But Jeffrey Blehar keeps it metaphorical: What Other Skeletons Are Lurking in Graham Platner’s Closet?. (NR gifted link)
What have we learned at this point about Graham Platner, presumptive Democratic candidate for Senate in the high-stakes race against Susan Collins in Maine? Mainers — and the national media — were certainly sold one story about Platner: that of an antiwar Marine during the Iraq War, a hardscrabble oysterman, and a working-class straight talker.
And then, one by one, we discovered that each of these biographical points were, when not outright false, distorted beyond all recognition. It turns out that Platner, who frequently accuses Senator Collins of “voting to send him to Iraq,” actively volunteered two years after the United States declared war because — in his own words, later hastily erased from Reddit — “I wanted to have an adventure and kill some people.” (He hated the job so much he later signed up with Blackwater as a mercenary to go to Afghanistan.) It turns out that his vaunted oyster farm’s biggest customer is his mother, who buys his tiny haul for her restaurant.
Platner boasts of being a “working-class guy living a working-class life,” but a New York Times investigation into his background earlier this month revealed that he was in fact the rich and downwardly mobile progeny of upper-class wealth, a man who attended one of the most expensive and elite private schools in America — but only for a year, before transferring to a different private school. He is and has always been financially supported by his parents, who bought his house for him and keep him in “business,” such as it is. In other words, he’s a failson turning to politics in his idle frustration. (It is a story familiar to many upper-class families.)
Jeffrey's story also covers the latest sordid revelations. ("Latest", unless there have been more sordid revelations since his article was posted yesterday.)
I've mentioned before that most politicians are several sigma off the mean on one or more personality traits. Platner seems to be no exception there, and not in a good way.
Also of note:
-
You would think that FDR's experience would be a warning. The WSJ editorialists claim: Democrats Promise to Wreck the Supreme Court.
Democrats are likely to retake the House and maybe the Senate in November, which is reason to ask: What would they do with that power? One emerging answer is that they seem determined to blow up the Supreme Court.
Listen to Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the betting favorite to be the next Speaker of the House. “The Supreme Court is a disgrace,” he said in April. “In the new Congress, we’re going to have to do something about this Supreme Court, and let me be very clear: Everything is on the table—everything to deal with this corrupt MAGA majority.”
He’s serious, and his agent for this task is Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, who is already making an argument to pack the Court with four new Justices. Why four? Mr. Raskin has a gussied-up explanation that might sound plausible if all you watch is MS NOW.
“There are 13 federal circuits in America, and traditionally, the Supreme Court has been made up of the number of Justices equal to the number of circuits,” Mr. Raskin said recently. “We’ve got 13 circuits, but we only have nine Justices. So that means that under the best of circumstances, four entire federal regions, four federal circuits will be left out completely.”
Court-packing should be wildly unpopular, just as it was in 1937, but we'll see. Ask your Democrat candidates this fall about their positions.
-
Neither in a literal nor a figurative sense, I'm sure. Could the Libertarian Party tempt me back into its warm embrace? There are encouraging signs in Eric Boehm's article: New Libertarian Party Chair Evan McMahon has no interest in playing kingmaker.
"The proper approach for a Libertarian candidate to take is to be a libertarian and run," says McMahon, who was elected the party's new chair at its convention last weekend. "Not to seek an armistice with somebody who's going to grow the state, who's going to bomb and kill children in other countries."
Most of the time, that would be a rather noncontroversial take. In recent years, however, the Libertarian Party has been controlled by a faction that toyed with the idea that the best way to achieve pro-liberty political change is by cozying up with one of the two major parties. In practice, that meant doing things like inviting Donald Trump to speak at the Libertarian National Convention two years ago.
Instead of playing spoiler, the idea was to use Libertarian voters as leverage to gain a seat at the table (or perhaps a position in the cabinet), even if doing so came at the expense of the party's own nominees. That has been a controversial approach within the party, which has seen membership and donations decline, and has yielded few positive results—yes, Trump freed Ross Ulbricht, but most of his second term has largely been a libertarian nightmare.
McMahon wants a clean break with all of that.
Well, good. The Rs and Ds seem to be in competition to see which can repel me faster, so I'm hopeful the LP nominates some non-fruitcakes so I won't have to leave my ballot blank next year.
Further down, a couple paragraphs of local interest:
McMahon supported the successful effort at last week's convention to disaffiliate the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, something he says was "necessary" and had been "a long time coming."
The former New Hampshire affiliate had endorsed Trump in 2024, rather than backing Libertarian nominee Chase Oliver. The state party has also gained a reputation for posting racist, bigoted, and authoritarian content on social media. The affiliate had become "a toxic group that is doing damage to our brand and to our candidates and our affiliates," McMahon told Reason.
Well, they certainly drove me away.
-
You'd think they'd aspire to at least "fast casual". Megan McArdle says AI fiction is the new fast food. (WaPo gifted link)
Three things you may not know about me: I am a big woman, 6 foot 2 inches in my stocking feet. My laugh is loud, if not to say piercing. And I never apologize to furniture.
That’s why I identified so strongly with Auntie Marsha, the hero from “The Serpent in the Grove,” one of five regional winners of the 2026 Commonwealth Short Story Prize.
“Big in the way of women who never apologise to furniture,” the story tells us, “she had a laugh that shook dust from joists and a voice that could soften to coax a child from a ledge.”
I seldom apologize to furniture, but for some larger items, it's best to ensure you stay on its good side.
Anyway, an AI program (perhaps recognizing a kindred spirit) flagged "The Serpent in the Grove" with near certainty as being written without human fingers on the keyboard. Apparently "crazy metaphors" are red flags.
But Megan makes the counterintuitive observation: AI prose "in some specific ways, is too good."
It is the literary equivalent of fast food: convenient, cheap, hyper-consistent and relentlessly optimized to tickle our pleasure centers.
Hm. I wouldn't mind having my pleasure centers tickled. Maybe not a steady diet, but…
| Recently on the book blog: |
|
| Recently on the movie blog: |
|
![[The Blogger]](/ps/images/barred.jpg)
