail time — Justice Merchan appeared exasperated by the continued violations.... 'The last thing I want to do is put you in jail,' Justice Merchan said, adding quickly, 'But at the end of the day, I have a job to do.'..."

From "Judge Cites Trump for Contempt, and Says He Is Attacking the Rule of Law/Donald J. Trump again broke a gag order meant to bar him from attacking participants in his criminal trial, Justice Juan M. Merchan ruled. He threatened the former president with jail" (NYT).

I guess Trump also has a job to do — run for President. He doesn't want to go to jail, but at the end of the day....

And here's Alan Dershowitz,  yesterday, denouncing the judge for not understanding free speech law and imposing a prior restraint: