Nov
26
2025

Government Schools Should Try This One Weird Trick!

I tweet-snarked at the NH Democratic Party last night from my sofa:

That link in the Dems' tweet goes to a Garry Rayno report at InDepthNH.org: Public School Advocates Decry State’s Education Freedom Account Program. That site claims to provide "unbiased nonprofit watchdog news", but that's very much a Chico-Marxist joke: "Who you gonna believe? Me or your own eyes?"

No big deal: InDepthNH.org is simply the funhouse-mirror image of NH Journal. But at least NH Journal hasn't, as near as I can tell, claimed to be unbiased. And, no surprise, Raymo's article doesn't bother to find one advocate for the state's EFA program. Those "watchdog" eyes aren't watching everything.

Also of note:

  • Two words, Michelle: "Nikki Haley". Jeff Jacoby rebuts a former First Lady: Wrong, Michelle Obama. Of course America's ready for a woman president.

    I'VE NEVER had any particular interest in women's fashion trends. Like professional sports, heavy-metal bands, and superhero movie franchises, it's a subject that I know millions of people find fascinating but has never really appealed to me. Under normal circumstances, therefore, the release of former first lady Michelle Obama's new book about the "beauty and intrigue of fashion" and the evolution of her clothing style — a coffee table volume titled "The Look" — wouldn't have registered on my radar.

    But something Obama said while publicizing the book caught even my attention.

    Asked during an on-stage interview last week about first ladies being seen as "an archetype of wifedom and femininity," Obama briskly dismissed the notion, saying it has "no current status in how women actually show up in the world today." But a follow‑up question about how much "room" there is for an American woman to become president triggered a heated response:

    "Well, as we saw in the past election, sadly, we ain't ready," Obama said. "That's why I'm, like, don't even look at me about running, because you all are lying. You're not ready for a woman. You are not! So don't waste my time! You know, we've got a lot of growing up to do, and there's still, sadly, a lot of men who do not feel like they can be led by a woman, and we saw it."

    Then, seeming to catch herself, Obama paused, looked at the interviewer, and asked: "What was the question?"

    I think Kamala lost not because she was a woman, but because she was (accurately) perceived as a phony nitwit:

    Nikki Haley would not have had that problem. In an alternate universe.

  • "This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you." That was Mr. Burns in a 1990(!) Simpsons episode. Thirty-five years later: Trump’s habitual 'treason' charges reflect his authoritarian impulses.

    President Donald Trump says six members of Congress are "traitors to our Country" who "should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL" because they produced a video reminding members of the armed forces that they "can refuse illegal orders." Trump's over-the-top reaction epitomizes his longstanding tendency to portray criticism of him as a crime against the state, which reflects his disregard for freedom of speech as well as his narcissism.

    In the video, which was posted online last week, two senators and four representatives, all Democrats with intelligence or military backgrounds, allude to Trump's controversial uses of U.S. forces, including his domestic military deployments and his summary executions of suspected drug smugglers. "Americans trust their military," they say, "but that trust is at risk."

    Trump is not alone! Granite Grok guy Steve MacDonald takes on one of those videoed Dems, New Hampshire's own Maggie Goodlander: Jake Sullivan's Wife Can Be Tried and Sentenced for Sedition.

    "Can"? Well, anything's possible.

    Not to let the Dems off the hook. Their "just stating the law" defense is just way too cute, similar to the conspiracy theorists' hiding behind a "just asking questions" defense.

    David R. Henderson points to analysis from Ted Galen Carpenter which points out the iffy status of their "refuse illegal orders" diktat:

    Slotkin and other critics contend that enlistees in the military take an oath to obey the Constitution, not the commander-in-chief or any other official.  That point is true to some extent, but the concept of “unlawful orders” is not objective or self-defining.  Even the oath of enlistment itself is somewhat murky.  Personnel taking the oath swear both to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies” and to “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me.” Military officers swear the oath of commissioned officers, which contains very similar language.

    The oaths do not directly address the problem of how to deal with a situation when an order from the president or another military official might violate the Constitution. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) requires members of the armed services to obey all lawful orders but also obligates them to disobey any unlawful order.  Those twin requirements would seem to create a conceptual mess for anyone not having a law degree and an extensive background in the specifics of military law.

    The language of the UCMJ and other relevant statutes also seems to leave a person in the military adrift about what exactly to do if he or she concludes that an order is indeed unlawful.  If the individual disobeys an order that authorities later determine to be lawful, that person risks being court martialed.  Conversely, if one abides by an unlawful order, that person might be deemed to have violated the oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

    I'm also in agreement with James Freeman of the WSJ, who finds the Dems "reckless" in starting a "poisonous controversy". And also Jim Geraghty of National Review:

    If you’re going to create a video accusing the president of the United States of making unlawful orders, you probably should have at least one or two solid and recent examples in mind before you do so, but apparently that’s just too much to ask from the likes of Colorado Democratic Representative Jason Crow. But that doesn’t get President Trump off the hook for his unhinged raging that Crow and other Democratic lawmakers ought to be tried and executed for sedition. Still, maybe every incumbent in Washington would prefer to be talking about treason and insurrections than the economy.

    It's really tough to follow the path of Elvis these days.

  • Your tax dollars not at work. Jeff Luse reads an Inspector General's report so you don't have to: Taxpayers still paying for Hurricane Sandy relief mismanagement 13 years later, new report finds.

    In October 2012, Hurricane Sandy made landfall near Atlantic City, New Jersey. The storm would bring severe flooding to the East Coast—particularly New Jersey and New York City—and go down as the fifth-most-expensive tropical cyclone in U.S. history ($88.5 billion in damages), per a 2024 estimate by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. But the costs of the storm are still being realized, and more than 13 years later, taxpayers are still footing the bill for the federal government's mismanagement, according to a recent report from the Transportation Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG).

    In January 2013, Congress approved over $50 billion in aid for Sandy relief. The bill, which included bailouts for wealthy Connecticut residents, appropriated $10.9 billion to the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program, $10 billion of which the FTA gave to states for hurricane recovery and resilience projects.

    Portions of this money have, unsurprisingly, been spent wastefully, and the OIG report identifies more than $95 million in questionable costs. One example of wasteful spending comes from an awardee that, in June 2017, was given an $88.9 million grant for "design and construction for replacing commuter and light rail signal, power, and communication systems." The project was originally supposed to end in May 2018, but was granted an extension to operate through December 2021. Even with this extension, the project was not finished when the OIG conducted its audit. As a result, the recipient had incurred "approximately $52.5 million in project activity costs" since its 2021 deadline. And because the project never received an extension from the FTA, these expenditures are "ineligible." However, the recipient is working to extend its grant period with the agency, which would allow the contractor to be reimbursed for these cost overruns.

    Later in the article, Jeff highlights $773.1 million designated for "replacement of a new passenger and freight rail service bridge". Initially scheduled to be finished last year. Now rescheduled with a "deadline" of July 2030.

  • Apologies to DOGE. We bemoaned its demise yesterday. But they claim, like the guy in the Monty Python movie…

    I'll believe it when they kill off that $773.1 million replacement bridge project.