Pun Salad

Literally drawing inspiration from a predecessor:

Clicking on the cartoon will take you to Mr. Ramirez's site where you can view the full-size version. Which I recommend.

His source (with just one "Tammany Hall Tiger") is here. Compare and contrast at your leisure.

(Today's headline is from Nast's cartoon, and still appropriate.)

Also of note:

• Yes, they do. Robby Soave notes the predictable response: Disinformation experts hate Trump's free speech executive order.

  Newly inaugurated President Donald Trump signed a bevy of executive orders earlier this week, including one that seeks to end the federal government's pressure campaign on social media companies.

  The "Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship" executive order reaffirms the free speech rights of social media users and prohibits government agents from engaging in unconstitutional censorship.

  "Under the guise of combatting 'misinformation,' 'disinformation,' and 'malinformation,' the Federal Government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the Government's preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate," states the order. "Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society."

  But, as Robby's headline says, there was great unhappiness in the land. Among the teeth-gnashers was Nina Jankowicz, and I bet you heard her coming. Robby's article links to a CNN article where she deems the EO as "a direct assault on reality". Her "American Sunlight Project" perch echoes that phrase. And (of course) Jen Rubin's Contrarian site gave Nina free rein to claim that Trump's EO is Making Censorship Real Again.

  On Inauguration Day, amidst a flurry of executive orders adorned with loopy Sharpie signatures, Donald Trump restored free speech in America. Or so he claimed.

  If you hadn’t noticed free speech had been abolished, don’t beat yourself up. Like several other executive actions, the order that aspires to “end federal censorship” is based on a conspiracy theory. Despite its flimsy pretext, it could usher in an era of real censorship the likes of which the United States has never seen.

  Fox News mainstreamed the narrative that conservatives were being unfairly censored by social media companies in the wake of Trump’s 2020 election loss. The lies gained steam across right-wing media and on the same social media sites apparently doing all this censoring—and by 2022, with Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, the conspiracy-minded inmates were running the asylum. Musk granted a few handpicked bloggers and journalists access to select documents about the platform’s relationship with the federal government. With the publication of the so-called “Twitter Files,” they alleged that Twitter executives were complicit in acts of censorship against politically disfavored content, allowing the federal government to take it down at-will. They also claimed that private-citizen researchers funneled the content in question to federal agencies for review and removal.

  I link, you decide. But Nina's screed puts me in mind of Chico Marx's classic question to Margaret Dumont in Duck Soup: "Well, who ya gonna believe? Me, or your own eyes?"

• But didn't he get the EO? It's not all rosy for the First Amendment under Trump II, though: Ars Technica notices that Trump’s FCC chair gets to work on punishing TV news stations accused of bias.

  Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr has revived three complaints against broadcast stations accused of bias against President Donald Trump.

  Outgoing Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel last week directed the FCC to dismiss the complaints against CBS, ABC, and NBC stations, along with a fourth complaint about Fox, in what she called a stand for the First Amendment. Rosenworcel said the "threat to the First Amendment has taken on new forms, as the incoming President has called on the Federal Communications Commission to revoke licenses for broadcast television stations because he disagrees with their content and coverage."

  But in three orders issued yesterday, the FCC Enforcement Bureau reversed the CBS, ABC, and NBC decisions. "We find that the previous order was issued prematurely based on an insufficient investigatory record for the station-specific conduct at issue," each new order said. "We therefore conclude that this complaint requires further consideration."

  The investigation targets three networked-owned broadcast stations, over which the FCC has jurisdiction, thanks to their use of the electromagnetic spectrum.

  Just a reminder: we should just Abolish the FCC.

• According to the University Near Here… My local newspaper reproduces a Concord Monitor story: UNH likely violated students’ rights in protest arrests.

  The police response to a pro-Palestine protest at the University of New Hampshire last spring that ended in a dozen arrests likely violated students’ free speech rights and should be investigated by an independent body, a university working group concluded this week.

  “For the institution and its members to mutually agree to move forward and begin repairing damaged relationships, there must be accountability and acknowledgment of the harm caused to all who have been impacted,” the group of administrators, faculty, and one student wrote in a report released on Wednesday.

  The deck appears to have been stacked against designated scapegoat Paul Dean, who was chief of the UNH Police Department at the time, and was directly involved in removal of the tent city from the Thompson Hall lawn.

  (Note the Monitor story does some deck-stacking itself in describing the "protest" as "pro-Palestine" instead of a more accurate "anti-Israel".)

  But credit where credit is due: Finding #1 in the report:

  The University should formally adopt institutional neutrality.

  That's an excellent idea. I have the feeling it's been informally adopted already.

• On the LFOD watch… I seem to remember that Garry Rayno used to be a straight news reporter. He has evolved, as demonstrated by his lead paragraphs at InDepthNH.org: Right-to-Work Would Harm the State’s Moral Fabric, Committee Told.

  CONCORD — Opponents of the latest “right-to-work” bill said it was Ground Hog Day again with the unpopular provision that failed time and time again to become law in New Hampshire.

  The public hearing on House Bill 238, which would make New Hampshire the 27th right-to-work state in the country and the only one in the Northeast north of West Virginia, drew an overflow crowd Wednesday as union members and officials, business organizations, faith groups and other advocates turned out to oppose it, greatly outnumbering those testifying in favor of the bill.

  The arguments are well-known, and (unfortunately) there's only a glancing reference to our state motto:

  Other opponents said right-to-work is not right for New Hampshire and would allow the government to interfere in negotiations between businesses and their workers, something not often supported in the Live Free or Die state.

  I'm pretty sure right-to-work supporters have a different understanding of how LFOD applies here, but if they made that explicit, Rayno doesn't quote them.

  Oh, yeah: what's the deal with "moral fabric" in the headline?

  Lisa Beaudoin, executive director of the New Hampshire Council of Churches, said her group opposes the bill because people of faith uphold the dignity of workers and justice for all.

  “This legislation is not a harm just to individuals,” Beaudoin said, “but to the moral fabric of New Hampshire.”

  Did Jesus belong to the United Brotherhood of Carpenters?

  For an alternate (equally slanted) take, see last month's article in NHJournal: Right To Work Would Boost NH Jobs, Economy, Advocates Say

I'm a fan of the prolific video blogger Sabine Hossenfelder. I usually prefer text to video, because I can read faster than most people talk; she's a rare exception. She usually posts on physics-related topics. But her recent video gets outside that comfort zone:

Her blurb on the blog post (What Everyone Gets Wrong about AI):

Sabine's argument is unconvincing handwaving. I'd need a lot more details on how (exactly) privately-owned AI "frontier" models will inevitably lead to a worldwide dystopia before worrying.

But her solution, "publicly-owned" AI models, almost certainly would be worse than her imagined disease. Governments not only already have "power", they have (say it with me) a monopoly on coercive power.

And, as P.J. O'Rourke memorably quipped: "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

I could be wrong however. Sabine is a very smart lady. Maybe this is an example where the AI-aided state will benevolently save us from those nasty AI barons.

Meanwhile, at Reason, Ron Bailey wonders: will we have Artificial Superintelligence in 4 Years, thanks to "StarGate"?

So is this the kind of thing Sabine would be OK with? Or…

Also of note:

• "You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig." The NR editors classify Trump’s Executive Order Blitz into, yes, the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Or, specifically, "(1) clearly legal; (2) probably legal — but deserving of more attention; and (3) presumptively illegal."

  Since Pun Salad declared Trump's honeymoon over at 12:05 on January 20, let's skip down to…

  And, finally, there is the bad. On Monday, Trump announced that he would decline to enforce Congress’s ban on TikTok for 75 days while he looks for a buyer. By the plain terms of the ban — a ban that was upheld 9–0 at the Supreme Court — he does not enjoy this authority. It is true that Congress gave the executive branch the capacity to delay the implementation of the legislation for up to 90 days. But that grant came with strings — namely, that the delay be invoked only in such case as TikTok had a buyer who was under contract. Despite having been available for 270 days, TikTok is not under contract — or anything close to it. That being so, Donald Trump is obliged to honor his oath of office and faithfully execute the law. By declaring a pause that has no plausible basis in the statute, he has taken the opposite course.

  But he has the loaded guns, so… J.D. Tuccille is also EO-irritated, but probably unsurprised: With executive order avalanche, Trump continues trend toward a monarchical presidency.

  If a president wants to use the power of office to tell federal minions to mind their manners and respect individual rights, nobody should object.

  But other orders seek to exercise power beyond the boundaries of presidential authority—or even the power of the federal government. One executive order purports to redefine birthright citizenship so as to exclude those who are born to parents illegally, or legally but temporarily, in the United States.

  "This is blatantly unconstitutional," argues George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin, since the 14th Amendment "grants citizenship to anyone 'born … in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' There is no exception for children of illegal migrants." The issue has also been addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which found that the provision applies to anybody subject to American law—basically, all non-diplomats.

  Fortunately, I was born in Iowa, to non-diplomatic parents.

• So I noticed this in my local paper. It's a plea from two state representatives, David Paige and Ellen Read, both Democrats, who want to Protect renters, stop HB 60.

  Did you know that a recent survey on housing costs found that 87% of rental properties in New Hampshire are unaffordable? […]

  Well… the report actually only reported this number for two-bedroom apartments, not all "rental properties". And compared that to a "median renter household income" (apparently, whether those renters are renting two-bedroom apartments or not). If your rent > 30% of your income, you are living unaffordably. By definition.

  But going on, forgiving the oversimplification:

  The truth is undeniable: affordable housing is the most urgent issue facing our state today. And make no mistake, even if you're not a renter, this statewide crisis is driving up your property taxes. For renters, finding an affordable place to live is nearly impossible. Many are paying more in rent than they would for a mortgage. When the majority of housing is out of reach, and there’s nowhere else to turn, renters are forced into debt and poverty just to secure basic shelter — or worse, face homelessness. This situation is unacceptable. The priority of legislators in Concord should be expanding access to affordable housing, reducing rent costs, and keeping Granite Staters out of poverty. Yet, instead of focusing on this critical issue, Republicans are, for the fourth time in three years, attempting to change the law that has protected tenants from unjust evictions for the past 40 years.

  The bill's text, by the way, is here. Apparently there are current rental restrictions on landlords that the bill would undo.

  Fine. But reader, is there any doubt in your mind that those current restrictions discourage the supply of rental units? And do supply restrictions cause … what to happen to rent levels? Anyone? Bueller?

Recently on the book blog:

Another day, another reminder of why Trump gets no honeymoon from me. Noah Rothman describes how Trump’s J6 Pardons Are a Prelude to More Political Violence.

Noah's bottom line:

You might want to invest in our Amazon Product du Jour! It's OSHA approved!

Also disgusted by Trump II, Day I, is Jacob Sullum: Trump's blanket clemency for Capitol rioters excuses political violence. Repeating the broken promises and empty rhetoric:

Maybe Trump should simply modify that thing he used to say: "We'll reconcile so much, you'll get bored with all the reconciliation."

Also of note:

• But when he's right… Jacob Sullum also describes Why Trump Should Keep His Promise To Free Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht. (Obviously written before Trump pardoned Ulbricht.)

  In addition to many other things he has promised to do on his first day in office, Donald Trump has said he will free Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht, who is serving a life sentence in federal prison for connecting drug consumers with drug sellers. From a libertarian perspective, it is obvious that no one should go to prison for facilitating peaceful transactions among consenting adults. But Ulbricht's grossly disproportionate punishment should give pause even to supporters of the war on drugs.

  Jacob goes into great detail about Ulbricht's prosecution/persecution.

• Jeff Maurer and I have different beliefs. He writes: I Can’t Believe That Free Speech, Color Blindness, and Meritocracy Became Right-Wing Issues. Reserving some quibbles about "right-wing", I actually do believe that. But here's Jeff, who is looking at Trump's Inauguration address:

  In between rhetorical touchdown dances, a few sentences shivved me right in my liberal ribs. It was these sentences:

  “After years and years of illegal and unconstitutional federal efforts to restrict free expression, I will also sign an executive order to immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America.”

  …

  “This week, I will also end the government policy of trying to socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public and private life. We will force a society that is colorblind and merit-based.”

  Those sentences hurt not because I disagree, but because I can’t believe that the left has fucked things up so badly that free speech, color blindness, and meritocracy are now issues that the right feels they own. In fact, those issues are so right-coded that they made the list of Things To Throw In Democrats’ Faces At The Inauguration Speech. A little more than a decade ago, those were bedrock liberal ideals. How did we screw this up?

  The answer, of course, is that radical leftists pushed a bunch of shit-for-brains ideas, and liberals were too dickless to say “what you’re saying is dumb and wrong”.

  Jeff doesn't use the word "progressive" in his essay, which is a shame. Progressives haven't been for free speech since Woodrow Wilson threw Eugene Debs in jail.

• Speaking of believing stuff, though, I have a hard time believing that Democrats actually believe this. Jerry Coyne calls on his fellow Democrats to return to sanity: Elon Musk did NOT give a Hitler salute.

  It’s stuff like this that makes me worry that the Democrats, instead of taking stock of where we went wrong to lose the Presidential election, are simply doubling down on what made us lose. That involved, in part, excessive demonizing of Republicans, including calling them Nazis. The public (save for blockheads and “progressive” Democrats) is not stupid enough, for example, to really think that Elon Musk was making a Hitler salute when he made a gesture from his heart to the world at Trump’s post-inauguration celebration at the Capital One arena. Here it is. It may be awkward, but even I’m not crazy enough to think he’s paying homage to Hitler or Mussolini.

  […]

  Jerry quotes a lot of people who are apparently crazy enough to think that. Including (you might notice) the Public Broadcasting System, whose description of this 39-second video is "Elon Musk appears to give fascist salute during Trump inauguration celebration".

  Trump can't defund PBS fast enough.

  Jerry also (amusingly) compiles a number of pictures of prominent Democrats giving the same gesture.

  Also commenting Is Megan McArdle who supplies The missing context from the Elon Musk salute. RTWT, but here's her wise bottom line:

  It is very satisfying to believe that you are fighting pure evil. Most of the work of politics is somewhat dispiriting: inadequate half-measures, frustrating compromise and incremental change. Pretty boring stuff compared with the exciting work of exorcising the demons in our midst. That’s why Donald Trump campaigned on the promise that America could be fixed by stomping out the treacherous liberal elite and why the #Resistance generated so much energy from the promise to stomp back harder.

  Ten years on, what has any of it gotten us, except more and purer poison? You can’t exorcise your way to a functioning democracy. Because if we insist on believing that our opponents are evil personified, then the necessary work of democratic compromise becomes an unthinkable deal with the devil.

  So: mixed bag today. And probably tomorrow too. And…

Andrew C. McCarthy wrote (presciently as it turned out) on The Preemptive Pardons. From 10:21am yesterday, 2025-01-20:

Andrew goes on to say that he does not agree with that SCOTUS reasoning, but what are you going to do?

Also of note:

• Well, gee, a lot of stuff happened yesterday. But Eric Boehm's article from print-Reason looks at a big longer-term issue: Finding Trillions in Federal Cuts Is Easy. But Will Trump and Musk Follow Through?

  Easy? Yes:

  The most obvious question about Musk's promise to rip $2 trillion out of the federal budget is also one of the easiest to answer: Can it be done?

  Yes, absolutely. In 2019, the last full budget year before the COVID-19 pandemic unleashed even higher outlays, the feds spent about $4.4 trillion. Simply cutting the government back to the size it was five years ago accomplishes this seemingly impossible promise.

  A more realistic approach might start with the prepandemic spending baseline. In January 2020, the Congressional Budget Office projected that government spending in FY 2025 would total $5.8 trillion—about $1 trillion less than what the government actually spent in 2024.

  So the first thing a Musk-guided second Trump administration could do is to set an overall spending target. Rolling the government back to a prepandemic budget baseline of $5.8 trillion would accomplish half of the $2 trillion promise, and it would do so without having to target any particular program. Hold firm to that final figure and make Congress sort out the details. That, at a minimum, should be the goal for the first year.

  As I've been saying a lot lately, we'll see what happens. Eric's article indicates there are plenty of good ideas out there. And here's one more…

• Long past time, if you ask me. Let's fix a perennial toothache: Is it Finally Time to Privatize the United States Postal Service? Peter C. Earle says…

  As with all political campaigns that reignite discussions on reducing government spending and eliminating bureaucratic inefficiency, the US Postal Service (USPS) — which reported a net loss of $9.5 billion in the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024 — is now likely to find itself under renewed scrutiny. The establishment of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, has intensified speculation about the fate of whole swaths of sclerotic government agencies and departments, which should put the USPS directly in its crosshairs.

  Privatizing the US Postal Service (USPS) would be a significant step toward improving efficiency, encouraging innovation, and ensuring financial sustainability for an institution less exhibiting than wholly characterized by decades upon decades of ossification and financial losses. As a government-backed monopoly, the USPS controls first-class mail delivery and mailboxes while benefiting from advantages like tax exemptions and low-interest Treasury loans. However, its ability to operate effectively is constrained by political interference, including strict limits on pricing and service adjustments. A market-driven alternative — long discussed, but now feasible — would involve eliminating government control, introducing competition, and allowing market forces to create a streamlined, customer-focused postal system.

  Well, apparently Vivek got the heck out of DOGE but I hope Elon is reading.

• He is large, he contains multitudes. Eric Boehm also provides another story about what promises to be an, um, interesting time: Trump promises to be a 'peacemaker,' threatens Panama.

  In his inauguration address on Monday afternoon, President Donald Trump said his "proudest legacy" would be "that of a peacemaker."

  Moments later, Trump threatened to seize a portion of the sovereign territory of another country—specifically, the Panama Canal, a crucial link for global trade.

  It's a useful reminder of what America will be getting for the next four years: a president who holds a chaotic mix of often contradictory ideas, and one who sees everything as being up for negotiation. Do you want a president who will keep America out of pointless foreign conflicts? Trump promises to be that guy. Do you want a president who projects American power around the world and demands fealty from the leaders of lesser nations? He can be that guy too. Just don't try to reconcile the two visions.

  I think Harry Frankfurt's observations on bullshit will be increasingly relevant: bullshitters don't care what they say is true or false. The corollary: they are unbothered by self-contradiction, even within the same speech.

• Speaking of self-contradiction… Jim Geraghty describes another example of Trump's bullshit yesterday: Trump’s inauguration vow to uphold the law clashes with his TikTok stance.

  At noon on Monday, Donald Trump took an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” for the second time, just days after insisting that he could issue an executive order that would delay the implementation of a law that restricts TikTok— a law that passed the House 360-58 and passed the Senate 79-18 — was signed by President Joe Biden, and was upheld by the Supreme Court with no dissents.

  Not a great start!

  Donald, your honeymoon at Pun Salad is over!

• Sunrise doesn't last all morning, A cloudburst doesn't last all day. So, as George Will recommends: Neither euphoric nor despairing be. Trump too shall pass.

  Although few presidential inaugural addresses are remembered, six etched in the nation’s memory felicitous phrases, perfect for the moments: “Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle” (Jefferson, 1801); “the mystic chords of memory … the better angels of our nature” (Lincoln, 1861); all Lincoln’s 701 words in 1865, carved in his memorial’s marble; “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself” (Roosevelt, 1933); “the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans” (Kennedy, 1961); “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is our problem” (Reagan, 1981, often quoted without the first four words).

  Donald Trump does not deal in felicities. His second inaugural will be remembered for being worse than 59 others, including his first (about “stealing,” “ravages” and “carnage”). It was memorable for its staggering inappropriateness.

  Inaugurations should be solemn yet celebratory components of America’s civic liturgy. Instead, we heard on Monday that because of “corrupt” and “horrible” “betrayals” by others, “the pillars of our society” are “in complete disrepair.” The challenges will be “annihilated,” not because God blesses America, but because God chose him.

  Yeah, God's not sending us his best.

Well, there's no reason we can't do both, but let's start with a preview of the coverage of one of today's events.

And now moving on to the other inspiration for today's Federal Holiday, Jeff Jacoby turns his thoughts to Black patriotism and Martin Luther King Jr..

It is not MLK's actual birthday today; that was back on January 15. His actual birthday and the Federal holiday coincided last year; that won't happen again until 2029. For more on the jiggery-pokery Uncle Stupid plays with his calendar, see the Uniform Monday Holiday Act. There are (apparently) no current plans to move Christmas or New Year's Day to Mondays.

But I hear you asking: is the University Near Here doing anything MLKish this year? Yes it is, as it turns out! Sort of. See the page for UNH 2025 MLK Day of Service.

Nothing honors Dr. King more than supporting the local pet shelter!

But you can also sign up to volunteer for…

That runs from 10am to 11:30am on Saturday. Apparently that's all the rice that needs sorting for the year.

It didn't used to be this lame, although it was often more irritating. If you're interested, Pun Salad's obituary of UNH's old-style MLK "celebrations" is here.

Also of note:

• Unprotected from bad news: the rest of the country. Jim Geraghty checks the latest from the major newspaper he doesn't work for: Now the New York Times Tells Us: 'Six Key People' Protected Biden from Bad News. Specifically, Dr. Jill, Crackhead Hunter, and … four other people I'd never heard of.

  Here's a tidbit I found interesting from the NYT story, which attempts to excuse Biden's addled performance in his debate against Trump:

  Two people involved in planning the president’s schedule believe that in hindsight, he should not have been traveling so much during this period. He was exhausted from not one but two trips to Europe and a fund-raiser in California in the weeks before his debate with Mr. Trump on June 27.

  "Not one but two". Gee, wonder why they didn't just say "two"?

  But in any case, Jim calls bullshit:

  [Biden] went to the 80th anniversary of D-Day in France from June 5 to 9. The second trip was to the G7 Summit in Italy from June 12 to 14. He flew directly to Los Angeles for a fundraiser with George Clooney. He was back at the White House 9:30 p.m. June 16.

  Biden did not leave the east coast between June 16 and 27, and had no public events on his schedule from June 19 to 27. Those trips had been eleven days earlier! If you can’t recover from jet lag within eleven days, you cannot handle the duties of the president.

  Ah, well. Today, we move on to …

• And send the drainage to California. Jack Butler has advice for the incoming administration: The Swamp Is Yours Now, MAGA. Drain It.

  When Donald Trump swears at his second inauguration tomorrow to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,” it will be more than a return to the presidency for a man who left office four years ago. It will also be a rebuke to his skeptics. Consider one such skeptic, who early in 2023 called Trump “an obstacle to the achievement” of progress on “the important issues he brought to or revived in the conservative mainstream,” and declared that “the future of conservatism — even (especially) a conservatism influenced by Trump’s presidency — now depends on rejecting Trump.”

  Who could have been so blinkered, even at a time when Ron DeSantis and others were considering or had already announced presidential primary challenges to Trump, about the possibility of his political resurgence? That would be me. As Trump returns triumphantly to Washington, he can further vindicate his supporters and defy doubters by ensuring that he, those in his administration, and others around him make good on his promise to drain the swamp by dismantling the Beltway-centered governing apparatus of which he will soon assume control.

  I'm pretty sure I made some wrong-headed recommendations back in 2023, but I will leave finding them as an exercise for the reader.

John H. Cochrane's Unsolicited Advice is worthwhile reading. It's aimed at Trump's economic team, but even so:

And excerpt from his "Taxes" section:

Could, probably won't. But, hey, I did not think Trump had a shot at the presidency, either.

Also of note:

• I'm waiting patiently for the Contrarian to be anything other than partisan dreck. Jeffrey Blehar is watching too, and his headline is [sarcasm warning in three, two, one…] Andy Borowitz Inspires over at The Contrarian.

  One of my favorite catty apocryphal media rumors from the recent internet era is that “humorist” (scare-quotes intended) Andy Borowitz was let go by his longtime employer the New Yorker — that high-minded magazine of culture and political commentary — because its editors were secretly mortified that his sub-mediocre assembly-line dad jokes were always the most popular and high-traffic content on their website.

  One of my other favorite catty apocryphal media rumors from the recent internet era is that “columnist” (scare-quotes intended) Jennifer Rubin was unsubtly dared to “quit” a while ago by her longtime employer the Washington Post — that high-minded newspaper of the federal clerisy — because its editors were secretly mortified that her sub-mediocre assembly-line Resistance squawks were always the most popular and high-traffic content on their website.

  Who can know what to believe? All I know is that I myself couldn’t believe my excitement when Rubin announced earlier this week that both she and Borowitz — Batman and Superman — would be teaming up and bringing their Super Friends like Laurence Tribe and Sherrilyn Ifill along to the fortress of solitude known as The Contrarian to band together and resist tyranny. “Laughter is one of the most powerful weapons against autocracy,” wrote team waterboy Norm Eisen as he announced the new arsenal of democracy would be stocked by an unarmed man.

  That link in the first paragraph above goes to Salon, which is honest enough to admit that Andy Borowitz isn't funny. And (surprise) their article manages to be funny itself in elaborating on that assertion.

  But Jeffrey duplicates Borowitz's first effort, and … well, see what you think.

• Never was a metaphor so accurate. Eric Boehm looks back at the past few weeks and despairs: Regulation, prohibition, and litigation: Joe Biden's busy lame-duck period. Example one hasn't gotten a lot of attention:

  The latest in that string of last-second executive actions was a lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on Wednesday against Deere & Company, the manufacturer of John Deere tractors and other farm equipment. The lawsuit alleges that Deere has used proprietary software to ensure that only the company's authorized dealers can conduct repairs on the computer systems that run much of modern farm equipment.

  The lawsuit is a potentially big showdown for the so-called right-to-repair movement, which is seeking laws and court opinions that prevent companies from using those sorts of restrictive software components to force consumers into using certain repair services. Despite much of the FTC's track record over the past four years, this might actually be a useful and consumer-friendly development.

  But the process matters, and rushing this lawsuit out the door in the final days of the Biden administration is likely to harm its chances of succeeding. As Deere noted in a statement, the lawsuit seems to misrepresent some basic facts about what repair services customers can do on their own. In a dissenting statement, FTC Commissioner Andrew Ferguson (who will become chairman of the agency after Donald Trump is sworn in) condemned the effort as "the result of brazen partisanship…taken in haste to beat President Trump into office."

  In other words, this looks more like a performative final flourish by outgoing FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan rather than a serious attempt at improving consumer welfare.

  Equal time for Karl Bode at TechDirt, who predictably cheers this last minute lawfare: FTC Finally Sues John Deere Over Years Of ‘Right To Repair’ Abuses.

• The Summoner's Tale. Jonathan Turley is less than impressed with Biden's version: Biden Again Summons His “Leading Legal Constitutional Scholars” to Support an Absurd Constitutional Claim. Serious legal analysis has judged that claim anywhere from "ludicrous" to "contemptible". So:

  So Biden made a familiar call. In the film Casablanca, Captain Renault, played by Claude Reins, famously tells his men to “round up the usual suspects” to make things look good to the public. The Biden White House would often do the same thing when contemplating a clearly unconstitutional action.

  The top of that list has always been Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe, who once again was the most cited academic claiming that the 28th amendment was ratified despite the Justice Department, archivists, the courts, and mere logic claiming otherwise.

  Jonathan cites Tribe's history of bad legal advice and easily-debunked conspiracism.

  And on that note, Ann Althouse uncovers a Tribe quote that (I think) is a classic example of saying the quiet part out loud in NYT article: "In a political environment like this, you throw at the wall whatever you can."

  Ann embeds a classic excerpt from The Odd Couple (the Lemmon/Matthau movie), and if you watched that you can probably guess which scene. But anyway, from that article:

  Proponents of the Equal Rights Amendment have long made it clear that their strategy is primarily a political, not a legal one. Their goal is to dare Republicans to challenge the legitimacy of sex equality, and of moving to nullify something as simple as equal rights for women.

  “This is a political rather than a legal struggle,” Laurence Tribe, the constitutional scholar and professor emeritus at Harvard Law School, has said. “It would succeed only in a different environment than we have.”

  Mr. Tribe argued that the import of Mr. Biden’s move was in the signal it would send to the country.

  “The real question is what political message is being sent,” he said. “In a political environment like this, you throw at the wall whatever you can.”

  And… now it's garbage.

Recently on the book blog:

Today I'm affirming what I have long believed and what three-fourths of the states have ratified:

The 28th Amendment is the law of the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and protections under the law regardless of their sex. pic.twitter.com/oZtS6Q89zG

— President Biden (@POTUS) January 17, 2025

Thanks, Elon, for the "Community Notes" feature. The one on this tweet is brutal. But let's sample other commentary. For example, Dan McLaughlin excerpts his column on Joe Biden's Constitutional Vandalism.

There's nothing stopping you, ERA fans, from simply trying again, from scratch. You know, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg advocated, and thought necessary.

C.J. Ciaramella, who (according to his blurb) has graced the pages of (among others) Vice, The Weekly Standard, High Times, Salon, The Federalist, Pacific Standard, The Washington Post, The Daily Beast, the San Diego Union-Tribune, and Street Sense, is also dismayed: Biden attempts to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment by blog post. He bends over backwards to be fair …

Similarly, Jonah Goldberg believes that Biden's argument, such as it is, originates from someplace the sun fails to illuminate: Pulling It Out of Uranus. On what Joe has "long believed":

As a bonus, Jonah looks to the scatalogical gigglefest that is the Uranus Fudge Factory website. If President Dotard is looking for a retirement gig, he could, and probably will, do worse than employment as a fudge packer there.

And if you're looking for a sane take on the controversy, here's a Statement on the Equal Rights Amendment Ratification Process from Archivist of the United States Dr. Colleen Shogan and Deputy Archivist William J. Bosanko. (Which is linked by a number of folks cited above.) Excerpt:

By the way: my state's Senator Jeanne Shaheen tweeted her agreement with Biden's vandalism. And here's my reply:

Please reread your oath of office, paying special attention to the part about supporting and defending the Constitution. Then resign.

— Paul Sand (@punsalad) January 18, 2025

Also of note:

• "Worthwhile Canadian Initiative" That's the boring headline standard; Charles Blahous doesn't quite get there with Brookings’ Constructive Social Security Proposal.

  The U.S. Social Security system has been sinking into deepening trouble of late, its finances heading towards collapse, and with fewer friends in positions of power willing to do anything about it. There was once a time (the 1970s and 1980s) when each party’s leadership cared enough about Social Security to join in making politically difficult decisions to preserve its solvency. Unfortunately, a political schism emerged in the 2000s and 2010s, during which time only fiscal conservatives remained willing to sound the alarm, while progressives took to denying the reality of Social Security’s worsening condition. More recently, even purported conservatives have become increasingly unwilling to step forward and call for solutions.

  But on January 3, the Social Security Administration’s chief actuary released an analysis, requested by Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), of a comprehensive reform proposal developed by Wendell Primus of the Brookings Institution. Not only is the proposal a constructive one, but it may also have the potential to jump-start a desperately needed discussion of how best to rescue Social Security from impending insolvency.

  So it's interesting. Might even be better than doing nothing! But (bad news): it relies more on tax increases than cost containment. But see what you think. Charles does a fair job in describing and commenting on the proposal.

• Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. At least in the activity they enjoy most: ruling by decree, without effective checks and balances. George Will observes: Trump doesn’t have a mandate. But, oh, does he have executive orders. Some recent history:

  Donald Trump, reelected, promises a flurry of transformative improvements to the nation, immediately (“on Day 1”), if not sooner. He has perhaps been rereading the Federalist Papers: “To reverse and undo what has been done by a predecessor, is very often considered by a successor as the best proof he can give of his own capacity and desert” (Alexander Hamilton, No. 72).

  Four years ago, Casey Burgat of George Washington University and Matt Glassman of Georgetown University wrote in National Affairs that the presidency “changes more abruptly than other governing institutions.” A “strong disruptive incentive” grows stronger as presidents, impatiently disdaining Congress as an impediment to the flowering of their reputations, increasingly resort to achieving changes unilaterally, by executive orders.

  Barack Obama unilaterally ratified the Paris Agreement on climate change as an “executive agreement” rather than achieving something — e.g., a treaty — affirmed by Congress. Trump unilaterally undid what Obama did.

  On Inauguration Day 2021, Joe Biden’s 11-page enumeration of “Day One Executive Actions” included rejoining the Paris Agreement. And an executive order decreeing “a whole-of-government” initiative “rooting out systemic racism.” Trump’s executive orders can un-rejoin the Paris Agreement, and un-decree permeating government with racial calculations.

  We might change the National Anthem from "The Star-Spangled Banner" to "Call Me Irresponsible".

• When will they ever learn? Speaking of famous song lyrics, Pete Seeger wrote that one. (He eventually learned that Stalin was not a nice guy and the Soviet Union was a hellhole.) But that's not important right now. When will we learn that a free people should rebel against the FDA? Jacob Sullum notes the latest: FDA proposes a de facto cigarette ban, which would expand the war on drugs.

  On its way out the door, the Biden administration has proposed a rule that would effectively ban cigarettes by requiring a drastic reduction in nicotine content. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which unveiled the proposed rule on Wednesday, says the aim is to make cigarettes unappealing by eliminating their "psychoactive and reinforcing effects."

  Jacob is pessimistic that either Trump or probable HHS Secretary RFK Jr will see the libertarian light on this.

• Time for a new "Truth in Labeling" Law? After reading James Taranto, I think it might be a good idea: ‘Fact Checkers’ Become Rent Seekers.

  Someone at the New York Times had a little fun writing a headline last week: “Meta Says Fact-Checkers Were the Problem. Fact-Checkers Rule That False.” The allusion was to an Onion story from 1997: “Supreme Court Rules Supreme Court Rules.”

  The Onion headline was funny because it was true. Article III of the Constitution establishes that the Supreme Court rules, as the Supreme Court ruled in Marbury v. Madison (1803). The Times headline was an inside joke. Readers wouldn’t get it unless they were deeply familiar with a baneful 21st-century journalistic convention.

  The term “fact checking” has two distinct meanings in journalism—one venerable, the other recent and corrupt. The former refers to a process of self-correction in which an editorial staffer retraces a writer’s reportorial steps, inspecting and reinterviewing sources to make sure everything in the story is accurate. The New Yorker and Reader’s Digest were renowned in the industry for their rigorous fact-checking departments.

  When you hear the term today, though, it usually refers to something completely different—what the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler calls “political fact-checking.” This isn’t a behind-the-scenes quality-control practice but a subgenre of news, whose emergence Mr. Kessler dates to the founding of FactCheck.org in 2003. Political fact-checkers don’t seek to ensure that journalists tell the truth but to demonstrate that other people—principally but not only politicians—are liars.

  I keep looking for job openings for epistemologicians, but have so far come up empty. Mainly people on Twitter claiming to be one.

I'm sure that was Trump's reaction to a Timothy Snyder tweet:

"Pete Hegseth: The Short Course – 13 Steps to National Destruction"
A thread. Full essay via link in image below or profile. pic.twitter.com/74aimdwaAf

— Timothy Snyder (@TimothyDSnyder) January 14, 2025

You can click over for Timothy's conspiracy theory; it takes 13 separate tweets to explain. Basically, as I understand it, Pete Hegseth is too dumb to run the Department of Defense, but he is brilliant enough to bring about that "Christian Reconstructionist" decapitation strike.

As the kids ask: srsly? Or, as Charles C.W. Cooke asks: Does This Yale Prof Actually Believe Hegseth Is Part of a ‘Decapitation Strike’ on America? (Probably paywalled. I'm running low on gifted links for this month, sorry.)

I keep noticing Snyder's latest book On Freedom on the "New Non-Fiction" table at Portsmouth (NH) Public Library. I don't mind reading books outside my ideological comfort zone, so I was tempted, but … nah.

Also of note:

• In his defense, it's easy to misunderstand tasks when you're demented. Ramesh Ponnuru joins the critics: Biden’s farewell address, like his presidency, misunderstood his task.

  Joe Biden had two messages to send America in his farewell address: His administration has been a historic success, and the country is on the verge of becoming an oligarchic dystopia. Oh, and the chief problem with this oligarchy is that it isn’t active enough in telling the rest of us what’s true and false. With such discordant themes, I can’t fault him for tripping over his message this time.

  Unlike National Review, the WaPo is generous with its gifting links, so click away.

• It's an Islamic terrorist plot, I tells ya! James Skyles looks at The DOJ's War on Algorithmic AI.

  

  In short, entrepreneurs have developed software algorithms that utilize economic data (both backlogged and current data) to provide their user bases with a better, more comprehensive understanding of how differing consumer trends, seasonal changes, breaking news, and other factors affect the demand for their services and products. These software programs use that information to provide their users with pricing adjustment recommendations that they are free to take or leave.

  To say that this AI technology has taken off would be an understatement. Car rental companies, airlines, and hotels use it to ensure their prices match current marketplace trends. Hospitals and city and state governments use it to help quell congestion and long wait times. Farmers are even using technology to monitor and manage field variability, maximize outputs, reduce costs, and improve sustainability, a practice known as precision farming.

  However, the widespread utilization of algorithmic AI has the DOJ worried that businesses might begin using it for price-fixing, and it has begun throwing the antitrust books at many of these algorithmic software companies. Its actions have included but have not been limited to an October amicus brief filed against hotels and an August suit against one of landlords’ preferred algorithmic AI software. The Western District of Washington’s December 4 action against a different rent algorithmic AI firm has only added further fuel to the fire.

  "In short", it's another front in the War on Prices. With the added feature that it's an easy sell for demagogues who rely on scarifying people with anti-AI dystopianism. You know what else used algorithms? Skynet!.

  (And didja know: the word algorithm references the "Persian Polymath" Al-Khwarizmi, who invented some of the early ones. See this item's headline.)

• And yet, ye won't be missed. Tyler Cowen bids farewell: Net neutrality, we hardly knew ye.

  One of the longest, most technical and, as it turns out, most inconsequential public-policy debates of the 21st century was about net neutrality. Now that a federal appeals court has effectively ended the debate by striking down the FCC’s net neutrality rules, it’s worth asking what we’ve learned.

  If you have forgotten the sequence of events, here’s a quick recap: In 2015, during President Barack Obama’s presidency and after years of debate, the Federal Communications Commission issued something called the Open Internet Order, guaranteeing net neutrality, which is broadly defined as the principle that internet service providers treat all communications equally, offering both users and content providers consistent service and pricing. Two years later, under President Donald Trump, the FCC rescinded the net neutrality requirement. It was then reinstated under President Joe Biden in 2024, until being struck down earlier this month.

  Tyler notes that "Hardly anyone cares or even notices", and explains why. But:

  Internet experts Tim Wu, Cory Doctorow, Farhad Manjoo and many others were just plain, flat out wrong about this, mostly due to their anti-capitalist mentality.

  An observation that applies well to our previous item.

• OK, but it might be an answer to my problems. Yascha Mounk debunks one of my favorite panaceas: Proportional Representation Is Not the Answer to America’s Problems. Darn it!

  One of the things that is astonishing to any immigrant to America—even one who grew up in a reasonably affluent society like Germany—is the sheer amount of choice the country offers in just about every realm of life. There is an endless profusion of cable television channels. American grocery stores are incomprehensibly giant, offering a commensurably vast number of different products. Even sports is a notably variegated affair. In most European countries, soccer dwarfs all other sports; but while American football may be dominant in the United States, other sports like baseball, basketball and ice hockey also enjoy massive followings.

  Politics is the one realm which stands out for the poverty of the choices it offers. At every election, Americans trudge to the polls and are presented with the same choices. Unless they want to waste their vote on some third party candidate that has no chance of winning, they dutifully pick between two parties that have existed for over a century and a half: Democrats and Republicans.

  To the layman, this paucity of choice, so out of keeping with other realms of American life, may seem puzzling. But any political scientist knows that there is a simple explanation. The United States has a “majoritarian” electoral system. If you want to be elected to the House of Representatives, you need to win the largest absolute number of votes in your electoral district. In theory, this means that lots of candidates could vie for office. But in practice, a majoritarian political system strongly incentivizes voters to abstain from voting for smaller political parties or to lend their support to outsiders. For if you vote for a candidate who winds up getting ten or 20 percent of the vote, your preference effectively doesn’t count. Your vote is “wasted.”

  Yascha goes on to analyze the latest advocacy piece in the NYT from Jesse Wegman and Lee Drutman (which includes a very splashy presentation, gifted link.) Briefly: Congressional districts should have multiple members, and those members' party affiliations should reflect the popular vote. So, for example, if each district has 5 members, and the vote goes 60-40 for Democrats, three Democrats and two Republicans would be sent to DC.

  Both the Wegman/Drutman proposal and Yascha's rebuttal are long, and if you're in the electoral reform mood, click away.

  I'll just use this opportunity to (once again) plug my own crackpot proposal: Any candidate for the US House of Representatives who receives greater than 1% of the popular vote in the general election shall be entitled to a vote in the House equal to the fraction of the vote he or she receives.

  I'm pretty sure the objections Yascha raises to the Wegman/Drutman scheme might also apply, at least in part, to mine. But you know what? I don't care.

I didn't watch it, but Jeffrey Blehar did: Joe Biden Farewell Address a Fittingly Deluded End to Biden Era.

I would guess the speechwriters have rigorous guidelines for the text they put up on the presidential teleprompter: no big words, no words that can be easily misread or mispronouced, no hetronyms. Maybe someone will write a tell-all at some point in the coming years.

George Will takes a look back and discovers: Biden’s presidency got an early start on its road to ruin. If you can stand reliving that history, click away, it's a WaPo free link. GFW winds up with a relatively recent pothole:

Also of note:

• Deeper than you thought. C. Bradley Thompson writes on The State of the Union. His insights on the "deep state":

  By the Deep State, I mean more than what academics refer to as the “Administrative State” or the fourth branch of the federal government. We know, for instance, that the Administrative Deep State works closely with mission-aligned NGOs, the media, high-tech and social-media companies, white collar unions, etc.

  So, as we enter 2025, here’s the State of our Union a few days before we inaugurate a new President and a new administration. More precisely, here is the state of the Deep State. (The following list does not cover the full range of the Deep State, nor does it describe the size or personnel that make up each component part of the Deep State. I will leave for another day. Instead, I focus on the effects of the various component parts of the Deep State on the American people.)

  First, there is the Regulatory Deep State, which is sapping the energy and creativity out of American entrepreneurship and business.

  Second, there is the Welfare Deep State, which has created a nation of dependents and destroyed the family in many communities.

  Third, there is the Tax & Spend Deep State, which has left America $36 Trillion in debt, and which will enslave our children and grandchildren to our profligacy.

  And, reader, that's just the first three components on a list of twenty. Are you on depression meds? Maybe you don't want to click over.

• As Mrs. Loopner would say: it's a blessing and a curse. The Truth Fairy, Abigail Shrier, has notes on Trump's 'Cabinet of the Cancelled'.

  Venture capitalist Marc Andreessen recently expressed what many felt at the reelection of Donald Trump: not triumph so much as relief. “I hope this last ten years increasingly is just going to feel like a bad dream,” he told podcast host Joe Rogan. “I can’t believe we tolerated the level of repression . . . and anger and . . . emotional incontinence and . . . cancellation campaigns.” Much of it was orchestrated or encouraged by our government.

  One could say many things about Trump’s cabinet picks. At times, they seem to embody Government by Middle Finger. But they also, undeniably, represent Government by the Canceled: an assemblage that doesn’t need to be reminded of the administrative state’s ability to coerce the American public by calling in favors from Big Tech or pulling the levers of regulation, audit, or investigation. Many have experienced such treatment firsthand.

  Of course that doesn't mean Trump isn't raising his middle finger to…

  Trump just gave a massive middle finger to the establishment wing of the GOP.
  
  He is not hiring anyone who worked for:
  
  -Charles Koch
  -John Bolton
  -Nikki Haley
  -Mike Pence
  -Dick/Liz Cheney
  -Mitt Romney
  -Paul Ryan
  -Mark Milley
  -James Mattis
  -Mark Yesper
  
  This is a new party. pic.twitter.com/4aLtN4EiYR

  — Clandestine (@WarClandestine) January 16, 2025

  Just a reminder of how classy our once-and-future prez is.

• An ongoing question. Vinay Prasad is a (relatively) famous doctor, a non-quack, and deserves a listen when he answers: What is the truth about alcohol consumption[?]

  Right now, you are someone who drinks 0, 1, 2, 3 or more drinks a day. These drinks might be tequila neat, Mad dog 20-20, an Oakville, Napa cabernet, or Bud Lite. Probably, you are not consistent. You might drink 1, 2 or 4 nights a week. You might drink before meals, or after dinner. You might drink a hazy IPA after a long run, a Corona after mowing your lawn, or sip a gin and tonic on a hot summer day.

  Some of you are wondering if your habits are healthy— or should you drink fewer or perhaps more drinks? And what if you are starting from scratch: say you are a 16 year old who hasn’t yet had a drink, but thinking about it. Should you start?

  His essay is long, scientific, wise, and also funny in spots. Some of his recommendations are expensive, especially #19, but all are worth reading.

• What they really mean by 'equity'. Noah Rothman looks at the underlying ideology: ‘Equity’ in Misery.

  Occasionally, proponents of the concept of “equity” forget that they are supposed to emphasize the benefits of the discrimination they advocate on behalf of America’s allegedly marginalized minorities. Instead of highlighting their fraught but well-intentioned program of positive discrimination, they sometimes let the mask slip and indulge the bitter avarice that drives their ideological crusade. The San Francisco Chronicle did just that in a recent story on the private, for-profit firefighting teams who helped save some Los Angeles properties from going up in flames — “raising questions about equity” in the process.

  “Critics contend that when wealthy individuals hire their own firefighters, they compete with public teams for precious resources such as water, and could potentially interfere with those teams’ efforts by, for example, blocking or crowding narrow access points,” the Chronicle reports. That is a reasonable objection, although there have been few reports of such conflicts since the fires erupted last week. Rather, what has been reported is that residents suffered unduly from a shortage of LAFD personnel, which private firefighters would help mitigate.

  It’s all a red herring anyway; a smoke screen that distracts from equity advocates’ true objection to this phenomenon, which is their revulsion toward suffering that is not visited equally — perhaps even disproportionately — on those who they believe deserve to suffer.

  From his conclusion: "The desire to see an out-group suffer is about as atavistic as reptilian instincts get." An NR gifted link, go for it.

• Pun Salad Fact Check: Josh Barro speak truth. And he says: Meta Is Right to Fire the Fact-Checkers.

  Facebook is standing down in its efforts to use fact-checking to suppress “misinformation,” dropping its partnerships with third-party fact-checking organizations and turning to a user-driven “community notes” model similar to the one on X. This was inevitable — a top-down infrastructure to stop false ideas from spreading proved ineffective on several dimensions. Content moderation is a human project, and the fact-checkers (on whom the content moderators have relied to decide what’s true) invariably bring their preferences and biases to the fact-check process, and those biases have overwhelmingly gone leftward. Instead of helping a lot of people see the light (or whatever), this has led much of the population to view moderation efforts with appropriate hostility. Of course, it didn’t help that Facebook was also suppressing a wide variety of ideological views and unpleasant opinions, a practice it will also wind down.

  As Reed Albergotti writes for Semafor, Facebook’s approach to moderation was a “failed experiment,” and now it’s over.

  Of course, the anti-misinformation advocates are losing their shit; Casey Newton writes Meta “has all but declared open season on immigrants, transgender people and whatever other targets that Trump and his allies find useful in their fascist project.” Often, advocates of strong-handed moderation don't seem to know what hit them; ironically, that bewilderment arises from their own entrapment in a filter bubble. They see that they face political opposition. But when you operate in a bubble where all information is filtered by someone who thinks like you do, you’re unlikely to understand exactly why your opponents oppose you. In this instance, anti-misinformation advocates are steeped in years of news coverage and discussion of the issue that takes “misinformation experts” seriously as the exponents of a scientific and objectively correct method for controlling information — and treats opponents of the old moderation regime as people who are misinformed about misinformation and how it should be handled.

  That got me thinking: I bet Nina Jankowicz has something to say about this.

  And she does. And it is utterly predictable: also losing her shit.

I liked Don Boudreaux's Quotation of the Day yesterday. So much that I'm just gonna rip out the whole dang thing. While (of course) encouraging you to make Cafe Hayek a regular stop on your surfing itinerary.

First, the quote, from Thomas Sowell's Wealth, Poverty and Politics: An International Perspective, Amazon link at your right.

Don's accompanying commentary:

Well, OK. I'll try to stop doing that.

Also of note:

• But speaking of imagined moral superiority… Jennifer Rubin announces her big news: I Have Resigned from The Washington Post, effective today.

  Corporate and billionaire owners of major media outlets have betrayed their audiences’ loyalty and sabotaged journalism’s sacred mission — defending, protecting and advancing democracy. The Washington Post’s billionaire owner and enlisted management are among the offenders. They have undercut the values central to The Post’s mission and that of all journalism: integrity, courage, and independence. I cannot justify remaining at The Post. Jeff Bezos and his fellow billionaires accommodate and enable the most acute threat to American democracy—Donald Trump—at a time when a vibrant free press is more essential than ever to our democracy’s survival and capacity to thrive.

  I therefore have resigned from The Post, effective today. In doing so, I join a throng of veteran journalists so distressed over The Post’s management they felt compelled to resign.

  The decay and compromised principles of corporate and billionaire-owned media underscore the urgent need for alternatives. Americans are eager for innovative and independent journalism that offers lively, unflinching coverage free from cant, conflicts of interest and moral equivocation.

  Well, fine. Equivocation is bad when you're right about everything, all the time.

  Jen's announcement is for her new substack, The Contrarian. I've put it on my Inoreader subscription list, just to witness all the "innovative and independent journalism that offers lively, unflinching coverage free from cant, conflicts of interest and moral equivocation." For as long as I can stand it.

• And our first example‥ doesn't seem to be Contrarian at all. Olivia Julianna ("Texas Democratic Strategist and Gen Z firebrand") tells of her journey From the Trailer House to the White House. It helps if you imagine it with background music, some sort of trumpet-heavy fanfare…

  My story is an American story.

  One of the young girl who’s great grandparents came to America from Mexico hoping to give her a better life.

  One of the students who dreamed of something more.

  One of the Americans whose life was changed because of Joe Biden's Presidency.

  I would tell this to the President, tears in my eyes, standing in the middle of the Oval Office. He held my hand and told me that is exactly why Democrats do what they do– to help people. Right before this, President Biden briefly spoke to a small group of my peers in the Roosevelt Room. Behind him as he spoke was a portrait of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The image of them side by side will be etched into my memory forever.

  Yes, Olivia is a partisan Democratic hack. She proclaims, presumably with a straight face: "I firmly believe that in time, this administration will be regarded as one of the greatest in American history."

  Her story is very much "Life of Julia"-esque. And she is "grateful to the boy from Scranton and the girl from Oakland who didn’t forget about those who had too little."

  Uh huh. I can't help but notice that that "boy from Scranton and the girl from Oakland" get her fulsome thanks, but not the taxpayers that actually footed the bill.

• Can't hear no buzzers and bells. Kevin D. Williamson writes on Foreign Distractions.

  I would be very, very surprised if Donald Trump could point to Greenland or Panama on an unlabeled map, and I’d bet $10,000 he could not lay a finger on Denmark without advice and assistance. But Trump has decided that it is of paramount importance to the United States to wrest control of the Panama Canal away from Panama and to wrest control of Greenland, a territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, from Denmark.

  Why Greenland?

  Greenland is strategically located between the United States and Russia. So, there’s that. Of course, there are a lot of places strategically located between the United States and Russia: Iceland, Norway, Sweden … the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain … Ukraine. Most, but not all, of those countries have something in common with Greenland: There is already a U.S. military base there or formal U.S. access to local military installations. In fact, there are about 31 countries located somewhere roughly between the United States and Russia. Harry S. Truman and Dean Acheson had the good sense to organize a dozen or so of those countries with an interest in the North Atlantic into a treaty organization, which they imaginatively named the North Atlantic Treaty Organization—NATO, the bulwark of the free world against Russia and aligned enemies, which Donald Trump has spent pretty much his entire political career micturating on from a great height. We don’t have to twist any Danish arms into getting them to help us against threats from Moscow—they’ve been doing their part since 1949.

  This is why KDW gets the big bucks: he types "micturating" instead of "peeing".

• A burning question liberals are asking themselves. Asked by Jeff Maurer: Why Doesn't Hitler McFuckface Like Us Anymore?

  Mark Zuckerberg has announced big changes at Meta. The content moderation policies favored by many on the left are out, and the company is rolling back DEI and cozying up to Trump. Zuckerberg also recently went on Joe Rogan’s podcast to criticize the Biden administration and decry the lack of “masculine energy” in the corporate world.

  Like many liberals, I’m shocked by this pivot. What happened to the Mark Zuckerberg who, after the 2016 election, kowtowed to progressive lawmakers? Where is the guy who backed left-wing causes and clashed with conservatives? What’s causing this? Is it something in his personal life? Craven pandering to the new administration? Or is there any chance that it has something to do with more than a decade of people on the left calling him a corrupt plutocrat who might be the biggest pile of shit in the cosmos?

  It’s hard to trace the roots of Zuckerberg’s falling out with the left. Maybe it started in 2011, when the guy from The West Wing wrote a big, award-winning movie about how Zuckerberg is a total asshole. That doesn’t happen to most people — it’s really just Zuckerberg and former Oakland A’s manager Art Howe. After the 2016 election, some on the left blamed Facebook for Clinton’s loss, and Cambridge Analytica ended up on the Rachel Maddow show more than Rachel Maddow. In 2020, progressives demanded that Biden take down “new oligarchs” like Zuckerberg, which led to Lina Kahn hunting Zuckerberg with the tenacity of Javier Bardem’s character hunting Josh Brolin in No Country for Old Men.

  Read the whole thing of course. There are guest appearances by Dickhead McFarthuffer and Pedo von Shiteater.

• Maybe if Zuck wasn't a Harvard dropout… OK, but he's been enmeshed in free speech issues for years. You would think he'd be able to avoid being schooled by Emma Camp: Yes, Mark Zuckerberg, you can shout 'fire' in a crowded theater.

  Mark Zuckerberg has joined a dubious list of prominent Americans—including judges, members of Congress, and even a vice presidential nominee—who believe that you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. In an interview with Joe Rogan last week, the Meta CEO attempted to justify the company's pandemic-era censorship policies by arguing that "even people who are like the most ardent First Amendment defenders" know that there is a limit to free speech.

  "At the beginning, [COVID-19 was] a legitimate public health crisis," Zuckerberg told Rogan. "The Supreme Court has this clear precedent: It's like, all right, you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater. There are times when if there's an emergency, your ability to speak can temporarily be curtailed in order to get an emergency under control. I was sympathetic to that at the beginning of COVID."

  The thing is, Zuckerberg is simply wrong when it comes to how the First Amendment works.

  So let's hope, on his way to remaking Facebook more free speech-friendly, that Zuck will read Emma.

Recently on the book blog: