Feb
8
2025

Live Free and Die

Almost Needless to Say: In That Order

A recycled classic from Remy/Reason:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So "democracy" says what, Jen?

There's also J.K. Rowling:

[Continues:]

… damage to vulnerable kids.

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

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

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

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

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

Also of note:

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

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

    […]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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