Go Ask Alice

Mr. Ramirez (again, literally) draws inspiration from a nineteenth-century source. Shown in happier moments:

I usually try to find something related to link to here… hm… well, if we got a big egg, there must have been a really big chicken, right?

And in that topic, Craig Richardson wonders: Why Can't Food Stamps be Used for a Rotisserie Chicken?.

Low-income families and individuals can qualify for the Electronic Benefits Card (EBT), which is issued by the federal government and comes from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Federal Food Stamp Program. The EBT card looks and functions like a bank debit card, and monthly benefits for individuals average around $200. About 12.6% or about 1 in 8 Americans get benefits from an EBT card, according to USDA estimates. That’s about 42 million people.

[Amazon Link]
(paid link)

Upon receiving their EBT card, SNAP recipients are eligible to buy any fresh or frozen food in grocery stores, but also are free to purchase candy, ice cream, soft drinks, donuts, chips, and even birthday cakes. If it’s a consumable food or drink item and non-alcoholic, it’s fine to put it in the grocery cart. Amazon even has EBT-eligible gift baskets overflowing with luscious chocolates, fine nuts, and toffees.

[Amazon link at your right]

Yet these same families can’t use their EBT card to purchase a freshly roasted rotisserie chicken, hot soups, steamed vegetables, warm pasta, or other prepared foods that are available for convenient takeaway at grocery stores. All these items are banned since the early 1970s.

Well, that's Uncle Stupid for you. Craig points out that the number one commodity purchased via SNAP was soft drinks. ("Fluid milk products" comes in a poor second.)

Soft drinks? Yes. For more on that, I refer you to Kevin D. Williamson's classic, albeit controversial, 2013 NR article, The White Ghetto.

Gee, this got kind of meandering. But I hope informative and entertaining. And now…

On to other topics:

  • Will economic growth save Social Security? That's the question politicians are desperately wondering about. Because otherwise they will have to make unpopular, painful decisions. But Romina Boccia and Dominik Lett throw some cold water on the idea: Economic Growth Won't Save Social Security.

    Hoping that economic growth will solve Social Security’s financial woes, as some politicians have suggested, is a pipe dream. Because Social Security benefits are indexed to wages, higher economic growth brings both higher revenues and higher benefits, leaving the long-term fiscal problem unresolved. In the best case, faster economic growth would only push back the trust fund insolvency date by a few years at most.

    Take the 1990s, for example. During this decade, the US experienced a boom in productivity and capital investment thanks to technological innovations, favorable demographics, reduced global tensions, and globalization. However, these circumstances barely improved Social Security’s budgetary future, leaving insolvency looming on the horizon. Per the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, even if the US returned to the levels of capital growth, productivity growth, and labor force participation seen in the 1990s, it would fail to fix budget shortfalls driven by growing benefit costs and worsening demographics. In short, growth buys time but not solvency.

    The authors link to their Cato Policy Brief: Congress Can’t Outgrow or Inflate Away the Social Security Financing Problem.

  • As Douglas Adams said… "Don't Panic!" (Although it's an understandable reaction if you get your news from the Contrarian, or the like.) Instead, like Jonah Goldberg, take some Comfort in History.

    America has slipped the bounds of constitutionality many times in the past. Andrew Jackson may or may not have actually said “The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.” But that basically captures his attitude. The Republic survived. Woodrow Wilson was an affront to the Constitution on numerous fronts. The Supreme Court pushed back against Wilson on some fronts while he was in office and on others after he left office. But it also let many of his transgressions stand. The Republic survived.

    Then there’s FDR. I’m one of those cranks who thinks FDR—a Wilson administration retread—ruled like an anti-constitutional autocrat. It didn’t seem like it to many at the time—though he did not lack for critics who shared my opinion—because he had so much political capital. He won in back-to-back landslides that delivered massive majorities in Congress. When Congress is a rubber stamp, voters are desperate, and the press is fawning, it’s really easy to act like an autocrat. 

    In other words, when autocracy is popular no one wants to hear that autocracy is bad. Because people have a really annoying tendency to think anything they like must also be good and constitutional.

    I won’t go down a lengthy rabbit hole on this, but I do keep thinking of something FDR’s commerce secretary, Harry Hopkins, told New Deal activists in New York. “I want to assure you,” he said, “that we are not afraid of exploring anything within the law, and we have a lawyer who will declare anything you want to do legal.” That pretty closely tracks the Trump administration’s approach these days.

    Have I said lately that we wouldn't be in this pickle if Nikki Haley were president? No? Well, there you go.

  • Always trust content from Veronique de Rugy. In her syndicated column, she outlines The Upside, Risks and Limits of DOGE. Her bottom line: DOGE is fine, but:

    No amount of discretionary cuts or anti-waste initiatives, no matter how worthy they are, will solve our long-term debt crisis. Ultimately, lasting reform must be legislated. President Donald Trump and Musk deserve credit for highlighting the debt crisis and taking action, but pretending that the job ends with them would be dangerous.

    Just think of us as Ralphie on the bus, with Donald Trump at the wheel, pestered by…

  • She was DOGE before it was DOGE. Marina Nitze is not as famous as Elon Musk. But attention must be paid when she confesses: I tried to fix government tech for years. I'm fed up.

    When I helped create the United States Digital Service (USDS), it was not on my bingo board that it would become the U.S. DOGE Service a mere decade later. As a lifelong libertarian, the years I spent trying to make government more efficient at the Department of Veterans Affairs (V.A.) and USDS required a lot of patience. Now I'm fresh out.

    We have been making tiny, barely perceptible "improvements," paid for with years of compromise and hand-holding in endless pointless meetings, and then celebrating this as success. I can't get Alana Newhouse's description out of my head: "Half the time our institutions feel like molasses, and the other half like concrete." I'm fed up with a government that can't implement its way out of a paper bag.

    Apparently most of America is fed up, too.

    I care deeply about trans people, immigrants, and others who are targets of so much hate right now. I do not support the harmful actions being taken against them. At the same time, I could not possibly care less that someone plugged in a server to create a new email list without a Privacy Impact Assessment. If no one ever adheres to FIPS 140-2 again—great, it's about time we took that "kick me" sign written in Mandarin off our back. Much of the current system hurts everyone and needs to go.

    It's a rare inside look at how frustrating things inside Uncle Stupid's bureaucracy can be.

  • And then there's the party who thinks it can spend your money more wisely than you can. NHJournal says what our local legislators are up to: NHDems Propose Property Tax Hike, Return of I&D Income Tax.

    Rep. Tom Schamberg (D-Wilmot) told the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee he would need 15 minutes to present HB502 to the committee — an unusually long period of time for a body that must consider hundreds of bills.

    But when Schamberg got behind the mic, he barely mentioned his legislation, instead launching into what acting Chairman Rep. Jordon Ulery (R-Hudson) called a “diatribe” against Gov. Kelly Ayotte and her fellow Republicans in the legislature. He denounced what he called “tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy” and claimed GOP tax cuts had “downshifted” costs onto local property taxpayers.

    As Schamberg read his political speech to the committee, the chairman interrupted several times asking him to discuss the specifics of his bill. “What does the bill do? How does it do it? And why should the bill pass?” he asked.

    Schamberg refused to answer but continued to read his speech attacking GOP tax policy. When he was done, the Wilmot Democrat refused to take any questions from the committee.

    Why?

    I'm sure it's something deeply psychological.

Education: Action Due

(Pun Salad was doing anagrams from Day One, so every once in a while…)

In words, Christopher F. Rufo describes: How Trump Can Dismantle the Department of Education: (1) "spin off" student loans to an independent financial entity; (2) simple block grants to the states for K-12 schooling; and …

Third, Trump must shut down the Department of Education’s centers of ideological production and terminate the employment of the bureaucrats who run them. The department maintains a sprawling network of ideological centers through its research programs, as well as a vast array of NGOs, which survive on department funding and promote left-wing identity activism. These groups have become hotbeds of progressive identity politics, promoting theories of “systemic racism” and the idea that men can turn into women. Such activities do not serve the public good and do not deserve public subsidy, especially under a conservative president who promised to put an end to critical race theory and gender ideology in the federal government.

Likewise, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, while ostensibly serving a noble purpose, has been used as a battering ram to promote left-wing ideologies. The office’s core civil rights functions can easily be folded into the Department of Justice, where the administration can provide needed oversight without the Department of Education’s left-wing ideologues and civil rights apparatchiks.

I don't know where the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), to which Mr. Ramirez's cartoon refers, fits into CFR's scheme. NAEP seems to do non-ideological, useful, solid reporting. I'd keep it, somewhere. Although calling it "Progress" seems to have been overly optimistic. Their latest report is available here.

Also of note:

  • I'll call it a win. The College Fix reports some good news: Dartmouth becomes latest Ivy League institution to adopt ‘institutional restraint’ policy.

    Dartmouth College recently rolled out an “Institutional Restraint Policy,” becoming the latest Ivy League institution to install a guideline that calls on campus leaders to avoid weighing in on the hot-button political and social topics of the day.

    In Dartmouth’s case, its new policy replaced its previous “Institutional Statements vs Individual Statements Policy” that had been active since 2022.

    Of the eight Ivy Leagues, Harvard, Yale, Cornell, University of Pennsylvania, and now Dartmouth have now implemented policies “committing to the principles of institutional neutrality,” according to Heterodox Academy.

    That's progress. What about the University Near Here? I mentioned last month that among a lot of stupid recommendations, UNH's "Working Group" tasked with making recommendations in response to the imbroglio concerning the pro-Hamas "encampment" last May, there was one excellent one: "The University should formally adopt institutional neutrality."

    UNH's new president, Elizabeth Chilton, rejected many of the stupid recommendations, good for her. See the articles in UNH's student newspaper and the local newspaper for details.

    But I don't see any reporting on the institutional neutrality recommendation. If you'd like more information on why that's a good idea, see FIRE recommendation #4 here.

  • How many ways can I say "Hell, yeah!" Jeffrey Miron AND Jonah Karafiol ask Should the US Government Privatize the Post Office? It's a short piece, but here's the meat:

    An even better response is to privatize USPS. This would eliminate its uniform price and service mandate and allow it to close unprofitable locations. Privatizing would also eliminate restrictions on private carriers’ activity, enhancing their efficiency.

    A key aspect of this privatization is that it must be complete, or nearly so. Since Britain sold a majority stake in its national postal service, the share price has fallen about 25 percent. But Royal Mail failed to eliminate the barriers that made it unprofitable, such as uniform pricing. Mail services such as FedEx and UPS show that private mail couriers can function effectively.

    Ultimately, the case for privatization is one of efficiency, competition, and fiscal responsibility. By privatizing USPS, the U.S. could foster a competitive, market-driven postal industry that better serves consumers and taxpayers alike.

    Geez, if Britain can privatize the Royal Mail, are you seriously claiming that the Land of the Free can't do the same?

One Less Thing To Bitch at Amazon About

[Amazon Link]
(paid link)

Back nearly four years ago I noticed that Amazon had removed Ryan Anderson's book When Harry Became Sally from its e-shelves. (Well, to be more accurate: someone else noticed, and I blogged about it.)

Since then, I used Amazon as a punching bag over this issue: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Whew. I guess it really bugged me.

Well, reader, as you'll notice from the (paid link) over there on your right, it's once again available for purchase at Amazon. At least as I type. (And once again: someone else noticed this, I'm just pointing it out.) I don't know if they've explained this 180° turn anywhere.

But in any case, good on them. Wish they hadn't done it in the first place, though.

Also of note:

  • It's too late, baby, now it's too late. George Will channels his inner Carole King. And also provides some history: It’s too late for progressives to be careful what they wish for.

    Progressives have the presidency they have long desired, but a president they abhor. James Madison warned them: “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm” (Federalist No. 10).

    Theodore Roosevelt’s “stewardship” theory of the presidency was that presidents may do anything they are not explicitly forbidden to do. Woodrow Wilson considered the separation of powers a dangerous anachronism impeding enlightened presidents (e.g., him). He postulated a presidential duty of “interpretation”: discovering what the masses would want if they were sensible, like him. Wilson’s former assistant secretary of the Navy, Franklin D. Roosevelt, used radio to enable the presidency to mold opinion. Lyndon B. Johnson, who became an FDR-loyalist in Congress in 1937, commanded a large and obedient congressional majority (1965-1966) as no subsequent president has.

    Donald Trump’s rampant (for the moment) presidency is an institutional consequence of progressivism. Progressives, who spent recent years trying to delegitimize the Supreme Court and other federal courts, suddenly understand that courts stand between Trump and the fulfillment of his least lawful whims. Including his disobeying Congress’s unfortunate, but detailed and lawful, ban of TikTok.

    GFW also notes the futility of cutting the deficit down to size when you've said (a) entitlements are sacrosanct; and (b) you want to increase the defense budget; and (c) you want to enact a bunch of new tax goodies.

    But we'll see what happens.

  • Hey kids, what time is it? Brent Leatherwood, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, checks the clock on the clubhouse door and decides Now is the Time to Defund Planned Parenthood.

    Planned Parenthood Federation of America is responsible for ending nearly 400,000 preborn lives every year. It is the largest abortion provider in America — yet it receives $700 million of your taxpayer dollars annually.

    President Trump and the new, Republican-controlled Congress have the opportunity to finally remove our taxpayer dollars from this pro-abortion organization. It’s what the American people want. In a Marist Poll conducted last month, 57 percent of Americans opposed the use of tax dollars to pay for abortion.

    The argument was, and continues to be, that the government funding doesn't go directly to pay for abortions, but for nice things like "prenatal care and cancer screenings". How about we pay someone else for that?

  • Fingers crossed at Pun Salad Manor. Emma Camp wonders: Will Trump try to shut down the Department of Education?

    The Trump administration has begun drawing up an executive order that would aim to radically diminish the Education Department, with the goal of eventually scrapping it entirely, CNN reported last week. According to CNN, the anticipated plan would include an order directing the secretary of education to develop a plan to shrink the department through future executive orders, as well as a drive from Trump for Congress to formally nix the department.

    While it does not look like Trump will attempt to dissolve the Education Department through executive action, he clearly intends to do the next best thing. "I told Linda, 'Linda, I hope you do a great job in putting yourself out of a job,'" Trump said of education secretary nominee Linda McMahon last week. "I want her to put herself out of a job."

    The move comes as part of a broader project to shrink the federal government through executive orders—a plan that's been having mixed results, especially considering that many government functions and departments can only be abolished by Congress. So far, Trump is facing dozens of lawsuits attempting to halt his multitude of recent executive orders.

    Perhaps it could be folded into a new department: "Department of Things For Which There Is No Constitutional Provision". Set it up in one of the vertices of the Pentagon, perhaps a repurposed broom closet.

  • We're gonna backlash so much, you may even get tired of backlashing. Kat Rosenfield essays on DOGE and the Backlash to the Backlash.

    Late last week, Elon Musk announced that the initiative he’s heading up, the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, would rehire Marko Elez, the 25-year-old staffer who resigned after a Wall Street Journal story unearthed several offensive X posts that he made under a pseudonym in 2024. “You could not pay me to marry outside of my ethnicity,” he had posted. Also, “Normalize Indian hate” and “Just for the record, I was racist before it was cool.”

    Elez’s reinstatement was nominally a democratic process, conducted via—what else—a poll on X, where 78 percent of respondents agreed that the software developer should get his job back.

    Given the ages (young) and online status (extremely) of the DOGE youths, there’s likely to be more where this came from. Already, the media are abuzz with the news that one of them was formerly a prolific poster under the name “Big Balls.” I, for one, am hoping any further revelations are in the “juvenile scrotal jokes” camp rather than the “weird racist meming” one. Since just because we’re past Peak Woke doesn’t mean we need to throw the doors of the government open to the kind of guy who throws around ethnic slurs for fun.

    But is it possible to respond to the checkered online histories of the DOGE dudes without whipping ourselves into the kind of hysteria that dominated such conversations during the first Trump administration?

    We’re about to find out.

    As noted above, I'm tired of all the backlashing.


Last Modified 2025-02-13 6:41 AM EST

A Guy Can Dream

And So Can an Editorial Cartoonist

Another bit of wishful thinking, this one from the NR editors: Republicans Should Keep Taxes Simple.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was the crowning legislative achievement of President Trump’s first term, but the tax-policy priorities he has laid out for his second term risk undermining one of its greatest features.

In addition to bringing down corporate and individual tax rates, the 2017 reform dramatically streamlined the tax code. Rather than working through complicated returns, roughly 90 percent of Americans now simply choose to take the standard deduction. That’s in large part because it was doubled under the law Trump signed, while many special carve-outs were capped or eliminated.

One example was that the law capped the pernicious state and local tax deduction at $10,000. Prior to the changes, wealthy individuals choosing to live in high-tax states were able to deduct an unlimited amount from their taxes. Reducing various breaks was also essential to limiting the deficit effects of such large tax cuts. Capping the SALT deduction, for instance, helped offset the effects of updating the Alternative Minimum Tax so it hit far fewer households.

The state and local tax deduction is, indeed, pernicious. But there's a serious push to increase or eliminate the cap. I'm sure I've said this before, but I agree with the editors: "Increasing allowances for SALT deductions for a relatively small number of mostly wealthy taxpayers in high-tax states would be appalling."

And, finally, a truth bomb from Kyle Smith, dealing with the spending side:

I'd have a lot more respect for Trump if he cut back on his obvious blather about "bad deals with everybody".

Also of note:

  • Hey, our state made it to a Reason headline! But unfortunately not in a good way. Lenore Skenazy rips the LFOD state a new one: New Hampshire's bad parenting bill is a nightmare.

    The New Hampshire legislature is considering a parenting bill that would make it easier for the government to investigate parents for child abuse or neglect. It accomplishes this by removing the word "safety" from the legal definition of child abuse and replacing it with "physical, emotional or psychological welfare."

    That could be almost anything, of course.

    "I happen to be a tax-and-spend liberal," Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, tells Reason. "But this bill provides not one iota of additional help. It simply turns the [Division for Children, Youth and Families] into the 'well-being' police."

    I would guess the impetus for the "nightmare" bill is a "do something" response to the murder of 5-year-old Harmony Montgomery by her father. Heartbreaking, but also endlessly hyped by our local news outlets in their quest for eyeballs.

  • You say that like it's bad news. The NHJournal headline worries NHIAA Could Lose Federal Funds for Allowing Males in Female Sports. (NHIAA == "New Hampshire Interscholastic Athletic Association".)

    Federal funding for school sports in New Hampshire will be shut off if the state’s interscholastic athletic association continues to allow biological males to compete against girls on the playing field, the federal Department of Education (DOE) confirmed in a statement to NHJournal on Monday.

    That follows the DOE’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) decision to investigate alleged Title IX violations committed by the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association (MIAA).

    OCR specifically singled out MIAA policy that states “students shall not be excluded from participation on a gender-specific sports team that is consistent with the student’s bona fide gender identity.”

    In the Granite State, the New Hampshire Interscholastic Athletic Association (NHIAA) is the governing body for sports competitions among all public high schools. While the organization declined to respond to repeated requests for comment, the NHIAA policy posted on its website includes similar language to the MIAA.

    My question is: Why is Uncle Stupid shelling out any money whatsoever for local school sports, whether it's New Hampshire, Massachusetts, or any other state?

    Well, I have a couple more questions: how much does NHIAA get from the federal government anyway? What percentage of their budget?

    And an observation, I'm sure I've made before: Why is it that race-segregated sports teams are racist and putatively illegal, while sex-segregated sports teams are mandated by law?

  • We can hope. Jim Geraghty sees encouraging signs that Trump won’t abandon Ukraine.

    If you were an American who wanted to ensure that the war in Ukraine ended on terms favorable to Ukraine, you would want the negotiations handled by someone who not only understands the Ukrainians’ position but also feels a deep personal attachment to the consequences of the Russian invasion.

    Someone like a retired Army general whose daughter has been running relief operations in Ukraine since the start of the war.

    Considering the stakes of the war in Ukraine, it’s surprising how little attention President Donald Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, has received outside of some foreign-policy wonk circles. The talks that will shape the future of Ukraine have already begun; Trump said in his news conference last week alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: “We are having very good talks, very constructive talks, on Ukraine. And we are talking to the Russians, we’re talking to the Ukrainian leadership.”

    In the past week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said his team spoke with Kellogg and Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Waltz, and that they were working to arrange a visit by a U.S. delegation. (Trump’s campaign trail promise to end the war within 24 hours of taking office is a distant memory.)

    I'm glad to see any reasons for optimism.

  • Apparently not a movie, as cool as that might be. Kevin D. Williamson calls Trump's trade policies Zombie Dick Gephardt.

    “We will not allow our workers and industries to be displaced by unfair import competition.” If that sounds like Donald Trump, that is because the Republican president and standard-bearer in 2025 is, in essence, a Democrat stuck in the 1980s—and indeed, the line comes from the Democrats’ 1980 platform. The Democrat Trump sounds like is Dick Gephardt, once a very considerable figure in American politics who ran for president twice before retiring to become a bigfoot lobbyist and consultant. He ended up working for DLA Piper and Goldman Sachs—who doesn’t?—but in the 1980s and 1990s, he was the face of center-left trade Luddism, the union goons’ answer to Ross Perot. When the upstart nat-pop right demanded that the GOP abandon “zombie Reaganism,” who knew that what they had in mind was zombie Gephardtism?

    Gephardt had more in common with Trump than just being a child of the 1940s: He very badly wanted to be president, and he was (I don’t write “is”; he may have become a better sort of man in his old age) a complete phony. He privately acknowledged that the U.S. trade deficits were only in a very small part driven by trade policies in our country or others. As one economist told the Washington Post at the time: “What aggravates me about Gephardt is that Dick knows better. He could give you the best anti-protectionist speech of anyone on the Hill. But he wants to be president. The Japan-bashing in his amendment is what appeals to labor, and Dick needs labor support for the Democratic nomination.”

    Hawkish rhetoric about so-called trade deficits (the term itself is misleading) also gave Reagan-era Democrats a tough-sounding talking point to deploy against Republicans who, then as now, liked to talk a mean fight about budget deficits (which, unlike “trade deficits,” are a thing) while generally making them worse by reducing taxes and doing approximately squat about spending. The “trade deficit” is a much more useful political issue than the actual deficit, because reducing the actual budget deficit means that somebody’s pocket gets lighter—either through higher taxes or lower federal spending or both—while bitching about the inscrutable Oriental with his “iron rice bowl” gives Americans a foreign enemy to blame for any economic disappointment at home while offering General Motors executives an excuse for making spectacularly crappy cars. (If you remember GM cars in the ’80s, oh, goodness: the Chevy Citation, the Buick Skylark, the aptly named Oldsmobile Omega, the ironically named Pontiac Phoenix—incompetent designs incompetently welded together by union guys drunk on the job half the time. Not a golden age for the American automobile.) You sure as hell would rather talk to the median voter about that than about why he needs higher taxes or a smaller Social Security check.

    Talk about a blast from the past. In the nearly 20 years this blog has been in operation, Gephardt hasn't been mentioned once, until now.

    As always, I strongly recommend you subscribe to the Dispatch, if only for KDW's appearances.

Catholic Dark Humor

[Amazon Link]
(paid link)

Our Amazon Product/Eye Candy du Jour was brought to my attention by GeekPress, who seemed unsure whether the marketing was "brilliant or clueless"?

Reader, don't strain your eyes. The product is "St. Joan of Arc French Roast Catholic Coffee".

It's been nearly 600 years, and I'm thinking to myself: too soon? Or perhaps more appropriately: Trop tôt?

In other brilliant/clueless news, the AP reports on the latest savage cuts: Trump says he has directed US Treasury to stop minting new pennies, citing rising cost.

President Donald Trump says he has directed the Treasury Department to stop minting new pennies, citing the rising cost of producing the one-cent coin.

“For far too long the United States has minted pennies which literally cost us more than 2 cents. This is so wasteful!” Trump wrote in a post Sunday night on his Truth Social site. “I have instructed my Secretary of the US Treasury to stop producing new pennies.”

The AP story says it's iffy as to whether Trump's order is actually within his Constitutional power. "Currency specifications -- including the size and metal content of coins -- are dictated by Congress."

Sure. But here's the law, and note the wording: "The Secretary of the Treasury may mint and issue only the following coins:" (Emphasis mine.) Trump isn't (as near as I can tell) eliminating pennies; he's just saying the Mint should stop making them. I think the decision on how much currency of various types to mint or print is a decision made on the Treasury side. Which Trump runs.

I ranted on this topic a few days ago. Executive summary: the money saved by stopping penny production is trivial. Overall, the Mint turns a tidy profit on coin production, thanks to seigniorage. And the apparent demand for pennies exists; they aren't piling up at the Mint, after all.

We are forced by law to use government currency, and only government currency. It seems to me that they should provide that currency in the amounts and denominations we demand.

Also of note:

  • Your tax dollars (not) at work. Christian Britschgi notes a small problem with USAID: USAID-Funded Pandemic Research Failed To Spot COVID or Ensure Chinese Transparency.

    President Donald Trump's effort to unilaterally wind down the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has sparked a heated debate about the agency's role in pandemic response.

    USAID's defenders cite its important role in researching viruses and responding to disease outbreaks. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) head Elon Musk, on the other hand, accused it of "[funding] bioweapon research, including COVID-19, that killed millions of people."

    Christian carefully sorts through the history and credible evidence, which includes China's refusal to cooperate with investigations about what went on at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. His bottom line:

    Musk can't say definitively that the U.S. was funding bioweapons research there. People should be circumspect about totally dismissing that possibility as well.

  • Speaking of dismissing inconvenient possibilities… NHJournal reports on our state's see-no-evil senior senator: Shaheen Emerges As Top Defender of Troubled Foreign Aid Spending.

    The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has been fighting off allegations of wasteful spending funding a ‘woke’ agenda for years, a record so problematic Congress created an entire website to combat it.

    But despite spending tax dollars on DEI theater and LGBT comic books — not to mention its attempt to hide its funding of bat studies involving coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology — USAID still has solid support from New Hampshire Democrats, most notably senior U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen.

    Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called the Trump administration’s decision to shut down USAID “an ill-advised and costly move that will only cause further chaos and leave Americans and American interests exposed.”

    Jeanne's current term runs out next year, and she hasn't said she's running. I kind of hope she does, because I'd like to vote against her one last time.

  • A myth is as good as a mile, part II. The Josiah Bartlett Center continues the debate on compelled union membership: Right-to-work facts vs. myths. It's a detailed refutation of anti-RTW assertions. Bottom line:

    Right-to-work laws have been studied for decades. Research shows mixed results on some points, clear results on others. What’s become evident over the decades is that right-to-work laws are associated with statistically significant gains in employment, particularly manufacturing employment, job opportunities, population growth and economic growth. If New Hampshire adopts a right-to-work law, we would expect to see improvements in all of those areas, along with an improvement in state business tax revenues resulting from the additional business activity.

    As for freedom vs. coercion, workers have First Amendment rights not to associate with or fund membership organizations that they choose not to join. If workers want to join unions, they should be free to do so. Preferably, they would have the option of joining more than one union (something that current federal law makes difficult). Right-to-work laws create freedom, not freeloaders. And for that reason, they are extremely popular, which is why they have been adopted in a majority of U.S. states. New Hampshire’s economy, and its workers, would benefit if the Granite State becomes the 27th state to protect workers’ First Amendment rights by adopting a right-to-work law.

    I deftly avoided joining a union during my work years.

  • Pass the (movie theater) popcorn. Jeffrey Blehar is rapidly becoming one of my favorite writers, and here's one of the reasons for that: The Greatest Hollywood Awards-Season Story Ever Told

    Emilia Pérez was nominated for 13 Oscars this season, falling one short of the all-time record set for a single film. (It would take too much space to list all the major categories; it was pretty much nominated for “Best Everything.”) This was heralded as a surprise by the Hollywood media when the nominations were announced on January 23, but since I am a conservative and not stupid, I recognize that it was in fact comically predictable given the political climate in Hollywood post-November.

    I’m sure I don’t need to explain why to you either, beyond the barest description of the movie: A Spanish-language, French-produced film about a Mexican drug lord who fakes his death to live his life quietly as a woman? And it’s a musical? With both Zoe Saldana and Selena Gomez? Shut up and take my money. (I’m sure you all rushed out to see it when it first hit theaters, right after you took me up on my recommendation of Lars von Trier’s Antichrist as an antidote to last year’s campaign season.) Perez’s success in garnering nominations from outraged, mulish Hollywood elites after Trump’s victory was foreordained, and I almost have to tip my cap: It’s downright athletic how Emilia Pérez presses nearly every single woke button imaginable, almost suspiciously so, as if created in a lab to play to critically fashionable political ephemera.

    One of my NR gifted links for February! Click away!

All the Damage Will Be Collateral Damage

George F. Will tries to find a pony in all the… well, you know that joke: On the bright side, maybe Democrats and Republicans will be chastened. That's a gifted link, so click away. Skipping down to the tariff stuff:

When asked to name a social science proposition that is important and true but not obvious, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Samuelson cited Ricardo’s doctrine of comparative advantage, which is the division of labor applied to nations: If Nation A is better than Nation B at making both cloth and wine, but relatively better at making cloth than wine, then it should concentrate on cloth.

Promises made, promises kept: Trump promised to raise taxes — by promising tariffs, which are paid by U.S. consumers. If prolonged, they are going to make Americans (a) less affluent than they should be and (b) disciples of Ricardo. For a taste of the coming madness, read the Cato Institute’s Jan. 29 report by Scott Lincicome and Alfredo Carrillo Obregon on how tariffs on Canada and Mexico will harm the U.S. auto industry and car buyers:

Many vehicles sold here are assembled in Mexico with U.S. and Canadian parts, so much, sometimes most, “of the vehicles’ value comes from work performed by American workers and companies during production.” And: “About half of automobiles and light trucks exported by Mexico to the United States in 2024 were made by Detroit automakers.” And: “An engine, transmission, or other automotive component might cross the U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico borders as much as seven or eight times before it ends up in a finished vehicle.” Why? Comparative advantages.

Samuelson was wrong about some big things (like the economic performance of the USSR), but he was right about Ricardo.

Also of note:

  • Oh, right. It's Game Day. Dave Barry answers Frequently Asked Questions About The Super Bowl. And the insights of Dave's two-year-old daughter, Sophie, about a televised football game:

    Sophie watched it for only a few minutes, but in that brief time she was able to grasp the essence of the sport of football, as follows:

    — When the players went to the line of scrimmage, she said: "Ready!"

    — When they ran a play, she said: "Fall down!"

    — When a player got injured, she said: "Boo-boo."

    That's really it. Football has three components: Ready, Fall Down and Boo-boo. In between these components there are team meetings, called "huddles," and timeouts that can last as long as dental school, and — if it's a really important game — Taylor Swift. But these are just fillers; without them the game would be over in ten minutes and there would be no mechanism for showing billions of dollars worth of TV commercials.

    I'd add, for when the zebras throw a flag: "UH-Oh". But, like Samuelson, Sophie had the big things right.

  • Four words often preceding a bad decision: "Let's make this interesting." George F. Will (yes, again, so sue me) on gambling: Here comes the betting and fretting. Many sage observations, including:

    In the 1630s, Massachusetts Puritans, who disliked the innate human desire to play, passed a law against gambling. Fourteen decades later, George Washington deplored his soldiers’ rampant gambling at Valley Forge. He liked, however, the lottery that helped finance construction in the city that bears his name. Lotteries also helped fund the Jamestown settlement, the Continental Army, Dartmouth, Harvard and Princeton.

    The pursuit of wealth without work is naughty but not new. And most sports betting probably is done as much in pursuit of amusement as of money.

    I did some betting at DraftKings back in 2021. Came out ahead, and walked away.

  • I'd bet against this, though. John McWhorter urges us to keep the baby while tossing the bathwater: DEI Must Change.

    In combating DEI, Donald Trump is doing the right thing. In that sentence I just wrote, I almost choked writing the six final words. But it is what I believe. A stopped clock is right twice a day, and it is high time America engaged in an honest conversation about this business called Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.

    However, the actual substance of Trump’s Executive Order “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing” reveals—big surprise—a smash of the knout, a coarse, unreflective bleat in the guise of statecraft. Getting DEI right while retaining the moral sophistication our nation is capable of will require actions much more specific—intelligent, even.

    John admits that DEI has strayed down the wrong anti-white, anti-male path. He thinks (however) that is a recently-developed flaw, and the "baby in the bathwater" is Affirmative Action, as imagined by LBJ back in the 1960s.

    I'm not so sure. Ideally, we can all get behind the concept he champions: "People should be given a fair shake regardless of sex or color." But for decades, that goal has been sullied with quotas and unfair social engineering.

    But see what you think. John's pretty smart, and I'm not.

  • Words from one in a position to know. Betsy DeVos was Trump's Secretary of Education, 2017-2021. And she takes to the Free Press to argue that we: Shut Down the Department of Education.

    She eloquently describes the dance I have called the "D.C. Shuffle":

    The Department of Education does not run a single school. It does not employ any teachers in a single classroom. It doesn’t set academic standards or curriculum. It isn’t even the primary funder of education—quite the opposite. In most states, the federal government represents less than 10 percent of K–12 public education funding.

    So what does it do? It shuffles money around; adds unnecessary requirements and political agendas via its grants; and then passes the buck when it comes time to assess if any of that adds value.

    Here’s how it works: Congress appropriates funding for education; last year, it totaled nearly $80 billion. The department’s bureaucrats take in those billions, add strings and red tape, peel off a percentage to pay for themselves, and then send it down to state education agencies. Many of them do a version of the same and then send it to our schools. The schools must then pay first for administrators to manage all the requirements that have been added along the way. After all that, the money makes it to the classroom to help a student learn—maybe.

    I don't know how likely it is, but a guy can dream.

Recently on the book blog:

Hot Property

(paid link)

The official title of this book is Robert B. Parker's Hot Property. With those first three words being the largest font on the cover. This is a convention the books have followed ever since other authors took over writing duties after Mr. Parker died fifteen years ago.

So to clarify the title: the property in question was not owned by Mr. Parker. (It is, in fact, not a house either, let alone one on fire.)

So this convention is confusing and lame. But (sigh) I assume it's been focus grouped as an optimal way to squeeze the maximum amount of cash from people (like me) who remember Mr. Parker fondly, designed to take cold advantage of our weird psychological urge to find out what's up with our favorite fictional characters. Like Spenser, Mr. Parker's ageless wisecracking private investigator.

So I e-plunked down $14.99 for the Kindle version.

An opening act has Spenser and (the equally ageless) Hawk visiting a cad who's been hassling Rita Fiore, a beautiful, libidinous defense attorney who's also one of Spenser's longtime friends. But then Rita is near-fatally shot. The cops (Quirk, Belson) are on the case. But Spenser and Hawk are too. And others from the Parker universe soon join in: Susan, Henry Cimoli, Vinnie Morris, even Jesse Stone. It takes a village.

(Which is something Spenser says on page 283.)

Eventually, it becomes evident that there's a tie between Rita's shooting and the drowning, allegedly accidental, of a charismatic politician, one of Rita's (many) ex-lovers. And (finally) there's a connection to the titular Hot Property, down in Southie, on which some shady folks want to build a casino. (Widett Circle, which turns out to be an actual place.)

Plenty of suspects. And more bodies pile up. The bad guys seem to think the easiest way to get what they want is to shoot people who might be problematic.

It's pretty formulaic. Doesn't matter, I've been hooked.

Stylistic note: the largest Boston paper is referred to throughout as "The Globe". "The" italicized with an uppercase T. That looks weird to me! I would have thought it more conventional to say "the Globe": lowercase t, "the" unitialicized. Any editorial mavens want to weigh in on this?


Last Modified 2025-02-09 7:07 AM EST

Live Free and Die

Almost Needless to Say: In That Order

A recycled classic from Remy/Reason:

It goes along perfectly with Jeff Jacoby's recent newsletter article: The intellectual blackmail of 'people will die'.

PAUL KRUGMAN, the prolific liberal economist and Nobel Prize recipient, left The New York Times at the end of 2024 because, he said, the editorial constraints placed on his columns had become "extremely intrusive" and "intolerable." He writes now for his own eponymous Substack, where he is free of such constraints and can express his views exactly as he wishes.

So it was in his own true voice that Krugman recently commented on President Trump's hostility toward the so-called "deep state" and the new administration's restrictions on federal employees. "Donald Trump Wants You to Die," his Jan. 24 essay was headlined. He predicted that under Trump, the National Institutes of Health and other agencies will be "emasculated and politicized" and "banned from making policy recommendations that are inconvenient for Trump. ... And many Americans will die as a result."

Around the same time as Krugman's piece was published on Substack, an article in The Appeal, a left-of-center news site that covers the criminal justice system, appeared under an equally dire headline: "'People Will Die' from Trump's Trans Prisoner Crackdown, Experts Warn." Over at Indivisible, another progressive website, Trump's short-lived order to freeze spending on federal loans and grants was described not only as a "dictatorial power grab" but as "chaos that will kill" and "a death sentence for millions of Americans."

Jeff provides plenty of further examples. Mostly from the left, some from the right. He's right about "intellectual blackmail." But it's also cheap. And hence, nearly irresistible for demagogues of all stripes.

(Not to be confused with, for example, pointing out FDA delays and blunders really did kill a bunch of people during COVID.)

On a related note: I've been browsing Jen Rubin's Contrarian site now and then. In her introductory article she deemed it an "exciting new venture in defense of democracy." The word "democracy" appears six times in the short piece. Her (alleged) love of democracy is matched only by her disdain for "corporate" media (six references) and "billionaires" (five).

Ah, but an even ten negative references to Trump. And that's really what it's all about. It's Orange Man-hatred turned up to (at least) ten.

Ah, but what if Trump-hate and Democracy-love conflict? I found out when perusing a recent article from Shalise Manza Young, headlined: It's bigotry or bust for the Trump administration. Need you guess what that's about?

In yet another move that won’t lower grocery bills or help raise wages but will add wood to his always-burning culture war, President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed an executive order banning transgender girls and women from female sports in K-12 schools and colleges.

Adding insult to appalling attack, Trump’s order came on National Girls and Women in Sports Day, the annual celebration of female athletic achievement. The Women’s Sports Foundation, started by equality and tennis icon Billie Jean King 50 years ago, co-created the Day in 1987 and has long been unequivocal about its support for transgender girls and women in sport.

Demonizing trans girls and women and stripping them of civil protections under the guise of “protecting girls” was one of Trump’s signature campaign promises. Wednesday’s edict followed a broad – and broadly vague – order he signed within hours of being sworn into office last month, when he declared that there are only two sexes and banned federal funds from being spent on “gender ideology.”

And, yes, Shalise thinks all the "demonizing" will cause many of these wannabe ladies to kill themselves. Studies show!

For some counterpoints, see James Freeman's "Best of the Web" column in the WSJ (eek, Jen: "corporate media"): Liberals Lament the Value of Trump.. As far as "democracy" goes, James quotes a CNN host's tweet:

So "democracy" says what, Jen?

There's also J.K. Rowling:

[Continues:]

… damage to vulnerable kids.

Nobody voted for it, the vast majority of people disagree with it, yet it has been imposed, top down, by politicians, healthcare bodies, academia, sections of the media, celebrities and even the police. Its activists have threatened and enacted violence on those who've dared oppose it. People have been defamed and discriminated against for questioning it. Jobs have been lost and lives have been ruined, all for the crime of knowing that sex is real and matters.

When the smoke clears, it will be only too evident that this was never about a so-called vulnerable minority, notwithstanding the fact that some very vulnerable people have been harmed. The power dynamics underpinning our society have been reinforced, not dismantled. The loudest voices throughout this entire fiasco have been people insulated from consequences by their wealth and/or status. They aren't likely to find themselves locked in a prison cell with a 6'4" rapist who's decided his name's now Dolores. They don't need state-funded rape crisis centres, nor do they ever frequent high street changing rooms. They simper from talk show sofas about those nasty far-right bigots who don't want penises swinging around the girls' showers, secure in the knowledge that their private pool remains the safe place it always was.

Those who've benefited most from gender identity ideology are men, both trans-identified and not. Some have been rewarded for having a cross-dressing kink by access to all spaces previously reserved for women. Others have parlayed their delicious new victim status into an excuse to threaten, assault and harass women. Non-trans-identified leftybros have found a magnificent platform from which to display their own impeccably progressive credentials, by jeering and sneering at the needs of women and girls, all while patting themselves on the back for giving away rights that aren't theirs.

The actual victims in this mess have been women and children, especially the most vulnerable, gay people who've resisted the movement and paid a horrible price, and regular people working in environments where one misplaced pronoun could see you vilified or constructively dismissed. Do not tell me this is about a tiny minority. This movement has impacted society in disastrous ways, and if you had any sense, you'd be quietly deleting every trace of activist mantras, ad hominem attacks, false equivalence and circular arguments from your X feeds, because the day is fast approaching when you'll want to pretend you always saw through the craziness and never believed it for a second.

I should add that I don't consider myself "transphobic". I think Deirdre Nansen McCloskey is a pretty good economist, and so is Jessica (formerly Brian) Riedl.

Also of note:

  • The war on prices continues, and its victims will not be named "Bernie", "Josh", or "Donald". J.D. Tuccille notes Christmas may come early for some: Hawley-Sanders credit card interest cap is a gift to payday lenders and loan sharks.

    It would be nice if one of our two major political parties was consistent in its advocacy for free markets—for all freedom, for that matter. Instead, we get two senators, a Republican and a socialist who sits with the Democrats, teaming up to condescendingly save Americans from their own desire to borrow money. Their proposal to cap credit card interest at 10 percent is supposed to shield people from "exploitative" borrowing costs. Instead, it's bound to cut off higher-risk borrowers from traditional credit and drive them into the arms of payday lenders and loan sharks.

    […]

    It's said that great minds think alike. So, apparently, do the minds of economic ignoramuses with supposedly competing political brands. Hawley and Sanders peddle salvation from expensive credit, but instead they offer a world of hurt to the people they say they want to help.

    Speaking of economic ignoramuses, the cap was a Trump campaign theme too.

  • Hay, kids, what time is it? Jon Miltimore writes at the Daily Economy: Defund NPR? It’s About Time. Excellent, here's a small excerpt:

    As the saying goes, “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” Those who control these tax dollars are in a sense purchasing the allegiance of those who shape the ideas, opinions, and thoughts of the American public. They are in a very real sense the political allies of the DC bureaucracy and political establishment.

    This is what makes government-funded media so sinister. It undermines the independence of media organs. Americans instinctively recognize this. We laugh at the crude propaganda machines of other nations and can tell you about the propaganda efforts of Goebbels; many of us even can remember the ridiculous messaging of Baghdad Bob. Yet far fewer Americans seem able to recall the US government’s long history of using propaganda, which grew more sophisticated over the years and involved planting disinformation at news outlets.

    This is what makes government-funded media so sinister. It undermines the independence of media organs. Americans instinctively recognize this. We laugh at the crude propaganda machines of other nations and can tell you about the propaganda efforts of Goebbels; many of us even can remember the ridiculous messaging of Baghdad Bob. Yet far fewer Americans seem able to recall the US government’s long history of using propaganda, which grew more sophisticated over the years and involved planting disinformation at news outlets.

    You would think maybe Jen Rubin, with all her worries about "corporate media" might recognize there's a problem with media funded by an institution with even more power and much deeper pockets than Jeff Bezos.

Any Resemblance to Pun Salad Manor is Purely Coincidental

I really should straighten up the place, though…

But I appreciate Jeff Maurer's suggestion: Will Elon's Team of Elite Math Twinks Tell Him That You Can't Close a $1.8 Trillion Budget Gap By Eliminating a $0.04 Trillion Agency? He makes light of the young males who are fine-tooth-combing the budget, calling them (in what he admits is a cheap shot) "Seal Team Sexless". Still…

And I’ll admit: I kind of get it. If I put aside my belief that none of this is legal and my longstanding conviction that all humans under 25 are only fit to spin large signs advertising sub sandwich shops, then I sort of get the appeal. I like nerds! They often do good work! In theory, nimble minds with cutting-edge tools could find things that other people would miss.

But if that’s true, then surely, inevitably, one of these geniuses MUST tell Elon that eliminating USAID doesn’t make a frosty fuck’s bit of difference to the overall budget picture. USAID’s budget in 2023 was $43 billion; the budget deficit last year was $1.8 trillion. So, if you took the entire USAID building with all its employees inside, dumped it in the Potomac, and sent every recipient of USAID money an “enjoy your AIDS” singing telegram, that would close 2.4% of the budget deficit. It would reduce overall government spending by 0.64%. Surely, one of Elon’s baby geniuses will inform him that this is not the fast track to solvency that it’s being made out to be.

Ah, but if you repeat that trick (approximately) 42 times elsewhere in the budget, you've solved the problem! Good job, twinks!

Just sayin': the Corporation for Public Broadcasting budget is based on a $535 million appropriation. That's even smaller than USAID, but it's low-hanging fruit. Chop it down!

Also of note:

  • And here's another $448 million that could go. That's the FY2025 budget request for your Federal Communications Commission, which is apparently not doing much these days except irritating Joe Lancaster. Who explains How the FCC's 'warrior for free speech' became our censor in chief.

    When Donald Trump announced the appointment of Brendan Carr to the top spot at the Federal Communications Commission, he called Carr "a warrior for Free Speech." Carr, in turn, pledged to "dismantle the censorship cartel and restore free speech rights for everyday Americans." But Carr's statements and actions both before and since taking on his new role indicate someone all too comfortable wielding government power against media companies for politically disfavored speech.

    "I think he's the most anti–free speech FCC chair that we've had, as long as I can remember," says Techdirt founder Mike Masnick. "And I think that's a little terrifying, especially as he is presented by himself, Donald Trump, and the media as being a free speech warrior….Yet, over and over again, we see that he's constantly trying to attack and suppress and punish speech."

    Fire him, close his shop, sell the office furniture.

  • A reminder of Star Trek's continuing impact on language. This WSJ editorial's headline takes it for granted that its readers are familiar with the concept of a "mind meld": A Josh Hawley-Bernie Sanders Mind Meld. Their target is legislation proposed by Josh and Bernie to "cap" credit-card interest rates at 10%.

    Remember when economists and Republicans criticized Kamala Harris for proposing price controls on groceries? Well, a cap on interest rates is a price control on credit. When you put a price control on something, you are asking for less of it. Apologies for this lesson in Econ 101, but that’s where we are with the political class these days.

    It’s true that credit-card rates have climbed over the last decade. This is what happens when inflation rises and the Federal Reserve raises interest rates in response. The average monthly annual percentage rate on new credit cards is 24.3%—meaning that someone will pay $20.25 in interest a month on a $1,000 unpaid balance.

    For a Republican, Hawley is a fountain of bad ideas. And note that Trump endorsed the cap on the campaign trail.

  • Playing the blame game. John Tierney in the NYPost is doing it. That horrible helicopter/jet crash over the Potomac? Blame FAA's woefully outdated air safety.

    The recent rash of near-collisions is the result of chronic mismanagement that has left the system with too few controllers using absurdly antiquated technology.

    The problems were obvious 20 years ago, when I visited control towers in both Canada and the United States.

    The Canadians sat in front of sleek computer screens that instantly handled tasks like transferring the oversight of a plane from one controller to another.

    The Americans were still using pieces of paper called flight strips.

    After a plane took off, the controller in charge of the local airspace had to carry that plane’s flight strip over to the desk of the controller overseeing the regional airspace.

    It felt like going back in time from a modern newsroom into a scene from “The Front Page.”

    It was bad enough to see such outdated technology in 2005.

    But they’re still using those paper flight strips in American towers, and the Federal Aviation Administration’s modernization plans have been delayed so many times that the strips aren’t due to be phased out until 2032.

    Further reading: this two-year-old Cato article referenced a 2005(!) GAO study, which (in turn) noted that flight-control duties had been successfully privatized in "Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom" which "had cut costs, boosted investment in new technologies, and either maintained or increased safety".

    Hey, DOGE kids! You should check that out!

  • The Blogfather's Rose-Colored Glasses. Glenn Reynolds (at least) puts a question mark on his headline: Donald Trump, the libertarian president? But he is actually serious:

    Trump the libertarian? Yes. And how.

    Since 2016 I’ve had people ask me why I, as a libertarian, support Donald Trump. I think we’re seeing why now.

    It’s true that Trump’s instincts, particularly in his first term, weren’t especially libertarian. Oh, the claims that he was an authoritarian, possibly a Fascist, maybe even a Nazi, were obvious bullshit from the beginning. But he showed no particular enthusiasm for limited government.

    Still, by that point I saw the government apparat as deeply corrupt and dysfunctional, and dangerously close to making its position so entrenched as to be unassailable through ordinary politics. Anyone promising to shake it up looked good to me, and in 2016 Trump had the added advantage of not being Hillary Clinton. I knew what her instincts were.

    Glenn probably makes the best case possible. But (for example) the word "tariff" doesn't appear in his article.

The Fiscal Pump Don't Work 'Cause the Vandals Took the Handles

[Amazon Link]
(paid link)

George Will notes how language degrades in uncivilized localities: Only in Washington could this fiscal vandalism be called tax ‘relief’. He's talking about the effort to raise, or eliminate, the limit on the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction on your federal income tax, which is currently at $10K.

Raising the cap to $20,000 for married joint filers would, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, mean a 10-year revenue loss of $170 billion, with 94 percent of the “relief” going to households with annual incomes exceeding $200,000 and 0.4 percent to households making less than $100,000. Increasing the cap to $15,000 for individuals and $30,000 for joint filers would make the revenue loss about $450 billion, with an even more regressive distribution of the “relief” that relieves progressive governments of some political disincentives for taxing and spending.

According to the Tax Policy Center, if the SALT cap were removed, the highest-earning 20 percent of households would get 96 percent of the “relief.” Before 2017, the unlimited SALT deduction made it politically easier to implement the blue model of governance: high taxes to fund Democratic regimes that are substantially funded by contributions from public employees unions. To those unions, state and local tax revenue do not trickle down; they flow down like rivers.

It takes a really outrageous proposal to get GFW to sound like Bernie Sanders inveighing against a giveaway to the well-off, but this makes the grade.

Also of note:

  • This sounds like bad news. Brian Reidl thinks, credibly, that Trump Is Poised to Repeat Biden’s Economic Errors. Specifically, setting things up for another inflation spike. After noting the dire fiscal straits we are in:

    A responsible president facing these challenges would pursue an aggressive deficit reduction strategy to rein in borrowing and reassure the bond market (thus lowering interest rates). Instead, Trump has demanded trillions in new tax cuts, pandering to voters with promises to end taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security benefits, in addition to extending and possibly expanding his 2017 tax cuts. Trump is also widely expected to push for significant defense and border spending expansions, while pledging to do nothing to rein in $124 trillion in projected 30-year shortfalls for Social Security and Medicare.

    There is no mathematical path to make these promises fiscally responsible, no easy trillion-dollar deficit-reducer that had been forgotten or hidden. Economic growth is no panacea. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s target of sustained 3 percent economic growth rates faces the aforementioned barrier of a stagnant (or even declining) workforce, not to mention the lack of a blueprint to achieve such faster growth. And even if 3 percent growth was achieved, most of the tax revenues may be consumed by the higher interest rates on the federal debt that often follow strong economic growth. Lawmakers should aspire to rosy economic scenarios while budgeting for a more typical economic performance.

    For approximately the 284th time: Nikki Haley would have been better.

  • But what about the massive cuts to USAID? Tyler Cowen asked ChatGPT about it: good idea, or bad? Deep Research considers the costs and benefits of US AID. It produced a slightly pro-USAID response, but I expect it could have been biased by its sources. Still interesting though. Tyler is skeptical:

    Here is a useful Michael Kremer (with co-authors) paper. Here are some CRS links. Here is a Samo analysis. AID is a major contributor to the Gavi vaccine program, which is of high value. The gains from AID-supported PEPFAR are very high also.

    To be clear, I consider this kind of thing to be scandalous. And I strongly suspect that some of the other outrage anecdotes are true, though they are hard to confirm, or not. It does seem Nina Jankowicz and her work received funding, and that I find hard to justify. It seems to be evidence for something broken in the process. Or how about funds to the BBC? While the “Elonsphere” on Twitter is very much exaggerating the horror anecdotes and the bad news, I do see classic signs of “intermediaries capture” for the agency, a common problem amongst not-for-profit institutions.

    Yes, apparently a Nina Jankowicz organization in the UK got some USAID dough.

  • Unfortunately, they are not laughing? At Reason, Jacob Sullum wonders: Why Is Paramount So Keen To Settle Trump's Laughable Lawsuit Against CBS?

    Paramount, which owns CBS, is reportedly trying to settle a laughable lawsuit that Donald Trump filed last October based on a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris, his Democratic opponent in the 2024 presidential election. The New York Times reports that the company started settlement negotiations because it is keen to avoid regulatory obstacles to its planned merger with Skydance Media.

    Paramount's principles get shoved into a dark corner of the executive suite when there's money at stake.

    But CBS coughed up the unedited transcript, and the Trump-friendly Eddie Scarry at the Federalist analyzed it, and concluded: Unedited Kamala Interview Proves '24 Campaign Was A Psyop. Unexpectedly!

    It’s been three months since the election, and there are still so many unanswered questions as to what exactly happened in the very obvious partnership that took place between the dying national news media and the Kamala Harris campaign. But a little more clarity was offered this week when Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, released the full nearly hour-long interview CBS “60 Minutes” aired with Harris several weeks before Election Day.

    The disclosure of the raw footage came as CBS cooperated with a complaint to the FCC from the Center for American Rights, a right-leaning law firm that accused the network of news distortion. The allegation followed a discrepancy observers noted between the short tease that CBS released in advance of the full “60 Minutes” episode and the final cut that aired and showed Harris offering a different answer to the same question.

    You can read the portions of the transcript that Eddie finds most Psyoptical at the link. For me, it's simply further confirmation that Kamala was a shallow nitwit, forever regurgitating bromines. ("You know, we are a people who have ambition and aspirations and dreams and optimism and hope.”)

    We have only those five things, because she could not think of six.

Recently on the book blog (with an LFOD reference!):

Pictures from an Institution

(paid link)

Over the years, I've read a lot of praise for this book. Certainly George Will has plugged it a lot in his WaPo column. And the University Near Here actually owns a couple copies, from back in the days when they bought physical books. Specifically, I checked out a refurbished paperback from them.

That praise continues on the back cover. "One of the funniest American novels in three decades"; "A delight of true understanding"; "Satirical virtuosity like nothing since Oscar Wilde"; "One of the wittiest books of modern times"; and more in that vein.

Maybe I'm going through a cranky patch, but I didn't find a lot of amusement. As usual: it's best to assume that's my fault, not the book's. You can read a long excerpt here; see if you crack a smile.

I noticed a few literary references. This probably means a lot more whizzed by without me noticing.

It's from 1954, which makes it nearly as old as I am. The author, Randall Jarrell, was an honored poet, teacher, and literary critic. Unfortunately, he fell into mental illness, attempted suicide, and died in 1965 when hit by a car. The NYT obituary is ambiguous about whether it was an accident or (successful) suicide.

Nothing much actually happens in the book: it's an exploration of the various characters the anonymous narrator meets while teaching at the fictional Benton College. They are a quirky and fractious bunch, full of self-importance, but also insecurity.

I sat up and took notice when a line of poetry is quoted from one character to another: "We must love one another or die." The response was to suggest instead: "We must love one another and die."

The poem is unidentified in the book, but it's easy to Google: it is Auden's "September 1, 1939". But apparently Auden himself later preferred the "and" replacement.

I doubt that New Hampshire is going to change its motto to "Live Free and Die". I briefly considered vandalizing my car's license plates to read that way, though. More subtle commentary than George Maynard's!

Confession: I did smile at this, the narrator's report from the college's "Art Night":

Miss Rasmussen began to tell Gottfried and me about her statues. Some of what she said was technical and you would have had to be a welder to appreciate it; the rest was aesthetic or generally philosophic, and to appreciate it you would have had to be an imbecile.

Zing! But, to be fair, the narrator adjusts his estimation of Miss Rasmussen at the very end of the book.

It's a Bold Strategy, Cotton

Let's See If It Pays Off For 'Em

[Amazon Link]
(paid link)

I was fascinated by the product title in our Amazon Product/Eye Candy du Jour: "Dream Reality Neon Sign Led Pink White Neon Light School Classroom Decor Sign Larger Hanging Neon Light For Bedroom College Dorm Wedding Propose Graduation Valentine's Day Party Decor".

Classroom? Yeah, just the thing for students to peruse while the instructor is droning on about Bose-Einstein condensates, Abelian group theory, or the Dred Scott decision.

But I wonder how many offices in the White House, the neighboring Executive Office Building, or the Pentagon have purchased them. Because Derek Scissors at AEI is noticing that Trump and Friends Leave Reality Behind.

There’s no reasonable American trade strategy that starts with higher tariffs on Canada. There may be a political strategy, but none’s been offered beyond childish remarks about the 51st state. The Trump administration’s motives for announcing Canada tariffs are either misdirection away from a genuine motive or failures to understand basic numbers.

There is a case against Mexico—Mexico’s lack of control of its borders is a real problem. But if 25 percent tariffs on Mexico are supposed to be the (indirect, very strange) solution, then tariffs of less than 0.5 percent on Canada would do the job.

In the fiscal year ending September 30, US Customs and Border Protection documented more than 2.1 million encounters at the Mexican border, making more than 1.5 million apprehensions of people entering illegally. That’s a serious matter calling for a serious, even emergency response. Encounters at the Canadian border were 200,000, apprehensions below 24,000. That’s attendance at a Canadian Football League game.

So maybe there's one of these signs in the Oval Office itself? Someone should check.

But there is probably no demand for such neon on Wall Street. Because, as Jonah Goldberg points out, reality is not optional, and The Markets Can’t Be Bullied.

The market is one of the only things Donald Trump can be expected to listen to—likely more than polls and certainly more than his advisers—even when he doesn’t want to hear what it’s saying.

During his first term, Trump routinely took credit for every new market high, noting at one point that “the reason our stock market is so successful is because of me.” When the market did well under President Biden, Trump claimed that it was because of the expectation that he would win the next election.

It’s all nonsense, but he believes it, and he wants everyone else to believe it too. And that could be to the country’s benefit now, because when it became clear last week that Trump was determined to follow through on his cockamamie tariff threats, the markets tumbled. And on Monday, the administration reached deals to pause tariffs on Mexico and Canada for a month.

I haven't checked today's reality yet. There's a pre-beta release of Fedora 42 I want to check out first. If you see this website go dark, you'll know things went … poorly.

Also of note:

  • Inquiring minds, both natural and artificial, want to know. Jack Nicastro poses a question: Will Trump Embrace the AI Future or Succumb to His Protectionist Impulses?

    President Donald Trump's deregulatory impulses could be a boon to the AI industry, but his hostility to free trade threatens to undermine its progress. Policies from the first Trump administration and caustic campaign rhetoric caution against unqualified optimism.

    Former President Joe Biden's October 2023 Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence invoked the Defense Production Act, requiring companies to report their models to the federal government—a move Neil Chilson, head of AI policy at the Abundance Institute, sees as emblematic of the Biden administration's emphasis on AI's potential risks over its benefits. Marc Scribner, senior policy analyst at Reason Foundation (the nonprofit that publishes Reason), predicts Trump will revoke this executive order and move away from Biden's precautionary approach to federal AI regulation.

    This light-touch approach was on display in a February 2019 Trump executive order, which aimed "to sustain and enhance the scientific, technological, and economic leadership position of the United States in AI." In November 2020, the Office of Management and Budget published a memorandum that clarified that "agencies must avoid a precautionary approach that holds AI systems to an impossibly high standard." Chilson says that the previous Trump administration's "orientation towards advanced computing and AI was one of optimism" and celebrated Trump's appointment of David Sacks, partner at the software-focused venture capital firm Craft Ventures, as the White House AI and cryptocurrency czar. Sacks' pro-AI stance is seconded by venture capitalist Sriram Krishnan, who will serve as senior policy adviser for AI at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

    But Trump's actions during his first term tell another story. His history of aggressive antitrust policy, including lawsuits against Facebook and Google, and his nomination of Gail Slater to head the Justice Department's antitrust division, suggest an animus toward the tech industry, which could stifle AI. Trump's nomination of Mark Meador to the Federal Trade Commission is still worse news for Big Tech.

    And there's protectionism too.

    Bottom line: there are reasons for optimism and pessimism. And, unfortunately, there's no good way to bet on chaos. Except maybe buying precious metals and burying them in your backyard.

  • Speaking of precious metals… Hope Trump sets aside some for the strategy advocated by E. Calvin Beisner: How to Drive a Silver Stake Through the Heart of the Paris Climate Accord. We know that Trump started the same process he previously followed in his first term. Which Biden immediately undid. But:

    He should determine that the accord is not an executive agreement — which former President Obama declared to be in the executive order by which he brought America into the accord — but a treaty. As a treaty, it can go into effect if and only if the United States Senate approves of it by a two-thirds majority vote — that is, 67 out of 100 Senators would have to vote for it.

    How hard would that be for supporters of the treaty to get?

    Yeah. As Dan Rather once said: Chances are from slim to none, and Slim just left town.

  • There are better things to do. Jonathan Turley (whose excellent book about free speech I just finished, see below) writes In Defense (Gulp) of Chuck Schumer.

    This day had to come. I find myself with the inescapable view that Sen. Chuck Schumer is being treated unfairly. There, I said it. Edward R. Martin, Jr., the Interim D.C. U.S. Attorney, recently announced that he is investigating Schumer. The possible criminal charge is linked to Schumer’s infamous speech on the steps of the Supreme Court in March 2020, threatening justices with retaliation if they voted against abortion rights. I have repeatedly denounced Schumer for his “rage rhetoric” and his pandering to the most extreme elements of the party. However, a criminal investigation into the speech is unwarranted and unwise.

    Turley thinks, and I agree, that Trump could be a yuge improvement over Biden, free speechwise. But this DOJ nonsense cuts the other way.

  • Worse than lutefisk. Dave Barry is doing some of the longer-form humor that made him famous at his Substack. For example: The Haggis Menace.

    I have exciting news for gourmet individuals who enjoy -- And who doesn't? -- authentic foreign cuisine that appears to have been barfed up by a diseased Rottweiler.

    That's right, America: You may soon be able to legally obtain haggis.

    Haggis is an ancient Scottish dish that was invented by ancient Scotspersons who clearly intended it as a prank. According to Wikipedia, haggis is "a savoury pudding containing sheep's pluck (heart, liver, and lungs), minced with chopped onion, oatmeal, suet, spices, and salt, mixed with stock, and cooked while traditionally encased in the animal's stomach."

    That's right: They minced up the vital organs of a sheep and then cooked them inside the stomach of a sheep. The ancient Scotspersons probably thought nobody would actually eat this, but it became a beloved traditional dish, because this is Scotland, a place where -- not to indulge in negative stereotypes -- the entire population, including preschool children, is drunk.

    Currently you can't get authentic haggis in the United States. It was banned by the federal government in 1971 because it contains sheep lung. I think we can all agree that this is a good thing, that in fact one of the main reasons we even have a federal government -- this is clearly stated in the Constitution -- is to protect American citizens from encountering sheep lung anywhere outside of an actual sheep.

    Yum!

    Dave does get around to mentioning my peoples' revolting food, lutefisk, later in the essay. I had it once when I was a kid, at my Grandma's house. My reaction: fish-flavored Jell-O. Double yum!

Recently on the book blog:

The Indispensible Right

Free Speech in an Age of Rage

(paid link)

I've been on an unlucky streak with fiction lately, finding four recently-read novels mediocre or worse, and I'm struggling with a fifth. But I thought this book by Jonathan Turley (lawyer, pundit, lawprof at George Washington U.) was excellent. He makes a powerful argument for a broad, natural-rights interpretation of freedom of speech.

This more or less corresponded to my own view when I started reading the book. But Turley managed to deepen my understanding, and alter my opinions slightly, not just confirm my priors.

It's commonplace to observe that today is not a great time for free speech. But guess what: Turley's history (detailed and interesting) shows that it never has been a time when the right to speak your mind has been without peril, legal and otherwise. There's a quick overview of ancient abuses (too bad, Socrates), an examination of English jurisprudence (also spotty at best), and then we are on to the American experience. He relates various instances of how "rage" has driven harsh words and actions from the citizenry, followed by, all too often, rage-driven overreaction from governmental officials.

Every American schoolkid learns about John Adams' Alien and Sedition Acts. But Turley goes deeper, revealing (for instance) that Thomas Jefferson sometimes succumbed to the temptations of prosecuting and persecuting free-speakers.

Turley shows the problem over the centuries (and continuing today) is the "functionalist" view of free speech, which views it as a tool, just one tool, in producing desirable outcomes. Those who hold to this position unfortunately see it not as an absolute bright red line prohibiting government intrusion, but subject to trade-offs and compromise.

The most common tradeoff is seen in the concept of sedition, when speech challenges the authority of the state. It's one of the classic gotchas: the people whose authority you are calling into question are the same people who get to decide whether to punish your uppityness. James Madison, one of Turley's heroes, called Adams' anti-sedition legislation "a monster that must forever disgrace its parents."

Turley is in favor of "slaying Madison's monster" by putting seditious words on the "protected" side of the First Amendment. This is a bold stand, as the government finds it useful for prosecution even today. PBS story from 2022: Oath Keepers founder guilty of seditious conspiracy in Jan. 6 case.

Speaking of January 6, Turley makes a compelling case that what happened that day was a riot, not an "insurrection". There was plenty of legal room to prosecute the participants for their violent and obstructive acts, without regard to their speech. He's equally horrified by the abortive efforts to prosecute Donald Trump for "incitement", and to disqualify his 2024 candidacy on 14th Amendment grounds. That's an uncommon argument, and he moved my own view quite a ways toward his own.

The Book of Ayn

(paid link)

Nick Gillespie on the Reason Roundtable podcast raved about this book. The inner flap assured me it was "an original and hilarious satire of our political culture and those who rage against it." The back cover blurbs (one from Jim Carrey!) contain words like "exquisitely wicked"; "dangerous sense of humor"; "so funny, so clever, so alive"; "hysterical"; "smart, hilarious, and audacious"; and "Infuriating, perverse, contrarian, scandalous; nihilistic, and very, very funny."

And I'm pretty sure I didn't even crack a smile the entire way through.

It's probably me. Who am I to tell Jim Carrey and those other folks what's funny? Your mileage may vary, and probably will.

The first-person narrator is Anna, a New York writer who's in professional turmoil because her novel about opioid addiction in Appalachia has been reamed by the NYT for being classist. At loose ends, she falls in with an Objectivist walking tour of Ayn Rand-relevant Manhattan locales. And resolves to head out to Los Angeles to write a movie about Rand. Or maybe a sitcom. Or perhaps an animation. When things fall through, she skips back to New York to deal with a family death. But then its off to the isle of Lesbos, where there's communal meditation and lecturing under the eye of the Master. And there's also this hot guy who is obsessed with a YouTube compilation of Tom Cruise running scenes.

At one point Anna witnesses:

I found myself standing at the kitchen island with a group of Big Boy's friends. They all looked about twenty-five and had quiet, doting girlfriends who all looked about nineteen. Within the group, the boys were telling jokes, or rather giving micro-performances in response to verbal stimuli.

I liked that well enough to stick a post-it to the page so I could quote it here. But only because it reminded me of what the author, Lexi Freiman seemed to be doing: telling "jokes", or rather writing a series of prose performances in response to critical stimuli. I looked in vain for humor.

I'm Feeling a Tad Anarchistic Today

Jeff Maurer reflects on the (apparently) latest news; we're postponing our trade war with Mexico and Canada, in exchange for … most people are saying nothing. So: That Tariff Shit Sure Was Pointless.

He makes an eminently serious proposal:

Also: None of this is legal. The law that Trump claims empowers him to levy tariffs without Congress is a 1977 law that lets the president impose financial sanctions in response to a national emergency. Trump is interpreting that to mean that he can do whatever he wants as long as he mumbles “something something fentanyl” while he does it. It’s likely that the courts would rule against him, but it’s more likely that everything will play out before the courts can weigh in, and in fact, that’s what just happened. Justice is just blind, and she’s also slower than a Sting orgasm, which is a problem.

At this point, nobody should fool themselves into thinking that Trump is playing eight-dimensional chess on tariffs. Or, if he is playing eight-dimensional chess, he really sucks at it: He’s lost most of his pieces, he’s bleeding from the ears, and he has a bishop stuck up his nose. The clear reality is that he’s a very dumb man who thinks that running a trade deficit means you’re losing, and he’s sowing chaos that’s having small negative effects now and might have large negative effects later. He’s a toddler running around waving a gun, and — hot take ahead! — I think we should take the gun out of his hand.

Congress can do that by making the president get congressional approval to implement tariffs. This would affirm the power that Congress already has according to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, but since Trump is interpreting the 1977 law as a blank check, we need a new law that says “nice try, but no”. That bill exists, and Congress should pass it, partly to keep Trump from doing something crazy, and partly as a retro throwback to a time when Congress passed laws and mattered. The tariffs against Canada and Mexico were completely pointless, and that’s good news: That was the best possible outcome of this ridiculous mess. Next time, we might not be so lucky.

I would guess that the bill will go nowhere, for the usual reasons. It's a partisan Democrat proposal; somehow they just now realized that delegating the President such powers was probably a bad idea.

You might see Rand Paul voting for it, but otherwise…

Also of note:

  • The nothingburger was revealed. Eric Boehm gets a little highfalutin' by calling it a "theory", but otherwise he's on target: Trump's theory of tariffs makes no sense.

    For weeks, President Donald Trump has been telling Americans that his plan to impose high tariffs on the country's top trading partners would usher in an era of prosperity not seen in well over 100 years.

    "The tariffs are going to make us very rich and very strong," Trump said Friday. "They don't cause inflation. They cause success." The president has been using variations on this same argument for months (for years, actually). They are "going to make us rich," he said in December. "In the 1890s, our country was probably the wealthiest it ever was because it was a system of tariffs," he said last year on the campaign trail.

    This is bullshit, by the way. The high tariffs that America imposed during the late 19th century did not make America rich and did not make American manufacturing strong. It's also absurd to claim that the country was at its wealthiest in an era when most people did not have access to indoor plumbing, electricity, or modern medical care—and when the average person was, objectively, much poorer.

    But, Eric notes, if tariffs are so great in themselves, how does Trump justify their "postponement"? Trump fans: trying to explain this will only make your head hurt. Do not attempt.

  • Strange indeed. Kevin D. Williamson remarks on the Strange Bedfellows united by, I guess, their general wackiness.

    Ask a Trump guy where the Republicans went wrong, and he’ll tell you that the party was too long dominated by war-mongering neocons in foreign policy and by greed-mongering libertarians in everything else: too many foreign adventures, too enthusiastic about capitalism. One funny thing, beyond the fact that that analysis is utter baloney: The second Trump administration is now living out the political fantasy of one of the crankiest of all the 20th-century libertarian ideologues—Murray Rothbard.

    Rothbard was a brilliant weirdo who could have been a character in a Woody Allen movie—a neurotic Jewish intellectual in New York, his life was largely confined to the first four floors of Manhattan by his paralyzing terror of bridges, tunnels, and escalators. But he was like many dissidents on the right over the years in that he hated the Republican Party with the special hatred the true believers reserve for heretics (as opposed to the simple infidels on the left) and generally despised the Buckley-Goldwater-Reagan-era conservative movement as weak-kneed and compromising. Your normal cranky midcentury libertarian wanted to see the reinstatement of the gold standard; Rothbard demanded the reinstatement of the Articles of Confederation and bitterly denounced “Generalissimo” Washington for presiding over the conspiracy of usurpers who called themselves a constitutional convention in Philadelphia all those years ago. He was bananas, but also a serious economic and political thinker as well as a top-shelf writer.

    One of Rothbard’s big ideas—and let me emphasize here again that I am writing about a New Yorker who was the son of Jewish immigrants—was to reach out to the right-wing populist movement coalescing around Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke in the 1980s and convince its adherents to link up with the remnants of the anti-Vietnam War movement to build a grand redneck-hippie alliance, uniting the political extremes against the center in a popular front that was anti-war, anti-welfare, and anti-state. It didn’t work.

    At the time.

    But Anno Domini 2025 is a different story. In the Senate, Tom Cotton and John Cornyn are going to bat for Tulsi Gabbard, a former vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee with approximately Noam Chomsky’s views on the American intelligence community, which she has been nominated to oversee as director of national intelligence, presumably taking a sabbatical from her tireless efforts on behalf of Bashar al-Assad. Elsewhere in the Senate, Ted Cruz is pumped up about the prospects of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a left-wing trial lawyer, environmental activist, and “radical left lunatic” (in the words of … Donald Trump) who has advocated imprisoning people for expressing skeptical views of climate change. Kash Patel, who is to lead the FBI, sounds like a talking head in a Eugene Jarecki propaganda film. J.D. Vance increasingly talks like an antihero from 1970s conspiracy-thriller cinema, while Tucker Carlson is running out of red string with which to connect the dots on the murder wall in his basement. Poor Michael Brendan Dougherty over at National Review cannot decide if he is now a Code Pink lady or whether he is a beady-eyed defender of coalitional realpolitik.

    I was a Rothbard fan in the 1970s. He lost me in the 1980s.

  • Another attempt to alter reality. Jacob Sullum notes: Florida drug deaths surged under Trump A.G. Pam Bondi's watch.

    When President Donald Trump announced his nomination of Pam Bondi as attorney general, he extolled her "incredible job" in "work[ing] to stop the trafficking of deadly drugs and reduc[ing] the tragedy of Fentanyl Overdose Deaths." Yet those deaths exploded on Bondi's watch as Florida's attorney general.

    According to data from the Florida Department of Health, the age-adjusted rate of "deaths from drug poisoning" did fall a bit after Bondi took office, from 13.7 per 100,000 residents in 2011 to 12.1 in 2013. But then it resumed its upward trajectory, reaching 25.1—nearly double the 2011 rate—by the time Bondi left office in 2019. The death rate rose sharply in 2020 (as it did across the country), rose again in 2021, and declined in 2022 and 2023, when it was 30.8 per 100,000.

    In 2019, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Florida ranked 20th on the list of states with the highest drug death rates, down from 15th in 2011. But despite that relative improvement, Florida's rate as reported by the CDC rose by 66 percent during that period. In absolute terms, the annual number of drug deaths rose by more than 80 percent.

    Granite Staters: that link in the last paragraph has us in a solid 21st place in Drug Overdose Death Rate for 2022. One spot "ahead" of Florida, in a competition that you don't really want to win. Slightly above the national average.

  • Lefties gotta leftie. Jeff Jacoby describes What MAGA really hated about Bishop Budde's homily.

    In her homily, the Rev. Mariann Budde, the Episcopal bishop of Washington, spoke mostly about the need for unity in our polarized society and for resisting the temptation to "mock, discount, or demonize those with whom we differ." Just before concluding, she addressed Trump directly. Acknowledging that millions of Americans have put their trust in the president, she implored him "to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now." She spoke in particular of undocumented migrants facing deportation. Most "immigrants are not criminals," she added. "They pay taxes and are good neighbors."

    Budde's tone was respectful, even deferential, but the implied criticism, however brief and gently worded, was more than Trump could abide. He took to social media late that night to slam Budde as a "Radical Left hard line Trump hater" who was "nasty in tone, and not compelling or smart." For good measure he insulted the entire two-and-a-half-hour service, calling it "very boring and uninspiring" and said both Budde and the church "owe the public an apology."

    As they always do, Trump's loyalists rushed to amplify his abuse.

    Todd Starnes, a host on Newsmax, called Budde a "blasphemous bishop" and the National Cathedral a "sanctuary of Satan" that should be stripped of its tax-exempt status. Representative Mike Collins, a Georgia Republican, recommended that Budde (who was born and raised in New Jersey) be "added to the deportation list." Another Republican, Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville, accused her of spewing hate. In the New York Post, columnist Miranda Devine fumed that "an egomaniacal female Episcopal bishop sabotaged the Inaugural Prayer Service with a left-wing rant from the pulpit." Robert Jeffress, the right-wing pastor of a Dallas megachurch, accused Budde of having "insulted rather than encouraged our great president" and provoked "palpable disgust."

    Classy stuff. And, as Jeff points out: totally hypocritical.

  • My political homelessness will apparently continue. We're heavy on the Trump criticism today. But Jonathan Turley notes that the Democrats are not interested in appealing to the Trump-appalled: After Polls Find the Party Out-of-Touch With Voters, the DNC Doubles Down.

    The DNC then elected a chair in Ken Martin, the longtime leader of Minnesota’s far left Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, who demanded for Trump to be tried for treason after the Russian bounty controversy (which was contested by the Trump Administration).

    They then added David Hogg, 24, as Vice Chair, a far left advocate who previously called on the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be abolished and for the defunding of police. Hogg’s selection is particularly curious after an election where immigration proved a major issue favoring the GOP. Hogg has also called the NRA a “terrorist organization.” His reason for the NRA designation? January 6th: “The NRA needs to be designated a terrorist organization for the role their supporters played in staging an insurrectionist coup.”

    The Democratic Party has become a ship of fools. I previously worked Democratic campaigns from Ted Kennedy to Mo Udall to many Illinois candidates. The party was truly a party of the middle class with centrist values, including support for free speech. It cannot seem to break from identity politics as its primary focus and reason for being. Worse yet, it is “reimagining” the 2024 election in a way to keep reality within a comfort zone.

    Unlike Jonathan, I'm pretty sure I've never, ever, voted for a Democrat. Sounds as if that will not change.

Recently on the book blog:

The Devil Takes You Home

(paid link)

This book was nominated for a 'Best Novel' Edgar in 2023. And Amazon has it as an "Editors' Pick" in the "Best Mystery, Thriller & Suspense" category. And the back cover has fulsome praise from S.A. Cosby and seven other people.

And yet, I was repulsed. Too much disgusting gore and horror, some supernatural, all evil. If that's your bag, go ahead. Otherwise…

The narrator, Mario, is deep in debt due to his beloved daughter's daunting medical bills. So he does what any of us might do: signs up as a hit man, shooting people in the head for money. Surprisingly, this does not save his marriage, thanks to the "accidental" mayhem he visits on his wife. And (page 22 spoiler) his daughter dies anyway. And I guess life is cheap in Mario's world, because even after killing a bunch of people, he's still getting pestered by his creditors.

Tip: when hiring yourself out as an assassin, find out what the opportunities are for professional advancement.

Salvation beckons when he's asked to join up with a gang looking to rip off a shipment of cash from a Mexican drug cartel. His cut will be $200K, which he imagines will get him out of debt, get his wife back, basically solve all his problems. His teammates are a meth junkie, Brian, and a mysterious Hispanic, Juanca.

Mario does not wonder why such an important role in the scheme is being played by pathetic losers like him. He eventually finds out, though.

I should also mention, as a consumer note, that there's quite a bit of untranslated Spanish in the book. I didn't resort to Google Translate for anything, and … did I miss anything? I guess I will never know.


Last Modified 2025-02-04 6:51 AM EST

Also Knock Down Their Ugly-Ass Building

Hal Scott (Harvard Law School Prof Emeritus) takes to the WSJ to cheer one thing and recommend another: Rohit Chopra Is Out. Now Shutter the CFPB.

President Trump’s decision on Saturday to fire Rohit Chopra as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is welcome if slightly belated. Since Mr. Trump’s election, Mr. Chopra has been on an antimarket rampage, seeking to tie the new president’s hands by proposing or finalizing 10 new regulations, among them rules limiting bank overdraft fees and restrictions on terms bank can impose on the financing of green-energy purchases.

In fiscal 2025 the CFPB will cost taxpayers an unnecessary $1 billion. These funds are being spent on antimarket enforcement actions and regulations that actually harm consumers. And the CFPB is performing a function that could be done more efficiently by other agencies.

Mr. Trump should go a step further and shut the CFPB down. As I pointed out in these pages in May, the bureau is operating illegally. Congress mandated that it be funded by the earnings of the Federal Reserve, but there have been no earnings since the Fed began incurring losses in September 2022 due to rising interest rates. These losses currently total $219.6 billion. The CFPB’s defense, in 13 pending enforcement cases where defendants have raised the illegality of funding, is that “earnings” really means revenue, an absurd claim under accounting standards. It is telling that the Fed, the source of illegal funding, has been silent on the issue.

That would probably put Senator Warren on the warpath, but that's better than OK. Keep her busy on defense.

Also of note:

  • Gee, sounds like a bad idea. Maybe worse than a "folly". The NR editorialists examine Trump’s Tariff Folly. I think I detect some sarcasm in the first paragraph. What do you think?:

    After months of uncertainty, the White House has finally announced tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China. The uncertainty since the election and especially the lack of clear communication in the past several days have caused apprehension in the stock market, which is likely part of the reason why these measures were announced on a Saturday, when the markets are closed — always a sign of confidence that an economic policy decision is the right one.

    The stated purpose is to reduce the flow of illegal drugs and immigrants to the U.S. Trump has had success using blunt-force threats in the past, but this is a costly, disruptive way to pursue the supposed goals, and Trump may just want the tariffs for their own sake.

    The White House is perpetuating the fiction that foreigners pay tariffs. We know from previous efforts that roughly the entire cost of the tax is passed on to American consumers and businesses. And retaliation from other countries will only make the taxes increase, as the order contains automatic hikes when the other governments respond. It is a downward spiral in which all countries will be made worse off.

    The editorial is just one of the links provided by Don Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek this morn, all relating to Trump's Tariff Tomfoolery. Example, from Commie National Public Radio reporter Brian Mann's Twitter thread, debunking Trump's attempt to connect this to fentanyl:

    As I noted, NPR. So…

  • Let's set these guys free too. Jonathan Turley is down on Commie Radio: “This is NPR”: America’s Public Media Faces Reckoning on What it is.

    “This is NPR.” That tagline has long been used for National Public Radio, but what it is remains remarkably in doubt. NPR remains something of a curiosity. It is a state-subsidized media outlet in a country that rejects state media. It is a site that routinely pitches for its sponsors while insisting that it does not have commercials. That confusion may be on the way to a final resolution after the election. NPR is about to have a reckoning with precisely what it is and what it represents.

    While I once appeared regularly on NPR, I grew more critical of the outlet as it became overtly political in its coverage and intolerant of opposing views.

    Even after a respected editor, Uri Berliner, wrote a scathing account of the political bias at NPR, the outlet has doubled down on its one-sided coverage and commentary. Indeed, while tacking aggressively to the left and openly supporting narratives (including some false stories) from Democratic sources, NPR has dismissed the criticism. When many of us called on NPR to pick a more politically neutral CEO, it instead picked NPR CEO Katherine Maher, who was previously criticized for her strident political views.

    Perhaps NPR (actually the entire Corporation for Public Broadcasting) could just become a subsidiary of Viking Cruises.

  • Your tax dollars at work… We missed saying anything about Groundhog Day. Sorry. This story comes a day late: NOAA study ranks groundhogs for weather-predicting accuracy.

    The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released a study analyzing the annual prognostications of weather-predicting groundhogs and found the most famous, Punxsutawney Phil, didn't even crack the top 10.

    NOAA released the study ahead of Groundhog Day, which falls on Sunday, to analyze which groundhogs -- along with one prairie dog statue and a tortoise -- were the most accurate in predicting whether spring would come early or late.

    Perhaps NOAA could be replaced by the winner, Staten Island Chuck.

  • It's an idea whose "time" (heh!) has come. Steve Hanke agrees with Pun Salad about time zones. Or I may be agreeing with him, I'm not sure who came first. But here's his WSJ LTE:

    Joseph Epstein’s op-ed “Enough with Changing the Clock” (Jan. 24) argues for eliminating daylight-saving time and adopting standard time throughout the U.S. While Mr. Epstein goes in the right direction, he doesn’t go far enough.

    The U.S. should scrap its current system of time zones and daylight saving in favor of worldwide adoption of Coordinated Universal Time, or UTC. This would mean that everyone’s watches would be set at exactly the same time. The only difference they would notice, depending on where they’re located, would be where the sun is in the sky at a particular hour. Midday would be as it is today, when the sun reaches its highest point in the sky. What would be different under UTC is the time on your watch. In New York, midday would no longer be noon but rather 5 p.m., or 17:00 UTC.

    The adoption of UTC wouldn’t mean people would be going to work in darkness. Business hours would be adjusted. In New York, under UTC, instead of the usual 9 to 5 schedule, businesses would open at 2 p.m. and close eight hours later at 10 p.m.

    Adoption of UTC would allow for a return to “true time,” or solar time. With that, everyone would rise with the sun in the morning and go to sleep when it’s dark at night according to their natural circadian rhythm, not some artificial time constraint.

    Pilots, for the obvious reason of safety, already use UTC. Global markets, including Wall Street, operate with UTC. Virtually all modern technologies, including the internet and GPS, use it too. It’s time for the rest of us to do the same.

    Yes. Separation of time and state. And I'm slightly more libertarian than Steve. Instead of "everyone’s watches would be set at exactly the same time", I'd say: Set your watch however you want. Spring forward, fall back, do the hokey-pokey and turn yourself around. Your call.


Last Modified 2025-02-07 5:39 AM EST

It's Explainer Sunday!

For some reason, all our links answer questions you may have had.

First up, Jeff Maurer explains why Whiny Baby Mitch McConnell Might Not Vote for a Man Who Tried to Cripple Him.

The Washington Post is reporting that Mitch McConnell might have a unique reason for being skeptical about RFK Jr.’s nomination for Secretary of Health and Human Services. From the article:

Stricken with polio in 1944, 2-year-old Mitch McConnell spent his days confined to bed or undergoing a strict physical therapy regimen to rehabilitate his left leg at an age when most toddlers cannot sit still.

The Kentucky Republican’s childhood bout with the once-deadly disease that ravaged America has informed his ardent support for vaccines…

But McConnell’s life-altering experience is on a collision course with efforts to confirm Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the founder of a prominent anti-vaccine group, to lead the nation’s health department in President Donald Trump’s second administration.

Oh I see: McConnell is making it personal. It’s not supposed to be about you, Mitch! Confirmation hearings are about whether the person is qualified, not about whether — if they had their druthers — you might have been left wheelchair bound for life! You need to put your memories of watching untold scores of children be maimed and killed by one of history’s great plagues out of your mind and focus on the here-and-now!

I continue to believe that Trump would not shed any tears if Junior wasn't confirmed to be HHS Secretary. Yes, he had to promise him something in exchange for his election support, but if he gets rejected: "Hey, Bob, sorry it didn't work out. Good luck with your lucrative onesie business."

Don't miss, by the way, Junior's response to Senator Bennet's query: "Did you say that lyme disease is a highly likely militarily engineered bioweapon?"

More explations of note:

  • Abigail Shrier explains… How the Gender Fever Finally Broke.

    When the history of 21st-century gender mania is written, it should include this signal entry: In 2020, a website called GoFundMe, usually a place to find disaster-relief appeals and charities for starving children, contained more than 30,000 urgent appeals from young women seeking to remove their perfectly healthy breasts.

    Another entry, from June 2020: The New England Journal of Medicine, America’s platinum medical publication, published a piece explaining that biological sex is actually “assigned at birth” by a doctor—and not a verifiable fact, based on our gametes, stamped into every one of our chromosomes. In fact, biological sex ought to be deleted from our birth certificates—the authors claimed—because a person’s biological sex serves “no clinical utility.” Breaking news to gynecologists.

    [Amazon Link]
    (paid link)

    Public schools began asking elementary kids whether they might like to identify as “genderqueer” or “nonbinary.” Any dissent from this gender movement was met with suppression. The American Civil Liberty Union’s most prominent lawyer, Chase Strangio, announced his intention to suppress Irreversible Damage, my book-length investigation into the sudden spike in transgender identification among teen girls. “Stopping the circulation of this book and these ideas is 100% a hill I will die on,” he tweeted. Weeks later, Amazon deleted Ryan Anderson’s book criticizing the transgender medical industry.

    Strangio will be happy to know that Irreversible Damage is (apparently) one of the books Portsmouth (NH) Public Library is more than willing to ban. Amazon link is at your right, though.

  • Christian Britschgi explains… How the Fair Housing Act Gave Us Emotional Support Parrots.

    The first two parrots merely annoyed the neighbors. But after the third arrived, the U.S. Department of Justice got involved—on the side of the parrots.

    In 2024, a New York woman teamed up with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to squeeze a six-figure settlement out of her former co-op building. The building's transgression? Violating her right to keep not one, not two, but three emotional support parrots in her home.

    It's a colorful case, but it isn't atypical.

    A stampede of emotional support dogs, cats, llamas, peacocks, ducks, miniature horses, and more are showing up in America's airports, businesses, and apartment complexes. This has produced no shortage of conflict, particularly in the housing context.

    It's all fun and games until you're awakened at 2AM by Polly demanding a cracker.

    And don't miss Christian's further observation:

    Call it a game of cat and mouse—either of which could, in theory, count as an emotional support animal in a court of law.

  • And finally, Drew Cline explains… Why more money doesn’t equal better schools.

    From local elections to legislative debates to legal challenges, discussion of public education in New Hampshire has been dominated by two persistent myths. The first is that more spending is the primary means of producing better educational outcomes. The second is that our educational outcomes are stunted because funding for K-12 public schools has “been slashed,” as a common talking point asserts.

    Because of these myths, instead of focusing on school leadership and proven, outcome-based measures of success, voters and policymakers have too often devoted their efforts toward improving fiscal inputs.

    In a new policy brief, the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy reviews the last few decades’ worth of public education spending in New Hampshire, along with student performance measures, to help Granite Staters understand that the relationship between spending and outcomes is not as simple as its proponents claim.

    There are numbers, but also pictures:

    The Josiah Bartlett Center's 11-page policy brief is here. Read it and… well, don't weep, just support the separation of school and state.

Senator Maggie on Science

A snip from Junior's confirmation hearing:

Well, that's our state's contribution to shaving points off the national IQ.

Confession: I went through a "philosophy of science" phase in my twenties. Hume, Kuhn, Popper, Feyerabend, Lakatos, … It can really mess up your brain. Didn't help with my scientific career either, which flamed out pretty quickly afterwards. I've gradually come to believe that certain areas are not susceptible to philosophical wisdom: if very smart people have been arguing for centuries about those topics without reaching consensus, it may be that "truth" is simply beyond the grasp of our tiny minds.

I still like to check out the "free will" arguments, though.

Also of note:

  • But is it, in some sense, conscious? Kevin D. Williamson writes with his usual insight: The Federal Government Is Not a Startup. Long excerpt:

    People have been saying “We need to run government like a business!”—and trying to do so—for 200 years. The project always fails. The question isn’t whether it is going to fail again this time around, with the Silicon Valley tech mafia leading the way—the question is whether Elon Musk is smart enough to understand why it is going to fail.

    OpenAI, the firm that owns ChatGPT, reportedly loses about $150 … a second. Serious people value the firm at $300 billion. And that comes after DeepSeek, the Chinese open-source competitor, came out blazing. People who follow OpenAI closely argue that the firm’s business model has some pretty steep challenges: For anyone other than hobbyists, its tools are not actually all that cheap to use. So, it is losing money at a relatively high price point while facing competition from an open-source competitor, which is bound to put downward pressure on prices.

    In the frothy days of the 1990s dot-com bubble, companies without a real business model and not much in the way of customers or revenue saw—for a time—sky-high market valuations based solely on the fact that they were positioning themselves to be part of the coming digital revolution. That worked out great for a few firms and not at all for a lot more. The tech sector is a little more buttoned-down these days, but the distance between big idea and big profit remains considerable, and there is a kind of cultural aspect to it as well, as in Silicon Valley’s eternal founder-vs.-manager discourse. And even in today’s more conservative business climate, tech firms are not in the main famous for being beady-eyed stewards of cashflow—they are epic pissers-away of money, but the upsides to startup success are so rich that they can maintain a pretty high burn rate. What’s $150 a second among friends?

    The federal government currently spends a little more than $200,000 a second. And the big idea from Donald Trump and Elon Musk is to lower that number by bringing in the sort of people who are currently overseeing that $150/second loss at OpenAI.

    A few days back, Robert Rubin (a Secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton) wrote a WSJ op-ed describing The Limits of ‘Running Government Like a Business’. He makes a number of good points, but I liked even better the point made in Clifford G. Holderness's LTE a few days later:

    Robert Rubin’s op-ed […] misses the key difference between the private and public sectors: The decision-makers in each have different incentives.

    The essence of private property is that decision rights—and the wealth effects of exercising those rights—are vested in the same person. If Mr. Rubin made value-decreasing decisions as head of Goldman Sachs, the value of his holdings would have declined, as would have the wealth of his fellow partners. If his management didn’t improve, he would have been replaced. Owners of private property ultimately have to eat their own cooking.

    Government officials, by contrast, seldom bear the wealth consequences of their actions. Indeed, in many instances this is prohibited by law. Mr. Rubin’s decisions as Treasury secretary doubtless caused greater wealth effects than his decisions at Goldman, but he personally bore few of the consequences. This doesn’t mean one system of incentives is better than the other—but it does mean the incentives are different in each and that what works in the private sector may not work in the public.

    And while we're on that page, a second LTE from Michael H. Way also points out a certain asymmetry:

    A significant difference between the sectors: No matter how incompetent, government keeps expanding.

    The Internal Revenue Service assesses large penalties to those who make honest filing errors but can’t pass the most basic audit. The Environmental Protection Agency fines businesses for pollution infractions but paid no penalty for the 2015 Gold King Mine wastewater spill. California loses more than $20 billion in pandemic relief fraud, wastes billions more on high-speed rail to nowhere, and fails to complete basic fire abatement, but the agencies responsible duck responsibility.

    Every election cycle we throw out some clowns and bring in new ones. Our government circus nevertheless keeps on growing.

    (paid link)
    True dat.

    But if you want to see an argument that the USA is conscious, Amazon link on your right.

  • Pointing the finger at the real culprits… is J.D. Tuccille: Americans who hate inefficiency but love bloated government. Skipping down to the "love":

    A bigger problem, though, is that Americans aren't really comfortable with cutting the expense and bloat of the most expensive and bloated parts of the federal government. When asked by AP-NORC if the government was spending enough, most said they think the government is spending too little in areas including education (65 percent), Social Security (67 percent), Medicare (61 percent), Medicaid (55 percent), assistance to the poor (62 percent), and border security (51 percent).

    The fact is that it's impossible to cut the cost and size of government if all these areas are considered untouchable. According to the U.S. Treasury, as of Fiscal Year 2025, 21 percent of federal spending goes to Social Security, 15 percent to national defense, 14 percent to health, 13 percent to net interest to service the government's massive debt, 13 percent to Medicare, 9 percent to income security, and so on.

    DOGE might be able to squeeze some inefficiency out of these programs, but it's not going to reduce the size and expense of government if people insist that more be spent on these programs. Well, unless national defense is gutted, since only 34 percent of respondents think too little is spent on that category.

    Always popular among the populi: panem et circenses.

    (Yeah, pretentious and gratuitous Latin. Although meant to indicate that it's Always Been With Us.)

  • Me too. Jonah Goldberg joins me in confessing: I’m a Sucker for America. From his sickbed:

    A video of Anthony Mackie, the African American actor tapped to take over the role of Captain America, appeared on a panel in Italy to promote Captain America: Brave New World. “To me Captain America represents a lot of different things and I don’t think the term ‘America’ should be one of those representations,” Mackie said.  “It’s about a man who keeps his word, who has honor, dignity and integrity. Someone who is trustworthy and dependable.”

    Much like the influenza in my bloodstream, it went viral. 

    By Tuesday, Mackie tried to clarify. “Let me be clear about this, I’m a proud American and taking on the shield of a hero like CAP is the honor of a lifetime,” he wrote on Instagram. “I have the utmost respect for those who serve and have served our country. CAP has universal characteristics that people all over the world can relate to.”

    I’ll be honest. I don’t think it’s a great mea culpa. The issue wasn’t that he insulted “those who serve and have served our country.” The issue was he insulted America itself.  We’ll return to that in a moment.

    I don't think I've set foot in a movie theater since last April (Civil War). I'm unlikely to make an exception for Captain America: Brave New World, as I assume it will show up on Disney+ quickly enough. (But I'll probably be buying tickets for Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning come May.)

  • "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Robert F. Graboyes doubles the Queen's count, and tells us Why Impossible Things Are Everywhere. He gives twelve examples, all too long to excerpt, but here's a snippet, where he quotes someone else.

    “Have you ever witnessed a total solar eclipse? Usually when I give a lecture, only a couple of people in an audience of several hundred people raise their hands when I ask that question. A few others respond tentatively, saying, ‘I think I saw one.’ That’s like a woman saying, ‘I think I once gave birth.’”

    Yes, indeed.

    The "impossible thing" in this case is the fact that eclipse totality occurs so spectacularly. The odds against that happening are (literally) astronomical. And yet…

  • Life hack. From Ars Technica: “Just give me the f***ing links!”—Cursing disables Google’s AI overviews.

    If you search Google for a way to turn off the company's AI-powered search results, you may well get an AI Overview telling you that AI Overviews can't be directly disabled in Google Search. But if you instead ask Google how to turn off "fucking Google AI results," you'll get a standard set of useful web suggestions without any AI Overview at the top.

    Funny. But you might want to try it quickly, it sounds like behavior that will be patched.