I didn't watch it, but Jeffrey Blehar did: Joe Biden Farewell Address a Fittingly Deluded End to Biden Era.
Joe Biden just finished addressing the American people from the Oval Office, for the final time in his presidency. And at the end of it all, with this humiliatingly garbled ramble that read like the sort of delusional self-exculpatory fantasy his caretaker wife might whisper consolingly into his ear, Biden concluded his career much as he began it over half a century ago: as a venal, petty-souled fool in denial about his own limitations and failures. (We learned nothing tonight that we didn’t already know. Nothing was revealed.)
In a thick, slack-toned voice, stumbling over his words from beginning to end as he squinted at a teleprompter with vacant eyes, Biden slurred through the single most incoherent speech of his life. He began by taking complete credit for the breaking Israeli hostage deal with Hamas — which was to be expected — and then launched into a sleepy lecture awkwardly framed around the Statue of Liberty and how it was built to sway in the wind, much like America was built to be flexible enough to withstand his presidency. One marble-mouthed cliché after another poured from his half-opened maw, smooth featureless pabulum with all the texture and flavor of Gerber baby food. (Shall America “lead by the example of power or the power of our example?” An imponderable for the ages.)
I would guess the speechwriters have rigorous guidelines for the text they put up on the presidential teleprompter: no big words, no words that can be easily misread or mispronouced, no hetronyms. Maybe someone will write a tell-all at some point in the coming years.
George Will takes a look back and discovers: Biden’s presidency got an early start on its road to ruin. If you can stand reliving that history, click away, it's a WaPo free link. GFW winds up with a relatively recent pothole:
Biden’s revisions of his descriptions of his involvement with his son Hunter’s financial escapades (Biden did not know about them; then he was not involved in them; then he did not benefit from them) culminated in his sweeping pardon for Hunter. This erased Hunter’s criminal convictions and will prevent prosecutions arising from any activities not yet discovered. To the suspicious, this looks like “the big guy” (as Hunter had referred to Biden in one of his undertakings) providing preemptive protection for Hunter and perhaps other members of his family.
A bipartisan chorus of critics said the pardon would damage Biden’s legacy. Damage it? A British historical site once displayed a sign threatening prosecution of anyone who would “damage the ruins.”
Also of note:
-
Deeper than you thought. C. Bradley Thompson writes on The State of the Union. His insights on the "deep state":
By the Deep State, I mean more than what academics refer to as the “Administrative State” or the fourth branch of the federal government. We know, for instance, that the Administrative Deep State works closely with mission-aligned NGOs, the media, high-tech and social-media companies, white collar unions, etc.
So, as we enter 2025, here’s the State of our Union a few days before we inaugurate a new President and a new administration. More precisely, here is the state of the Deep State. (The following list does not cover the full range of the Deep State, nor does it describe the size or personnel that make up each component part of the Deep State. I will leave for another day. Instead, I focus on the effects of the various component parts of the Deep State on the American people.)
First, there is the Regulatory Deep State, which is sapping the energy and creativity out of American entrepreneurship and business.
Second, there is the Welfare Deep State, which has created a nation of dependents and destroyed the family in many communities.
Third, there is the Tax & Spend Deep State, which has left America $36 Trillion in debt, and which will enslave our children and grandchildren to our profligacy.
And, reader, that's just the first three components on a list of twenty. Are you on depression meds? Maybe you don't want to click over.
-
As Mrs. Loopner would say: it's a blessing and a curse. The Truth Fairy, Abigail Shrier, has notes on Trump's 'Cabinet of the Cancelled'.
Venture capitalist Marc Andreessen recently expressed what many felt at the reelection of Donald Trump: not triumph so much as relief. “I hope this last ten years increasingly is just going to feel like a bad dream,” he told podcast host Joe Rogan. “I can’t believe we tolerated the level of repression . . . and anger and . . . emotional incontinence and . . . cancellation campaigns.” Much of it was orchestrated or encouraged by our government.
One could say many things about Trump’s cabinet picks. At times, they seem to embody Government by Middle Finger. But they also, undeniably, represent Government by the Canceled: an assemblage that doesn’t need to be reminded of the administrative state’s ability to coerce the American public by calling in favors from Big Tech or pulling the levers of regulation, audit, or investigation. Many have experienced such treatment firsthand.
Of course that doesn't mean Trump isn't raising his middle finger to…
Trump just gave a massive middle finger to the establishment wing of the GOP.
— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) January 16, 2025
He is not hiring anyone who worked for:
-Charles Koch
-John Bolton
-Nikki Haley
-Mike Pence
-Dick/Liz Cheney
-Mitt Romney
-Paul Ryan
-Mark Milley
-James Mattis
-Mark Yesper
This is a new party. pic.twitter.com/4aLtN4EiYRJust a reminder of how classy our once-and-future prez is.
-
An ongoing question. Vinay Prasad is a (relatively) famous doctor, a non-quack, and deserves a listen when he answers: What is the truth about alcohol consumption[?]
Right now, you are someone who drinks 0, 1, 2, 3 or more drinks a day. These drinks might be tequila neat, Mad dog 20-20, an Oakville, Napa cabernet, or Bud Lite. Probably, you are not consistent. You might drink 1, 2 or 4 nights a week. You might drink before meals, or after dinner. You might drink a hazy IPA after a long run, a Corona after mowing your lawn, or sip a gin and tonic on a hot summer day.
Some of you are wondering if your habits are healthy— or should you drink fewer or perhaps more drinks? And what if you are starting from scratch: say you are a 16 year old who hasn’t yet had a drink, but thinking about it. Should you start?
His essay is long, scientific, wise, and also funny in spots. Some of his recommendations are expensive, especially #19, but all are worth reading.
-
What they really mean by 'equity'. Noah Rothman looks at the underlying ideology: ‘Equity’ in Misery.
Occasionally, proponents of the concept of “equity” forget that they are supposed to emphasize the benefits of the discrimination they advocate on behalf of America’s allegedly marginalized minorities. Instead of highlighting their fraught but well-intentioned program of positive discrimination, they sometimes let the mask slip and indulge the bitter avarice that drives their ideological crusade. The San Francisco Chronicle did just that in a recent story on the private, for-profit firefighting teams who helped save some Los Angeles properties from going up in flames — “raising questions about equity” in the process.
“Critics contend that when wealthy individuals hire their own firefighters, they compete with public teams for precious resources such as water, and could potentially interfere with those teams’ efforts by, for example, blocking or crowding narrow access points,” the Chronicle reports. That is a reasonable objection, although there have been few reports of such conflicts since the fires erupted last week. Rather, what has been reported is that residents suffered unduly from a shortage of LAFD personnel, which private firefighters would help mitigate.
It’s all a red herring anyway; a smoke screen that distracts from equity advocates’ true objection to this phenomenon, which is their revulsion toward suffering that is not visited equally — perhaps even disproportionately — on those who they believe deserve to suffer.
From his conclusion: "The desire to see an out-group suffer is about as atavistic as reptilian instincts get." An NR gifted link, go for it.
-
Pun Salad Fact Check: Josh Barro speak truth. And he says: Meta Is Right to Fire the Fact-Checkers.
Facebook is standing down in its efforts to use fact-checking to suppress “misinformation,” dropping its partnerships with third-party fact-checking organizations and turning to a user-driven “community notes” model similar to the one on X. This was inevitable — a top-down infrastructure to stop false ideas from spreading proved ineffective on several dimensions. Content moderation is a human project, and the fact-checkers (on whom the content moderators have relied to decide what’s true) invariably bring their preferences and biases to the fact-check process, and those biases have overwhelmingly gone leftward. Instead of helping a lot of people see the light (or whatever), this has led much of the population to view moderation efforts with appropriate hostility. Of course, it didn’t help that Facebook was also suppressing a wide variety of ideological views and unpleasant opinions, a practice it will also wind down.
As Reed Albergotti writes for Semafor, Facebook’s approach to moderation was a “failed experiment,” and now it’s over.
Of course, the anti-misinformation advocates are losing their shit; Casey Newton writes Meta “has all but declared open season on immigrants, transgender people and whatever other targets that Trump and his allies find useful in their fascist project.” Often, advocates of strong-handed moderation don't seem to know what hit them; ironically, that bewilderment arises from their own entrapment in a filter bubble. They see that they face political opposition. But when you operate in a bubble where all information is filtered by someone who thinks like you do, you’re unlikely to understand exactly why your opponents oppose you. In this instance, anti-misinformation advocates are steeped in years of news coverage and discussion of the issue that takes “misinformation experts” seriously as the exponents of a scientific and objectively correct method for controlling information — and treats opponents of the old moderation regime as people who are misinformed about misinformation and how it should be handled.
That got me thinking: I bet Nina Jankowicz has something to say about this.
And she does. And it is utterly predictable: also losing her shit.