Have Fun With That, Donnie!

Trump's base, which includes a large number of people prone to conspiracism, is up in arms about recent announcements concerning Jeffrey Epstein:

Trump's Department of Justice and the FBI said in a memo made public last week there was no evidence that the disgraced financier kept a "client list" or was blackmailing powerful figures.

They also dismissed the claim that Epstein was murdered in jail, confirming his death by suicide at a New York prison in 2019, and said they would not be releasing any more information on the probe.

The move was met with incredulity by some on the US far-right -- many of whom have backed Trump for years -- and strident criticism of Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel.

I am agnostic about this beyond my certainty that Epstein and Trump are both sleazebags.

Did Epstein procure women for Democrat politicians? Probably.

Trump himself? Maybe. It wouldn't surprise me at all.

Am I microwaving some popcorn? Yes.

Have I lost sleep -- or will I ever lose sleep -- over this? No.

Our entire political establishment is sleazy and this disgusting aspect of it is par for the course, but hardly the biggest fish to fry.

As I see it, there could be enough dirt on Trump that he wouldn't dare pursue charges for fear of blowback, even though he could pardon himself. Or, there could be a whole lot of nothing/not worth pursuing in there. This doesn't excuse it, but it might well be a legal nothingburger for any variety of reasons.

But I am not a conspiracy nut. Many of Trump's supporters are, and it is hilarious to see him say things like the following to them, as if it will matter:

"What's going on with my 'boys' and, in some cases, 'gals?' They're all going after Attorney General Pam Bondi, who is doing a FANTASTIC JOB!" Trump said Saturday in a lengthy post on his Truth Social platform.

"We're on one Team, MAGA, and I don't like what's happening. We have a PERFECT Administration, THE TALK OF THE WORLD, and 'selfish people' are trying to hurt it, all over a guy who never dies, Jeffrey Epstein," he added, referring to his "Make America Great Again" movement.

The predictable response from a conspiracist to a denial of what they choose to believe isn't to review or look at the evidence or their interpretation.

It's to think They've gotten to him or even He's one of them, or (most generously) They've tricked him. The reactions of Alex Jones and Laura Loomer bear this out, and it's amusing to see Trump trying to downplay something he'd been happy to gin people up about/move them on to other favorites, like the "stolen" election narrative about his 2020 defeat.

I'll close by noting a similarity I have observed between these elements of MAGA and far-left people I sometimes encountered in my days in academia: Their reactions to cognitive dissonance are substantially the same.

They don't process what they hear at all, only that someone doesn't believe as they do. With MAGA, the "explanation" is that someone is credulous or evil.

Likewise, leftists would accuse me of spouting or falling for "propaganda" full stop.

Both examples of this cognitive type are in a bubble and unreachable. I recommend not wasting time trying to change their minds, and moving along, instead.

-- CAV

Four Random Things

A Friday Hodgepodge

1. Phrase of the Day: Kitty Party. This armchair linguist encountered it in an Oxford English Dictionary article titled "Introduction to Indian English."

kitty party, n. (1991) – a social lunch at which those attending contribute money to a central pool and draw lots, the winner receiving the money and hosting the next lunch.

Maybe it's nostalgia speaking to me a little bit, but I love the idea.

It reminds me a little of my grad school days when we'd regularly meet for a pot luck dinner each week at a house a few of the math students rented.

Rotating hosts would have been interesting, and, while lunch might pose challenging logistics, it might make for a faster pace and livelier conversation.

2. Small Things to Improve Work/Give as Gifts. At Ask a Manager, the answers to a post asking What's something you’ve gotten for work that greatly improved your work day? are worth a read. Some notable finds after a skim:

• a Jettle -- a kind of portable kettle,
• a toaster-sized refrigerator -- a possible way to avoid lunch theft from communal refrigerators (although perhaps themselves vulnerable to theft), and
• a small mirror -- valuable for not being startled at a desk facing away from a traffic area

You will get ideas, be they products you may not have heard of, or creative solutions to common problems.

3. A Model Railroad Enthusiast's Dream Comes True: A man in Australia discovered an extensive model railroad network beneath the house he and his wife had just bought.

My brother and I had a small HO scale layout on a table in the bedroom we shared growing up. We both still have our parts from it, but no concrete plans for getting back into the hobby, which is expensive and takes up space, not to mention basically being impossible to pursue if you (a) move a lot and (b) have toddlers.

If this guy ends up having kids and stays there, he'll be able to use this as a man cave when the kids are really young, and then be able to share his hobby when they're old enough.

I am jealous.

4. Easy and Good Recipe of the Week: Crock Pot Pulled Pork. I visited my brothers a few hours way on Independence Day, and one of them smoked a pork butt for the occasion.

It was great, and my recent success with a crockpot pot roast inspired me to see what I could do.

Thanks to Sharee of Savory Spicerack, I have an even easier recipe (with even fewer ingredients) for crockpot pulled pork.

Everyone, including my son, Mr. Picky Eater, loved it and happily snarfed up the leftovers the next day.

-- CAV

Medieval Usage, Medieval Mentality?

At Jewish World Review is a thought-provoking column by someone new to me, Adrian Wooldridge.

Wooldridge contends in his title and in his conclusion that The Middle Ages Are Making a Political Comeback, but he focuses on the kind of language being used by so many of the world's leaders, most alarmingly in the West:

Trump's political success has been helped by his genius for nicknames. During his run for the Republican nomination back in 2015 and 2016, he brought his Republican rivals down to size with a collection of memorable names: "low-energy Jeb" (Jeb Bush), "Sloppy Chris" (Chris Christie), "Lil Marco" (Marco Rubio). Hillary Clinton was "Crooked Hillary;" Biden was "Crooked Joe" at first; Kamala Harris was, at various times "Crazy Kamala," "Laffin Kamala" and "Lyin Kamala." As for foreign leaders, Bashar al-Assad is "Animal Assad," Justin Trudeau is "Governor Trudeau," and Kim Jong Un is "Rocket Man" or "Little Rocket Man."

This is all reminiscent of the Middle Ages when every great political figure had a nickname. Sometimes royal nicknames mocked (or celebrated) people's physical appearance: Charles the Bald, Charles the Fat, Ivar the Boneless, Ragnar Hairy-Pants. Sometimes they celebrated their political or military successes as with Vlad the Impaler or Eric Bloodaxe or Richard the Lionheart. William the Conqueror started life as William the Bastard before he changed his reputation by subjugating England.

Or consider NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte's private letter to Trump ("Mr President, Dear Donald"), written on the eve of the recent NATO summit and then leaked by a delighted Trump to the world...

Rutte's letter belongs in the long tradition of groveling loyal addresses to monarchs from their subjects (though with shorter words and more capital letters). Monarchs were routinely praised for their wisdom, justice and foresight; the subjects were equally routinely described as grateful, humble and awestruck...

See also the disgraceful way Trump's cabinet meetings start.

Wooldridge is definitely on to something here, and he calls it re-medievalization. The trends he cites in his closing paragraphs are indeed disturbing, and he has perhaps caught onto a symptom of irrationality among our politicians and, by extension, the electorate at large.

-- CAV

Is Musk's American Party Different?

Elon Musk, seemingly disenchanted with Trump, recently mooted forming a third party, the "American Party."

Yawn.

Third parties have not only typically done poorly in American politics, there are solid arguments against forming them in the first place.

The former gets the most attention in the press, understandably because of how difficult it is for someone to win the Presidency without being a member of either party.

(Case in point: Donald Trump, who is not a conservative, joined the Republican Party when he decided to run.)

Two articles I encountered today consider this proposed enterprise. Or is it a stunt? With Musk, one never knows.

The first, at MSN, reviews the past record of failed third parties and the structural aspects of the American political system that favor two large parties, before concluding that this try differs in an important way:

But the presidency is not Musk's goal. He posted on July 4 that his goal would be "to laser-focus on just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts."

Now that is a different kettle of fish. That is doable, at least in theory. And that really would alter American politics immediately.

Michael Tomasky sees this goal as difficult, but possible to achieve and sees the primary obstacles as (1) financial (easy for Musk to overcome) and (2) what such a party could stand for. The second Tomasky sees as a problem, but less so than does Alexander Burns of Politico, who sees opportunities:

Trump built his political rise on three areas of policy where much of the electorate felt unrepresented: immigration, trade and global security. He rejected Clinton- and Bush-era consensus on all three.

For Musk's new party to have a purpose, it must find similar ideological targets of opportunity.

The three Burns sees are:

1. Championing free trade,
2. Radical fiscal rebalancing, and
3. Securing American technological and scientific supremacy.

The first two certainly fit in with the "radical libertarian" bent Tomasky attributes to Musk (whom I see as a mixed bag, especially given his appetite for subsidies). The third, not so much, except insofar as it might square with leave universities alone and stop attacking science, medicine, and agriculture.

Burns does not see this as an agenda for a party, and long-term, I think he's right.

I could see a collection of candidates -- running together as a new party or merely promoting themselves as part of a caucus on any of these -- winning on such neglected issues and wielding outsized influence as a bloc for the next term.

But that brings me back to solid arguments against forming third parties.

Back in 1842, an abolitionist considered what happened when her fellows joined or formed parties in (B) below:

A. But you advise people not to vote for pro-slavery candidates, and not to join the liberty party; if this isn't non-resistance in politics, I don't know what is.

B. The difficulty in your mind arises, I think, from want of faith in the efficiency of moral influence. You cannot see that you act on politics at all, unless you join the caucus, and assist in electioneering for certain individuals; whereas you may, in point of fact, refuse co-operation, and thereby exert a tenfold influence on the destiny of parties. In Massachusetts, for instance, before the formation of a distinct abolition political party, both parties were afraid of the abolitionists; both wanted their votes; and therefore members of both parties in the legislature were disposed to grant their requests. All, who take note of such things, can remember how the legislature seemed to be abolitionized, as it were, by miracle. "The anti-slavery folks are coming strong this session," said a member to a leading democrat; "they want a hearing on five or six subjects at least." "Give 'em all they ask?" replied the leader; "we can't afford to offend them." When a similar remark was made to a whig leader, the same session, his answer was, "Concede everything; it wont do to throw them into the arms of the democrats." Now [that] there is a third party in Massachusetts, the two great parties have much less motive to please the abolitionists. Last year, the legislature of that State seemed to have gone back on anti-slavery, as fast as it once went forward. In Vermont, the system of refusing co-operation produced the effect of inducing both whigs and democrats to put up an abolition candidate, in order to secure the abolition votes; neither party was willing to give its opponent the advantage that might be gained by pleasing this troublesome class. Had we never turned aside from this plan, I believe the political influence of anti-slavery would have been an hundred fold greater than it now is. [Antislavery Political Writings, 1833-1860: A Reader, edited by C. Bradley Thompson, pp. 99-100, bold added]

As I see it, there is opportunity for an ad hoc coalition of politicians who, say, favor free trade to win election and start the work of reining in Trump's abuse of his (constitutionally dubious) tariff power. But as members of a third party? They might still win, but would attract more opposition from both parties, rather than just the "other" party, as they would in a normal election, anyway.

So, not only are three neglected issues (that I also don't see anyone integrating into part of a larger cause) not a good basis for forming a political party, doing do risks merely marginalizing supporters of those issues/that cause, rather than causing more members of both parties to start paying attention.

The only distinct thing about this third party, then, is really its tactics, which might succeed in the short-term, but which will fail long-term.

If I were Musk, I'd hold off on forming a party outright and support viable politicians more amenable to views I cared about and that there would probably be good support for, such as free trade.

-- CAV

Column: The Profit Motive Itself Makes the Best Case Against the FDA

One of President Trump's campaign pledges was to allow Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to "go wild" as head of Health and Human Services. Some welcomed the idea, scarred by memories such as covid lockdowns and government mask mandates that lasted well beyond the arrival of the vaccines. Others, well aware of Kennedy's conspiracism and anti-vaccine views, dreaded the news. Agencies under Kennedy, like the FDA, are charged with maintaining standards of medical safety and effectiveness. Does "go wild" mean freeing Americans to make our own health decisions -- or ramming bad advice down our throats?

As if to address the concerns of both groups, Kennedy's FDA announced in May that it approves covid boosters only for those over 65 or in other high-risk groups. The vaccine remains available to everyone, but insurers are no longer forced to cover the full cost (about $150). If you want to get the covid jab with your flu shot, you'll need to decide if a few extra days of health are worth the price. Leftists wailing about "access" notwithstanding, Kennedy hasn't "taken away" this vaccine.

The measure seems reasonable until one hears the rationale: Officials described the old guidance as "one-size-fits-all" and based on the assumption that Americans "are not sophisticated enough to understand age- and risk-based recommendations." First, millions were forgoing the shots. Second, the main impact is on insurance companies, whose job it is to know whether covering shots or treatments is profitable for any given group...

To continue reading my latest column, please proceed to RealClear Markets

I would like to thank my wife and Steve D. for their comments on earlier versions of this piece.

-- CAV

Russia Lures the 'Anti-Woke'

There is a story at MSN about Americans who have moved to Russia, seeing that medieval cesspit as more in tune with their "anti-woke," theocratic values.

My reaction to the story is a strange mixture of pity and contempt. The pity is because these people clearly have no idea what they're getting themselves into. But I feel contempt for them working themselves up into such hysteria about wokeness that they seem oblivious to (1) the many other facets of the challenge such a move would present (even if Russia were a decent country) and (2) what they plainly took for granted in America.

I'm tempted to say Take all these idiots, please! You deserve them. -- but for the fact that many of them are taking their kids along.

That part saddens me.

The below is a great example of how ridiculous this fixation on wokeness can get, not to mention the loony kind of people this "spiritual visa" is designed to attract:

Leo Hare said he became disillusioned with the U.S. after what he saw as President Donald Trump's failure to hold "traitors" accountable following the 2020 election, which he believes was stolen.

"A country that does not punish its traitors is no longer really a country," he said, painting a picture of a nation overtaken by intelligence agencies and plagued by corrupt elites.

The Hares said they felt unsafe in Texas because of unregulated migration. Chantelle said she was worried her sons wouldn't be able to "marry a real girl" and not a transgender person and deplored laws such as those establishing buffer zones around abortion clinics.

But the tipping point, and what finally drew them to Russia, Leo said, was Putin's persona.

"I ... liked his policies, how he was trying to restore pride in Russia, restore patriotism," Leo said. [bold added]

There are over 300 million people in the United States. How many transgender people are there, exactly? (And is it really her business whom her son falls in love with, anyway?)

The rest sounds over the top, but it's par for the course for someone who would get this worked up about something like this -- or fall for the other conspiracist-type, religious/authoritarian, loony blood-and-soil-type positions you see there.

It's bad enough that I'm in a hurry to post today, but I'm so flabbergasted at the moment that I'm not sure what to say about this without more time to digest it, anyway.

-- CAV

Happy Independence Day!

Editor's Note: I will be taking tomorrow off from blogging for the holiday.

***

I highly recommend taking about 15 minutes to read (or reread) Ayn Rand's penetrating essay, "Man's Rights." It is both a valuable reminder for patriots -- and a needed corrective for a society that has all but forgotten -- about what rights are, where they come from, and what they are for.

The essay also beautifully encapsulates what makes America great, and why we should celebrate her:

Image by Ben Soyka, via Unsplash, license.

The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law.

The principle of man's individual rights represented the extension of morality into the social system -- as a limitation on the power of the state, as man's protection against the brute force of the collective, as the subordination of might to right. The United States was the first moral society in history.

All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself. The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary coexistence of individuals. All previous systems had held that man's life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The United States held that man's life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights. [my bold]

While America faces major problems, there is no need to make her "great again." America is already great for the reasons given above.

Let us celebrate Independence Day with full knowledge of this greatness, and commit ourselves to helping it continue by working to remind our countrymen of that fact whenever and however we can.

-- CAV