I responded to a recent tweet from my state's (very) senior senator:
Actually... https://t.co/uAzaYOpJSZ
— Paul Sand (@punsalad) June 1, 2025
As an unknown genius observed: "It ain’t so much the things that people don’t know that makes trouble in this world, as it is the things that people know that ain’t so."
Also of note:
-
Let's get them on the record. Eric Boehm says Congress must vote on Trump’s tariff policy.
President Donald Trump's unilateral attempt at imposing tariffs has evolved into a quantum state.
You probably already know that Trump has repeatedly threatened, imposed, paused, delayed, raised, lowered, and "chickened out" on various tariff plans. In the past 48 hours, things got even crazier. The Court of International Trade blocked most of Trump's tariffs with an injunction issued Wednesday, but that injunction was temporarily paused by a federal appeals court on Thursday. Meanwhile, a second federal court also ruled Thursday that the tariffs are unlawful.
The tariffs, which constitute one of the largest tax increases in American history, are simultaneously active and unlawful, subject to change at the president's whim, and could be turned off once again within weeks (when the appeals court's temporary stay will be reviewed).
As of this moment, that means an American importer doesn't know whether it is due a refund for tariffs already paid, or whether it will owe more taxes for the next shipment of goods.
This is, obviously, no way to run tax policy.
To be honest, I'm not sure what Eric's "quantum" comment refers to, except both tariff policy and quantum physics use the word "uncertainty" a lot.
-
It's where you learn how to be a good party member, I guess. WSJ reporter Chun Han Wong reports Harvard Has Trained So Many Chinese Communist Officials, They Call It Their ‘Party School’ (WSJ gifted link).
U.S. schools—and one prestigious institution in particular—have long offered up-and-coming Chinese officials a place to study governance, a practice that the Trump administration could end with a new effort to keep out what it says are Chinese students with Communist Party ties.
For decades, the party has sent thousands of mid-career and senior bureaucrats to pursue executive training and postgraduate studies on U.S. campuses, with Harvard University a coveted destination described by some in China as the top “party school” outside the country.
It would be nice if they returned to China as dedicated champions of liberty, but there's no evidence that a Harvard education provides that.
-
Live not by lies. Jack Butler fantasizes about: The Commencement Address Harvard Needs.
These ought to be exciting times for attendees of a certain school in Boston. Perhaps one could call Harvard University’s ongoing conflict with the Trump administration exciting. But certainly not in the way that its graduates this year would have expected by the time of their commencement this past Thursday.
The institution is coping as it knows best: through self-congratulation. Abraham Verghese, this year’s commencement speaker, assured graduates that “more people than you realize are grateful for Harvard for the example it has set” and praised the school’s “clarity in affirming and courageously defending the essential values of this university, and indeed of this nation.”
[I assume he didn't mention that Harvard was the favorite school of Chinese Communists -- pas]
Harvard’s attitude is that it has done nothing wrong, either lately, or in the past several decades. This is not the kind of honest introspection that aids the pursuit of the Veritas the school claims to seek. For that, we must turn to a Harvard commencement speaker from decades past. He used the occasion to deliver a righteous philippic that transcended his immediate audience, and the time in which he gave it.
As you might have guessed, that speaker was Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
-
How about just anti-authoritarian? I read the The UnPopulist, even though it sometimes seems to just be a reflexive anti-Trump site.
For example, their recent criticism of Trump's efforts to get NPR and PBS off the taxpayer tit didn't really object to Trump's stated rationale, but instead imagined the real reasoning was that those outlets "don't parrot MAGA talking points".
But this article from self-described Bleeding Heart Libertarian Matt Zwolenski has some thoughtful points: To Fight Authoritarianism, Libertarians Need to be More Pro-Liberty, Not Just Anti-State.
Recently, the center-left economic blogger
apologized to the libertarian movement. This caught me by surprise. My own estimation of that movement, of which I’ve long considered myself a part, has taken a sharp downward turn over the last few years. Lured by a vague hope of deregulation and the more immediate pleasure of sticking it to the woke left, too many libertarians set aside their commitment to the rule of law and soft-peddled Trump’s threat. Some even threw their weight fully behind him. The Libertarian Party in particular experienced a takeover by a reactionary wing and is now an eager foot solider in MAGA’s culture wars against the left, as The Unpopulist has been chronicling.So this was a strange moment to be issuing an apology to the libertarian movement when even many libertarians are souring on it. But Noah’s piece was of course not issuing an apology to the MAGAfied libertarian movement or the Libertarian Party but the libertarianism that steadfastly stood for relatively free markets, free trade, and limited government even when these ideas weren’t popular anywhere else on the political spectrum. These commitments played a crucial role in keeping a lid on some rather reactionary right-wing tendencies and left-wing excesses. In his words, “Free-market ideology, for all its flaws, was keeping a lid on the right’s natural impulse toward Peronism” in addition to serving as “the proper foil for progressivism.”
As I've said before: we'll just have to settle for the simple pleasure of being right about everything, all the time.
Recently on the movie blog: |