Jun
15
2026

Famous Author Subtly Snarked At

For the record:

  1. I'm not a Trump voter;
  2. It's only been a couple days since I said mean things about the intelligence of:
    1. New Hampshire GOP primary voters and
    2. Maine Democrat primary voters.
    Want to argue about that? Get back to me once you've read Bryan Caplan's The Myth of the Rational Voter.
  3. Despite how I sometimes sound, I'm a fan of epistemological humility.
  4. Another Feynman quote: "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

Also of note:

  • "And you can believe me, because I never lie, and I'm always right." I can't believe Jacob Sullum wrote this with a straight face: Trump's lawyers insist there is 'no evidence' of 'collusion or fraud' in his 'settlement with myself'

    "I'm supposed to work out a settlement with myself," President Donald Trump told reporters a few days after he sued the IRS. He wasn't kidding: His January 29 lawsuit, which alleged damages from an IRS contractor's illegal leaking of his tax returns, pitted Trump against an agency he oversees, represented by Justice Department lawyers who also answer to him.

    The "settlement" that the president reached with himself, which Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced on May 18, included $1.8 billion in taxpayer money for purported victims of the Biden administration's "lawfare and weaponization." It also included protection from liability for tax violations and any other federal offenses that Trump or his family might have committed. That sweet deal was business as usual at the Justice Department, Trump's personal lawyers improbably claim in a brief they filed on Monday in the Southern District of Florida.

    There is "no evidence" of "collusion or fraud" in Trump v. IRS, Alejandro Brito and two other lawyers told U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, who last month ordered briefing on that issue. Any suggestion that Trump used a phony lawsuit as a pretext to obtain huge favors for himself, his relatives, and his supporters is based on "nothing but speculation," Trump's attorneys say.

    Could we just impeach him already?

  • Reminding me of Buckye Newshawk Winner Les Nessman… [At a news conference with a Soviet agriculture delegation, where he and Bailey Quarters are the only attendees: "Yes, I have a question… What I'd like to know is … who do you think you're kidding?"]

    Similarly, Jeffrey Blehar's headline asks: Who Does Donald Trump Think He’s Fooling?

    On Thursday, Donald Trump announced the cancellation of a threatened round of airstrikes against IRGC positions in Iran, due to be launched in retaliation for a series of attacks on our regional allies. Once again, talks were about to be reopened, a marvelous “deal” was about to be signed and the war ended. “Time and place of the signing to be announced shortly.”

    And pretty much everyone rolled their eyes and ignored it. “More mush from the wimp,” was my reaction, recalling a famous Carter-era Boston Globe headline. This circus — threatened strikes, strikes called off for talks, Iranian forces still shooting missiles at us and our allies — has been going on for months now, and here we go again.

    But apparently it was for real, and few at this point doubt Trump’s desperate eagerness for a “deal” of any sort to extract him from a self-inflicted geopolitical blunder of lasting consequence. And Iranian media leaked the Iranian side’s claims about the “terms” of the deal: a series of claims so scandalous — nationalization of the Strait of Hormuz, release of billions in restricted cash flows, and yielding to Iran’s claims in Lebanon under the flag of Hezbollah — that as our own Noah Rothman wrote, agreeing to them would be tantamount to admitting defeat. The Iranians were obviously playing their own propaganda game in leaking these nonsensical terms, but they’re setting absurdly high demands — in a war Donald Trump keeps insisting they lost — because they know they hold the winning hand: They can play out the string for years if they want to, and they’ve done it before.

    (Also) Apparently, it's a done deal.

  • Not going to make it into the new edition of Profiles in Courage NHJournal's Michael Graham watches a local pol's flip-flop: #MeToo No More? Hassan Slammed Kavanaugh, Franken but Silent on Platner.

    New Hampshire U.S. Sen. Maggie Hassan was first sworn into office in January 2017. That October, the #MeToo movement exploded into the mainstream public consciousness after the wave of revelations about liberal Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein.

    Hassan promptly jumped on board, embracing the “Believe all women” attacks on U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, and calling for the resignations of U.S. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

    But in an interview with WMUR’s Adam Sexton that aired Sunday, Hassan took a notably different approach to Maine Democrat Graham Platner.

    The two-term Democrat acknowledged Platner’s problematic behavior, but she repeatedly refused to say if she would support or denounce his U.S. Senate candidacy.

    Did she use the "let the voters decide" dodge? Sure did:

    “I think the people of Maine have a lot to balance, and they ultimately need to make that decision,” Hassan said.

Recently on the book blog:

Blank Space

A Cultural History of the Twenty-First Century

(paid link)

I've seen people talk about "hate-watching", consuming media (typically TV or movies) that you despise. For some reason. Well, this book by W. David Marx turned into a "hate-read" for me. And my "reason" is pretty lame: I have a self-imposed rule to read every book I check out of the library, bad or good.

The usual disclaimer: I'm not a reviewer. My only goal is to write a "book report", like the ones I used to write for Mrs. Kluska back in fifth grade. And I'm just reporting my personal reactions; I wouldn't be surprised if yours were totally different. (For example, the WSJ reviewer, Dominic Green, was just complimentary enough to put the book on my get-at-library list.)

Although I've lived through the same quarter-century, and lived in the same country, that Marx claims to be chronicling, the main thing I noticed from nearly page one was how little of the "culture" discussed had any lasting impression on me, one way or the other. Indeed, the pages are filled with names and events that I had never heard of. And, often, when I had heard of them, I hadn't actually partaken. (For example, I'd heard of the song "Old Town Road", but I've never actually listened to it.)

Mostly, I had to wade through stuff like this, about "SoundCloud rappers": "These tools launched a new wave of hip-hop stars-Lil Yachty, Lil Uzi Vert, Lil Pimp, Lil Peep, Playboi Carti, XXXTentacion, Juice WRLD, and 6ix9ine." And page after page about something called "streetwear". Which I think is some sort of clothing. Scanning the index for who and what Marx deems worthy of attention: Beyoncé, Justin Bieber, Lena Dunham, Facebook, Paris Hilton, Jay-Z, Taylor Swift, Kanye West, Pharrell Williams, … And many assorted Kardashians and Jenners.

The author's political biases occasionally show up: gratuitous swipes at "capitalism" and "neoliberalism" appear every so often. The "Steele Dossier" is simply described as "filled with unverified claims about Trump's ties to Russia". Unverified? I'm pretty sure a more accurate adjective would have been "fake". Kyle Rittenhouse is described as someone "whose entire life accomplishment was crossing state lines into Wisconsin with an AR-15—style rifle, killing two protesters and being acquitted." I (like the National Review editorialists) think the jury got it right.

To be fair, there are plenty of "right-wing" loons out there that deserve criticism.

On the other hand, I don't think Marx mentions Jussie Smollett at all.

And AI? Marx comes off as a kind of curmudgeonly Luddite: 'AI companies vowed to end the evil monopoly of pernicious creators who dared take the time to make things with a sense of craft and intention."

Marx winds up with some recommendations about how to improve the culture. I'm unsure about their efficacy.