Pun Salad

I was gonna make a "filled with hot air" joke, but elementary Googling informs me that Macy's balloons are inflated via helium.

No clue about how Marx would have felt about being filled with a noble gas. One that makes you talk funny.

Also of note:

• Apocalyptic Prophecy from the Book of Williamson. Specifically, Kevin D. He warns of The Four Schmucks of the Apocalypse. (archive.today link)

  The Trump administration is always good for a curveball: It put out a peace plan that was originally written in Russian when I was expecting one that was originally written in crayon.

  Talk about “the soft bigotry of low expectations”! You couldn’t see my expectations from the third sub-basement of Challenger Deep right about now.

  “The matter is delicate,” Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said of European engagement with the United States on the Ukraine matter, “because nobody wants to discourage the Americans and President Trump from ensuring that the United States remains on our side.”

  What kind of wild-eyed optimist thinks President Trump is on the Europeans’ side now? He sure as hell is not on the Ukrainians’ side.

  More to the point: What kind of wild-eyed optimist thinks President Trump is on the American side? The conspiracy-theory corner is chock-full of amusing little notions about why it is that Donald Trump so energetically and self-abasingly serves the interests of Vladimir Putin: sex tapes of a nature as to embarrass even such a man as Trump, who has appeared in no fewer than three pornographic films; dirt relating to his Slovenian-born wife’s dodgy family or to his sons’ personal and financial shenanigans; possibly some heavy off-the-books loans from state-controlled Russian banks or the Russian mob. All fun parlor-game stuff, but, as far as I can tell, all of the available hard evidence points toward my pet theory of the case, i.e. that Donald Trump is a punk and a coward who, like most weaklings of his kind, instinctively takes on the subordinate role in relationships with hard men such as Putin. I enjoyed The Manchurian Candidate, but, in a sense, it does not matter whether Donald Trump is some kind of a Russian asset under the influence of kompromat—he would not be doing anything different if he were.

  Russia has launched a war of aggression against a European democracy, and the president of the United States of America is on Moscow’s side: All pretense and political window-dressing to one side, that’s how it is. Trump means to give Putin what Putin wants. Fortunately for the cause of the Free World, Donald Trump does not run U.S. foreign policy. Unfortunately, some combination of Marco Rubio, J.D. Vance, Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner does—freedom is in the greasy paws of a quadrumvirate of self-serving grifters, phonies, cowards, and imbeciles.

  KDW sounds pessimistic, right? Am I detecting some pessimism there?

• A question the great minds of science will debate for the next century. Becket Adams wonders How Did Katie Couric Become an Elder Stateswoman of Journalism? (archive.today link)

  You have to hand it to Katie Couric.

  Unlike disgraced former anchor Dan Rather, who was drummed out of the news business in 2006, she has never faced any serious professional consequences for her shoddy, dishonest brand of journalism.

  In fact, despite a thoroughly blemished record, she has managed, late in her career, to reinvent herself as a kind of elder stateswoman of the news media, explaining to her loyal following everything that’s wrong with modern journalism. Leading Democrats, journalists, and pundits are all too eager to do interviews on her podcast or Substack to talk politics and the culture wars.

  This is despite the long list of people Couric has mischaracterized, misreported on, and mistreated. Instead of pariah status, she receives expressions of tribute and respect, all while criticizing those she deems unworthy of the title she has wielded unworthily for more than four decades.

  Becket has the receipts, as the kids say. He is especially hard on Katie's creative editing of her interview with Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

• No fair! Hors de Combat is in a foreign language! Jed Rubenfeld, legal correspondent at the Free Press contends Killing Narco Speedboat Survivors Is a War Crime. (archive.today link)

  On September 10, eight days after the first U.S. bombing of a “narco” speedboat in the Caribbean, The Intercept—a left-wing news site—reported that there were people on board who had survived the initial air strike, but were then killed in a “follow-up attack.” No details were offered, no such second strike was shown in the video of the bombing posted by President Trump, and the allegation seemed to vanish. But yesterday, The Washington Post made the very same accusation, this time filled in with explosive details.

  After the first bomb struck the boat, the Post reported, a drone video feed showed two survivors “clinging to the smoldering wreck” in the open sea. According to the Post, mission commander Admiral Frank Mitchell Bradley then ordered a second strike specifically to kill the two survivors.

  Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has called the Post story “fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory,” reiterating that the speedboat attacks have been approved “by the best military and civilian lawyers.” But Hegseth did not specifically deny any of the particulars in the Post’s account.

  If the Post is right—and we don’t know yet whether it is—Bradley committed murder. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

  This is turning otherwise reasonable conservatives into defenders of the indefensible. Sad!

• Tyler Cowen piles on. Specifically, shooting the fish in the barrel: The Myth of the $140,000 Poverty Line. (archive.today link)

  When a flood of people start emailing me the same article, I know something is afoot. That is the case with Michael W. Green’s “The Valley of Death: Why $100,000 is the New Poverty,” which was recently adapted from his Substack and published in The Free Press. Green’s core argument is that participating in the basics of American life costs much more than it used to, and as a result, we should set a new poverty line: up from about $32,000 a year for a family of four with two kids, to $140,000 a year.

  Fortunately for us, this is all wrong. The underlying concepts are wrong, the details are wrong, and the use of evidence is misguided. There are genuine concerns about affordability in the United States, but the analysis in this article is not a good way to understand them.

  Green goes off the rails right away when he defines the poverty line by quoting a statement based on a 1965 research paper by Mollie Orshansky: “The U.S. poverty line is calculated as three times the cost of a minimum food diet in 1963, adjusted for inflation.” He uses this sentence as the foil for his own analysis, noting that rising costs of healthcare, housing, and other factors mean that food is a rapidly decreasing proportion of a household’s overall costs. Orshanksy’s formula, therefore, is outdated.

  The problem is that this mischaracterizes how the poverty line is calculated today.

  I am feeling sorry for Michael W. Green.

Recently on the book blog:

Recently on the movie blog:

Nicholas Wade has had a long career as a science journalist, and in recent years has become a controversial science journalist. For details on the controversial stuff, I recommend his Grokipedia entry, which seems far more even-handed than Wikipedia's, which has an unrebutted anti-Wade bias.

I reported on one of his controversial works, A Troublesome Inheritance, back in 2014. In more recent years, he has written in favor of the lab-leak origin of Covid; my posts on that are here, here, here, and here.

This book looks at how humans have organized themselves into governing groups over their long existence; Wade feels (with much justification) that the role of our underlying genetic code has been given short shrift. To a certain extent this is ideology-driven: the notion that humans are born as "blank slates" and their cultural environment can mold them arbitrarily, shedding ancient ideas of sex roles, opening up a utopian vision of an egalitarian future.

Wade notes that blank-slatism has been thoroughly debunked. He details the experiment with kibbutzim in early Israel, where idealists set up communities based on collective ownership, sexual equality, child-rearing by the community instead of mom and dad, etc.; over the span of a relatively few years, this proved unstable, and the communities mostly reverted to more traditional ways.

Our original social organizations were tribal, similar in many ways to our chimp cousins, and they were a decent evolutionary "solution" to the problems of cooperation, defense, production, and cultural survival. They "worked" for many millennia, after all. And they still persist in some parts of the world. But cultural evolution has molded most of us into citizens of nation-states, a model that has more survival value in the modern world.

Wade argues that humanity is still constrained by the realities of our genetic heritage; ideologies that (for example) deny the fundamental differences between guys and gals are always going to wind up in disappointment, but not before causing a lot of misery along the way.

He also argues that the traditional bonds that hold nation-states together seem to be badly fraying today: common languages, religions, ethnicities. He points out increasing social stratification caused by assortive mating in our meritocracy.

So, Wade provides quite a bit to think about. Progressives aren't going to like his take on a number of contemporary issues. Even I am not convinced of the semi-determinism that his evolution/genetic insights seem to imply. Back in (say) 1750, a Wade-like essayist could have looked at the historic record of chattel slavery and concluded that it was destined to be with us forever as part of our genetic heritage. But it wasn't, thank goodness.

[Blog-only Update, 2026-01-08: Arnold Kling has a more detailed look at Wade's book. With a punny headline: Wading into Controversy. If you're interested.]

This is (duh) a sequel to Nobody, which I watched and liked back in 2023. Bob Odenkirk stars again (spoiler for the first movie: he survives), and he's great. It is billed as a "dark comedy", where the darkness is provided with copious violence, bad language, and threats against the innocent. So, if you're OK with that…

The events of the previous movie have given Hutch (Bob) a promotion of sorts: he's now a professional assassin, working to pay off multi-millions in debt, thanks to his rash (but understandable) decision to burn up a large pile of mob cash. (It made sense at the time. You really should watch that first movie before this one.)

But it's a tiresome life, and Hutch has been neglecting his family. He demands a break for a family vacation, and chooses "Plummerville", a cheesy, decrepit town he remembers from his youth. It's got rides, a water park, an arcade, duck boats, … and (oh yeah) loads of corruption and organized crime; he wasn't aware of that last bit. But Hutch is a Jack Reacher-style character; trouble and (eventually apocalyptic) violence seem to find him wherever he goes.

I had to look over to IMDB to find the name of the actress playing the primary villain here. And said, "Oh. Wow."