"During remarks to employees at the American Embassy in Panama City, Mr. Rubio, the son of Cuban migrants, joked..."

"... that he’d told aides that he wanted to pay his first visit 'to a place where they speak Spanish, because I’m bilingual,' proceeding to show off his fluency in the language. Mr. Rubio acknowledged America’s complicated history with Panama, a former Colombian territory that was founded after President Theodore Roosevelt’s administration, eyeing the potential for a shortcut between America’s Atlantic and Pacific coasts, backed breakaway separatists who declared independence in 1903. Mr. Rubio noted that the country 'was born in many ways here as a result of the interests of the United States,' and said the relationship had had its 'ups and downs.' The downs include a 1989 U.S. invasion of the country to arrest the country’s de facto ruler, Gen. Manuel Noriega, on charges of drug trafficking and racketeering.... [Panama's President José Raúl] Mulino also said on Sunday that Panama, which in 2017 became the first country in the region to sign on to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, a far-reaching infrastructure program, would not renew the agreement...."

I'm reading the NYT coverage of Marco Rubio's trip to Panama, "In Panama, Rubio Says China Threatens Canal, Demanding ‘Immediate’ Action/The secretary of state said the United States could take steps to 'protect its rights.' Panama’s leader said he was sure that President Trump wouldn’t seize the canal."

The NYT says Rubio "showed off" his fluency in Spanish and "joked" about it, as if it were an amusing side line. But it is important and tremendously useful to his role as Secretary of State. Perhaps to recognize its high value would be to impugn all the many Secretaries of State who were not fluent in Spanish.

If my research — hastily done on Grok — is correct, there was only one other Secretary of State who was fluent in Spanish. That was Henry Clay, back in the time of John Quincy Adams, 1825-1829. What about Thomas Jefferson? — you may be wondering. Jefferson, the first Secretary of State, was fluent in French, Latin, and Italian, but had only a minimal knowledge of Spanish.

"President Trump will carry out his threat of 25 per cent tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico and 10 per cent on Chinese goods..."

"..., and said he 'absolutely' intends to impose tariffs on the European Union. Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday evening there was 'nothing' the three countries could do to avoid the tariffs, which in the US neighbours’ case are aimed at forcing them to curb the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs into America. The president made no mention of plans to target the UK, but added: 'We’ll be doing something very substantial with the European Union,' and said that the bloc had 'treated us so terribly.'..."

From "Trump to impose high tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China/The levies are intended to force countries to cut the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs into America. The president said he has plans to include the EU" (London Times).

"Trump is a long-standing admirer of the era, more than a century ago, when high tariffs were the cornerstone of US trade policy and Treasury revenue. 'We were at our richest from 1870 to 1913. That’s when we were a tariff country,' he said.... Chrystia Freeland, the former finance minister who is running to replace Trudeau as leader of the Liberal Party, said... that she was calling for a 100 per cent tariff on American wine, beer and spirits, as well as Tesla vehicles.... 'We need to be very targeted, very surgical, very precise,' Freeland said. 'We need to look through and say who is supporting Trump and how can we make them pay a price for a tariff attack on Canada.'"

What's "surgical" about going after "wine, beer and spirits"? Is it just that it always seems relatively palatable to make drinking more expensive — the idea of "sin taxes"?

By the way, when and where did the term "sin tax" arrive? Grok couldn't pin it down for me for me, so I checked the NYT archive. The second appearance of the term, on December 24, 1928, was as the name of a play:

"Trump has been adamant that the United States should exert control over [Greenland], given both its strategic position in a melting Arctic region..."

"... where China and Russia also have growing interests, as well as the wealth of natural resources that are thought to lie beneath Greenland’s seabeds and frozen wastes.... Trump and his allies do not envision an invasion of Greenland.... Instead, Trump is hoping for Copenhagen’s acquiescence in some sort of deal, framing a U.S. acquisition of the territory as an act of generosity to relieve Denmark of the burden of administering it. There is plenty of historical precedent. U.S. politicians have eyed Greenland for more than a century and a half. William Seward, the U.S. secretary of state who purchased Alaska in 1867, was close to a similar deal for Greenland, but was foiled by political rivals in Congress. With both northern territories folded into the United States, Seward suggested this continental nation 'will flank British America for thousands of miles … and greatly increase her inducements, peacefully and cheerfully, to become a part of the American Union.' That is, he thought buying Greenland would be a precursor to absorbing Canada — a vision Trump hasn’t quite relinquished, either...."

From "The curious momentum behind Trump’s quest for Greenland/In 2019, Trump’s bid for the Arctic territory was laughed off as a joke. Now, it’s gaining traction and provoking jitters in Europe" (free-access link).

"From the way I’ve set this up, you might assume there are two possibilities: either we are indeed at the start of a new conservative era — the Conservative Golden Age — or

"... we’re still within the New Liberal Era, and Trump’s win in 2024 won’t be enough to terminate it once we look back a few decades from now. It’s still an open question. If two consecutive Eisenhower terms weren’t enough to interrupt the Long Liberal Era, and likewise for Clinton and the Long Conservative Era, then in principle, liberalism could survive two non-consecutive terms for Trump.I actually think there are four possibilities.... Scenario 1 — Conservative Golden Age.... The easiest route to Scenario 2 — The New Liberal Era is Still Alive, Baby! — would be if Trump mismanages some sort of crisis.... Scenario 3 — Stalemate.... Finally, Scenario 4 — Off the Charts — means that the liberal/conservative axis, as I’ve depicted it in the chart, will cease to represent American politics well. Maybe it’s centrist oligarchs and technocrats against a horseshoe theory coalition of the populist left and right.... Then, there are some darker scenarios...."

I'm reading Nate Silver's "Are we entering a Conservative Golden Age? Or will the vibe soon shift back to the left?"

"No, Trump Did Not Hold the Bible Upside Down at Lafayette Square."

That's a NYT headline from September 18, 2020.

Video and photographs clearly show that the Bible wasn’t upside down, as fact checkers at PolitiFact and Snopes have noted. But that hasn’t stopped the claim from spreading on social media, an example of how speculation on the internet can morph into a zombie claim that refuses to die.

But just now on CNN, as Trump entered the church, the historian chosen to provide depth and context— Timothy Naftali — repeated the longstanding and long-discredited misinformation.

"The history of the world according to rats."

From the video: "Today, rats are often regarded as the most successful invasive species in the world." 

Meade: "I'd say humans...."

"Not everybody loved blemish patches. Already in 1649, a bill had been put before the increasingly Puritan Parliament calling for the banning of... Wearing Black Patches..."

"... although it was never passed. Meanwhile, an increasing number of tracts railed against the vanity displayed by those sporting beauty patches — 'Those Curles so extravagant, those Patches so abominable, unless it be to Cut the Throat of Chastity,' as noted by the 1683 book England’s Vanity or The Voice of God. The same sentiment is conveyed by an inscription on the Allegorical Portrait of Two Ladies itself, whose full meaning is still the subject of debate: 'I black with white bespott: yu white wth blacke this Evill: proceeds from thy proud hart: then take her: Devill.'"

From "Pimple patches — the 17th century beauty craze resurrected by Gen-Z/Louisa McKenzie traces the surprising history of the jaunty spot stickers loved by Gen-Z and 17th century women, who used them as a tool for seduction as well as concealment" (London Times).

You can buy these cute stars at Amazon (commission earned).

And here's the Allegorical Portrait of Two Ladies ("a 17th-century painting by an unknown artist"):

"The French Revolution looms large in the philosophy of crowds because it was the first time that a 'mob' or what looked like one..."

"... was responsible for a decisive turn in the history of humankind. The Roman Republic was always an upper-class affair, with the mob a mere chorus, and even the American Revolution was... very much a legislative revolution, made by the manor, with the crowds much smaller than they are remembered to have been. The Boston Tea Party was more a publicity stunt than a significant popular protest.... Americans celebrate a group of merchants and planters signing a document on July 4th; the French celebrate a crowd of citizens storming the monarchical prison called the Bastille on July 14th. There is a difference.... When you are 'taking democracy into your own hands,' what you have in your hands is not democracy, because democracy begins with the recognition that other people have hands, too....  Can we speak of the wisdom of crowds? Sometimes. The madness of mobs? Sometimes, too. Perhaps, within the winningly minute range of terms that Bobrycki captures, vulgus and populus and the rest, lies a truth that resonates through centuries, even millennia. We see the shifting varieties of human assembly and search to give them meaning, when the meaning lies exactly in the mutability.... A crowd can become a mob; a crowd can even become an army. To turn a crowd into a community? Ah, that’s the hard work."

Writes Adam Gopnik, in "What’s the Difference Between a Rampaging Mob and a Righteous Protest? From the French Revolution to January 6th, crowds have been heroized and vilified. Now they’re a field of study" (The New Yorker).

Bobrycki = Shane Bobrycki, author of "The Crowd in the Early Middle Ages."

The Washington Post Editorial Board pushes Kamala Harris to pay attention to the upcoming 250th anniversary of the United States.

I was surprised to see the Board highlighting the semiquincentennial, but here's the column featured on the front page today — 2 weeks before Election Day — "America has a big birthday coming. Kamala Harris should talk plans. The celebration is a chance to renew our nation’s commitment to the promise of its founding."

Is this an issue the people are clamoring for attention to be paid to? Donald Trump paid attention to it... a year and a half ago. He thought about it on his own and made a dignified speech detailing his multi-part plan for a full-year celebration. So for the WaPo editors to bring this up is to put pressure only on Kamala Harris. Is she supposed to jump at their prodding? There's zero hope of her sounding sincere responding to this one-sided demand. 

The editors say — in a tellingly passive voice:

Efforts are already underway to plan the semiquincentennial, but they got off to a slow start, mirroring much of the country’s political dysfunction.

In other words, the Biden Administration hasn't been doing enough?

The federal commission appointed to oversee the proceedings, writes the Atlantic, “swiftly descended into a morass of charges and countercharges over process, favoritism, hiring, gender discrimination, and budget decisions.”

So here's what cued up the issue. There's an article in The Atlantic, published a week ago: "America Is Suffering an Identity Crisis/In two years, the U.S. will mark its 250th birthday, and the left doesn’t seem to care—giving up on America’s symbols and its very meaning."

The left doesn't seem to care. But if Trump is elected he will preside over the occasion, and he certainly seems to care. I can now understand the WaPo editors' decision to forefront this issue. There's a horror of the Donald Trump Birthday of America Extravaganza and a chilling realization that his Make-America-Great-Again theme fits enragingly perfectly with the occasion. Quick! Present a left-wing alternative vision!

The WaPo editors lamely suggest that Kamala Harris "try to persuade skeptics on her side of the political spectrum that the United States is indeed something worth celebrating." It's a little late for that. But the editors say she's "well-positioned to make this pitch, because as the child of immigrants and a woman of color, she represents in her very candidacy the progress the country has seen." As if this big occasion should revolve around her: Celebrate me! Because I embody what's worth celebrating!

The Atlantic article says that Biden dealt with the "meltdown" at the commission by appointing Rosie Rios as the commission chair. Under her, the key concept seems to be a "radically decentralized" social-media concept called "America's Stories" — a website where anybody/everybody writes anything. This would be inclusive, but it would include all the hostility against America that we expect from the left. Would they resort to censorship? They would have to! 

The Atlantic writer, the Yale historian Beverly Gage, says:

For the past 60 years, much of American historical scholarship has been about exposing a darker story behind self-congratulatory myths.

Next time you propose a toast at a birthday party, try exposing a darker story behind the self-congratulatory myths.

As a believer in that effort, I have long shared the left’s ambivalence about patriotic symbols: the flag, the Founders, the national anthem, the Fourth of July. Today, though, I feel an urgency to reclaim and redefine all these things, lest they be ceded to those darker forces historians like to write about.

So you and your fellow historians devoted yourself to telling the "darker story" and now, as the people look to celebrate a big birthday, you are worried that they aren't going to frame the event around your dark story but will look to the kind of characters — the "darker forces" — that you've been disparaging all these years? People are drawn to the good — to an uplifting idea of what the country means — and you see that very optimism as an embrace of the darkness.

Nearing the end, the historian comes out with: "[N]ow that I think of it, why not wear the hat and fly the flag?" Well, for one thing, flying a U.S. flag at your house is regarded as equivalent to having a Trump yard sign.

We have a U.S. flag at our front door. But I'd consider bringing it inside for the next few weeks, because I don't like exacerbating the anguish in the neighborhood as the impending Make-America-Great-Again victory comes into focus.

"For a few decades after its introduction, the [gas] lighting radically altered the city, not only prolonging the period in which work could be productively carried out in the street..."

"... but also reversing expectations. Poor people, who could not afford to light their rooms, suddenly found the street lighter and brighter than their homes and occupied the streets at night in a manner that the authorities found disconcerting. A device conceived in part as a mechanism for control and crime prevention inadvertently encouraged a night-time economy not always considered desirable. Covent Garden, now a tourist centre, housed hundreds of much-frequented brothels and so-called coffee houses. On the other hand, prints from the 18th and 19th centuries also show people reading beneath the bright lights of the big city, saving their eyes from dim domestic candlelight."

Writes Edwin Heathcote, in "From pillar to lamp post: lighting city streets" (The Architectural Review).

The article is from 3 years ago. I found it this morning because I googled "history of lampposts" after looking through my morning fog pictures....

... and saying out loud, "Remember when lampposts were beautiful?"

"[Nixon's] men broke into the Democratic National Committee in 1972—so what?"

"Lyndon B. Johnson’s men almost certainly bugged Barry Goldwater’s campaign plane in 1964. The John F. Kennedy administration authorized the wiretapping of Martin Luther King Jr. for its own political reasons. The Franklin D. Roosevelt administration surveilled Charles Lindbergh when the famous aviator led the America First Committee and contemplated a presidential run in 1940. Did Nixon try—albeit unsuccessfully—to obtain the tax returns of political adversaries? Well, Roosevelt successfully ordered the Internal Revenue Service to investigate opponents such as William Randolph Hearst, Huey Long, and Charles Coughlin. Nixon operated a clandestine unit inside the White House—the so-called plumbers—to trace and stop officials who leaked to the media, you say? Under previous administrations, the FBI acted as a giant government-plumbing agency, surveilling troublesome journalists such as Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson. Indeed, a probably core reason for the exposure of the Watergate break-in was that the long alliance between Richard Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover faltered after 1971, for complex reasons, obliging Nixon to use amateur investigators for the Watergate burglary and other black-bag jobs that, under past administrations, the FBI would have conducted for the president...."

Writes David Frum in "Richard Nixon Was Unlucky/The Watergate scandal forced his resignation 50 years ago. Today, he’d probably have gotten away with it" (The Atlantic).

Nixon gave his resignation speech 50 years ago last night.

ADDED: The Atlantic homepage has a link to Hunter S. Thompson, "He Was a Crook/A scathing obituary of Richard Nixon, originally published in Rolling Stone on June 16, 1994."

"Is 'apt alliteration's artful aid' actually alliterative?"

A discussion at English Language Usage, which I arrived at after reading the Orlando Sentinel headline "Joe Biden’s selfless act alters the arc of history."

Act alters the arc... is that alliteration or are vowels excluded from what we call alliteration? I do understand what assonance is, when you have a repeated vowel sound in the middle of words. But what about a string of the same vowel at the beginning of words? Is that alliteration?

I want the answer to be no, because it doesn't have the same feeling you get from, say, "From forth the fatal loins of these two foes." Just to use the delightful consonant "f," we can see that the weak "act alters the arc" would sound much more exciting if it were — excuse the obscure meaning — "fact falters the farc."

Anyway, don't get me started on the "arc of history." Yesterday was my day to go off on the overuse of "history": "I have an aversion to the 'making history' argument." And here's how I feel about that:

"As a candidate, I sometimes shied away from talking about making history."

"I wasn’t sure voters were ready for that. And I wasn’t running to break a barrier; I was running because I thought I was the most qualified to do the job. While it still pains me that I couldn’t break that highest, hardest glass ceiling, I’m proud that my two presidential campaigns made it seem normal to have a woman at the top of the ticket."

From "Hillary Clinton: How Kamala Harris Can Win and Make History," written by Hillary Clinton (or a ghostwriter), published in the NYT.

I have an aversion to the "making history" argument. And I don't like the idea of whether voters are "ready" for it. It's a visualization of a timeline of progress, in 2 ways. The first way makes perfect sense: The first female President of the United States has a place in history as the first female President of the United States. But the second way is an insidious attack on people: the idea that we voters as a group are in a process of enlightenment, some of us are further ahead than others, and one is most advanced when one is influenced by the argument that we ought to vote for someone because she will be the first.

I do appreciate the "sometimes" in "I sometimes shied away from talking about making history." As I remember it, she and her champions sounded the history-making theme continually.

And now, we've got a new candidate who can use the history-making theme. I'm still irked when I'm elbowed to come on, everybody, let's make history. I may on my own feel myself warming up to a candidate because of some personal attribute that has only a dubious connection to the ability to do the job well, but it's negatively related to this talking about making history.

ADDED: I was delighted to stumble into a TikTok that expresses how I feel about all this talk about making history:

A new chapter in The History of Ears.

I'm reading "From Van Gogh to Mike Tyson: a brief history of ears," a 2009 Guardian article, by Lucy Mangan.

Found after trying to think of a list of famous ears, a list to which Trump's ear will now take one of the top 2 spots. I think Van Gogh's ear still belongs in first place.

I'd thought of the ear Mike Tyson bit off but had forgotten whose ear it was. (It was Evander Holyfield's.)

I'd thought of a movie ear —

"There’ll always be people who say, 'Why can’t the Museum of American History tell everybody’s story?'"

"But the truth of the matter is, America’s history is too big for one building. I really think that what we did with the African American museum—which has become one of the most diversely visited museums in the world—is the right model. This is a two-sided coin. One side is about a community, about identity. But the other side is 'How does that identity shape all of us?'"

Said Lonnie G. Bunch III, quoted in "How Lonnie G. Bunch III Is Renovating the 'Nation’s Attic'/The Smithsonian’s dynamic leader is dredging up slave ships, fending off culture warriors in Congress, and building two new museums on the National Mall" (The New Yorker).

"I have a visceral reaction against, against the attacks on those statues. There were heroes in the Confederacy who didn’t have slaves..."

"... and, you know, I just, I just have a visceral reaction against destroying history. I don’t like it. I think we should celebrate who we are. We should celebrate the good qualities of everybody. … If we want to find people who were completely virtuous on every issue throughout history, we would erase all of history...."

Said RFK Jr., quoted in "RFK Jr. had a ‘visceral’ reaction to tear-downs of Confederate statues/Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said on a podcast that he doesn’t think 'it’s a good, healthy thing for any culture to erase history'" (WaPo).

"During the second week of Lent, on 'Cat Wednesday,' cats were tossed to their deaths out of the belfry tower onto the town square below."

"At the time, the animals were seen as a symbol of witchcraft and evil, so their deaths were celebrated. The last live cat was thrown in 1817, but Ieper (also called Ypres in French) developed Kattenstoet in 1937, a tradition to both acknowledge the city’s gruesome history and celebrate cats. The parade, which was held on Sunday, May 12, is filled with elaborate floats, costumes and performances. Afterward, a person dressed as a jester tosses stuffed animal cats from the belfry, down to the onlookers below."

From "A City With a Medieval History of Killing Cats Now Celebrates Them/Cat lovers from around the world gathered for Kattenstoet, a cat parade in Iepers, Belgium" (NYT).

I expended my second-to-last free gift link of the month on that because there are some cool and amusing photographs of the place. And there are still 10 more days — and all that Trump-trial business still remaining! Too bad! Belgians twirling in cat costumes and tourists cavorting in cat ears beat out NYT reporters informing us, moment by moment, about whether Trump's eyes are open or shut.

"The backlash against the left was a key part of the 1968 presidential race. Richard Nixon famously ran a campaign on 'law and order'..."

"One commercial featured scenes of protest, as Nixon argued that 'in a system of government that provides for peaceful change, there is no cause that justifies a resort to violence.' Alabama Gov. George Wallace was a lot more direct that year in his third-party bid. While racism was at the heart of his message, he also denounced student protesters as 'silver spoon brats' who advocated 'treason' and said of protesters, 'Some of ’em lie down in front of my automobile, it’ll be the last thing they’ll ever wanna lie down in front of.' The scenes of violence in Chicago outside the Democrats’ 1968 presidential convention, meanwhile, further contributed to the notion that left-wing lawlessness had gotten out of control. It was a nightmare event for Hubert Humphrey’s beleaguered presidential campaign, one where the public overwhelmingly sided with the Chicago police, not the demonstrators. (And, of course, guess where Democrats are holding their 2024 convention: Chicago.)... [I]n November of 1968, Nixon and Wallace combined for 57 percent of the vote...."

Writes Jeff Greenfield, in "Don’t Forget the Backlash to the ’60s/Today’s campus chaos carries a grim warning for Biden" (Politico).

"After I mentioned that I was a writer—though I presented myself as a writer of teleplays instead of novels and articles such as this one..."

"... the husband told me his favorite writer was Ayn Rand. 'Ayn Rand, she came here with nothing,' the husband said. 'I work with a lot of Cubans, so …' I wondered if I should mention what I usually do to ingratiate myself with Republicans or libertarians: the fact that my finances improved after pass-through corporations were taxed differently under Donald Trump. Instead, I ordered another drink and the couple did the same, and I told him that Rand and I were born in the same city, St. Petersburg/Leningrad, and that my family also came here with nothing. Now the bonding and drinking began in earnest, and several more rounds appeared...."

Writes Gary Shteyngart, in "Crying Myself to Sleep on the Biggest Cruise Ship Ever/Seven agonizing nights aboard the Icon of the Seas" (The Atlantic).

Shteyngart is well aware that David Foster Wallace already wrote “A Supposedly Fun Thing I’ll Never Do Again” — AKA "Shipping Out" — and much as I'd rather read a Gary Shteyngart novel than a David Foster Wallace novel, he has no hope of besting Wallace in what, after Wallace, became a genre — the author-on-first-cruise-ship-voyage genre:

Greetings from the Dustbin of History!

I'm reading Senator Tina Smith, of Minnesota, in "I Hope to Repeal an Arcane Law That Could Be Misused to Ban Abortion Nationwide" (NYT):

A long discredited, arcane 150-year-old law is back in the news... Last week at the Supreme Court, the Comstock Act of 1873 was referenced... during oral arguments in a case dealing with access to... drugs... used in medication abortions. Anti-abortion activists like to bring up the Comstock Act because one of its clauses prohibits sending through the mail 'every article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine or thing' that could possibly lead to an abortion.... That could effectively make abortion impossible to access even in places like Minnesota, which has affirmatively protected a woman’s right to choose.... Back in the 1860s, a former Civil War soldier from rural Connecticut named Anthony Comstock... lobb[ied] for federal legislation that would empower the post office to search for and seize anything in the mail that met Comstock’s criteria for being 'obscene,' 'lewd' or just plain 'filthy'.... In its broad wording, the law not only made it illegal to send pornography through the mail, it also outlawed the sending of medical textbooks for their depictions of the human body, personal love letters that hinted at physical as well as romantic relationships, and even news stories. The whole thing was very silly and impracticable, and that’s why the Comstock Act was relegated to the dustbin of history...."

It's interesting, this "dustbin of history." How does it work? Apparently not well enough to keep things from needing to be repealed by actual statutory law. 

William Safire wrote in the NYT about the phrase back in 1983— 40 years ago, but still fresh to me. And he himself was looking back 66 years: