Leaving Aside the Illegality…

…as in this fairly clear restriction that's a century and a half old…

• …the Orange Menace — or, more probably, some ineligible for the death penalty insiders — has determined to mobilize the National Guard, turning them from civilians to soldiers, to patrol for crime in DC without adequately determining their objective. Since I can't stop him/them from doing so, in the best traditions of military strategy all I can do is suggest an appropriate target for those patrols — a part of DC with rampant crime that the local authorities have shown neither capability nor interest in controlling. The initial target for an appropriately surgical strike against rampant crime is actually quite close to the White House, thereby presenting a cognizable threat and further justifying use of national-security assets in protecting against it: The stretch of US Highway 29 between 9th Street and 21st Street.

  K Street.

  Some offender-profiling efforts are probably appropriate. Channeling Jessica Williams for a moment, from a classic Daily Show piece that is mysteriously not available for free/easy streaming, profiling should extend to

  [P]eople you suspect of being white-collar criminals. You know, walking around in tailored suits, slicked-back hair, always needing sunscreen if you know what I'm saying.… Look, I know this isn't comfortable, but if you don't want to be associated with white-collar crime, maybe you shouldn't dress that way.… [I]t is a hard fact that white-collar crime is disproportionately committed by people who fit a certain profile. So if you are, say, [a] white, Upper East Side billionaire with ties to the financial community like Michael Bloomberg, you've just got to accept being roughed up by the police every once in a while.

  Further, such targeting would arguably evade the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act, as it's hard to envision a greater threat to public order than influence-peddling and bribery (however mischaracterized as "lobbying," "public relations," and/or "petitioning the legislature or executive") a few hundred meters from the seat of government. It would certainly be more excusable than use of military assets to prosecute the entirely-civilian-law-enforcement War on Drugs, and probably more effective too (even when being undermined by other military "mission priorities" with all too similar policy rationales).

• Unfortunately, the US is far from the only source of such problems, chafing at process restrictions on doing what… a certain element… is utterly convinced is not just advisable, but a policy imperative. Sadly, this unsigned editorial at The Guardian is far too genteel in responding to attacks on the European convention on human rights — a convention that goes not nearly far enough, set against the backdrop of not just occasional but default governmental conduct across the continent not so very long ago. Orwell was right: The object of power is power. Attacks on the ECHR Over There, and parallel attacks on "civil rights" Over Here, are not about the merits of policies that are being "impaired," but about restrictions on might equalling right.
• Maybe we'd all be better off if we just relied only on science to set policy. Or maybe not, given that the same sort of people are also trying to influence "science" — or, at least, publishing about it. The courts certainly haven't done anything about it (citations to parallel US difficulties too numerous for a blawg entry, very much starting at the top).
• At that, neither Europe nor the US is as enthusiastic about things as the PRC.

  At least, not quite yet.

In Praise of [In]Efficiency

I offer no apologies to Erasmus¹ for an ironic twist on his ironic twists. Ambiguous, infinite reflexiveness is kewl!

The unsanctioned "Department of Government Efficiency" has been on a rampage of late², because "efficiency" is a necessary universal objective that only a business orientation can achieve — and that "government" (and, in particular, the Deep State) can never achieve. There's a tiny, tiny problem with this pathway, though: Almost by definition, planning for crises is not efficient precisely because there is neither certainty nor sufficiently precise (and accurate!) predictability of the time, place, and context of a crisis.

Consider, for the moment, an objectively-clear crisis: Hurricane Katrina.³ If one actually looks even cursorily at the four years leading up to the devastation in New Orleans and the bungled response thereto, one sees increasing emphasis on efficiency… primarily so that any "savings" could be plowed into responding to another (manufactured? not-objectively-clear? resulting-from-the-response-as-much-as-the-putative-cause?) crisis.⁴ No plan survives contact with the enemy — or reality — because neither one actively cooperates with the plan.

More disturbingly, consider the particular rampage noted a couple paragraphs above. There might be a microefficiency possible through a fresh-eyes oversight of payment systems. Assume, hypothetically, that the deterrent effect of knowing that the DOGE⁵ Is Watching will automatically cut all fraud to zero. (Yeah, right.) Has anyone considered the costs of any of:

• Securing the data retrieved from the payment system from internal misuse, like some staffer at DOGE using the payment data to track down his ex… or estranged daughter?
• Securing the data retrieved from the payment system from external attack, like hackers choosing to attack off-the-shelf software now being stored on dubiously-secured computers in Alexandria? Or, more to the point, hostile foreign governments doing so?
• Distinguishing between the fact of a payment and the reason(s) for that particular payment — an effort (if actually undertaken) that inherently requires correlation of individual payments with specific, private, oft-protected-by-other-law personal information?
• Actual enforcement efforts against any discrepancies actually discerned (whether or not factually/ethically verified)?

I didn't think so; and even that comparison assumes (with no warrant, let alone relationship to reality) complete success.

Beginning down the path of internalizing negative externalities⁶ — necessary to determine the efficiency of a system even more than the efficiency of a particular incidence — further exposes the real problem. DOGE is attempting to count the number of angels (or, in this instance, devils⁷) on the head of a pin not by assuming just the existence of the angels and devils, but by assuming that they are necessarily — and accurately — countable through the magic of modern accounting. It further flies in the face of a critical lesson of both the events of military history and the theory of conflict resolution. "All teeth and no tail" is a losing strategy precisely because it presumes that the world is a chessboard, that no pawn ever repels the actual assault of a knight, that the terrain is known and fixed and unchallenging, that the simplest case is always an accurate model of the real world — and that no one ever responds to a demand to surrender with "Nuts!," but instead accedes to the "inevitable." But it's only "inevitable" to those making the same set of a priori assumptions, and slavishly following the same path of reasoning, as those making the demand.

Mu5k's Schlieffen Plan to remake the government as smaller and more efficient is little more than an attempt to convert the slogan "greater efficiency is always good!" into reality. Instead of considering the facts, or the law/other methods of reasoning, railing against "government inefficiency" is merely pounding on the table⁸ — or, perhaps, the on-screen keyboard in 140-character soundbites that couldn't even complete this sentence, or include the footnote. And the footnote(s) is/are part of the point: The "inefficiency meme" is at best a postulate that has not been proven.

---

1. Desidarius Erasmus, In Praise of Folly (1509, this trans. 1876); see also Anthony Grafton's helpful context-setting foreword to the Princeton University Press edition (PDF) which, nonetheless, glosses over a critical aspect of the work: That it also functions as a pre-Enlightenment criticism of the argument from authority, and in particular transferrence of authority between fields of expertise. Directly confronting this problem would need to wait a couple centuries more…
2. Keep in mind that it's still during the government/business day in DC as I'm writing this. There is a nonzero chance that something even more outrageous, or at least even more remarkable, will have occurred between its writing and whenever you read this.
3. This concerns the fact and context of the response, not its competence. It wasn't a heck of a job, by any means. It's also important to remember that the management-level response failures came from those appointed to "supervise" the Deep State by the political masters, not the Deep State itself — and included a substantial proportion of "successful" businessmen (dubious genderization entirely intentional) brought in to make things more efficient.
4. It would be rather churlish for me to point out that the sum total of all such "savings" didn't make much of a dent in the cost of that earlier crisis (PDF) … and even that is just the immediate cost, as the human and consequential costs have yet to be acknowledged (let alone quantified). Consider where you're reading this: "Churlish" is probably the most-civil thing you should expect.
5. I propose giving the publicly-known leader a floppy hat and status as a spokesbacterium, carefully neglecting conflicts of interest, monomaniacal focus on twigs and not trees, not-well-hidden agendas, and attempts to deflect attention from nonmonetary (indeed, inherently inefficient) intentional side effects. Just like a disturbing nominative ancestor. Wait, you don't really think I'd suggest ridicule of a government official in a blawg piece that explicitly invokes satire, do you? Or that such ridicule just might be merited?
6. See, e.g. Prof David Zilberman, chapter 4 of course texts for Spring 2006 (PDF), and it's worth noting that this is from an introductory-level course.
7. "The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness." Joseph Conrad, Under Western Eyes (1911) (quoted at Britannica.com).
8. Cf., e.g., Carl Sandburg, The People, Yes (1936) (convenient direct quotation).

Today's Group W Bench

Satire warning (slightly updated from six decades ago.¹):

•  •  •

"Kid, I want you to go over and sit down on that bench that says Group W. Now, kid!"

And I walked over to the bench there — and Group W's where they put you if you may not be moral enough to join the government after committing your special crime. And there was all kinds of mean, nasty, ugly-lookin' people on the bench there. Atheists. Genderless-lovers. Border-crossers!²

Border-crossers sitting right there on the bench next to me! And they was mean and nasty and ugly and horrible crime-type guys sitting on the bench. And the meanest, ugliest, nastiest one, the meanest border-crosser of them all, was coming over to me and he was mean and ugly and nasty and horrible and all kind of things. And he sat down next to me and said, "Kid… what did you get?" I said, "I didn't get nothing, I had to pay fifty thousand dollars and pick up the textbooks." He said, "What were you arrested for, kid?" and I said, "Literature." And they all moved away from me on the bench there, and gave me the hairy eyeball and all kinds of mean nasty things, 'til I said, "And creating a nuisance," and they all came back, shook my hand, and we had a great time on the bench, talkin' about crime, atheism, border-crossing, an' all kinds of groovy things that we was talking about on the bench.

It's not really all that implausible, is it? Notice, though, that nobody on the Group W bench is there due to a white-collar crime conviction… either in the original of six decades ago or now. I'd make some snide remark that Ali's Restaurant is, these days, probably in Cambridge, Massachusetts, but certain Ivy-League-"educated" ignoramuses (whose "American mind" was obviously closed before attendance) would probably object a bit too loud… and Cambridge has a helluva lot more than three police officers.

---

1. With no apologies whatsoever to Arlo Guthrie. And definitely none to EMI Music, Inc. and/or Appleseed Music, Inc. This does not qualify as a "parody" under the mistaken definition found in the 2Live Crew matter (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994)) — a definition that would have absolutely appalled Founding Father Benjamin Franklin and his near-contemporary François-Marie Arouet a/k/a Voltaire. Because its target is not the talking-blues piece but the attitudes surrounding it, it is "only" satire and therefore outside the ordinary bounds of fair use.

   Which is wrong. But understanding why requires "doing literature," and perhaps "doing history and legislative intent." But the current rightsholders can, nonetheless, bite me.

2. <SARCASM> No reference to either Our Once and Future Dear Leader's family background, or the DOGE of Venice (floppy hat and all), is unintended. </SARCASM>

With One Stone

<SATIRE>

I've had a brilliant idea on how the Heffalumps can cast one stone and kill a bunch of annoying issues. It'll deal with the future of the nation; it'll deal with annoying immigrants (and, in particular, refugeesillegal immigrants);^† it'll have yuuuuuuuge public health benefits, with all of the best words.

Childless catladies have no stake in America's future, and therefore are un-American (in the most McCarthyist sense possible, regardless of which McCarthy we're talking about with the possible exception of the ventriloquist's dummy). We should round up all un-Americans, childless catladies first.

But what do we do with them then? Well, we've rounded them up, so they need to be put somewhere. I suggest a new concentration camp vacant houses…

…in Springfield, Ohio. In the part of town where Haitian refugees illegal immigrants have gathered, with the strain they're putting on public services.

And if the executive-branch candidate who currently represents Springfield in the US Senate is right, he'll also be ensuring that the refugeesillegal immigrants in that town have an accessible protein source that actually costs the government nothing! Well, except for the cost of the guards (but he'll probably find a lot of volunteers, so maybe not even that). The only real danger is that fans of one of those catladies might overrun the town and distract the guards…

— A Dog-loving Veteran With Kids

---

†      However, we will make no inquiries whatsoever into whether Friedrich Drumpf was an unaccompanied, undocumented immigrant when he arrived in the US in 1885.

Background Music

I'd normally start the day (it's early, but it is started) with a snide comment on how the body politic is going to forget a fifty-fifth anniversary today. This time, though, there's a marginally relevant excuse: There's an actual, makes-a-difference mayoral election in Chicago with no incumbent on the ballot! And, of course, other election news; and not-news, such as blatant narcissism among candidates for king the presidency (article chosen semirandomly from a non-paywall site and it still fits that description).

Instead, kick back and enjoy some 70s classic rock from a Georgia band (slightly — but disturbingly slightly — more context-specific).

 
Imaginary voters
Never turn you down
When all the gov'ners spurn you today
They're around
 
It's partisan pleasure
Midnight fantasy
Someone to share my wildest dreams with me
 
Imaginary voter — you're mine, anytime
Imaginary voters, oh yeah
 
When ordinary voters
Don't feel what you feel
And real-life voting totals lose their thrill
Imagination's unreal
 
Imaginary voter, imaginary voter
You're mine, anytime
 
[guitar solo]
 
Imaginary voters never disagree
They always care, they're always there —
When you need:
Reelection guaranteed
 
Imaginary voter, imaginary voter
You're mine, all the time
My imaginary voter
You're mine, anytime
 
I had imagined
Nowhere to vote last night
I had imagined
Nowhere to vote last night

 
Source work:
©1978 Perry Buie, Robert Nix, & Dean Daughtry
℗1978 Atlanta Rhythm Section
 

Sadly, it's relevant in Georgia or Chicago — and it lurks behind New York court proceedings taking place in a few hours. Eleven thousand, two hundred and eighty counts' worth of lurking.

Family Law

<SATIRE>

So an abusive, unfaithful woman wants a divorce? And she expects to keep the kids, even after a determination of… parental fitness (no doubt by some biased "expert" with too much education to satisfy her).

So, Ms Greene: This will be even faster than a Haitian divorce (just short of six minutes). I'll gladly throw you into the street with nothing but the clothes you're wearing, and it's really easy.

I divorce you.

I divorce you.

أنا أطلقك

There. All done (less than one minute). Although I now feel an impulse to request the filing of a protective order, especially since you suggested arming your minions already. But remember: Divorce is personal. They're still my kids that I took an oath to defend (however much parenting I'm going to have to give them once I get them away from you).

Why are you still standing there? Get out of this House: I am feeling unwontedly merciful at the moment, but if you don't get moving I just might suggest imposing the Code of Hammurabi's consequences for unfaithful women. Can't get much more foundational and original than that!

</SATIRE>

n.b. Every bit of cultural and other insensitivity, and wrenching from context, was chosen with malice aforethought to mirror that… individual's attitude and rhetoric spewed toward anyone who disagrees with her. The operative word in determining the original public meaning of "Lost Cause" is the first one — a word apparently not in Greene's vocabulary, given her rhetoric on the 2020 election results.

I sort of wish it was that easy. But it's not. It's supposed to be hard… or we really do end up with theocracy. It's worth remembering that theocracy has seldom turned out all that well for those actually pushing for it — not even the one theocracy that most Americans can name and agree to dislike. (Naturally, only most… which is part of my point; and part of why theocracy is the real enemy of democracy, because "mere" authoritarianism has a tendency to lose to actual, nontheocratic democratic movements.)

New Math

The following story problems do not appear in any textbook recently rejected by Florida as creating potential discomfort in students. But they probably should…

Carl owns a trucking company. A new report suggests that trucks with a backup camera are 37% less likely to strike and injure or kill pedestrians. Carl asks for your advice on how much he should spend per truck on backup cameras. Your research shows that Carl will avoid liability if the cost of improving safety with these new cameras is less than the chance of a mishap multiplied by the loss from the mishap — that is, if B < PL.

1. Carl's trucks primarily operate in Overtown. If the estimated loss from striking a pedestrian in Overtown is $15,000, what is the most that Carl needs to spend on backup cameras (per truck) to avoid liability? Show your work.

2. Carl has opened a new depot in Coral Gables, where the estimated loss from striking a pedestrian is $35,000. What is the most that Carl needs to spend on backup cameras (per truck) to avoid liability? Show your work.

 

Under Florida law, the legislature can override the governor's veto if two-thirds of the attending legislators vote to override. Newly-elected Governor Goldsmith (who was educated in New York and does not fully understand our Christian traditions) needs your help understanding the chances of a veto override. The Senate will override his veto of important bills that enhance those Christian values no matter what, but there's less party loyalty in the 118–member House.

3. If all members are present, how many God-fearing members of the House would it take to override his veto?

4. How many godless Democrats must be arrested by the State Police, and kept from attending the veto-override vote, if there are 78 attending, God-fearing members of the House?

 

Florida Man is on food stamps. He isn't very good at math, so he asks you for help.

5. Florida Man is a single ex-convict receiving the full $250 per month in food stamps. Because he lives in a trailer with no refrigerator, he has to shop for food every day. How much can he spend on steak on a day in April if he already has everything else for the day?

6. According to the Income Limit Chart, if Florida Man has one out-of-wedlock child in his household, and he can fence a set of four stolen hubcaps for $25.50, how many sets can he fence in one month to avoid reducing his food-stamp benefits?

 

(n.b. All errors intentional… if not always mine.)

Acceptance of a Disability

warning: Satire. The intellectually challenged and situationally oblivious are strongly cautioned.

Since it's April — another month coopted for "awareness" so as to limit shame on the subject the other eleven months of the year — and a certain type of behavioral challenges are what we're supposed to be aware of this month, I'd like us all to be more aware of, and have greater acceptance for, a behavioral challenge faced every day by a high proportion of the politically prominent. Although this challenge is not presently recognized by the mental health community,¹ the subclass of those confronting it merits vastly greater attention.

I refer, of course, to moraldivergence. Those afflicted with moraldivergence are treated with less understanding, and even greater disdain (and disgust), than those afflicted with physical ailments, like leprosy and fully-symptomatic carriers of the human immunodeficiency virus. This lack of acceptance on occasion culminates in profound and permanent social disapproval with extreme consequences resulting from acts that — from the perspective of the moraldivergent — are perfectly normal for those of their responsibilities.²

This overt discrimination is particularly disquieting when applied by persons who do not share the same cultural imperatives as the targeted moraldivergent individual. There is no U.S. Senate Rule XIX in ordinary public discourse, which leads to ugly accusations of "war crimes" and "genocide" against a not-insignificant proportion of politically prominent moraldivergents. This is simply not acceptable; it leads to unclear communication and a shameful failure among the moral-abled to accept that moraldivergents are just acting naturally — particularly, it seems, in disputed, unclear, and unsettled political contexts. A perceived desire for lebensraum on behalf of those whose interests have been entrusted to a moraldivergent surely cannot be an appropriate rationale for overt and intentional discrimination against the moraldivergent,³ regardless of the particular political or historical overtones.⁴

---

1. It used to be an established recognition and even routine diagnosis in some parts of the world, but that has faded since the early 1990s. See, e.g., Jason Luty's helpful summary and a specific illustration from a less-acclaimed-than-she-should-have-been author who suffered from ghettoization throughout her writing career — rather ironic in itself, as a failure of awareness in the self-identified fully-abled.
2. Although well beyond the scope of this short essay, public reactions to moraldivergence frequently implicate free exercise of religion. That the religion in question frequently resembles self-worship to the fully moral-abled is irrelevant — it is fundamentally a free-exercise issue.

   That quasireligious conflict and selectivity frequently intersects with the free-exercise aspects of moraldivergence has mostly escaped comment. Compare, e.g., the full record that resulted in Church of Lukumi Babalu Ayé v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), with Justice Stewart's reservations in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964).

3. It is not, perhaps, as irrelevant as it might seem to compare the "fair use" aspects of material frequently mischaracterized by mere lawyers as "parody" (a legally-proper parody qualifies as fair use) with other material mischaracterized by lawyers as mere "satire" (does not qualify as fair use). See generally Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994); cf. Dr. Seuss Enters., LP v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997) (lawyers did not force courts to confront the radical change of context and presentation itself as the parody, and thus lost because it was only satire… and about judges, contra Campbell, 510 U.S. at 582–83).
4. So as to avoid distracting invocations of 10 U.S.C. § 888 and similar red herrings, there is only a single reference directly to United States persons in the body of this essay, and even that is somewhat indirect. But this is a footnote, so slightly-less-indirectly referencing a few will not cross the line to "contempt" — particularly since, as this note is below the horizontal line, the individuals referred to are beneath contempt.

Mandates

1. First, a personal statement that is less hypothetical than it seems.

Hi. My name is Mary, and I'd like to talk to you about the instrusive hand-washing mandate.

People just shouldn't be required to stop and wash their hands all the time. It takes time and attention away from other tasks. It's inconvenient. It requires use of extra towels. It uses extra water.

More importantly, requiring people to wash their hands while preparing food infringes on their liberties. I may be an immigrant, but I came here for Freedom. I deserve my Freedom, and that means no government mandates on my personal behavior. None. Especially when I can earn more money, and more media attention, as a cook than doing other jobs.

2. The next time I see a law professor display his ignorance by misusing technical terms in a public policy debate, I'm going to puke. And then wash my hands, but…

Professor Zywicki doesn't have natural immunity. He might have acquired immunity — and there's the misuse of technical terms and concepts, in a field outside of this professor's expertise but related to a public policy debate. He has egregiously misinterpreted the WHO report (and other sources) he relies upon, because he appears to lack the basic scientific knowledge to recognize and understand the assumptions inherent in that material. The tl;dr version is that all acquired immunity diminishes over time and/or is limited to specific expressions of viral activity without protection against others (thus the need for the shingles vaccine in those who have had chickenpox). Natural immunity is genetic (and thus doesn't diminish over time)… and the fact that Zywicki contracted COVID–19 indicates he didn't/doesn't have it. Further, there is no data whatsoever on how much any acquired immunity from the initially widespread strain of COVID–19 protects against other variants, whether the currently raging delta variant or potentially scarier ones like these.

This is not difficult or obscure material. It can be understood by anyone who has taken a single-semester-intended-for-majors introductory cell biology class, and indeed among them it is probably thoroughly internalized (except, perhaps, against willful rejection based on unrelated agendas). It can be at least grasped by anyone who occasionally reads a general-circulation periodical like Scientific American. If this sounds like contempt for insertions of side-agenda-based shibboleths by the undereducated into policy discussions, without bothering to understand how those side agendas relate in even a superficial manner to their undereducation — well, yeah. It is.

Next, we'll consider the "natural immunity" to penetrating skull fractures inherent in certain experienced motorcycle riders…

3. <SARCASM> Of course, objection to any mask mandate isn't really about Freedom and (thoughtful) libertarianism. If it was, every libertarian who is paying attention to the world (instead of their own navels) would not just embrace the present mask mandate, but trumpet it as the best protection against widespread (mis)use of facial recognition technology (whether by Big Brother or Big Tech that sells its data to Big Brother doesn't really matter). </SARCASM> Wearing a mask substantially complicates facial recognition, and possibly (given the relatively low resolution of current general-surveillance systems) blocks its effectiveness entirely. So there's something else going on here…

A Different Kind of Hoodie

The Confederate Political Action Committee conference has demonstrated that it's not about "conservatism" at all. It's about allegiance to the plantation economy prior to passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. The only way that an "originalist" or "social conservative" reaches this result is by ignoring every "amendment" to the 1787 text… which sort of eliminates protections against the evils of government regulatory takings (Amd. V) and sort of undermines state sovereign immunity so necessary to a Confederate mindset (Amd. XI). It's about pretending that Pasteur, Koch, and Lister never developed the germ theory of disease <SARCASM> OK, so they were furriners. And it was after the Eleventh Amendment, so it wouldn't count anyway. </SARCASM>

No, this isn't about ideology at all: This is about tribalism. About giving voice to only the "right" people — those who look just like they do, dress just like they do, talk just like they do (including all malapropisms and rejecting anything not in good 'murikan Anglish), dress just like they do (easier thanks to recent President's Day sales at Montgomery Ward Sears KMart Penney's Wal-Mart, even if the sheets were imported).

And reject everyone and everything that is Other, in any discernable respect. Foreigners. Other races and ethnicities. Non-christians (different tribes of Abraham, different religious frameworks entirely, no religion at all). Nerds and intellectuals who aren't using "learning" solely as a means to more power. And we won't even mention those sexual issues that, statistically, are non-zero within their own population (however suppressed they may be).

They'll never manage to ponder whether there's not just implicit, but explicit, acknowledgement of fallibility and the need for change built right into the Constitution, and not just implicit, but explicit, denial of states'-rights supremacy built right into the pre-Thirteenth-Amendment Constitution. CPAC demonstrates "my party right, never wrong" to an extent rejected as consistent with any reasonable conception of "civilization" at Nürnburg (<SARCASM> oops, international law, so it doesn't count </SARCASM>). Plus, the Confederacy lost — get over it.

In short, "movement conservatism" has little to do with conservative thought — Burkean, Hayekian, whatever — beyond convenient marketing memes. And CPAC has even less, whether held virtually or in Cancun (paid for by whom, one must wonder).

Dear Earl Farmington,

One hopes this finds you well after a most distressing weekend, during which you have proclaimed your feudal privileges were so egregiously trampled upon.

One understands your concern that the Crown Princess directly responded to media inquiries originating from your vassals on matters related to the Kingdom's governance without your prior approval, albeit it appears remotely and without entering onto lands you claim as your own. One respectfully notes that you have made no similar prior public objection, in the past decade you have been resident in Runnymede, to other responses to media inquiries originating from within the County. One also respectfully notes that you have made no prior public objection when there has been no inquiry from the County, but instead an unrequested statement of policy.

One also ponders whether the media organization in question had instead reached out to one of the other fine members of the aristocracy who also purport to speak for the County, including Lady Shelley, Lady Carol, Lord David, and Lord Alexander. Perhaps one of these individuals had provided the prior consultation regarding the Crown Princess's response to your vassals' petition for review that you so clearly desire, particularly since doing so would have demonstrated — oh, what's that word? yes — "bipartisanship" even more clearly than just consulting a Lord who proclaims to be of the King's own party but seldom expresses enthusiasm for the King's own policies.

One further ponders whether the residents of the County are truly "vassals" at all, as you would have them treated, or perhaps new-fangled "free citizens". That is especially so for media representatives, who have an appalling tendency to ask for views before one might be prepared to provide them.

Perhaps the responsibility lies with your vassals who work for the media within the County, as it appears you assume is both within your power as their liege lord and appropriate in substance. One further hopes that you might in future consult privately with the Crown Princess's staff if She, particularly when acting as one's viceroy, appears to overstep with the media the bounds of propriety related to the County before you engage that same media in a manner that perhaps oversteps the bounds of propriety related to this entire Kingdom.

Respectfully,
Joseph I, R.
by Martinus Paduei, Quaestor and Chief Scribe

Making Book at the Venetian

Thanks to the death of its owner, a long-time Heffalump donor, that's where I'm going to propose that the "sports book" be established for sane Heffalump Senators — those with the spine, self-awareness, and integrity to vote to convict The Orange One for high crimes and misdemeanors as described in his second bill of impeachment (and not subject to factual controversy — only politicolegal interpretation). Of course, it won't be Senator Hawley's book — at least not from S&S.

Just think about that: Second impeachment. Better yet, don't think about it.

Last time around — all of two years ago — the House's Heffalump sanity rate was zero; the Senate's Heffalump sanity rate was just under 1%. Senator Romney demonstrated that he is half sane by voting in favor of one article (but, interestingly, voting against the article directly pertaining to Congress). It's a bit more interesting this time, and perhaps a bit more Vegas-friendly; the House's Heffalumps demonstrated a sanity rate of just about 5% (10 out of 207), translating to an expectation of 5-6% of the Senate — 2½–3 Heffalump votes to convict.

So if you're thinking of a side wager, place your sports-book bets at the Venetian on the "over" for 2½ Heffalump votes to convict…

Maybe "sanity" isn't the right way to frame this, although it's sure shorter than "capable of upholding the oath of office and therefore possibly — just possibly — fit to be an elected official."

The Real Defendants

SATIRE OR PARODY
(compliance with principles expressed or implied in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. not assured)

Texas Attorney General Paxton seems to have a first-year-civil-procedure problem. So do those who signed That Complaint along with him. Well, they've got more than one problem. But most of the other problems flow from their inability to resolve this one.

One of the main principles of the common law is that one must sue the actual party that is both legally and factually responsible for the wrong that one is asking the court to remedy. Sometimes — like in the state next door to Gen Paxton — the plaintiff (claimant) can add others who may be partially or jointly reponsible for performing any remedy as a "direct action" (see La. Rev. Stat. § 22:1269 (suing the insurer)). But even under the direct-action rubric, one must still correctly name the actual party or parties that caused harm; one cannot sue the insurer alone.

The latter, however, is precisely what Texas v. Pennsylvania et al., No. 22–O–155 [sic], does. This "matter" never should have been Texas v. Pennsylvania et al. Very much in the style of a forfeiture action, it should have been Texas v. 1,995,691 Unidentified Pennsylvania Voters, et al. Which exposes what Gen Paxton is really saying: The yahoos¹ in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh voted wrong… in substance, because a mere procedural failure would not harm any interest of Gen Paxton or the State of Texas. There were 595,538 mail-in voters in Pennsylvania who clearly didn't harm Texas (they voted "correctly"). If this all sounds far too much like some bad 1970s film about illusory elections in banana republics (or Spain or Greece… or the Soviet Union, bringing a new shade of meaning to "Red State"…), it should. I am reminded of "direct action" lawsuits against gun manufacturers that fail to name the individual who pulled the trigger, a defect any 1L can identify (and will be expected to identify a couple years later on the bar exam) — and that Gen Paxton has identified himself, more than once. Now I know that sports rivalries can be a bit overboard, but this is excessive even when the Cowboys play the Eagles and both teams could still finish the season with a winning record.

So, Texas bar regulators, we have a clear breach of Tex. Disc. R. Prof. Cond. 1.01 here ("an incompetent lawyer is subject to discipline," id. com. 6). Watcha gonna do about it? And what does this say about your bar exam as a screen for attorney competence?

---

1. It's tough to cast aspersions on the current dean of the University of Virginia's law school for this years-after-graduation failure of basic legal competence by its politician-graduate. That doesn't mean I'm not going to, though.

Eight More Days

Watching "laws" and "sausages" being made is far less stomach-churning than watching elections — especially when not just one candidate, but one entire side, is acting in bad faith. And BTW this isn't about ideology, but factionalism: Not all conservatism at election time is in bad faith; all fascism is, though, however aligned it claims to be with conservative — or for that matter any other — ideology.

• Like this moron. And for those who claim he was just "exercising his constitutional rights," remember that while he is in uniform he doesn't have unlimited individual rights — he is an officer of the state, and his uniform is not to be disrespected with partisan slogans. This is why commissioned officers are (or at least were, during the time I was on active duty) strongly discouraged from having political bumper stickers on their cars; those cars had identification stickers marking their registered owners out as officers.

  Although it says an awful lot about "police state" mindsets that:

  Fraternal Order of Police President Tommy Reyes said Ubeda had just voted and was in Government Center for no more than 10 minutes when he was photographed. He also said Florida statute permits police to vote in uniform. Said Reyes: “We would also like to state that the national FOP has endorsed President Donald Trump’s reelection.”

  Voting in uniform is fine. Adding partisan decoration to the uniform, not so much. And the police union leaderships wonder why there's so much distrust of police by minorities when they endorsed a racist bigot for reelection…

• So do the intelligence agencies around the world. Sort of like all of the agents on the old FBI (with the single exception of the star, who was Hispanic), and all of the cops on Dragnet, were white. You might have thought they'd learned something from college basketball, although I suppose the Oxbridge men running GCHQ in the 1980s can be excused for not knowing about basketball — they were too busy with polo and cricket. But the past hasn't changed that much: They still demand the easy way while pretending that the Pentagon Papers leak was unique and will never be repeated. Well, only a few times.
• We could start by evicting the landlords, I suppose. Remind me again about the Orange One's past as a landlord?
• But at least we can have the scholarlyartistic output of a Harvard math professor. Until January 2024.

Two Notes on Labor Day

Of course, actually recognizing "labor" on one day hardly balances 364 days (365 days some years) of putting "capital" first. Dead Presidents don't breathe, but they speak — and count most — and vote.

1. Just remember that the Sport of Kings is the result of a society built on kings. Or, over here, plantations. So don't be too surprised when the heavily moneyed ownership (which mostly relies on inherited wealth) looks and acts more like Bob McNair and the rest of the NFL's control group than showing any awareness of the present — or that the first winning jockey was Black.

And in that sense, horseracing is very much like other pro sports: Lots of diversity on the field, and increasingly less the farther one gets from the field but closer to the power and money. Indeed, publishing and the rest of the entertainment industry are the same way, and not just here — there is not one English-born owner "of color" of a Premier League team, and never has been; the empire even has to import its diversity, from among the royalty and near-royalty of nations that a century and a half ago it would have disdained as mere colonial territory.

The color of money isn't green — it's white. Without any capital letter, primarily because it's just assumed. What that says about "locker-room culture" is for others to discuss (I haven't been in one in decades and barely tolerated it then). Just don't ask the owner of the "New York" Giants.

2. I think I'll allow the Orange One to build a certain amount of wall. Let's see, now:

Total US COVID-19 deaths as of 07 Sep 2020	188,513
Total US deaths recognized and memorialized at the Vietnam Memorial	58,318
Length of Vietnam Memorial (meters)	150.5

Therefore, I shall magnanimously allow The Orange One to build (188,513/58,318) * 150.5m = 486.5m of the Wall he wants to build. With every name inscribed on it. <SARCASM> Or maybe, to fill all of those great factory jobs that can no longer be filled by those who died of COVID–19, we can allow an additional 188,513 refugees in, who will no doubt be glad for those great jobs. </SARCASM>

Of course, a much better use would be to build that wall around 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with That Individual on the inside of it; we could build 25% of the engineering requirement! But then, until January of next year that would mean nobody could see the Resolute Desk… admittedly, that's probably a good thing given the misuses it has been put to since January 2017 (and, for that matter, prior to that).

Not So Anonymous

<SATIRE>

Hi. My name is [redacted], and I've been unjustly accused of being a Karen.

Hello, Karen.

See? That's exactly what I mean.

I can't help it if I have family wealth that I didn't earn. It really doesn't matter if I inherited it, or married it, or continue to leach it off my still-living relatives. What matters is that I've got it, and I'm in the top 10%, and that makes me one of what this country was made for. I'm exceptional. I'm the customer and therefore I'm right, even if there are other customers being inconvenienced so that you can meet my needs and whims. Even when playing with my dog in my park and I'm not technically a "customer," you must defer to me.

I not only want the pony, I've got the pony, and I deserve the pony. Disney princesses like me are entitled to our status (even that stupid "detective" Mira, and why is she some uncivilized foreigner anyway?). Greed is good, and our Christian God shows his favor by showering prosperity upon the deserving righteous. We know that we're deserving and righteous because we have the money. Even you morons who went to pathetic public schools should understand that the opposite is true, too: By showing that you care about something other than your own money and status, you're demonstrating that you're worthy of neither and certainly not worthy of taking or interfering with any of mine.

I'm tired of the whining about how my family got its money. Slaveholding, sweatshop-owning, drug- and gun-running, loansharking, brothel-keeping, draft-dodging, tax evasion, union-busting, whatever — they're all in the past, and none of them have anything to do with me. They especially don't have anything to do with me because I didn't do any of those things myself, and anything I own now that did (or does) has enforceable contracts to do it anyway. That "job" I have is just to keep busy while the other wealth accumulates; I don't really rely upon it, and I expect to get a better-paying one very soon because I deserve it.

I'm tired of the whining about how tough you have it. I have to pay my kids' private-school tuition, too. I shouldn't be expected to sacrifice my lifestyle for the ungrateful little rugrats. In fact, I can't, because it would betray my family's values. My (or my husband's) ancestors would roll over in their graves if I did. And that would disturb the feng shui in the family tomb, which is just not acceptable.

Just go away. I haven't done anything wrong, and there isn't going to be a first step or eleven others. I'm sure as hell not doing step eight. Ever.

</SATIRE>

Somehow, I don't think an intervention is going to help "Karen." At least not one that refrains from cake and barricades.

Sausages to Links

Based on the Prince of Orange's performances of late, I'm tempted to say that — whatever its antiviral and/or antimicrobial merits — hydroxychloroquine is definitely a powerful hallucinogen.

• Who established and benefits from the art "market" — which resembles the classic Prisoner's Dilemma theoretical game more than it does a "market"? The Prisoner's Dilemma game bears little resemblance to human behavior, which is a hint that perhaps — just perhaps — applying it to the "uber-rich" and their behavior reveals something entirely different.
• As further evidence that something is seriously wrong with state regulation of attorneys, consider this problem. A lawyer is convicted of serious dishonesty offences in 2009. But he's a politician, so the "conviction" isn't a criminal trial — it's a nearly-unanimous (that is, including almost all members of his own party, too) impeachment and removal from office. It only took eleven and a half years to disbar him. (Hell, it took over two years after that conviction to just suspend him!)

  This is far from an isolated incident. It's not just Illinois; it's not just politicians; it's not just outright "corruption."

• One of the fascinating — and/or amusing, especially if your sense of humor is as grim as mine — aspects of watching the social impact of COVID–19 is pondering (or snickering at) who claims to be the Special Snowflake today: The set of Special People who deserve Special Treatment so that they don't share the pain, or at least share less of it.

  One obvious, and particularly appalling, group is those claiming a right (or obligation) to large-group, in-person worship services. (Hey, ten men is enough, at least ancestrally!) The irony that this particular service is a "celebration" after a needless death seems to have escaped just about all of these maroons; if there's one thing that the New Testament stands for regardless of the quality of one's translation or scholarship, it is the primacy of faith and deeds over formal demonstrations thereof, let alone of formal ceremony.

  At least equally appalling, though, is the struggle between owners of real-property interests and, well, the rest of us. Whether Over There or Over Here, the common thread — however sympathetic, or not, the "mere tenants" are — is that the landlords "deserve" more accommodation, so as to ensure that the value of the land never goes down. This is as subtle as the US programs to assist mortgage-payors that ignore home-renters; which is to say, as subtle as a brick suppository. They were only making more tulip bulbs at a rate not all that different from the opening of "new land" to exploitation; Twain was wrong — just look at growth in Phoenix, Arizona over that last century and a half. It was always there; it just wasn't exploitable. All of which makes me wonder more than a bit about the place of brownfield reclamation in our economy, if we accept the landowners' premises at face value… and especially if we accept their behavior at face value.

• And then there's this, in the tradition of honest government communications…

  		123 Main Street Anywhere, USA 37127
  	notice date: notice number:   D.J. DRUMPF HOLE 19 1100 S OCEAN BLVD PALM BEACH, FL 33480-5004	MAY 20, 2020 1444–V   name corrected to match family immigration records
  	YOUR ECONOMIC IMPACT HAS ARRIVED
  	MY FELLOW 'MURIKAN: Our great country is experiencing an unprecedented public health and economic challenge as a result of the global coronavirus pandemic. Our top priority is my family's business interests. We are also working around the clock to exploit hardworking Americans like you as an additional benefit of the economic shutdown. We are fully committed to ensuring that you and your family continue to support my ambitions through this time. On March 27, 2020, Congress passed with overwhelming bipartisan support the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), which I grudgingly signed into law because it didn't grant me my rightful share of the Treasury (all of it). I want to thank the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate for working so quickly despite my Administration to fast-track this $2.2 trillion in much-needed economic relief to the American people, which I hope you'll spend on a certain sweatshop-produced clothing line available through failing union-busting retailers like Macy's (once they reopen before meeting CDC guidelines). This includes fast and direct publicity and self-aggrandizement for me. That you've paid for. I am pleased to notify you that despite the CARES Act, you are receiving an Economic Impact consisting of between three and five years of stagnant-at-best wages (or self-employment earnings) while bonuses paid to top corporate executives continue to rise. We hope this payment convinces you to vote for me again in November, even though my Administration worked behind the scenes to prevent this payment from going to those who need it most and further sabotaged the payment process at needless expense. Every citizen — but no unwashed immigrants — should take tremendous pride in the selfishness, risk-averseness and inherited wealth of our people. America’s drive, obstinacy, innovation and sheer nepotism have conquered or at least deflected attention from every previous challenge — and they will for this one too. Just as we have before, America will triumph yet again — and rise to new heights of greatness. Just ask Matthew Shepard, Emmett Till or the Lakota Sioux. We will do it together, as one nation (excluding those filthy immigrants), stronger than ever before. (dysfunctional EEG omitted) President Donald J. Trump

  …because you know he'll send one to himself, right? But I bet Baron isn't getting his share.

Open War on American Democracy

American Democracy? Let me refresh your memory from a little bit more than three years ago:

Candidate	Votes
Hilary CLINTON (D)	65,853,516	48.2%
Donald TRUMP (R)	62,984,825	46.1%
all others	3,341,675	5.7%

Source: Federal Election Commission (pdf).

Please remind me how the loser of the popular vote being declared the winner is any kind of "democracy" at all. <SARCASM> Oh, that's right. The Electoral College, which was adopted to protect the fragile American democracy from demagogues (cf., e.g., The Federalist No. 85). How's that working right now? </SARCASM>

The 2019 Turkey Awards

An annual tradition for two decades! This is my list of ridiculous people from 2019 (so far). Pass me one of those rolls, please:

• The Greasy Gravy Award for oily publicity that makes the main dish inedible goes to Fox News over its attacks on Greta Thunberg. The irony of using an ad hominem attack in this context is far, far too much… <SARCASM> especially given that one of the attackers is a blonde </SARCASM>. We'll leave aside for the moment that that particular individual doesn't appear to have taken a science or math course beyond minimum general-education requirements, yet continuously comments on purported "scientific consensus" issues that — all too conveniently — redefine the word "consensus" differently for every such issue.
• The Red-Tide Oyster Stuffing Award for carelessly poisoning an otherwise tasty dish goes to cooks who wash their turkeys but not their hands and then wonder, a couple of days later, why those who attended their feasts all have stomach bugs.
• The Broken Wishbone Award for shattering dreams goes to Doug Evans. It has four eyes and can't see (except the color of one's skin). If this sort of conduct doesn't call an individual's fitness to practice law into question, I don't know what would. Well, according to most state disciplinary systems alcoholism, sex with clients, and stealing from clients would… but mere perversion of the course of justice, not so much.
• The Golden Gristle Award for assertions far too difficult to digest (and prone to becoming stuck in one's teeth) goes to Macmillan USA/John Sargent and their assertions that at-publication library availability of e-books hurts publisher revenue — a fact-free (or at least timing-ignorant) presentation that makes one wonder just how little Sargent charged Old Toby for his soul. Some fairly simple math demonstrates this. Actual gross revenue to the publisher per copy of a new-issue-from-casebound e-book sold to end-users is less than $13 (minus, as never allowed for, production and fulfillment costs, but no further payments to the author on initial publication because the author's advance is sunk money); actual payment to the publisher for a "library license" for that same e-book is well over $60, a little over four times that; and the calendar shows that an e-book could be loaned for only four four-week periods during the proposed "embargo." And all of that presumes that e-book borrowers will purchase at all, which — as my earlier screed noted — is a mere presumption. <SARCASM> Great job demonstrating a plausible loss of revenue there, Mr Sargent. </SARCASM>
• The Conspicuous Consumption Cranberry Relish Award for the most-outrageous example thereof goes to the asshole who purchased a "Salvator Mundi" for half a billion dollars. Followed closely by the asshole at a foundation (whose money comes from real-estate speculation) who decided that the University of Pennsylvania School of Law should be named after the foundation's benefactor, despite that benefactor's lack of connection to the study or practice of law.
• The Crabapple Pie Award for marketing something sour as something sweet goes to Boris the Spider. Maybe for Brexit, maybe for immigration policy even more cruel and dysfunctional than Drumpf's, maybe for privatizing the National Health Service (which, for all its faults, is one helluva lot better than what is available to about 60% of the US population), maybe for continuing to associate with Rees-Mogg, maybe for damned near anything else he has said or done — let alone his Charles I antics in "proroguing Parliament" in an attempt to evade oversight (hmm, that reminds me of someone on this side of the Pond…). If anyone had any doubts that the Tories are the Mean Party, they should long have been erased.
• The Wilted Salad Award for the one part of the meal that's supposed to be "good for you," but is instead rather past its sell-by date, goes to Franklin Graham. And that's just the nepotism-and-finance-and-bigotry spoilage; no #MeToo issues among evangelical leaders here, move along, folks, nothing to see there (n.b. supporting documentation neither public nor available online, which does not lead to a defensible conclusion that it doesn't exist).
• The Brussels Sprout Award for stinky, slimy, overcooked, gentrified little cabbages goes to The Dishonorable Devin Nunes (R-CA). Conversely, because he's not ridiculous and therefore wouldn't ordinarily make his way to this holiday feast, Lt Col Vindman gets the Super-Tasty Kimche Award (so, so good in general with the leftovers… and especially in a hastily-thrown-together-in-the-field sandwich in the middle of a twelve-hour patrol or forty-eight-hour stint in the alert barn).
• The Dried-Out Breastmeat Award for overcooking the books goes to the Association of Talent Agents (and their union-busting allies in Drumpf's DoJ, who seem to have forgotten about § 6 of the Clayton Act). The WGA is functionally engaging in a strike against employers who won't bargain in good faith on a working condition; calling it a "boycott" just raises the specter of "who's really an employee?" — a specter that is becoming more corporeal all the time, and the California Supreme Court has made that answer excrutiatingly clear for screenwriters. Hint: If your output is statutorily "work made for hire," you're almost certainly an employee.
• The Rancid Drumstick Award for something that should be edible, but isn't, goes to the real Bond villains: FAANG. Which leads one to wonder whether "small/no government conservatives/libertarians" aren't really just anarchists, who should get all of the worshipful attention accorded Kropotkin.
• The GMO Tofurkey Roast Award for a main-dish item that's supposed to be more wholesome, nutritious, and/or ethical, but merely hides something that's perhaps worse under that veneer of virtue, goes to overpromotion of soy as a substitute for other protein sources, whether (as is most common from the Amazon) soy meal for meat animals or as direct constituents of human protein sources. Soylent Rainforest, anyone?
• Special Limited Time Offer! The Salmonella Carrot Medley (Artificial Color Added) Award for discrediting an office and a nation goes to this guy — hopefully, only through 2020. Although now that I think about it, he'll continue to do so long after he's left office under whatever circumstances that happens.

What's My Line? Special Edition

Welcome to our show! Today, our expert panel will try to determine which of our contestants are tyrants, and which merely imposters.

• Contestant Number One refined nepotism and personal favors in appointing government officials to a level seen only in Chicago today while distracting criticism through a hyperaggressive foreign policy, promoting the works of politically favored scientists while ignoring the actual science, and constantly retreating to his lavish estates to polish his self-image (so often that he changed the capital!). So, in French please, what's today's catchphrase?

  L'Etat c'est moi.

• Contestant Number Two just had his head handed to him by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which invoked Charles I's abuse of Parliamentary authority in holding that this contestant's suspension of Parliament in pursuit of a particular policy objective was unlawful, null and void. Plus, he's leading a parliamentary government as "prime minister" without a majority, but proclaiming absolute right to control. So, in French please, what's today's catchphrase?

  Donnez-moi un break.

• Contestant Number Three really wants his wall. Not that one. No, not that one, either. Despite his hyperagressive foreign policy potentially requiring military backup, he's been happy to divert funds for new submarine docks (intended to enhance security, especially against terrorists) to building it! So, in French please, what's today's catchphrase?

  French is an immigrant language used in shithole countries like Haiti and Africa, so I won't pollute my mouth with it.

OK… it appears that Contestant Number Three is trying to get a head start outside the rules… So, over to you, panelists! Oh, I see we have a question from Panelist Three…

sotto voce Mr Daly, aren't they all tyrants? This is hardly a fair contest!