Pun Salad

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also of note:

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

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

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

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

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

  And there's protectionism too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Yum!

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

Recently on the book blog:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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