Pun Salad

We'll probably get tired of reading/posting about Katherine Maher and Commie Radio at some point, but we have not reached that point today.

First up is Reason's Robby Soave, who observes, accurately, that NPR's Uri Berliner Has Shown That DEI Is About Punishing Heresy.

I'm old enough to remember one of the cardinal justifications for affirmative action was that it would automagically bring diverse viewpoints to too-stodgy academia and business. Kathy's not down with that:

That Silicon Valley v Russia thread was pretty funny — until it got onto ideological diversity. In case it’s not evident, in these parts that’s often a dog whistle for anti-feminist, anti-POC stories about meritocracy. Maybe’s not what the author meant. But idk, maybe it is?

— Katherine Maher (@krmaher) July 6, 2018

In other unsurprising news, Tristan Justice digs out a story that you might have thought would worry our Official Civil Libertarians: New NPR CEO Took Wikipedia Censorship Orders From Feds. Quoting a clip excavated by Christopher Rufo:

EXCLUSIVE: Katherine Maher says that, as CEO of Wikipedia, she "took a very active approach to disinformation," coordinated censorship "through conversations with government," and suppressed content related to the pandemic and the 2020 election.

NPR's new censor-in-chief. pic.twitter.com/BoKZlrJuLE

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) April 17, 2024

This is (as we have seen a lot lately) government censorship via a complaisant proxy.

Meanwhile Rufo interviewed a semi-famous Wikipedia co-founder, now a severe critic: Larry Sanger Speaks Out .

Yeah, I'd think Wikipedia contributors would like to know that.

But the lady herself takes to the pages of Jeff Maurer's substack to explain, in a guest column. And asks the musical question: Who the Fuck Did You THINK Ran NPR?

Sounds totally legit.

Also, sounds like Pun Salad has entirely abandoned its keep-it-PG13 language stance. Ah well.

Also of note:

• 

  I can't recommend our Amazon Product du Jour. Nor can I recommend its use on Hamas-loving college students. But I can understand. As the Free Beacon reports: Columbia Students Claimed They Were Sprayed With an Israeli Chemical Weapon. It Was Actually Fart Spray Purchased on Amazon, New Lawsuit Says.

  Chemical weapons are typically associated with Middle Eastern warzones, not Ivy League colleges. So when one of them was allegedly deployed at Columbia University, it ignited a media frenzy.

  Pro-Palestinian protesters told the Columbia Spectator they had been sprayed with "skunk," a crowd-control chemical developed by the Israeli Defense Forces, at a rally in January. Mainstream media amplified the allegations, and Columbia suspended a student involved in the "attack"—who had previously served in IDF—within days.

  The narrative was a progressive fever dream: At one of the best universities in the country, an Israeli student had deployed chemical weapons against peaceful student protesters for challenging the alleged depredations of the Jewish state.

  Columbia president Minouche Shafik repeated this claim at a meeting of the university’s senate. "Demonstrators," she said, "were sprayed with a toxic chemical."

  It now appears that the "toxic chemical" was a harmless fart spray purchased on Amazon for $26.11.

  According to a lawsuit filed against Columbia on Tuesday, the suspended student had in fact dispersed "Liquid Ass"—a "gag gift for adults and kids," per its product description—at an unsanctioned pro-Palestinian rally. He sprayed the substance in the air, not at any particular individual, in what the lawsuit describes as a "harmless expression of speech." The result was a swift suspension for which the student is now suing, alleging that the university "rushed to silence Plaintiff and brand him as a criminal" through "biased misconduct proceedings."

  Let me just say that searching for "Liquid Ass" on Amazon brings up a disquietingly large selection of items.

• A headline from the future? No, it's from today, and it's at Ars Technica: Big Tech can’t hoard brainwave data for ad targeting, Colorado law says.

  On Wednesday, Colorado expanded the scope of its privacy law initially designed to protect biometric data like fingerprints or face images to become first in the nation to also shield sensitive neural data.

  Shield neural data? Why, by cracky, in my day we just used tinfoil. It was hot, and made us look stupid, but we liked it!

BIDEN: "I made it clear to the Israelis — don't move on Haifa!"

Haifa is a major city *IN* Israel. pic.twitter.com/BdNgoDlGkM

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) April 18, 2024

Sure, that's sort of funny. It's all fun and games, until, as David Harsanyi notes, The World Is Paying A Deadly Price For Barack Obama’s Foreign Policy.

And as long as he's making demands: Hands off Haifa, Bibi!

What does it say that I've found Jeff Maurer to be the most honest commentator on this? His streak is kept alive: The Israel/Iran Situation, But With Jokes.

A pungent observation:

The [Iranian] government was outraged by the Damascus embassy attack and argued that embassies are sacrosanct, though they implored people not to google “Iranian embassy attack”.

Also of note:

• I'm old enough to remember… … the outrage when the Dubya Administration was threatening to comb through our phone records and library lending histories. A "chilling intrusion"!

  Well, guess what? Trump's onetime Attorney General noticed that The Securities and Exchange Commission Is Watching You.

  The Securities and Exchange Commission is deploying a massive government database—the Consolidated Audit Trail, or CAT—that monitors in real time the identity, transactions and investment portfolio of everyone who invests in the stock market. As SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce describes it, by allowing the commission to “watch investors’ every move in real time,” CAT will make it easier to investigate insider trading or market manipulation.

  But as a lawsuit being filed Tuesday in Texas federal court makes clear, CAT crosses a constitutional red line. Accepting this sweeping surveillance would eviscerate fundamental privacy protections. That a few bad apples might engage in misconduct doesn’t justify mass surveillance of everyone’s private affairs.

  The SEC conceived of CAT during the Obama administration. Now, without congressional authorization and under the radar of most Americans, the commission is trying to impose it by executive fiat. CAT will reportedly be the single largest government database targeting the private activities of American citizens.

  The lawsuit-filing good guys: the New Civil Liberties Alliance, identified here as a "conservative think tank". I guess you have to be a conservative these days to stand up for civil liberties.

• Worst theme park ride ever. George F. WIll says Whee! The nation flies past another trillion-dollar milestone.

  This nation, tobogganing swiftly down a steep slope of fiscal irresponsibility, barely notices a blur of alarming milestones. Last week, we sped past this one: A $1.1 trillion deficit in the first six months of fiscal year 2024 that began Oct. 1 resulted in almost as many dollars spent on debt service ($429 billion) as on defense ($433 billion).

  This, at the most menacing geopolitical moment since 1945, makes one hope that JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon was radically wrong in saying recently that interest rates could reach 8 percent or more in coming years. If they do, deficits will explode even before the Social Security and Medicare trust funds are exhausted, within 10 years.

  FWIW, gold hit an all-time high of $2,408/oz earlier today. (It's dropped back a bit since, to $2396/oz, as I type.)

• Pun Salad agrees. The NR editorialists come around to my position: Defund NPR.

  National Public Radio has every right to operate as a left-wing propaganda outlet masquerading as a legitimate news organization. But it is not entitled to pursue this goal with taxpayer money. The latest revelations about the ideological rot at NPR have only made this case stronger.

  Before his resignation on Wednesday, Uri Berliner had worked at NPR for 25 years, most recently as a senior editor. But after being suspended for last week writing a long essay for the Free Press criticizing the organization for its bias, Berliner decided to resign, saying he could no longer work there comfortably.

  In his essay, Berliner argued that while NPR always had “a liberal bent,” in the past, it at least attempted to provide some balance. These days, he wrote, “those who listen to NPR or read its coverage online find something different: the distilled worldview of a very small segment of the U.S. population.”

  Sigh. I remember when, at least, NPR could be funny. (That link is from 2006.

• AI can do some jobs better. Josh Fruhlinger runs the Comics Curmudgeon blog, in which he appends acerbic commentary to newspaper comic strips. Like yesterday's Blondie:

  

  Josh did something unusual: he asked ChatGPT to

  Write a description of a three-panel Blondie comic strip on the theme of "there should be an app for loading the dishes!"

  Reader, ChatGPT came up with something much funnier than the allegedly-human-written comic above. Check it out.

And that random thought occurred to me when I looked at the picture of Joe Biden illustrating Jim Geraghty's NR Corner post: Excuses for Joe Biden Skipping Debates Start to Pile Up: Gee, Biden looks more like that ventriloquist's puppet every day.

Now, who was that guy? Google, google, google…

Oh, right. The ventriloquist was Jeff Dunham. And I was thinking of his cranky geezer puppet Walter. And‥

I discovered that Dunham was way ahead of me:

Cheap shots, but funny ones.

But (ahem) getting back to that Geraghty post:

Even if one or more Trump-Biden debates come off, you couldn't pay me to watch.

Well, you couldn't. Or at least wouldn't. Nor would I expect you to. Sorry, didn't mean to imply otherwise.

We are left to wonder what debate-evading excuses Frum, Durbin, and Coons would have made up if Nikki Haley had been the GOP nominee.

Also of note:

• Commie Radio goes full Stalin. Never go full Stalin. But at least NPR has the story: NPR suspends veteran editor as it grapples with his public criticism.

  (No, I'm not kidding. That link goes to the NPR story.)

  NPR has formally punished Uri Berliner, the senior editor who publicly argued a week ago that the network had "lost America's trust" by approaching news stories with a rigidly progressive mindset.

  Berliner's five-day suspension without pay, which began last Friday, has not been previously reported.

  Yet the public radio network is grappling in other ways with the fallout from Berliner's essay for the online news site The Free Press. It angered many of his colleagues, led NPR leaders to announce monthly internal reviews of the network's coverage, and gave fresh ammunition to conservative and partisan Republican critics of NPR, including former President Donald Trump.

  Indeed, Trump reacted with his usual caps-lock subtlety:

  Can't have that!

  At the NR Corner, Jeffrey Blehar has an interesting take on the essay: Uri Berliner Burned His Bridges at NPR, Then Set the House Ablaze.

  When I read it, I had two reactions, one to the text and one to the subtext. The text of Berliner’s piece was of course an eloquent and sensitively written exposé of the accelerating editorial rot behind the scenes at NPR. Berliner’s argument is not about bias — NPR’s liberal tilt is structurally unavoidable given the kind of people who want to work there — as much as it is about the complete internal corruption of journalistic ethics. (To wit, his discussion of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal is the ultimate confirmation of priors for suspicious conservatives: “I listened as one of NPR’s best and most fair-minded journalists said it was good we weren’t following the laptop story because it could help Trump.”)

  The subtext of the piece, however, was clear: “Now that I’ve aired our dirty laundry, I dare you to fire me before I eventually resign.” This was, for all its eloquence, functionally a career-terminating act. The various official responses from NPR, including a defensive rebuttal from NPR’s standards & practices editor and a five-day suspension without pay for “freelancing without permission,” indicate clearly that he is now persona non grata. To be fair, Berliner either certainly expected this or should have. As Phoebe Maltz Bovy aptly asks, “How many jobs are there where you could write a big essay about your beef with your workplace and keep your job?” Berliner was clearly dismayed enough about the situation at NPR that he was prepared to leave, and since as an NPR liberal he is more genteel than Homer Simpson, he chose to burn his bridges publicly and rhetorically, rather than literally.

  That last link goes to…

  

  Blehar also notes Berliner's references to NPR's new CEO, Katherine Maher. Who is described as the "Kwisatz Haderach of white wokeness, presumably bred through generations of careful genetic selection to be the supernaturally perfect embodiment of Affluent White Female Liberalism."

  Overstated? Well, for additional information on that, Matt Taibbi provides New NPR Chief Katherine Maher's Guide to the Holidays. (Only partially free, but enough.)

  Dumb old me didn't realize that one of Maher's previous gigs was at the Wikimedia Foundation. Where, if you responded cash-wise to one of Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia beg-a-thons, you were mostly funding a lot of tedious wokism.

I was tempted to do a full fisking of a recent column appearing in Sunday's local paper. It's by the pastor of the Community Church of Durham (NH), one Rev. David Grishaw-Jones, pictured at your right. He asks the musical question: Should New Hampshire really penalize nonviolence?

You're expected to say "Gee, of course not" at this point.

Let's find out what the Rev is actually talking about:

We'll ignore the question-begging assertions about Israel. I just want to point out that the legislation is also nonviolent. It's very nature is tit-for-tat: you refuse to do business with Israel, New Hampshire refuses to do business with you.

Governor Sununu's executive order last year made New Hampshire the 37th state to act in opposition to the so-called "Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions" (BDS) movement.

I count 18 sponsors of SB439 in the NH Senate. (And there are only 24 senators.) The Rev tries to paint this as an insidious plot, sourced from "extreme right wing think tanks (such as the American Legislative Executive Council)". A check of that sponsor list should debunk the relevance of the bill's provenance; it includes (for example) Democrats David Watters and Debra Altschiller. Are they unwitting pawns of the Great Right-Wing Jewish Conspiracy?

It goes without saying that the BDS effort is entirely aimed at Israel. The Middle East is full of dreary little despotisms. The only one that is rated "Free" by Freedom House is, that's right, Israel.

Rev, if you want to target citizen oppression, there are more likely targets.

The Rev's church is very (um) socially involved. They have a Action Alerts page letting people know where they stand on eight issues. Number One: "Justice for Palestine-Israel". What do you make of this?

Over 73 years. Why I do believe they are referring to 1948, the year Israel was created.

It appears the Rev's church isn't just opposed to Israel's policies; they are, instead, opposed to the idea of a Jewish state. Real river-to-the-sea advocates. Lets make the entire Middle East unfree!

If that happened, of course, the Rev and his allies might spend a few minutes tsk-tsking about all the violence. (But not without explaining that Israel had it coming.)

Also of note:

• A backbone of Jello. Eric Boehm explains that Bone Spurs ain't going to make it into an updated edition of Profiles in Courage, describing Donald Trump's Cowardice Over Warrantless Spying.

  In a social media post on Wednesday afternoon, former President Donald Trump delivered an all-caps message to members of Congress. "KILL FISA," he wrote. "IT WAS ILLEGALLY USED AGAINST ME, AND MANY OTHERS."

  Trump was referring to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows intelligence services to scoop up electronic communications between Americans and individuals overseas. Those communications are stored in a massive database—the true extent of which is unknown and perhaps unquantifiable—that is routinely queried by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, giving them a back door to spy on Americans' communications without a warrant.

  Trump is right to be mad about how Section 702 has been used, and he's also right that he is far from the only target. In 2021, for example, the FBI used its FISA powers to run more than 3.3 million queries through the Section 702 database. A Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court report unsealed in May showed that the FBI improperly used its warrantless search powers more than 278,000 times during 2021—targeting "crime victims, January 6th riot suspects, people arrested at a protest in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd in 2020," and donors to congressional candidates.

  Last week, as Congress was considering the periodic renewal of Section 702, some lawmakers (including some of Trump's closest allies in the House) were pushing for a requirement that law enforcement agencies get a warrant before trolling through the FISA database. That effort failed, 212–212, with Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R–La.) casting the tie-breaking vote.

  And how did Trump react to all that?

  "I'm not a big fan of FISA," the former president reiterated to reporters after meeting with Johnson at Mar-a-Lago on Friday night. "But I told everybody, 'Do what you want.'"

  I don't know what Nikki Haley's position on FISA reauthorization was, but whatever it was, I bet it lasted more than a few hours.

• An insightful take. And it's from Jeff Maurer: Comedy Has Gotten More Political Partly Because Opinions are Easy and Jokes are Hard. He recalls the good old days of Conan O'Brien being funny. (Click over to see "Awesome Dave’s Counting Channel" video.

  The reasons why networks can’t or won’t make a Conan-style show are many and varied. I’ve written a lot about how comedy has changed, and I’ll probably write more. But because I’m so definitively in the political/comedy space,1 I can say something that non-political-comedians are usually too polite to say: Writing jokes is a lot harder than writing opinions. And one reason why there’s a lot of political comedy out there is that it’s simply easier.

  Political comedy has been my full-time job for a decade. I’ve had lot of time to think about what hits, what doesn’t, and why. I find there are basically two things that people respond to. One is humor — some of my most popular pieces are goofy things that are barely political at all. And the other thing that people like is — you’ll love how obnoxiously pretentious this is — a statement. Generously interpreted, “a statement” means “a trenchant analysis of important matters.” Less-generously interpreted, it means “some shit people agree with.” But probably the most accurate interpretation is: “a cynical regurgitation of your audience’s beliefs that flatters their self-image, which creates a fucked-up relationship based on mutual puffery that — somehow, some way — ends in you getting money.”

  `

  Not for nothing, there's a Wikipedia page for clapter.

Recently on the book blog:

Recently on the movie blog:

Via Power Line, some rough language:

"If you care about your fucking country, read Ludwig von Mises and the six lessons of the Austrian economic school, motherfuckers."

- @moicanoufc pic.twitter.com/P5yeToKQNB

— 𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐔𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 (@the_posts) April 14, 2024

Okay, you ready to learn about the six lessons? Here you go, from Clint Smith: The 6 lessons of Ludwig Von Mises.

And he proceeds to itemize seven lessons. Oh well, give or take. They are (1) Methodological Individualism; (2) Subjective Value; (3) Praxeology; (4) Spontaneous Order; (5) Business Cycle Theory; (6) Economic Calculation Problem; and (7) Critique of Interventionism.

That last one may be a bonus. Perhaps produced by spontaneous order.

Also of note:

• Unwarranted Optimism Department. Kevin D. Williamson has some unsolicited advice for the Biden campaign: Democrats think that simply not being Trump is enough to beat him — but it won’t be.

  Democrats seem to have lost one of the most basic of all political skills: asking those who are not already committed supporters for their votes.

  It is an elementary thing, but, as with many other elementary things, Joe Biden does not seem quite up to it.

  If he wants to win, he should figure that out.

  I am not sure that there is such a thing as a “Nikki Haley Republican,” but the former South Carolina governor beat Donald Trump in the Vermont and DC Republican primaries, took about 40% of the vote in New Hampshire and South Carolina, and finished up her campaign having won more than 20% of the vote in the races she contested.

  That’s not nothing.

  True, that support wasn’t nearly enough for Nikki Haley to beat Donald Trump in a Republican primary.

  But it would be more than enough for Joe Biden to beat Donald Trump in a general election.

  The share of alienated Republicans who don’t want to vote for Trump isn’t 40% — it isn’t even 20%.

  And it doesn’t have to be.

  Well less than half that would do it for Biden — if he would lift a pinky finger to try to win those votes.

  Note KDW seamlessly adapting the New York Post editorial style of one-sentence paragraphs.

  He doesn't do that in any other forum, as far as I can tell.

  But as to his main point: I'm not sure what Biden could do to win my vote in November.

  That's just not in the cards, Joe.

• The windmills of his mind. James Lileks has an amazing essay at Discourse: Art That’s Just for Me.

  I’m working on a book celebrating the work of a commercial artist, Chester Gallsworth Dahleigh—“Chet” to his friends. He signed his most personal work “Petey,” so I suppose Chet G. “Petey” Dahleigh is the proper term. This summer, I plan to release an online collection of his most striking work, an examination of the works he did not for paying corporate clients, but instead rendered in his sleep.

  There are hundreds of such works, and they all express a peculiarly cheerful nightmare about American culture in the 1950s.

  Some say they’re a result of his wife’s long effort to poison her husband with various herbs and mushrooms from the family garden—a theory bolstered, no doubt, by her conviction for murdering her husband by poison in 1960—but others insist that Dahleigh’s daytime work painting anodyne scenes of commercial joy posed an affront to his talent and soul, and he would rise at night to explore the id of the American dream in the 1950s. In his work, there is always joy:

  Eventually, Lileks confesses: "Chet G. Petey Dahleigh" is actually Chat-GPT Dall-E. And those illustrations (seven at the link) were AI-generated, and they are, indeed, cheerful nightmares. Check 'em out.

Brought to my attention by Jonah Goldberg:

Words. Just say words until someone cheers. pic.twitter.com/HvOB0UsnQT

— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) April 14, 2024

For the record, Schnecksville, an actual place, is about 40 miles away from Valley Forge, about 100 miles away from Gettysburg, and about 50 miles away from where Washington crossed the Delaware.

Well, he's not running for American History Professor, I guess.

Meanwhile, President Wheezy and Bone Spurs were tied at the EBO site last week. This week, Wheezy has opened up a slight lead:

Trump's still in a near-unassailable, over 4-to-1 lead in phony hit counts, though.

Also of note:

• Hey, kids, what time is it? Well, according to Kurt Schlichter, it's Time to Rethink Your Never Trumpism. Ah, finally. Someone to present me with a set of rational arguments why I should, for the first time, vote for Trump.

  You'd think. But no:

  Okay, my Trump-shy friends, it’s time to put aside your fussy principles about how icky Donald Trump is. This is serious, and we need all hands on deck to throw Biden overboard before he gets a whole lot more Americans killed. I get that you don’t like Trump. Let’s agree that he’s icky for the purposes of this discussion. Let’s agree that his tweets are mean, that he’s not a conservative ideologue, that he says dumb things and gets into useless fights, and that he does many other unseemly and annoying things. Let’s agree that this is all true. Let’s concede that in normal times, one might want to forgo supporting a guy like that. But these aren’t normal times.

  So my principles are "fussy". I think Trump is "icky". And later:

  So, this is for you guys who are having difficulty making that leap and backing Trump 2.0. I’m assuming that you are susceptible to reason. Some of you might not be. Let’s face it: A little bit of ego is involved here. There’s a performative aspect to not backing Donald Trump. You dug in against him, and digging yourself out and publicly changing your mind is tough. I get it. But when facts change, choices need to change. And boy, have the facts changed.

  Thanks for that head-shrinking, Kurt.

  So (to summarize), Kurt is accusing me of prissyness ("fussy"), childishness ("icky"), and moral posturing ("ego"/"performative").

  Kurt, this is not an effective way to convince people.

  Other than that, it's just a recycled Flight 93, storm-the-cockpit rant. Trying to scare me into supporting Trump.

  Sorry, Kurt, that's also a non starter.

  Kurt talks a lot about Israel and Gaza. Ukraine is unmentioned.

  Not that it matters, but the Flight 93 crash site is about 200 miles from Schnecksville. I don't know if Trump mentioned that.

• A more accurate adjective than "icky". And it's supplied by Kevin D. Williamson: Trump’s Toxic Touch. Analyzing Trump's recent announcement of his abortion position:

  The Dobbs decision returned abortion to the states, and if Donald Trump sounds indifferent about how that plays out in the states, it is not because he is indifferent, exactly, much less possessed of “disinterest” as Jamelle Bouie put it with perfect wrongness (subsequently edited away) in the New York Times—it is because he subordinates the abortion issue, like every other issue, to his own narrow self-interest. Trump was, recall, a self-described “pro-choice” Manhattan playboy and reality-television grotesque who made occasional cameos in pornographic films before he decided that he wanted to chase the Republican presidential nomination. As with the Second Amendment, traditional marriage (ho, ho!), and much else, Trump lurches from position to position, precisely as one would expect a man with no moral anchor to do.

  Trump has long been to the left of the longstanding Republican consensus on many issues: abortion, gun control, taxes, entitlements, marriage and family—almost every issue other than immigration, in fact, though even on immigration he has at times been an amnesty supporter and a “path to citizenship” advocate, when he thought it would benefit him. For a different kind of politician, that discongruity might have a moderating effect and provide some basis for seeking broader and deeper political compromises than American politics has produced in recent years. But Donald Trump suffers from a particularly toxic combination of character defects—laziness, stupidity, arrogance, insecurity, and profound personal cowardice—that make such an outcome impossible. 

  Too much? No: Laziness, because Trump’s stand is the one that requires the least work; stupidity, because he doesn’t understand that “Let the states decide” is a dodge that works under Roe but not under Dobbs, when the states are, in fact, deciding; arrogance, because he has good reason to believe this will be enough for the rubes who are going to support him no matter what; insecurity, because a better kind of man (with a lead in the polls) might do some good by making the case forthrightly, but Trump is an inferior kind of man and knows it; profound personal cowardice, because Trump fears losing something he wants more than he fears being on the wrong side of a question when wrong equates to millions of dead children.

  See, Kurt, it's a little bit more serious than just finding DJT to be "icky".

  (By the way, KDW's Jamelle Bouie aside reflects the NYT's stealth-editing his print-edition words:

  Trump’s fundamental disinterest in the truth value of his words is the only context that matters…

  into the online:

  Trump’s fundamental lack of interest in the truth value of his words is the only context that matters…

  This is the sort of thing that KDW views with minor contempt.

• Oh, and by the way… Steven Greenhut has the standard libertarian take on "disinformation" at Reason: Combat Disinformation With Better Norms, Not More Laws. Setting a bad example:

  In a typically unhinged social-media post last month, Donald Trump expressed the desire to jail former U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney (R–Wyo.) and the members of the select congressional committee investigating the January 6 riot or insurrection or peaceful demonstration or FBI false-flag operation (pick your narrative). It's one in a long series of posts in which the former president and 2024 GOP nominee has touted tactics usually reserved for third-world strongmen.

  More recently, the judge in the case involving Trump's hush-money payments to adult-actress Stormy Daniels slapped a gag order on him "after repeatedly targeting the judge's daughter in social media posts," per USA Today. Not long ago, Trump said he would tell Russia to do "whatever the hell they want" to NATO member countries that don't pay their bills. And, of course, he continues to falsely claim the 2020 election was stolen.

  And I hear you asking: Did Trump really …? Sure did:

  Hey, Kurt? Greenhut could have called this "icky", but he chose a more accurate adjective: "unhinged".

• We used to rail against the "Imperial Presidency". But now… … it's just "the presidency". Andy Kessler at the WSJ: The Presidency, I’m Against It. He advocates a path for a Trump presidency that almost certainly will not be taken:

  Expectations for a second Trump term include mass deportations, threats against allies, and huge tariffs on Chinese products. But what will be Mr. Trump’s legacy? Let’s face it, someone who splashes his name on tall buildings across the country cares about legacy. How does Mr. Trump change his legacy from authoritarian blowhard to transformative president? Simple. Go rogue. Do something no one ever thought he would do. Like Nixon going to China. Or “Bedtime for Bonzo” Hollywood actor Ronald Reagan becoming a free-market, Soviet-busting genius.

  How? Reduce the power of the executive branch. Mr. Trump told Sean Hannity he plans to be a dictator for only a day. Fine, close the border, end DEI, get NATO partners to pay, cancel Mr. Biden’s executive orders, and reverse his industrial strategies, er, policies. But then pull the ladder up behind you so no future president can repeat the Biden administration’s power grabs.

  That would be neat.

• Here's how to do it right, Kurt. Power Line hosts Daniel B. Klein, writing on Libertarians and Civic Virtue.

  An interview between two libertarians provides an opportunity to think about how libertarians need to raise their game. David Boaz of the Cato Institute is interviewed by Nick Gillespie of Reason magazine. Among other things, they discuss the 2024 presidential election. The conversation exemplifies a failure in civic virtue among some libertarians.

  I say ‘some’ libertarians, because others are more like Milton Friedman. In a 2005 interview, Friedman said: “I always say I am Republican with a capital ‘R’ and libertarian with a small ‘l’.”

  More than 50 years earlier, in 1953, Milton Friedman wrote: “I see no objection to his [the economist’s] saying, ‘In my opinion…A is the best policy to achieve our agreed objectives. However, if you do not like A for political or other reasons, B is the next best policy,’ and so forth.”

  That is, Friedman urges the classical liberal to be comfortable saying, “I favor classical liberalism but in a choice between two less-good options, I think that B is the one that is less less-good.”

  If the choice between two less-good options is a salient and important choice for people at large, civic virtue calls on one who pronounces on public issues to speak to that choice—plainly, calmly, and fairly, like Milton Friedman. I agree with Friedman that the Republicans are the lesser evil, and I don’t think Donald Trump is an exception.

  It's an argument Klein puts forth with respect to his audience. I'm not all-the-way convinced, but he puts together a rational case, not one based on name-calling and fear.

… to this headline on Andrew Heaton's (very funny) (but also sad) (and also anger-inducing) video: Is Greed Causing Shrinkflation?.

But if you would prefer print to standup-comic videos, Dan McLaughlin has you covered, with a general observartion: Elizabeth Warren Isn't Actually Very Smart. (A gifted link.)

Massachusetts has a proud history of sending dim bulbs to the US Senate. Warren replaced Teddy Kennedy, no Mensan himself. In the other seat, Ed Markey is routinely dubbed an thuggish idiot. And he replaced John Kerry. 'Nuff said.

Also of note:

• Where's your Messiah now, Moses? Jonah Goldberg writes on The Messianic Temptation.

  So back in the Obama years, I had great fun with the idea that Barack Obama was the messiah. 

  No really, this was a thing, and some cynics suspected he encouraged it. The New York Times reported that Obama’s volunteers were instructed at “Camp Obama” not to discuss issues when proselytizing for their leader, but instead to “testify” about how they “came to Obama” the same way Christians testify about how they came to Jesus. Michelle Obama played into it too, promising that her husband would mend America’s “broken souls.” And of course, Obama himself leaned into the Messianic hype. “We are the hope of the future. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek,” he proclaimed at the conclusion of the Democratic primary. “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

  The admittedly ironic website “Is Barack Obama the Messiah?” is still up, and it’s still a fun compendium. Some people, uncomfortable with the—duh—formally religious connotation of the word “messiah” opted instead to call him a “lightworker” or “secular redeemer.” Oprah fell back on simply calling him The One, while Deepak Chopra dubbed him a “quantum leap in American consciousness.” Ezra Klein wrote:

  Obama’s finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don’t even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence, and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair.

  And Eve Konstantine, the leadership guru, assured us that “Barack Obama is our collective representation of our purest hopes, our highest visions and our deepest knowings. … He’s our product out of the all-knowing quantum field of intelligence.” 

  But these days, as Jonah shares…

  This is why the kids find "SMH" to be such a useful acronym.

• Sophie goes to the car dealer. George Will isn't impressed with Biden’s impossible dream: Any car you want, as long as it’s an EV.

  Government’s language often radiates contempt for the governed, as when the Environmental Protection Agency recently said limits on automobile emissions in model years 2027-2032 will “give drivers more clean vehicle choices.” The regulations are, of course, explicitly intended to restrict consumers’ choices by forcing manufacturers to produce fewer cars that have tailpipe emissions. Drivers will be able to choose any vehicle they want — from the “clean” category government prefers. As Henry Ford reportedly said, the Model T would be available in “any color” the customer wants, “as long as it’s black.”

  The Biden administration’s costly and coercive crusade to replace internal combustion vehicles (ICVs) with electric vehicles (EVs) is disproportionate to its minuscule climate impact. The American Enterprise Institute’s Benjamin Zycher says the EPA’s own assumptions project that the new regulations will mitigate global warming by 0.023 degrees Celsius by 2100. Because the standard deviation of the Earth’s surface temperature record is 0.11 degrees Celsius, “that effect would not be detectable.”

  As Maggie Thatcher didn't actually observe: At a certain point, you run out of people willing to demonstrate their moral superiority.

• The Juice has no excuse. I checked, and I've only made some glancing references to O. J. Simpson over the years. Jeff Maurer provides: O.J.'s Obituary, But With Jokes.

  O.J. Simpson, the last comedy reference that everyone got, died yesterday at the age of 76. The cause was Norm Macdonald’s mean, mean jokes.

  Orenthal Jazzhands Simpson was born in a blighted part of San Francisco back when blighted parts of San Francisco were unusual. He wore leg braces as a child but eventually became a powerful runner, making him sort of a Forrest Gump figure if Forrest Gump had an EXTREMELY different third act. Mr. Simpson attended the University of Southern California and decided to play football when he could no longer tolerate his classmates’ shitty student films. He won Chekhov’s Heisman Trophy, which is awarded to the college football player who most needs a totem that can be revoked later in life to symbolize his downfall.

  Mr. Simpson was drafted by the Buffalo Bills in what would turn out to be the worst punishment of his life. He broke records, including becoming the first running back to amass 2,000 venereal diseases in a single season. Blessed with good looks and a warm smile, he earned endorsements and no-bullshit had more movie roles in the ‘80s than Sidney Poitier (look it up!). And the important thing to process here is: People liked this guy. He was practically the last person who would be the victim of a wide-ranging conspiracy. If I said “the police are out to get Paul Rudd,” would that make sense to you? Just file that away.

  I did get a chance to review some of those Norm Macdonald jokes.

Bruce Andrews, Intel's Corporate Vice President and Chief Government Affairs Officer recently penned a letter, appearing in Wednesday's WSJ. Andrews took exception to the editorial we quoted with approval back on April 5.

Andrews leaps to Intel's defense against allegations that it is a corporate welfare queen:

And more in that vein. To paraphrase: that dumb old free market isn't good enough for Intel.

Don Boudreaux replies to Andrews at Cafe Hayek with his own letter (as yet unpublished): Rent-Seeking Is A Dirty Business.

Hear, hear.

For the record, the desktop machine on which I'm typing… has Intel inside. Intel, stop making me ashamed to admit this.

Also of note:

• Of course they did. NHJournal reports on seven local politicians who think they have the expertise to lecture Israel on how to deal with terror: Dover City Council Passes 'Ceasefire' Resolution in 7-1 Vote.

  The debate over Israel’s war against Hamas came to Dover Wednesday night when city councilors passed a “ceasefire” resolution in a 7-1 vote.

  However, rather than holding a recorded roll call vote, the council passed the resolution by a show of hands.

  The sole “no” vote came from Ward 6 Councilor Fergus Cullen, who tried to have the resolution removed from the meeting’s agenda as non-germane to their duties.

  “I have publicly announced and informed my colleagues that, at the top of tonight’s [city council] meeting, I’m going to move that we remove this item from the agenda,” Cullen told NHJournal beforehand. “This is the Dover City Council, not the United Nations.”

  However, Cullen’s motion to remove failed to get a second, and the council proceeded with discussion and a vote.

  Most of the people who showed up for the council meeting supported the resolution, and many were openly anti-Israel.

  Moral posturing from a very safe distance is not an attractive look.

• In our Stopped Clock Department, we offer… Jacob Sullum looking at a recent, widely derided, pronunciamento: Trump's Abortion Stance Is Convenient, but That Does Not Mean He's Wrong.

  "On abortion," The New York Times claims, former President Donald Trump "chose politics over principles." In reality, Trump's recent clarification of his abortion position is one of those rare instances when political expedience coincides with constitutional principles.

  In a Truth Social video posted on Monday, Trump said each state should be free to regulate abortion as its legislators and voters see fit. The result, he conceded, would be a wide range of policies, including liberal regimes that allow nearly all abortions as well as strict bans.

  Through his Supreme Court appointments, Trump bragged, "I was proudly the person responsible for the ending of" Roe v. Wade, which for half a century overrode state policy choices by ruling out most abortion restrictions. With that obstacle removed, he said, "the will of the people" should prevail in each state.

  It's to be expected that Democrats (and the MSM, but I repeat myself) would excoriate Trump for partisan reasons. And I guess a lot of pro-lifers were disappointed too. But I'm with Sullum here: Trump's position is entirely defensible. (And you know I wouldn't say that unless I actually thought so.)

• Commie Radio gotta commie. A lot of people are pointing out this article by Uri Berliner (a "business editor and reporter" at National Public Radio). With good reason: I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust. A snippet:

  There’s an unspoken consensus about the stories we should pursue and how they should be framed. It’s frictionless—one story after another about instances of supposed racism, transphobia, signs of the climate apocalypse, Israel doing something bad, and the dire threat of Republican policies. It’s almost like an assembly line.

  The mindset prevails in choices about language. In a document called NPR Transgender Coverage Guidance—disseminated by news management—we’re asked to avoid the term biological sex. (The editorial guidance was prepared with the help of a former staffer of the National Center for Transgender Equality.) The mindset animates bizarre stories—on how The Beatles and bird names are racially problematic, and others that are alarmingly divisive; justifying looting, with claims that fears about crime are racist; and suggesting that Asian Americans who oppose affirmative action have been manipulated by white conservatives.

  More recently, we have approached the Israel-Hamas war and its spillover onto streets and campuses through the “intersectional” lens that has jumped from the faculty lounge to newsrooms. Oppressor versus oppressed. That’s meant highlighting the suffering of Palestinians at almost every turn while downplaying the atrocities of October 7, overlooking how Hamas intentionally puts Palestinian civilians in peril, and giving little weight to the explosion of antisemitic hate around the world.

  Did Berliner raise issues inside NPR? Sure. But:

  When I suggested we had a diversity problem with a score of 87 Democrats and zero Republicans, the response wasn’t hostile. It was worse. It was met with profound indifference.

  If I get tired of listening to my iPod, I'll occasionally put on NPR in the car. I don't even get mad at it any more, it's become nearly a self-parody, an SNL skit where the players don't know how ridiculous they sound.

• Good advice. Michael Munger pushes back on those predicting capitalism's demise: Look With Two Is.

  Capitalism is a system for organizing, directing, and motivating large groups of people who have never met. Remarkably, capitalism also gives people reasons to act as if they knew and cared about one another. As a result, the scope and success of commercial systems over the past century has produced prosperity, and reduced poverty worldwide, on a scale that is without precedent in human history.

  Yet self-appointed experts in politics and academics routinely pronounce the end of capitalism, and they advocate for largely imaginary alternatives. As I have written elsewhere, such unicorn alternative systems actually “exist” in the sense that if we close our eyes, we all see much the same thing. The problem is that the imaginary alternatives do not exist if we look, with two eyes, at the world we actually live in.

  To open his presentation at Davos in 2020, Marc Benioff said “Capitalism as we have known it is dead.” He then shared his unicorn vision — “stakeholder capitalism” — for an hour of new age psychobabble. No part of that claim is true, however: capitalism is expanding, not shrinking, and the corruption of “stakeholders” who have tried to impose DEI or ESG by force, and moralistic hectoring, is rapidly being forced to retreat back into its fortified academic redoubt.

  How can we “look with two eyes”? It takes two fundamental concepts: the first “I” is information; the second is incentives.

  Munger does Free Market 101 very well.

• And finally… Arnold Kling does the link-recommending thing, much like I do. But I liked this quote of his a lot:

  The government role in health care is generally to subsidize demand, restrict supply, and try to control prices. I am not optimistic about how that will turn out.

  Nor am I, and nor should anyone.

The Google News Alert rang for a column by one Chuck Collins in an online "newspaper", the Brattleboro (VT) Reformer. Collins attempts to explain: Why some high-income Vermonters say 'raise my taxes'. Lets see how he does!

I hear you asking: did Ben and Jerry sign the letter? Reader, of course they did. Ben is the first signer, Jerry is a bit further down in position six.

Collins is billed as the "co-editor" of an eat-the-rich site, Inequality.org. He's a fan. The letter is hosted at a site called (wince) "Fair Share for Vermont". They also (quelle surprise) support a tax on unrealized capital gains.

And, as usual with these folks, "Fair Share" just means "More". With a subtext of "Never Enough".

Where does LFOD come in? Ah, here it is:

You can almost hear what Collins was muttering when he typed that last bit: "and I say good riddance to them!"

Some random observations:

• By any measure, Vermonters are currently heavily taxed. The Tax Foundation has a one-stop state tax data resource. Vermont has the fourth-highest state tax collections per capita, behind only California, Hawaii, and North Dakota. (In comparison, New Hampshire's in position #50, aka last place.)

• Vermont's top marginal income tax rate is 8.75%, and it kicks in at $229,550. They also hit their unlucky citizenry up for a 6% sales tax (7% in some locations, on some items). They also have a 16% inheritance tax—one of the highest rates—which kicks in at $5,000,000. Their "Property Taxes Paid as a Percentage of Owner-Occupied Housing Value" is the fifth-highest at 1.56%. (Only slightly less than New Hampshire's 1.61%)

• Overall, the Tax Foundation calculates Vermont's state and local tax burden to be 13.6%. The only states with higher burdens: New York, Connecticut, and Hawaii.

• I know, math is hard, but: Collins claims the income tax surcharge will raise $74 million/year. The Vermont governor's budget proposal for FY2025 is $8.6 billion, with no proposals for increased taxes or fees.

  Dividing the first number by the second gives 0.86%. I.e., it's a smidgen of what the state currently spends.

  Reader, if Vermont can't solve the "housing crisis" with $8.6 billion, do you think they're going to do it with $8.674 billion?

• For a contrary take, see the Tax Foundation's article, Vermont Lawmakers Consider Harmful Taxes on the Wealthy.

My answer to the headline, "Why some high-income Vermonters say 'raise my taxes'": because they are deluded fools.

All in all, despite Collins' assurances, I assume treating high-income and high-worth people as easy targets for legal plunder will cause some of them to wise up and move out. Some will hop the Connecticut River into New Hampshire. I welcome them with open arms and a free copy of the Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again", which they will be required to listen to daily.

About our Amazon Product du Jour: If Biden were impeached and convicted tomorrow, we'd suddenly find ourselves with … well, I'm sure anyone reading this knows what the Constitution dictates.

But still. President Kamala might be chastened in her activism. For example, she might give up on "student loan" forgiveness. It's full speed ahead for President Wheezy, though. Despite being court-rejected once, his motto seems to be Try, Try Again. From Liz Wolfe's news roundup:

The WSJ Editorial Board also is laughing (perhaps to keep from crying) about Biden’s Student Loan Howlers. See if you get a chuckle from:

And, eventually, those subsidies will, on net be borne by taxpayers who didn't get subsidized.

But—hey!—maybe they'll qualify for a different subsidy!

That's supposed to be a joke right there. After all, didn't Bastiat claim that “Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else"?

I'm sure that Biden, deep down, believes that, and believes it to be a good thing.

But it's not just tame White House economists emitting the howlers. At AEI, Beth Akers calls out an equally-tame MSNBC analyst: Maddow Spreads Misinformation on Student Loan Cancellation.

Akers thinks Maddow is looking for a likely scapegoat. I'm doubtful she's that smart.

Also of note:

• Peter J. Wallison looks at a too-likely outcome: Trump’s Ukraine Sellout.

  So why does Trump oppose US support for Ukraine? He has said nothing specific enough to call a plan, but the statements he has made would effectively end the policy that the United States has followed toward the Russia since the end of WWII. That policy is to oppose Russia’s expansion into Europe, even under implicit Soviet, and later Russian, threats of nuclear war. Every president, Democrat and Republican, from Truman through Kennedy, Reagan, the two Bushes, Clinton, and Biden has made this clear. Donald Trump is the first person with a shot at the presidency who has offered the opportunity for Russian territorial expansion—and this essentially for nothing.

  Trump has said that he would end the Ukraine War in one day. That, of course, is the usual empty Trumpian boast, but it’s feasible only if the US stops all military assistance to Ukraine, and Ukraine gives up much of its traditional territory it has now reclaimed from Russia. In other words, Trump would allow the military weakening of Ukraine—to such an extent that it would have to surrender at least some of its territory.

  Moreover, this policy of weakness toward Russian aggression will send a signal to others that the United States—the world’s principal advocate for territorial integrity since WWII—cannot be relied upon for support against another country’s turning a territorial dispute into an armed invasion.

  Well, good luck with that.

• Why so glum, chum? We are beset with MSM claims about Joe Biden's rosy economy. Jim Geraghty drops some truth bombs, describing How Joe Biden Lost the War on Inflation and the Broader Economy.

  You don’t have to look far to find columnists who are absolutely befuddled that Americans rate the economy — and President Biden’s economic record — so poorly despite data that, at first glance, suggest the U.S. economy is sitting pretty. Gallup, Pew, CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal — they’re all asking variations of the same question: “Why isn’t the growing economy helping public perception of Biden?”

  Readers of this newsletter know that part of the answer is that the president is older than dirt and we’ve had a policy of de facto open borders for three years, which shapes voters’ perceptions that Biden is hapless and ineffective. But on the economy, I think it’s obvious that lots of Americans feel like they get bad news every time they go to the grocery store. Or when they see lots of part-time-job opportunities, but fewer options for full-time jobs with benefits. Or when they fill up their gas tank. And maybe even their statements for their 401(k) or retirement accounts don’t seem as bright and cheery after a long bout of runaway inflation.

  Economic problem one: Grocery bills.

  Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal looked at how inflation has changed the price of groceries since 2019 — our pre-pandemic sense of “normal” prices for food and household staples.

  There's more at the link. Including: declining full-time work, gasoline prices. Geraghty also points out that the rising stock market is great, it doesn't matter much when you sell some stock to buy groceries, only to discover…

• 

  The great Haidt debate continues. We've looked at Jonathan Haidt's recent claims and recommendations in his new book, The Anxious Generation here, here, and here. Today, he retreats to his substack to defend his claims: Yes, Social Media Really Is a Cause of the Epidemic of Teenage Mental Illness.

  For centuries, adults have worried about whatever “kids these days” are doing. From novels in the 18th century to the bicycle in the 19th and through comic books, rock and roll, marijuana, and violent video games in the 20th century, there are always those who ring alarms, and there are always those who are skeptics of those alarms. So far, the skeptics have been right more often than not, and when they are right, they earn the right to call the alarm ringers “alarmists” who have fomented a groundless moral panic, usually through sensational but rare (or non-existent) horror stories trumpeted by irresponsible media.

  But the skeptics are not always right. I think it is a very good thing that alarms were rung about teen smoking, teen pregnancy, drunk driving, and the exposure of children to sex and violence on TV. The lesson of The Boy Who Cried Wolf is not that after two false alarms we should disconnect the alarm system. In that story, the wolf does eventually come.

  Counterpoint comes from Haidt's friend and onetime co-author, Greg Lukianoff, who describes My First Amendment concerns with ‘The Anxious Generation’. Amidst much praise:

  While his proposals appear on the surface to be aimed only at minors, in reality, they would implicate the rights of adults, too. What’s more, minors do have free speech rights, even if the breadth of those rights aren’t exactly the same as those of adults. I also think broad government interventions often create more problems than they solve and have a tendency to start in a sphere that seems limited but then expands. Lastly, I believe a good rule of thumb is to try the options that pose the least potential for abuse first.

  I think Lukianoff is correct here. General rule: there's are few social problems that government regulation can't make worse. But see what you think.