Pun Salad

Katherine Mangu-Ward reveals something about the inner workings of the magazine she edits in her latest print-edition editorial: Friedrich Hayek's 'socialists of all parties' quote is apt today.

I'll be pointing out "nearly every essay" as each one emerges from behind the paywall. And I may include a Hayek quote here and there.

But, for today, here's a reasonable article not from Reason, in which Daniel J. Smith explains Why Modern Socialists Dodge Definition.

As Hayek would say: Bingo!

Also of note:

• In the land of obfuscation, finger-pointing, and whataboutism… Andrew C. McCarthy notes there is a New Explanation: Hegseth Did Not Order That All Boat Operators Be Killed. (NR gifted link)

  (Caveat Lector: Andrew's article is (as I type) 24 hours old; by the time you read this, it might be wildly out of date.)

  In a post on Saturday evening, I contended that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s first “defense” of a second U.S. missile strike on September 2, which killed two shipwrecked survivors of an initial missile strike, was more like a guilty plea. With indignation, but without trying to refute any of the factual claims in a Washington Post report about the strikes, Secretary Hegseth asserted, “As we’ve said from the beginning, and in every statement, these highly effective strikes are specifically intended to be ‘lethal, kinetic strikes.’” But the laws of armed conflict prohibit lethal, kinetic strikes against combatants who’ve been rendered hors de combat (i.e., out of the fighting); hence, it is not a defense to say, “But it was our intention all along to kill them.”

  Not surprisingly, the White House figured out that this wasn’t going to fly, so we now have an actual defense. According to President Trump, Hegseth now says he didn’t order what the Washington Post’s unidentified sources say he ordered — to wit, that everyone on the vessel suspected of trafficking illegal drugs on the high seas was to be killed.

  I hope that’s true. Of course, if it is true that he didn’t give the order, how odd was it that Hegseth’s first two responsive posts over the weekend were exactly what you would expect from someone who did give such an order: first, the above unflinching declaration of intention to execute “lethal” strikes, and second, the cruder, “We have only just begun to kill narco-terrorists.”

  I hope that’s true. Of course, if it is true that he didn’t give the order, how odd was it that Hegseth’s first two responsive posts over the weekend were exactly what you would expect from someone who did give such an order: first, the above unflinching declaration of intention to execute “lethal” strikes, and second, the cruder, “We have only just begun to kill narco-terrorists.”

  Almost certainly there will be more to come. Sorry.

• One of the few things I remember from Confirmation classes. The English word "love" is very, very, ambiguous. Translations of the New Testament map four different Greek words into one hunka hunka burnin' "love" in English. Including one I hope Noah Smith isn't using in his headline: I love AI. Why doesn't everyone?

  New technologies almost always create lots of problems and challenges for our society. The invention of farming caused local overpopulation. Industrial technology caused pollution. Nuclear technology enabled superweapons capable of destroying civilization. New media technologies arguably cause social unrest and turmoil whenever they’re introduced.

  And yet how many of these technologies can you honestly say you wish were never invented? Some people romanticize hunter-gatherers and medieval peasants, but I don’t see many of them rushing to go live those lifestyles. I myself buy into the argument that smartphone-enabled social media is largely responsible for a variety of modern social ills, but I’ve always maintained that eventually, our social institutions will evolve in ways that minimize the harms and enhance the benefits. In general, when we look at the past, we understand that technology has almost always made things better for humanity, especially over the long haul.

  There are always those who will proclaim "This time is different." Maybe. But that's not the way to bet, I'm pretty sure.

• I've been wondering about this myself. Arnold Kling notes the funny way people think about one specific service: What's Different about Health Care?

  When it comes to health care policy, you can try to sound sophisticated by citing “asymmetric information” as an explanation for why government intervention is appropriate. But I think that those rationalizations are off base.

  The reason that we have government intervention in health care is that we have an instinct that making an individual pay for health care is immoral. It is taking advantage of the individual’s misfortune.

  When someone is desperately poor and needs to borrow money to keep from starving, charging interest is regarded as immoral. Back in the day, that is what made usury a sin and made Shylock a villain.

  When someone is suffering from illness, making them pay for treatment is analogous to usury. Still, we understand that health care providers deserve to get paid. So we turn payment for treatment into a collective problem, to be dealt with by insurance or, ultimately, by socialism (government).

  I think that the moral intuition that an individual suffering from a health problem should not have to pay for treatment is something that we need to re-think. In the 21st century, the array of medical services is so vast and so varied that it is no longer appropriate to take away the individual’s responsibility for paying. As an individual, you think you have “good” health insurance if it pays for eyeglasses and teeth cleaning and for every precautionary MRI. But for society as a whole, it is not good.

  Arnold goes on to mention the weirdness of the term "health insurance", which, in practice, works totally differently from other types of insurance.

• A palate-cleanser? Not really. But Brian Philips The Olivia Nuzzi and RFK Jr. Affair Is Messier Than We Ever Could Have Imagined. It's pretty R-rated funny the whole way through.

  There’s no way around it. If you read this article, you are going to have to imagine Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the United States secretary of health and human services, having an absolutely eyeball-melting orgasm. You’re going to have to imagine a sweaty, leathery man in his early 70s, the scion of the celebrated Kennedy political dynasty, bellowing like a Spartan as his body yields to the sweet, sweet release. Knees buckling. Sinews straining. What does it sound like when RFK Jr. bellows? I’ll go out on a limb and say it’s gritty. His normal speaking voice is basically a garbage disposal. When the big one hits, it must be like tossing a fork in.

  I’m sorry for this, truly. I would protect you from these images if I could. But in the latest, grossest plot twist in the ongoing saga of RFK’s affair with the acclaimed political journalist Olivia Nuzzi, RFK appears to have written a poem to his lover about—and please remember that I hate my own life as much as you’re about to hate yours—his own ejaculation. He calls it “my harvest.” Lines from the poem were published Saturday on the Substack of Nuzzi’s ex Ryan Lizza, who is also a political journalist and who was engaged to Nuzzi at the time of the alleged affair. Lizza has launched a multipart Substack series chronicling Nuzzi’s infidelities, to counter what he claims are Nuzzi’s misrepresentations in her forthcoming memoir, which was recently excerpted in Vanity Fair, where Nuzzi currently works.

  It's sordid and also hilarious. Except you might choke back some laughter when you remember that Junior's current job requires sound, sober judgement.