Pun Salad

Yes, a very belated nod to Robert Duvall's famous line in Apocalypse Now, inspired by Jack Butler's plea for honest language: A War by Any Name. (WSJ gifted link)

And, yes, it's a very rare case where (in this very limited domain) President Trump is being more honest than his fellow D.C. swamp-dwellers.

"It is what it is." Sheesh.

Also of note:

• A wise man once noted "a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth." Thomas W. Hazlett describes a byproduct: The Equal Time Rule Was Obsolete in 1927. (WSJ gifted link)

  A debate has broken out over the Radio Act of 1927. It’s about time.

  The Radio Act established the Equal Time Rule, which still governs broadcast radio and television. The regulation specifies that “if any licensee shall permit any . . . candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station,” the station owner “shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates.”

  Proponents say the Equal Time Rule fosters media coverage of politics and affords political candidates greater public access. Critics say it has outlived its usefulness, as today’s media landscape offers a cornucopia of platforms unknown in 1920s America. The critics are right, except for one thing: The rule has never been useful and has always functioned mostly to suppress coverage for challengers.

  Kill it before it becomes a centenarian. And the FCC too, while you're at it.

• And reminding us why the FCC should go is … the libertarian-friendly WePo Editorial Board: The FCC thinks it knows best. (WaPo gifted link)

  The Federal Communications Commission announced last week that it wants to crack down on call centers. No one likes dealing with customer service over the phone, but don’t be surprised if this government intervention makes an already annoying experience even worse.

  “Consumers in the U.S. regularly experience frustration and inconsistent outcomes when they connect with a customer service call center located abroad,” the FCC said. The agency also pointed to language barriers and security concerns before introducing a raft of proposed rules for companies.

  Here's an idea: if you are dissatisfied with the customer service you get from a company, take your business elsewhere. Don't look to the FCC to save you from talking to New Delhi Dolly.

• A belated birthday note. I noted the anniversary of The Wealth of Nations yesterday, but here's a late-breaking card from J.D. Tuccille: Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations' remains relevant 250 years later.

  Smith is often referred to as the "father of capitalism" as if he designed an economic system as a thought experiment. But that's not the case. Instead, he described what he saw working in the voluntary interactions of people around him, and the government policies that got in the way of prosperity.

  As Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations:

  What is the species of domestic industry which his capital can employ, and of which the produce is likely to be of the greatest value, every individual, it is evident, can in his local situation judge much better than any statesman or lawgiver can do for him. The statesman, who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.

  That was an important insight at a time when Europe's rulers insisted that the path to building wealth required hoarding precious metals, limiting imports, and guiding economic activity to serve the interests of the state. It remains a key point a quarter-millennium later when countries that built prosperity through relatively free markets now squander what they created with government priorities and policies that sideline the creative efforts of workers and entrepreneurs.

  I would dearly love to report that insight has won the day, but … nope.

• I don't write about Texas politics much. But Kevin D. Williamson lives down there, and he has A Brief Message for Sen. John Cornyn. (archive.today link)

  A brief question for Sen. John Cornyn: What, exactly, is the point of you?

  You’re not Ken Paxton, true. Paxton, the corrupt imbecile who serves as the attorney general of Texas and your opponent in the upcoming Republican primary runoff, is pretty gross: He is an adulterer, a chiseler, an abuser of his office. Donald Trump, whom you are satisfied to serve as the most abject and obedient of lackeys, also is an adulterer, a chiseler, and an abuser of his office. On top of that is the fact that he attempted to overthrow the government of these United States in January 2021 after losing the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden—and you voted to acquit him in his impeachment after that attempted coup d’état. President Trump has launched an unconstitutional war against Iran, has carried out wanton massacres in the Caribbean, has overthrown the government of Venezuela, has dispatched U.S. special forces to Ecuador, and in none of these instances has he so much as nodded in the general direction of Congress—the branch of the U.S. government in which you serve, Sen. Cornyn, and the branch entrusted by our Constitution with the power to declare war. You have been exactly as faithful to your vow to uphold the Constitution as Ken Paxton was to his wedding vows—and, with all due respect to the blessed institution of marriage, your infidelity to the Constitution is more consequential than Paxton’s infidelity to his wife.

  I have no particular beef with Cornyn, but I deeply admire KDW.

• Unclear on the LFOD concept. Allen J. Davis of Dublin, NH appeals to LFOD in his LTE to the Keene Sentinel: NH: Live free, but without food choice.

  I oppose House Bill 1773, which would take away SNAP recipients' freedom to buy certain unhealthy foods.

  I wholeheartedly support Lisa Beaudoin, executive director of the N.H. Council of Churches, who said to the N.H. House of Representatives last week: This bill is a "troubling shift from support to surveillance."

  And, I want to pose this question to all House Republicans: Does "Live Free or Die" apply only to those lucky enough not to need the benefits of SNAP?

  Nobody, of course, is stopping Granite Staters from buying soda and candy.

  With their own money.

  Not that it matters, but here's what you currently can't use SNAP for (in any state):

  • Beer, wine, and liquor.
  • Cigarettes and tobacco.
  • Food and drinks containing controlled substances such as cannabis/marijuana and CBD.
  • Vitamins, medicines, and supplements. If an item has a Supplement Facts label, it is considered a supplement and is not eligible for SNAP purchase.
  • Live animals (except shellfish, fish removed from water, and animals slaughtered prior to pick-up from the store).
  • Foods that are hot at the point of sale.
  • Any nonfood items such as:
    • Pet foods
    • Cleaning supplies, paper products, and other household supplies.
    • Hygiene items and cosmetics

  Bet you didn't realize you were already living in a statist hellhole, did you Allen?

Recently on the movie blog: