Pun Salad

That being the title of Andrew Heaton's latest video at Reason, which contains more serious content than is usual for Andrew's videos, and I highly recommend it…

… um, unless you're of Irish descent, and sensitive about it. (In which case, best to you on St. Patrick's Day!)

Also of note:

• An easy call for me. Veronique de Rugy poses a choice for you: Tax the Rich or Discipline the Government?

  In 1950, [s Cato Institute tax scholar Adam Michel] documents, total government spending constituted roughly one-fifth of the U.S. economy. That figure has now risen to more than one-third. Real spending per person quadrupled over that same period. Jack Salmon of the Mercatus Center traced this phenomenon back to determine exactly where the long-term structural deficit comes from, and found that 98% is due to spending decisions. About two-thirds of this deficit reflects the compounding cost of interest on debt we've already accumulated. The remainder is mandatory program growth, above all with Medicare, which is on a trajectory to nearly triple as a share of GDP by mid-century compared with its historical average.

  No plausible tax increase can close a gap like that. There's a hard empirical ceiling on how much revenue the government can actually extract, regardless of what tax rates it sets.

  More fiscal fun facts from Vero at the link. The real problem? We (present company excepted) keep electing politicians who lie to us about this.

• Speaking of spending… At Cato, Chris Edwards looks at a sacred cow: Farm Subsidies: More, More, More.

  Republicans can’t get enough of farm subsidies. The House GOP is currently pushing another big farm bill just months after President Trump doled out $12 billion in special farm payments. By one measure, farm subsidies are projected to soar from $23 billion in 2025 to $42 billion by 2027, so now is a good time to review these growing handouts.

  The federal budget fattens many industries, including defense, health care, transportation, and housing. But no industry is more coddled by the federal government than agriculture, particularly field crops. Billions of dollars a year flow to farmers of corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, and rice.

  Farmers are businesspeople, but the government shields them from just about every type of weather and market risk. Furthermore, just about every part of the agricultural industry is subsidized, including insurance, loans, marketing, research, export sales, and land improvements.

  Most welfare programs are for low-income families, but farm welfare is for high-income families. The average income of US farm households in 2024 was $159,334, which was 32 percent higher than the $121,000 average of all US households. But Congress steers subsidies to the wealthiest of those farm households. Two-thirds or more of payments from the major subsidy programs go to the largest 10 percent of farms. Even billionaires can receive farm subsidies.

  As a one-time Iowa boy, I like farmers a lot, but they need to be weaned off the federal teat.

• And at the University Near Here… NHJournal has mixed news: UNH's $212K DEI Director Out, but Race-Based Policies May Remain.

  She survived years of tight budgets, legislative action, and presidential executive orders, but the University of New Hampshire’s $212,000 DEI officer is finally on her way out.

  The question now is whether the UNH administration will continue to push for the race-based policies and practices that are unpopular with the voters and — more importantly — the legislators who oversee their funding.

  In a letter to students and faculty, UNH President Elizabeth Chilton announced that Dr. Nadine Petty will be leaving at the end of the year.

  “Since joining UNH in 2020, Dr. Petty has helped strengthen the university’s commitment to an inclusive, equitable, and respectful campus community,” Chilton wrote.

  Chilton’s letter didn’t mention federal and state laws mandating an end to the so-called “diversity, equity, and inclusion” policies Petty was hired to oversee. Instead, Chilton said Petty and her husband will “relocate to be closer to family outside of New England.”

  Yes, she's leaving to spend more time with her family.

  I wish her well, and hope she exercises her talents in some less divisive field.

I believe the Amazon Product du Jour is borderline idolatry, and I only recommend it as a bad example.

The WSJ editorialists bemoan a recent legislative success: Elizabeth Warren’s Housing Coup. (WSJ gifted link)

I don't think they're making an obscure reference to the Native American ritual of counting coup. But maybe.

After Your Federal Government has made great progress in making medical care, public education, and childcare "affordable", it's about time it worked its magic on housing.

In case you need it: the headline reference.

Also of note:

• Or maybe just change their name to "Complete Ninny Network". John Hinderaker goes for the jugular: CNN Must Go. He follows up the failures mentioned here yesterday. The latest is a grudging apology for being "inaccurate", but one that still manages to be inaccurate:

  I want to correct something I said last night. The bombs thrown in New York City over the weekend by ISIS inspired attackers was thrown into a crowd of anti-Muslim protestors and not specifically targeted at Mayor Mamdani. That wording was inaccurate and I didn’t catch it ahead…

  — Abby D. Phillip (@abbydphillip) March 11, 2026

  Nevertheless, they persisted:

  Astonishingly, after Phillips’ gaffe, another CNN host repeated the same falsehood:

  Later in the program, CNN’s Ana Navarro said the attack was “against Mayor Mandani in New York, who was raised Muslim.”

  Let's see if Nina Jankowicz and her "American Sunlight Project" are covering this misinformation pandemic… uh, nope.

• The latest instantiation of "Horseshoe Theory". Dennis Saffran is not happy about it: The New Right Takes Up the Left’s War on Merit.

  In June 2023, the Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), striking down racial preferences that discriminated against whites but most blatantly against Asian-Americans in college admissions. It was one of the signal conservative judicial victories made possible by Donald Trump’s Court appointments. And, while colleges and universities have continued to resist it, it is clear that it marked, if not the beginning of the end of the “plot against merit” that has caught high-achieving Asian-American kids in its crosshairs, at least “the end of the beginning” of the effort to restore something resembling colorblind equality.

  So, of course, there’s a certain kind of right-winger who just can’t stand it.

  New Right writer Helen Andrews went on a Yellow Peril tweetstorm tear on X last month, bemoaning Asian “cheating” and “grind culture” and the “death spiral” of “unchecked meritocracy” seen in China, speculating that “the boom in Southern colleges is white flight from Asian educational norms,” criticizing high-skilled immigration, and fretting that, in the wake of the SFFA decision, the Harvard freshman class is now “over 40% Asian,” and “Asians outnumber whites” at many other top schools. She followed this up with a piece in Compact reiterating these themes and lamenting that the SFFA ruling had allegedly allowed affirmative action “to continue as long as it only harms whites and not Asians.”

  As an "I'm old enough to remember" item: it used to be Jews.

• Might even be worse than his phoniness problem. George Will translates auribus teneo lupum for us clods: Gavin Newsom has a hold-a-wolf-by-the-ears problem. (WaPo gifted link). It's all good, of course, so just a couple paragraphs at random:

  Vogue has just published an adoring profile of Newsom. Its 5,317 words begin with these: “He is embarrassingly handsome, his hair seasoned with silver, at ease with his own eminence.” Then Vogue shifts into high-gear gush: “lithe, ardent, energetic, a glimmer of optimism in his eye; Kennedy-esque.”

  This is the most beyond-satire puff piece since Vanity Fair’s April 2019 cover story on a Texas congressman who was the flavor of the month for about a month among the tiny sliver of voters who think Vanity Fair is a profound guide to U.S. politics. Remember Beto O’Rourke? Few do.

  As I type, Governor Gav is the favored 2028 Democrat presidential nominee at the Stossel/Lott Election Betting Odds site, but with only a 26.8% probability. What's that mean?

• This inspires some dark fantasies here. James Piereson calls for truth in labelling: Socialism is a hate crime.

  It is remarkable that, despite its long record of failure, socialism is now more popular than ever among college students and in progressive precincts of the Democratic Party, at least judging by the cult status of figures such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Now an avowed socialist has been elected mayor of New York, the commercial capital of the United States and home to that great capitalist institution, the stock market. Even more recently, socialists here and around the world have spoken out in unison against the arrest of Nicolás Maduro, the socialist dictator of Venezuela.

  It is ironic that these socialists, along with their supporters and fellow travelers, like to censor conservatives for, allegedly, promoting “hate” and “division.” On that basis, they have banned conservative speakers from appearing on college campuses, and just a few years ago urged Twitter and Facebook to close the accounts of conservatives who spoke out against socialism.

  This raises the question: given the historical record, why don’t we label socialism as a hate crime?

  I try to avoid amateur psychoanalysis, but socialists do seem to be motivated by unhealthy and dysfunctional instincts. Just sayin'.

• Maybe not three cheers, but can we have two? Or even one? Jeff Maurer has a contrarian take: Regime Change is Good Sometimes.

  Left-wing views on regime change are largely informed by two bees that are still buzzing around in the leftist bonnet: The CIA’s work to install the Shah in Iran and Pinochet in Chile. When the 1952 election in Iran produced a Prime Minister who threatened Western oil interests, the CIA and MI6 backed a coup by the Shah that made him an absolute ruler. And when a Marxist won the 1970 election in Chile, the CIA backed a coup a few years later by Augusto Pinochet. If you know leftists — and oh I have known some leftists in my time — these are events they talk about a lot. And they have a point: The US basically supported democracy unless democracy produced leaders we didn’t like, which is kind of like being monogamous unless a really juicy opportunity to cheat comes along.

  But the big problem in both cases is that we toppled governments that had democratic legitimacy. Those governments won elections, and we didn’t even wait for the leftist leader to disband the constitution and declare himself Dictator For Life And Beyond (which probably would have happened if the CIA had just kept its pants on). We ignored the people’s will in both countries, which is why folks like me — who don’t care about Marxist claptrap but do care about democracy — look at those choices and think “bad stuff”.

  Good points.

Recently on the book blog:

I don't actually recommend you buy the Amazon Product du Jour over there on your right. (Although I've put it on my possibly-get-at-library list. If I'm feeling masochistic.) It's by the failed litigator Michael Mann and Peter Hotez. And according to the review by Roger Pielke Jr., they are The Scientists Who Declared War on Half of America.

"Stark Realty" would be a good name for a New Hampshire real estate company.

Roger's not a big fan, as you might expect from someone who's named by Mann/Hotez as one of the Enemies of the Good.

Also of note:

• Trying to put a smiley face on mediocrity. The Heritage Foundation has issued an updated Index of Economic Freedom, ranking 184 countries.

  I won't sugarcoat it, Reader: the US is in a solid 22nd place. The relevant page reflects the Heritage Foundation's Trump sycophancy:

  The United States’ economic freedom score is 72.8, making its economy the 22nd freest in the 2026 Index of Economic Freedom. Its rating has increased by 2.6 points from last year, ending the precipitous five-year decline of America’s economic freedom. The Trump Administration’s pragmatic pro-growth economic strategy—lowering the costs of doing business, advancing and spreading prosperity, and enhancing long-term competitiveness—has yielded the strongest economic growth rate recorded in recent years.

  The American economy has achieved the largest score improvement among the major advanced economies and the third largest among all of the countries graded in the 2026 Index. Gains in monetary freedom, government spending, fiscal health, and investment freedom have outpaced the lower score in trade freedom, reflecting the positive impact of major regulatory and tax reforms on economic growth, investment, and business confidence. This improvement also marks America’s biggest score advancement since 2001 and the second-best in the U.S.’s 32-year history in the Index.

  You might have missed the mumble about the "lower score in trade freedom". And I'm not sure how they measure "government spending" and "fiscal health" to come up with gains.

  But it's downright embarrassing when your country is getting its clock cleaned economic freedomwise by Singapore, Switzerland, Ireland, Australia, Taiwan, Luxembourg, Demark, Norway, Estonia, The Netherlands, Sweden, New Zealand, Finland, Canada, Lithuania, Chile, Cyprus, South Korea, Czech Republic, and Mauritius.

• Like I'm five years old? Bryan Caplan bravely says: I Think I Can Explain Trump's Theory of Trade.

  Donald Trump likes exports and foreign investment, and laments imports and trade deficits. Most economists find this a baffling bundle of preferences — and the more they know about international trade, the more baffled they are. Never mind the truism that the whole point of exports is to buy imports. Doesn’t Trump know that getting more foreign investment raises trade deficits by definition? How confused can you get? While I agree that Trump is terribly wrong about international trade, there’s a big difference between being wrong and being confused. While I doubt I’m ready to pass an Ideological Turing Test for Trumpian trade theory, I recently had a weird epiphany on the topic. After said epiphany, I feel capable of articulating roughly what Trump is thinking.

  1. Above all, Trump wants the rest of the world to buy as much stuff from the U.S. as possible. He wants the world to buy our current output — and he wants them to buy our assets, too! His dream is piles of dollars flowing into the U.S. from all directions.

  2. If piles of dollars flow into the U.S. from all directions, he thinks this will boost U.S. sales and employment.

  3. Trump doesn’t know and doesn’t care about the “trade deficit” as economists define it. When he hears “trade deficit,” Trump imagines that U.S. dollars leaving the U.S. exceed U.S. dollars entering the U.S. Foreign investment means U.S. dollars entering the U.S., so on his implicit definition, foreign investment reduces trade deficits.

  Why would anyone find this story plausible? Simple: It’s unadorned, old-fashioned Keynesianism. Trump wants to boost aggregate demand. The more money foreigners spend here, the more American business will sell, and the more American workers they’ll hire.

  Since I know nothing about Keynesianism, let alone the unadorned, old-fashioned variety, I probably shouldn't comment.

  I will anyhow: I think Bryan's giving the president too much intellectual cover. I think Trump operates simply on a combination of unprincipled whim and narcissism.

• If the truth-in-labelling laws had any teeth, they would have been forced to do this already. David Strom at Hot Air fantasizes: CNN Changing Name to PNN: Propaganda News Network.

  Some things you cannot make up.

  I mean, who would believe it if you told them that CNN would turn an Islamist terrorist attack on New York City into a tale of two brothers minding their own business until they were forced to protest the injustice of white supremacists who were committing an Islamophobic hate crime?

  He's talking about this:

  Whenever the topic is something the media doesn’t like, journalists all become creative writing professors. The press has done everything possible to obfuscate the facts of this story—and it has done so deliberately. pic.twitter.com/YnwnyRwXLe

  — Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) March 10, 2026

  CNN eventually got embarrassed into fixing this particular outrage, but David has more examples. And since then:

  CNN claims the attempted bombing in NYC was directed at Mamdani
  
  It was literally two isis islamists who shouted “allahu akbar” and threw the bombs at anti-Mamdani protesters
  
  This attempt to rewrite history is INSANE pic.twitter.com/93SvU70sIJ

  — Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 11, 2026

  When I see people out there claim "You can't hate the media enough", I take it as a dare. "Oh yeah? Watch me."

• But in more positive news… James Freeman pays some attention to an under-reported bit of the story: Duty, Honor, Country, City. (WSJ gifted link)

  One always hopes that in the face of danger one would act with courage. But how many among us would run toward alleged terrorists or toward an improvised explosive device even as it emits a cloud of smoke from its lit fuse? New York City police officers did both of those things last Saturday in foiling an attempted attack allegedly inspired by ISIS.

  Something to hold onto.

Yes, a very belated nod to Robert Duvall's famous line in Apocalypse Now, inspired by Jack Butler's plea for honest language: A War by Any Name. (WSJ gifted link)

And, yes, it's a very rare case where (in this very limited domain) President Trump is being more honest than his fellow D.C. swamp-dwellers.

"It is what it is." Sheesh.

Also of note:

• A wise man once noted "a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth." Thomas W. Hazlett describes a byproduct: The Equal Time Rule Was Obsolete in 1927. (WSJ gifted link)

  A debate has broken out over the Radio Act of 1927. It’s about time.

  The Radio Act established the Equal Time Rule, which still governs broadcast radio and television. The regulation specifies that “if any licensee shall permit any . . . candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station,” the station owner “shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates.”

  Proponents say the Equal Time Rule fosters media coverage of politics and affords political candidates greater public access. Critics say it has outlived its usefulness, as today’s media landscape offers a cornucopia of platforms unknown in 1920s America. The critics are right, except for one thing: The rule has never been useful and has always functioned mostly to suppress coverage for challengers.

  Kill it before it becomes a centenarian. And the FCC too, while you're at it.

• And reminding us why the FCC should go is … the libertarian-friendly WePo Editorial Board: The FCC thinks it knows best. (WaPo gifted link)

  The Federal Communications Commission announced last week that it wants to crack down on call centers. No one likes dealing with customer service over the phone, but don’t be surprised if this government intervention makes an already annoying experience even worse.

  “Consumers in the U.S. regularly experience frustration and inconsistent outcomes when they connect with a customer service call center located abroad,” the FCC said. The agency also pointed to language barriers and security concerns before introducing a raft of proposed rules for companies.

  Here's an idea: if you are dissatisfied with the customer service you get from a company, take your business elsewhere. Don't look to the FCC to save you from talking to New Delhi Dolly.

• A belated birthday note. I noted the anniversary of The Wealth of Nations yesterday, but here's a late-breaking card from J.D. Tuccille: Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations' remains relevant 250 years later.

  Smith is often referred to as the "father of capitalism" as if he designed an economic system as a thought experiment. But that's not the case. Instead, he described what he saw working in the voluntary interactions of people around him, and the government policies that got in the way of prosperity.

  As Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations:

  What is the species of domestic industry which his capital can employ, and of which the produce is likely to be of the greatest value, every individual, it is evident, can in his local situation judge much better than any statesman or lawgiver can do for him. The statesman, who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.

  That was an important insight at a time when Europe's rulers insisted that the path to building wealth required hoarding precious metals, limiting imports, and guiding economic activity to serve the interests of the state. It remains a key point a quarter-millennium later when countries that built prosperity through relatively free markets now squander what they created with government priorities and policies that sideline the creative efforts of workers and entrepreneurs.

  I would dearly love to report that insight has won the day, but … nope.

• I don't write about Texas politics much. But Kevin D. Williamson lives down there, and he has A Brief Message for Sen. John Cornyn. (archive.today link)

  A brief question for Sen. John Cornyn: What, exactly, is the point of you?

  You’re not Ken Paxton, true. Paxton, the corrupt imbecile who serves as the attorney general of Texas and your opponent in the upcoming Republican primary runoff, is pretty gross: He is an adulterer, a chiseler, an abuser of his office. Donald Trump, whom you are satisfied to serve as the most abject and obedient of lackeys, also is an adulterer, a chiseler, and an abuser of his office. On top of that is the fact that he attempted to overthrow the government of these United States in January 2021 after losing the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden—and you voted to acquit him in his impeachment after that attempted coup d’état. President Trump has launched an unconstitutional war against Iran, has carried out wanton massacres in the Caribbean, has overthrown the government of Venezuela, has dispatched U.S. special forces to Ecuador, and in none of these instances has he so much as nodded in the general direction of Congress—the branch of the U.S. government in which you serve, Sen. Cornyn, and the branch entrusted by our Constitution with the power to declare war. You have been exactly as faithful to your vow to uphold the Constitution as Ken Paxton was to his wedding vows—and, with all due respect to the blessed institution of marriage, your infidelity to the Constitution is more consequential than Paxton’s infidelity to his wife.

  I have no particular beef with Cornyn, but I deeply admire KDW.

• Unclear on the LFOD concept. Allen J. Davis of Dublin, NH appeals to LFOD in his LTE to the Keene Sentinel: NH: Live free, but without food choice.

  I oppose House Bill 1773, which would take away SNAP recipients' freedom to buy certain unhealthy foods.

  I wholeheartedly support Lisa Beaudoin, executive director of the N.H. Council of Churches, who said to the N.H. House of Representatives last week: This bill is a "troubling shift from support to surveillance."

  And, I want to pose this question to all House Republicans: Does "Live Free or Die" apply only to those lucky enough not to need the benefits of SNAP?

  Nobody, of course, is stopping Granite Staters from buying soda and candy.

  With their own money.

  Not that it matters, but here's what you currently can't use SNAP for (in any state):

  • Beer, wine, and liquor.
  • Cigarettes and tobacco.
  • Food and drinks containing controlled substances such as cannabis/marijuana and CBD.
  • Vitamins, medicines, and supplements. If an item has a Supplement Facts label, it is considered a supplement and is not eligible for SNAP purchase.
  • Live animals (except shellfish, fish removed from water, and animals slaughtered prior to pick-up from the store).
  • Foods that are hot at the point of sale.
  • Any nonfood items such as:
    • Pet foods
    • Cleaning supplies, paper products, and other household supplies.
    • Hygiene items and cosmetics

  Bet you didn't realize you were already living in a statist hellhole, did you Allen?

Recently on the movie blog:

No, I'm not jumping the gun. I'm joining with Janet Bufton at Econlib to hit this anniversary right on the nose: Happy Birthday, Wealth of Nations.

Janet's examples are part of the Liberty Fund's slick website, Adam Smith Works. A font of wisdom and trivia. For example, you might think that Adam was fond of Scotch Whiskey. But no, he preferred clarets (in moderation). Which probably gave him insight into British trade with France.

Also of note:

• Let's beat up on this stupid, evil idea some more. Megan McArdle looks at The myth of the billionaire wealth tax. (WaPo gifted link)

  Unfortunately, there are serious arguments that a wealth tax would be unconstitutional. Even more unfortunately, wealth taxes have been tried over and over, and most countries that adopted them eventually abandoned the idea, finding that such taxes were difficult to administer, caused capital flight and raised little revenue. An analysis by University of Toronto economist Joseph Steinberg suggests that tax revenue would actually fall if the Sanders-Khanna proposal were enacted, because of increased incentives for tax evasion (as taxes rise, people become more willing to risk the penalties for evasion) and reduced economic output.

  But what would Adam Smith say? See: Adam Smith on Taxation

• Not just stupid? The WSJ editorialists weigh in: The Legal Case Against Section 122 Tariffs. (WSJ gifted link)

  We never expected to see progressives quote Milton Friedman. But lo, 22 Democratic Attorneys General on Thursday invoked the free-market sage in a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s new Section 122 tariffs. They have a strong case.

  Mr. Trump last month turned to Section 122 to reimpose his border taxes after the Supreme Court struck down his emergency tariffs. Section 122 lets him impose tariffs as high as 15% for up to 150 days to address “large and serious balance-of-payments deficits.” Mr. Trump says the tariffs are needed to reduce the U.S.’s $1.2 trillion trade deficit in goods.

  Let's skip down to the delicious irony:

  Richard Nixon made Section 122 obsolete when he shut the gold window and abandoned Bretton Woods. The lawsuit quotes the sainted Friedman: “[A] system of floating exchange rates completely eliminates the balance-of-payments problem . . . the price may fluctuate but there cannot be a deficit or a surplus threatening an exchange crisis.”

  And on this day, you might also check out Adam Smith's Warnings about Exceptions to Free Trade.

• 

  Happy dolphins probably not included. The cover story in the current issue of Reason is by Christian Britschgi, who writes on The Joys of Data Centers. Joy is needed more than ever these days, right?

  Sen. Bernie Sanders has a problem with data centers. They're just too good.

  In a video posted to social media in December 2025, the Vermont independent complained that billionaire tech moguls are reaping huge profits from their data center investments while the technological innovations these facilities power will automate away countless jobs currently done by human workers. He called for a federal moratorium on data center construction to "give democracy a chance to catch up with the transformative changes that we are witnessing."

  I imagine there were early 20th-century Bernies demanding a moratorium on Henry Ford's Model T factory. But…

  In Sanders' case, his complaints about data centers tacitly accept the premises of the people investing huge sums in them: that these facilities will be fabulously profitable investments that spur the development of the innovative, labor-saving technologies of the future. But the socialist senator thinks that's a bad thing. After all, no government bureaucrat has precisely planned where all this economic dynamism will take us.

  The rest of us should be able to see the tremendous upsides of the country's data center boom. Advances in artificial intelligence and robotics could liberate humanity from boring, backbreaking labor. The early profits of data center development are a leading indicator of the increasingly productive economy that awaits us in the years to come.

  And although I'm relatively sure Adam Smith never wrote specifically about AI data centers, who can doubt that they are the pin factories of today?

Recently on the book blog:

Andrew Heaton, Reason's game show host, asks his unwary contestant: Is it war?.

Minigripe: Andrew didn't ask the contestant about the First Barbary War.

Also of note:

• I wish Vinay good health and access to whatever drugs he needs to make that happen. The WSJ editorialists note that Vinay Prasad Is Out at the FDA—Again. (WSJ gifted link) And it's hard to see this as anything other than good news:

  Is two times the charm? FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said Friday that Vinay Prasad, who leads the FDA’s biologics division, will leave the agency at the end of April. This is the second time Dr. Prasad is being pushed out of the agency, and to understand why, see his handling of UniQure’s gene therapy for Huntington’s disease.

  We reported in November that the FDA had moved the goal post on UniQure’s treatment. Huntington’s disease afflicts about 40,000 patients in the U.S., and there are no current treatments that slow progression. UniQure’s therapy slowed progression by 75% compared to the natural course of the disease.

  For the record: Pun Salad covered Vinay relatively positively back in early, mostly COVID, days: here, here, here, here, and here. But then things turned to is-this-the-same-guy? land this year: here, here, and here.

  I know: past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Still, it makes me wonder if I'm missing something.

• It's a glum-looking bunch. We don't do a lot of linking to InDepthNH, but this seems to be pretty solid reporting: Protesters Rally Against Free State Project.

  CONCORD, NH — About 100 protesters joined the Kent Street Coalition and other local advocacy groups at the State House on Thursday to protest the Free State Project in New Hampshire, which critics say attempts to influence state politics and dismantle public education.

  Groups such as 50501 NH, Southern NH Indivisible, Granite State Matters, and Third Act NH joined the coalition to oppose the Free State Project, which was formed in 2001. Two years later the state was picked as the best destination to “reinforce and enhance an already existing libertarian culture.” Its mission — which began with the goal of a mass migration of more than 20,000 people — is to expand personal and economic freedom by concentrating liberty-minded people in New Hampshire.

  (I will observe that none of the FSP-hating folks advocated/threatened/promised moving to FSP-free states, like … well pick and choose among approximately 49 others, plus D.C.)

  To his credit, the reporter sought rebuttal quotes from FSP Executive Director Eric Brakey:

  Brakey responded to the criticism and asserted that “there is no such thing as a ‘Free State Agenda.’”

  Brakey said that the group is not a political party and does not operate with a centralized policy platform. He noted it’s a decentralized movement of people who believe the government should be limited to protecting life, liberty, and property. Citing the New Hampshire Liberty Association, he said there are about 100 liberty legislators at the State House, adding that whether they consider themselves Free Staters is “up to them, but they certainly have a lot of support from the Free Staters at the very least.”

  He clarified that not everyone associated with the project runs for office, saying that people have different ideas on how best to promote liberty. He said some build businesses, homeschool networks, and community centers, and that those on the direct political path get a lot of attention “but culture building is equally important.”

• But for the really important NH news… You have to go to Ars Technica, which asks two burning questions. Which of these two arcades is the "world [sic] largest"—and does it matter?

  In New Hampshire, just off the western shore of the vacation destination Lake Winnipesaukee, there’s a town called Laconia. With a population somewhere south of 17,000, it’s barely a blip on a map—except on Bike Week, when around 300,000 motorcyclists swarm the place. On the other, quieter weeks of the year, Laconia is best known as the unlikely home of Funspot, the world’s largest arcade.

  Meanwhile, in Brookfield, Illinois, about 45 minutes west of Chicago and the shores of Lake Michigan, you’ll find Galloping Ghost Arcade, a sprawling suburban palace with a nondescript exterior hiding a mind-blowing collection. With over 1,000 arcade cabinets (plus a further 46 pinball machines), Galloping Ghost is the world’s largest arcade.

  Yes, there are two arcades in the US labeled as the world’s largest, and while that may seem a bit paradoxical, a visit to both proves that while only one can be the biggest, both are the greatest.

  So the answer to the headline questions?

  Yeah, I'm gonna say it: the answer may surprise you.

Recently on the book blog:

In case you haven't seen President Trump's Truth Social post today:

Disclaimer: for my more serious rant, see my: The Right Number of Time Zones is Zero.

Number 4 in Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" is "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules". Or (alternatively) show that someone is using a different book of rules for his side:

Adam Schiff falls right into Bill Maher’s trap as he criticizes a statement he thought was from Trump but was actually from Obama.

MAHER: “This statement from the administration: ‘The president had the constitutional authority to direct the use of military force because he could… pic.twitter.com/5jg3wpdAQZ

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) March 7, 2026

So, good for Maher.

Also of note:

• "Dumb" is actually the nicest thing you can say about it. So Charles C.W. Cooke is being more polite than I would: Anti-Billionaire Sentiment Is Dumb. (archive.today link)

  The current habit of attacking “billionaires” as some problem to be solved — and, more specifically, as the source of all of America’s contemporary problems — is illiterate, intemperate, ungrateful, frivolous, and, above all, dangerous.

  (That's more like it, Charlie. All better adjectives than mere "dumb".)

  A representative question — advanced with all the rhetorical confidence and tragic folly of John Cleese asking, “What have the Romans ever done for us?” — is this:

  What do billionaires contribute to society?

  — Harry Eccles (@Heccles94) March 5, 2026

  Really? Really? I suppose if you believe that the only useful institution in our universe is the government — and, in tandem, that you have convinced yourself that it is never adequately funded — then you might plausibly struggle to answer this. But that’s on you. Extraneous conduct aside, what billionaires have “contributed to society” are the things that made them billionaires in the first instance. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Phil Knight, Jeff Bezos, Eric Schmidt, Walt Disney — these men did not spring up from the earth, fully formed as tremendously rich guys. They created products — computers and phones; shoes and athletic gear; ubiquitous online shopping; retail hardware stores; movies, TV shows, and amusement parks — that other people wanted to pay for. Lots of people. Oodles of people. Millions of people, in fact. And when those millions of people wanted to pay for those products, billions of dollars changed hands. The billionaires got the money, and the buyers — some of whom are now complaining about it — got the products. This was voluntary, virtuous, and, in almost all cases, useful.

  CCWC for the win.

• Don't cry for her, South Dakota. Jim Geraghty performs the indispensible duty of throwing a few more of Kristi's flaws onto the pyre: Kristi Noem Has No One to Blame but Herself. Among (many) other items, Jim puts that Mount Rushmore ad into context:

  You can watch the 60-second DHS ad here. Featuring Noem on horseback at Mount Rushmore and a lot of stock footage, it is utterly indistinguishable from a campaign ad. As Axios put it in October, “The most expensive political ad campaign of the year is being run by the Department of Homeland Security.” For perspective, in 2025, the campaign of Virginia Democrat Abigail Spanberger spent $28.4 million on TV ads, or just under 13 percent of the DHS spending. Except Spanberger spent her donors’ money, and Noem spent ours.

  If that ad campaign had been a television series, it would have ranked among the most expensive series of all time. That’s the total amount in Green Bay Packers quarterback Jordan Love’s contract extension in 2024, when he became the highest-paid player in NFL history to that point. DHS could have bought anywhere from 770 to 880 Lamborghinis for that sum, depending upon the model.

  Now, if you’re skeptical that President Trump would approve a $220 million ad campaign, the president told Reuters that he knew nothing about it.

  Except Kristi testified under oath that he approved it. So either Trump or Kristi's lying. Want to guess who?

• Nothing? Come on, Peter; she gave you something to write about! Peter Suderman asserts (nevertheless): There is nothing positive to say about Kristi Noem's tenure at DHS.

  Noem was let go with a few nice remarks from President Trump and an appointment to a new gig, special envoy for the Shield of Americas. What, exactly, is the Shield of Americas? No one can say for sure. I can't prove that it's a fake, made-up, face-saving appointment. But it sure looks like a fake, made-up, face-saving appointment. Apparently, there's a Shield "summit" at a Trump golf club this weekend.

  Just keep her away from the puppies.

• I can't help but notice that the New York Times is doing clickbait headlines for geezers. Dave Barry gets sucked in by one: Are You Aging Well? 4 Simple Tests to Find Out. (Fun fact: Dave is approximately 3½ years older than I am.)

  I am 78 and a half years old. At this stage of my life, my definition of “aging well” is “still not dead.” Nevertheless I was curious to see what trajectory I’m on, so I clicked on the article, which lists four physical tests you’re supposed to take. The first one is called the “Sitting-Rising Test.” Here’s how the Times describes it:

  The goal with this assessment is to go from standing to sitting on the floor, and back up again, using the least amount of support as possible. The test is scored on a 10-point scale — five points for sitting down and five points for standing up — and you lose a point for every hand, knee or other body part you use to help yourself. Subtract a half point if you’re unsteady or lose your balance.

  So my goal was to get an 8, although I would have settled for a 7, or even, given my advanced age, a 6. I took the test in the privacy of my bedroom, going from standing to sitting on the floor, then back to standing again, using as few body parts as possible to help myself. I don’t mean to brag, but on my very first try, with no practice and without warming up, I scored somewhere around minus 137. There was no way I could keep track of the exact number of body parts I used to help myself get down and back up, but it was definitely most of them, including at one point, I believe, my spleen. Also if you count a bedpost as a body part, my actual score was closer to minus 138.

  I'm not even gonna tell you my score.

Recently on the book blog:

The Issues & Insights editorialists take on The Man Who Loves To Tax.

Our Headline du Jour is a reference to Isaiah Berlin's essay "The Hedgehog and the Fox" which contained the ancient Greek aphorism: "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."

And Hedgehog Bernie "knows" one big, albeit delusional, thing: He (and his allies) would spend the wealth of those hated billionaires far more wisely than they do.

I commented on Bernie's latest envy-fueled scheme a couple days ago. But I guess it's time to comment on Bernie himself. Over to you, editorialists:

Also of note:

• I'm really beginning to appreciate the upside of "boring". Vince Gill Vance Ginn pleas: Make Antitrust Boring Again. (NR gifted link)

  The Federal Trade Commission’s recent appeal in its antitrust case against Meta and the government’s new appeal in the Google search case are not just legal headlines. They are signals to capital markets about how political the federal government wants antitrust policy to be.

  If we keep pushing antitrust toward populist storytelling instead of consumer harm, we will get less investment, slower innovation, and weaker competition. Antitrust works best when it is boring. Not toothless, but disciplined.

  In the bad old days of the Biden Administration, conservatives and libertarians were properly scornful of "hipster antitrust". (So was Pun Salad.) If you thought Trump would be better, you were wrong.

• This shouldn't have been an issue. But apparently, Trump would prefer to keep his mitts on his unconstitutional gains. Ilya Somin notes the latest: US Court of International Trade Orders Refund of All Illegally Collected IEEPA Tariffs.

  Today, in the case of Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, Judge Richard K. Eaton of the US Court of International Trade ordered the Trump Administration to refund all tariffs illegally collected by the Trump Administration using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA). On Monday, in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, the case I helped bring that led to the invalidation of the IEEPA tariffs by the Supreme Court, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit unanimously rejected the Trump Administration's efforts to delay lower-court proceedings on repayment. It is notable that all 11 judges of the en banc Federal Circuit agreed, including the four who voted against us on the merits when the Federal Circuit ruled on the case last year.

  The federal government owes some $175 billion in tariff refunds to importers who paid them, and they repeatedly promised they would refund them money if they lost the case - a point which was crucial to their argument that appellate courts should stay the trial court injunction blocking further illegal tariff collection, while the litigation proceeded. Each month the government delays repayment costs taxpayers some $700 million in accumulated interest payments.

  $700 million would buy a lot of drones and torpedos. Just sayin'.

• "Better" shouldn't be hard. "Good" might be harder. The WaPo editorialists had a wistful observation on Wednesday evening, 6:53PM: It would be easier to fund DHS with better leadership. (WaPo gifted link)

  As government extends its powers more deeply into everyday life, it becomes less effective at everything. That annoyance becomes dangerous when the state isn’t entirely capable of its most important job: providing basic security and stability. Consider the Department of Homeland Security, which isn’t fully funded and lacks the leadership and credibility to effectively make the case for more money.

  With conflict in the Middle East increasing the risk for terrorism in the homeland, it’d be nice if DHS was fully functional. But the department has faced a gap in funding since Feb. 14, which has left critical agencies short staffed. DHS Secretary Kristi L. Noem tried to persuade lawmakers to end the partial government shutdown this week, and it didn’t go well.

  Yeah, we heard. And, unfortunately for Kristi, so did her boss. Robby Soave has yesterday's news: Trump fires Kristi Noem from DHS.

  President Donald Trump is replacing Kristi Noem, the embattled secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), due to mounting concerns about her performance, including from many Republicans.

  In a Thursday Truth Social post announcing her successor—Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin—Trump thanked Noem for her service and said she would serve as special envoy for the Shield of the Americas, a new security initiative that has yet to be formally unveiled. But the face-saving appointment does not change the fact that Trump has effectively fired Noem as DHS head.

  Apparently she will be hanging around D.C. for a while, drawing a salary. North (oops) South Dakota puppies are safe for now.

• Somedays I despair that we've learned nothing from his entire oeuvre. Jeff Maurer is baffled: Did We Learn Nothing From Jeff Goldblum’s Speech in Jurassic Park?

  The war in Iran has me thinking a lot about Jeff Goldblum’s speech in the 1993 arthouse film Jurassic Park. And I don’t mean Goldblum’s “your scientists didn’t stop to think if they should speech”, or his “we’ll give the alien a cold” speech, which was actually from Independence Day. I’m talking about the speech in which Goldblum explains chaos theory while not-so-subtly informing Sam Neill’s character that he could totally bang his wife if he wanted to.

  He's talking about this:

  Small correction: Google tells me that Laura Dern's and Sam Neill’s characters "were not married, but they were in a committed, romantic relationship. "

  And I don't think Goldblum's Jurassic Park observations compare to his response to a question posed by a bunch of college girls in the 1977 movie Between the Lines: "Whither rock and roll?"

  Goldblum's character responded: "The only real answer to the question … is "hither". Some misguided people think that the answer is "thither", they're wrong, those theories are passé."

  Also he points out: "They say that Rock & Roll is here to stay. But where? Certainly not at my place, it's too small."

Matthew Hennessey tries to inspire my (lame) inner Alan Jay Lerner with his headline at Free Expression: Trump Will Abstain From Trade With Spain. (WSJ gifted link)

Furthermore:

Well, I've never been to Spain, but I kinda like the music. (There are also rumors about the mental stability of their females.)

Also of note:

• At least she didn't lie about her lies about her lies. Jacob Sullum detects only one level of meta-dishonesty: In Senate testimony on DHS shootings, Kristi Noem lies about her lies.

  After Department of Homeland Security (DHS) employees fatally shot Minneapolis protester Alex Pretti on January 24, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem claimed he was "brandishing" a gun and "attacked those officers." She also said Pretti "committed an act of domestic terrorism."

  None of that was true, as bystander video immediately showed. But when given the opportunity to correct the record during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, Noem instead lied about what she had said. Her obfuscation and dishonesty provoked angry rebukes not only from the Democrats on the committee but also from Sen. Thom Tillis (R–N.C.), who reiterated his recommendation that she resign.

  Senator TIllis was also disturbed by less recent history:

  “Secretary, I read your book last week, and honestly, some of the parts of it impressed me, but some of it distresses me,” he said.

  “You talk about killing a dog that was 14 months old. I train dogs, all right, and you are a farmer, you should know better. You should know that if you’re going out to a hunting lodge and you’re putting pheasants out and you’re putting dogs out, you don’t take a puppy out there. A 14-month-old dog is basically a teenager in dog years. You decided to kill that dog because you had not invested the appropriate time in training. And then you have the audacity to go into a book and say it’s a leadership lesson about tough choices,” he said.

  Shoulda been a red flag back in her confirmation hearings.

• Not only a dishonest puppy-killer, but also corrupt. Tag-teaming against Kristi at Reason is Autumn Billings: DHS Spent $220 Million on Ads Featuring Kristi Noem. Both Parties Grilled Her About It in the Senate.

  During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem was grilled by Republicans and Democrats alike over $220 million in taxpayer-funded contracts for an advertising campaign that prominently features the secretary herself. The no-bid contracts circumvented the normal competitive process and were secretly awarded to a company with close ties to Noem and her political operations.

  Republican Sen. John Kennedy from Louisiana pushed the secretary during the hearing on the fiscal responsibility and wisdom of spending taxpayer money on the ads that greatly enhanced Noem's name recognition, such as this one obtained by ProPublica featuring her on horseback at Mount Rushmore. Noem testified that the campaign is meant to tell undocumented immigrants to leave the country or face deportation and was signed off on by President Donald Trump. But Kennedy said it was hard for him to believe that Trump or those at the Office of Management and Budget would have agreed to this kind of campaign.

  And for your viewing pleasure (because you paid for it, sucker):

  It was not revealed if she shot the horse after the ad was made.

• For the 145th time. Veronique de Rugy explains: Why Health Care Is So Expensive in America, and What to Do About It.

  America's health care system consistently ranks as the most expensive in the developed world. It's not, as some politicians claim, expensive because markets have failed. It's expensive because the market has been repeatedly blocked from succeeding. Until we're honest about that, any potential reforms will only address symptoms while ignoring the disease.

  The health care market is hindered in many ways, but the core structural problem is simple: The person receiving care is almost never the person actually paying for it. Roughly 90 cents of every dollar is covered by a third party — an insurer or the government.

  Getting rid of the notorious tax exemption for employer-provided health insurance would be ideal, but Vero realizes that's a political non-starter. So she recommends Health Savings Accounts, under control of the consumer.