Tesla Stock Dives After Elon Musk Smokes Blunt on Joe Rogan Show (VIDEO)

At the Guardian U.K., "Tesla shares crash after Elon Musk smokes joint on live web show."

Elon Musk smoking a blunt for the first time on Joe Rogan's podcast is Internet gold pic.twitter.com/nx8zQ7HlyB

— gifdsports (@gifdsports) September 7, 2018

Josephine Skriver of the Day

At Drunken Stepfather, "JOSEPHINE SKRIVER THE ROBOT AT VICTORIA’S SECRET EVENT FOR SOME FAKE ART BOOK OF THE DAY."

Hot Girls Smoking Weed

At Drunken Stepfather, "HOT GIRLS SMOKING WEED FOR 420 FRIDAY OF THE DAY."

'Sex on Fire'

From Kings of Leon, during Tuesday morning's drive-time.

My Hero
Foo Fighters
6:46am

The Lost Boys
People Are Strange
6:43am

Jessie's Girl
Rick Springfield
6:40am

Set Fire To The Rain
Adele
6:36am

Eye Of The Tiger
Survivor
6:32am

Africa
Toto
6:20am

Sex On Fire
Kings Of Leon
6:17am

Let's Dance
David Bowie
6:13am

Highway To Hell
AC/DC
6:09am

Amber
311
6:06am

Take Me Home Tonight
Eddie Money
6:03am

Close To Me
The Cure
5:52am

Alexis Ren's Life Update (VIDEO)

She says she was in a "sad place" earlier this year, and thanks fans for having patience with her.

A nice, gracious young lady.

Laura Ingraham Rips Democrats' Treatment of Brett Cavanaugh's Senate Confirmation Hearings (VIDEO)

This was Ms. Laura's segment from Tuesday night, after the first day of hearings.

She eviscerates the diabolical, disgusting Democrats.

Watch, this is excellent:

Danielle Gersh's Thursday Forecast

She's an adorable sweetie.

At CBS News 2 Los Angeles:

White House Searches for 'Anonymous' New York Times Op-Ed Writer

Following-up, "New York Times Publishes Anonymous Op-Ed Attacking President Trump."

At WSJ, "White House Searches for Anonymous Inside Critic":

Top White House officials canceled meetings and huddled to strategize about how to expose the author of a critical New York Times op-ed https://t.co/84TUFZrptt

— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) September 6, 2018

TREASON?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2018

Does the so-called “Senior Administration Official” really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2018

WASHINGTON—White House aides launched a search for the anonymous author of an opinion column who claimed Wednesday to be part of a secret group of officials inside the administration acting as a check on President Trump’s “worst inclinations.”

An angry president called the New York Times piece “a disgrace” and slammed its author as “gutless.”

The writer was identified only as a senior administration official. A New York Times spokeswoman declined to comment when asked for a description of that term.

“This is the stuff we have to deal with, and, you know, the dishonest media,” Mr. Trump told reporters at the White House when asked about the column. The president was ready for the question, pulling a sheet of paper from his suit-jacket pocket and responding with a list of what he said were his administration’s accomplishments, including low unemployment.

Later in the afternoon, Mr. Trump tweeted a video of his response to the op-ed and followed it with a second tweet that read simply, “TREASON?”

Inside the West Wing, top officials canceled afternoon meetings and huddled behind closed doors to strategize about how to expose the author, White House officials said. Some officials called reporters to chase down rumors about who was behind the op-ed, and whether it came from inside the White House or a cabinet-level agency.

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement that the op-ed was written by a “gutless, anonymous source.” Both she and Mr. Trump referred to the Times as “failing,” despite statistics from the company showing subscriptions have increased since his election.

“The individual behind this piece has chosen to deceive, rather than support, the duly elected president of the United States,” Ms. Sanders said. "He is not putting country first, but putting himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American people. This coward should do the right thing and resign.”

Since its inception, the Trump administration has included some senior officials—both conservative and more liberal—who have sought to curb Mr. Trump’s direction, according to people familiar with the matter...

Still more.

The Troubling Cowardice of Trans Ideology

This is a great piece, from Meghan Murphy, "How have we let scientific study become hate speech?":

Regardless of the motivations and actions of @LisaLllittman's critics, what is more troubling is the cowardice demonstrated on the issue of transgender ideology, trans activism, and "trans kids" by so many today. (Me @unherd) https://t.co/AC3J49E4pF

— Meghan Murphy (@MeghanEMurphy) September 5, 2018

The growing trend in young people suddenly deciding they are “in the wrong body” and must “transition” to the opposite sex is alarming. It means that more and more kids are being sent down a path of drastic body and life changes. The consequences of getting this wrong could not be more serious. Study after study has shown that a majority of youth who claim to have gender dysphoria do not continue to experience this in adulthood. Yet the puberty blockers and the hormone treatments given to ‘trans kids’ eventually lead to permanent sterilisation. And yet as the trend takes hold, the attempts to shut down public debate also grow stronger – which is just as alarming.

Last month, Brown University assistant professor Lisa Littman published a paper looking at this “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” in adolescents and young adults. Through surveying the parents of these teens, she found that this sudden onset of “gender dysphoria” was taking place in peer groups in which one or more friends became gender dysphoric at the same time. In other words, this seemed to be kids following trends.

From the 256 surveys Littman collected, she found that a large majority of these youths were female (82.8%), and 41% had identified as non-heterosexual prior to identifying as transgender. Almost two thirds had also been diagnosed with at least one mental health disorder or neurodevelopmental disability before they claimed to have gender dysphoria.

One might deduce, based on this evidence, that these (mainly) girls were not, in fact, transgender, but lesbians and/or struggling with other mental health issues. And crucially, that these factors should be explored before leaping to start “transitioning” — a process that eventually involves a lifetime of hormone treatments and a series of complicated surgeries.

These facts, though, have been deemed unspeakable. Those who dare question the concept of gender identity itself — that is that one can have, say, a male body, but be truly a woman ‘on the inside’ — are treated as blasphemers and bigots, viciously harassed, attacked, and even fired from their place of work.

Dr. Kenneth Zucker is a case in point. A sexologist and psychologist who ran the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) Gender Identity Clinic (GIC) in Toronto for more than 30 years, he was fired after trans activists mounted a smear campaign against him. Zucker’s ‘crime’ was to suggest that rather than immediately start children who think they have gender dysphoria on the transition process, perhaps we should first try to “help children feel comfortable in their own bodies.” Zucker himself was not actually opposed to the transition process — if the dysphoria of the youth he was working with persisted, Zucker would support them in their path to transitioning.

But simply acknowledging that desistance happens was apparently unacceptable. Over 500 professional clinicians and academics signed a petition in support of Zucker, arguing that his dismissal was “politically motivated” and that this should “stand as a warning to any clinical researcher who is or considers working at the CAMH: In the event of a conflict with activists for a fashionable cause, the CAMH might well sacrifice them — and the individuals and families they serve in their clinics — for some real or imagined local political gain.” But the damage was done. Zucker had been fired, and his reputation tarnished...

More.

Kate Bock's Travel Tips (VIDEO)

At Sports Illustrated Swimsuit:

Josie Canseco in Demand

At Galore, "JOSIE CANSECO IS THE IN DEMAND MODEL TO LOOK OUT FOR THIS SEASON."

And at Drunken Stepfather, "JOSIE CANSECO HOT AND HALF NAKED FOR GALORE OF THE DAY."

sorry baby pic.twitter.com/4Qn7D8jDeM

— Josie (@JosieCanseco) September 5, 2018

New York Times Publishes Anonymous Op-Ed Attacking President Trump

This is terrible. Disgusting.

At the hateful Old Gray Lady, "I Am Part of the Resistance - Inside the Trump Administration":

In Opinion

In an anonymous Op-Ed, a senior Trump administration official says he and others are working ​to frustrate the president’s “misguided impulses.” https://t.co/qW1IoM3AYY pic.twitter.com/rCHnQfcRjG

— The New York Times (@nytimes) September 5, 2018

"Anonymous." Like the "resistance" antifa goons, cowards with black masks covering their faces. The New York Times is the journalistic equivalent of antifa. Cowardly and despicable. #ThankYouTrump #MAGA #BrettKavanaugh #BrettKavanaughHearing #SorryNotSorry 🤷‍♂️ https://t.co/VJi8MxmW7d

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) September 5, 2018

Like I said 90% of media exists to troll him. Nothing more. pic.twitter.com/R9Bz4OFRrt

— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) September 5, 2018

President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

I would know. I am one of them.

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier...

Still more (FWIW).

Stoneman-Douglas Parent Fred Guttenberg Stalked Brett Kavanaugh at Lunch Break During Senate Confirmation Hearing (VIDEO)

Ed Morrissey has the analysis, at Hot Air, "Today’s “Controversy”: Kavanaugh Declines Handshake From Father of Murdered Parkland Student":

If Zapruder-style analysis of a missed handshake ends up being the most eventful thing to happen at this hearing, and it might, we should never hold a hearing again.

Actually, we should never hold a hearing again even if this isn’t the most eventful thing to happen. These spectacles are insufferable, insulting, grandstanding garbage for whichever party happens to be in the minority. If I were Grassley, I would have warned them this morning after the first outbursts that another one would force him to adjourn the hearing and recommend that McConnell immediately call a floor vote on the nominee. (The only senators truly in doubt about how they’re voting are red-state Democrats whose votes aren’t needed for confirmation anyway.) And when Schumer inevitably shrieked that America didn’t get a hearing on the new justice, he’d be reminded that that was what his party chose with how they behaved.


And if you’re reading that thinking, “That sounds like how you’d treat a five-year-old, taking away their toys when they won’t stop acting out”: Right. Correct.

As for the non-handshake:

More at the link.

Sen. Ben Sasse Conducts Civics Lesson on Restoring 'Proper Constitutional Order' (VIDEO)

Thank goodness for YouTube.

This is fascinating.

At the Weekly Standard, "Sasse Rises Above":

Day one of the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings are stretching into their sixth hour, and we’ve hardly heard a word yet from the nominee himself. Instead, we’ve largely been subjected to a punishing slog of senatorial grandstanding, with members of both parties trading rhetorical barbs and dissertations on the importance of the day, set to a soundtrack of scolding and shrieking protestors being escorted one-by-one from the chamber. (Senator Mike Lee, to his credit, instead treated listeners to a slightly boring but informative history of how the Supreme Court confirmation process shaped up over the last hundred years.)

But Senator Ben Sasse took a different approach, eschewing the partisan bickering to offer a Schoolhouse Rock-tinged civics lesson on why SCOTUS proceedings had grown so contentious in the first place...

RTWT.

Amber Lee's Low Pressure Weather Forecast

It's been somewhat overcast and mild.

Here's the lovely Ms. Amber, for CBS News 2 Los Angeles:

Petulant Toddler Democrats Launch Campaign of Pandemonium to Protest Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation (VIDEO)

I worked today, teaching classes. I had no time to tune into the Senate hearings on the Kavanaugh confirmation, although I would have liked to. But then I would have been disappointed and disgusted at the literal circus that Democrats created to somehow --- anyhow --- defeat the nomination? I'll tell you, this isn't going to do a thing. It's kabuki theater, as Michelle Malkin always points out. But whatever it is, it's despicable.

On Twitter and YouTube:

Democrats plotted coordinated protest strategy over the holiday weekend and all agreed to disrupt and protest the hearing, sources tell me and @frankthorp

Dem leader @chuckschumer led a phone call and committee members are executing now

— Kasie Hunt (@kasie) September 4, 2018

Kabuki Theater of the Resistance. https://t.co/wquOvHjlIM

— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) September 4, 2018

Democrats wrestled with walking out of Kavanaugh hearing or perhaps a boycott, per multiple sources. They settled on a middle ground: disruption
⁦@eschor⁩ https://t.co/n4nNFyDgh4

— Burgess Everett (@burgessev) September 4, 2018

Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearings

Confirmation hearings begin tomorrow.

I've been seeing a lot of tweets on Kavanaugh, especially from that crazy leftist wench Lauren Duca.

Here's some stuff online:

For @teenvogue: Why we can and must #StopKavanaugh https://t.co/frXNQmgAO9

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) August 31, 2018

'The stakes are astronomical': Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing will be a battle royale https://t.co/JOynAks1yG

— The Guardian (@guardian) September 3, 2018

This isn't just any Supreme Court seat. https://t.co/JutYMnuYs2

— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) September 3, 2018

How Brett Kavanaugh would transform the Supreme Court https://t.co/X7F7GNDb84 pic.twitter.com/lnYEMIdzIR

— The New York Times (@nytimes) September 3, 2018

"Brett Kavanaugh’s views on privacy and the Fourth Amendment should make Republicans think twice" https://t.co/J5RXRdNk5v pic.twitter.com/31NEdp8lFB

— The Hill (@thehill) September 3, 2018

Emily Chang, Brotopia

At Amazon, Emily Chang, Brotopia: Breaking Up the Boys' Club of Silicon Valley.

Kelly Brook 2019 Calendar

At the Sun U.K., "KEL'S ANGEL: Topless Kelly Brook has a cheeky glance over her shoulder in exclusive snaps from her 2019 calendar. The Brit model, 38, covered her boobs as she showed off her sand-covered floral bikini bottoms in a sexy pose."

Topless Kelly Brook reveals exclusive snaps from her 2019 calendar - and she looks incredible 😍https://t.co/FDo6ySiHEm

— The Sun (@TheSun) September 1, 2018

Plus, flashback to 2013: "Phenomenal New Kelly Brook Sunbathing Pics From Cancun."

Twitter Struggles to Police Bad Actors

If there were a decent alternative I'd use it.

But that alternative is not Gab.ai, which is the home to white supremacists mostly (AFAICT).

Twitter is so bad, though, I doubt it can continue to grow and maintain viability. It's too partisan and hideously biased against conservatives.

It's a joke frankly.

But like I said, it's the place for politics on social media until a genuine alternative emerges.

At WSJ, "Inside Twitter’s Long, Slow Struggle to Police Bad Actors":

Twitter soon plans "to start showing users a picture of a tombstone in the place of a tweet that has been taken down as a way to signal that a user has violated a company policy” https://t.co/nBwoDH5TrS

— Hadas Gold (@Hadas_Gold) September 3, 2018

When Twitter Inc. Chief Executive Jack Dorsey testifies before Congress this week, he’ll likely be asked about an issue that has been hovering over the company: Just who decides whether a user gets kicked off the site?

To some Twitter users—and even some employees—it is a mystery.

In policing content on the site and punishing bad actors, Twitter relies primarily on its users to report abuses and has a consistent set of policies so that decisions aren’t made by just one person, its executives say.

Yet, in some cases, Mr. Dorsey has weighed in on content decisions at the last minute or after they were made, sometimes resulting in changes and frustrating other executives and employees, according to people familiar with the matter.

Understanding Mr. Dorsey’s role in making content decisions is crucial, as Twitter tries to become more transparent to its 335 million users, as well as lawmakers about how it polices toxic content on its site.

In a hearing Wednesday morning before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. Dorsey will appear alongside Facebook Inc. Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg to discuss how foreign actors can use the social-media platforms to spread misinformation and propaganda. Later in the day, the House Commerce Committee will question Mr. Dorsey individually in a Republican-led look at how Twitter treats conservative voices.

The latter hearing “is about pulling back the curtain on Twitter’s algorithms, how the company makes decisions about content, and how those decisions impact Americans,” said Rep. Greg Walden (R., Ore.), the chairman of the House Commerce Committee.

Twitter and rival Facebook are increasingly caught in a Catch-22 situation—criticized by some users for allowing hateful posts, but blasted by others for removing content because it curtails free speech.

Twitter has taken a different approach than Facebook, which has hired thousands of content reviewers in the last couple of years to review posts and built out technology to flag inappropriate content. Twitter has far less staff and typically only investigates harassment and abuse that has been reported by users.

Last month, after Twitter’s controversial decision to allow far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to remain on its platform, Mr. Dorsey told one person that he had overruled a decision by his staff to kick Mr. Jones off, according to a person familiar with the discussion. Twitter disputes that account and says Mr. Dorsey wasn’t involved in those discussions.

Twitter’s initial inaction on Mr. Jones, after several other major tech companies banned or limited his content, drew fierce backlash from the public and Twitter’s own employees, some of whom tweeted in protest.

A similar chain of events unfolded in November 2016, when the firm’s trust and safety team kicked alt-right provocateur Richard Spencer off the platform, saying he was operating too many accounts. Mr. Dorsey, who wasn’t involved in the initial discussions, told his team that Mr. Spencer should be allowed to keep one account and stay on the site, according to a person directly involved in the discussions.

Twitter says Mr. Dorsey doesn’t overrule staffers on content issues. The company declined to make Mr. Dorsey available...

Keep reading.