Gus Van Horn

Conspiracism vs. Creativity

2026-08-06T06:52:41.577-06:00

Although Alison Green wasn't writing about conspiracism, a recent post of hers at Ask a Manager indirectly reminded me of that phenomenon, and the seemingly creative ways that conspiracists purport to explain what's "really going on."

Green takes a question about what might motivate instances of apparently mixed messages from management in a couple of instances the writer is aware of, and the immediate short answer is what caused me to think of conspiracism:

You're imagining this as all more cohesive than it is -- that there's a grand plan unifying all their actions, but very often there isn't.

Green tackles each of the scenarios in turn, and culminates in a list of typical reasons situations like the ones she was asked about occur:

Plans changed, and the earlier conversations planning the change took place above their heads and they weren't even aware it was under discussion.
Plans changed, and they were in those earlier conversations but didn't think it would go the way it went, or were simply juggling too many other things to game out exactly what it could end up meaning for everyone under them until it actually happened.
Someone above them mentioned something that put pressure on them (and therefore their team) in a way they weren't anticipating earlier.
Something happened that you don't know about that is changing how they're approaching something / how much they care about it (for example, they told you last month you didn't need to stress about expense report deadlines and they then discovered your coworker hadn't turned any in for a year and so now they're less laissez-faire about it).
They're being pulled in multiple directions and so haven't sat down and thought things through as deliberately as you're imagining; they are managing through chaos.
They messed up. Sometimes this may simply be because they're human, and other times they might not be a great (organized/thoughtful/attentive) manager.

Hanlon's Razor states that one should never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Not everything on the above list qualifies as stupidity, but many can look a lot like stupidity. All are things known to occur frequently enough that it makes sense to consider them as possible explanations before jumping to the conclusion that a puzzling event is motivated by some kind of plan.

Needless to say, similar kinds of things to the above non-exhaustive list can occur in other situations involving any kind of organization.

In light of the above, conspiracist "explanations" look far less creative than a truly deliberate consideration of the possible causes of a puzzling event.

-- CAV

Trump to Bring Back the Gas Line?

2026-08-05T07:10:28.418-06:00

At RealClear Markets, Peter Grossman of the National Center for Energy Analytics considers President Trump's recent tirades against "unrealistic" gasoline prices and what an authoritarian ignoramus like him might do about them.

Along the way, a name increasingly familiar lately for other bad reasons comes up: Richard Nixon, whose brilliant solution to inflation, price controls, sounds like it would be right up Trump's alley.

I am old enough to remember gas lines and rationing fuel by allowing sales on certain days to even or odd tag numbers, but I didn't get the full picture of the carnage that wreaked: I was, after all, not even 10 back then.

Grossman fills us all in on what we can expect if Trump pulls such a stunt:

Refiners and retailers had to petition for price increases, and couldn't automatically pass on rising costs. Decisions were handed down at the start of the following month. As a result, many gas stations simply closed during the final week of each month while waiting for approval to raise prices. Allotments were also made monthly, and some stations had to close toward the end of the month having run through their supplies before they could replenish their stock. This only lengthened gas lines.

Because stations could not just pass along costs, government controls squeezed station profit margins. Consequently, hundreds of stations closed for good in 1973-4. [bold added]

Any economist who knows what he is talking about in the least will warn against price controls, but in the Trump era, will they be heard at all?

They're not part of Trump's inner circle, and he made it clear long ago that they aren't wanted in his party.

In a time when the brain-dead and those who pander to them mock "experts" and "elites" -- while praising blind faith in a single, not-too-bright individual -- it will be the voices who could easily spare us a lot of pain who are least likely to be heard.

Trump supporters would do well to consider how similar the idea that Trump will do it right sounds to the socialists who are even now saying This time, it will work!

And vice versa.

I won't be holding my breath.

-- CAV

SAVE Act a Logistical Nightmare

2026-08-04T07:21:26.383-06:00

I oppose Trump's SAVE Act for reasons I have already elaborated upon. It is nevertheless interesting to see that even some of its supporters see its passage now as a disaster, as it is currently written.

At The Washington Examiner is an editorial supporting the legislation that points out that it is now too late to implement it in time for the midterms:

The legislation's timing provisions would make that task especially difficult. The act would take effect upon enactment rather than after a transition period. The Election Assistance Commission would have only 10 days to issue implementation guidance, and the legislation does not provide states with implementation funding. These administrative changes will take months to complete properly.

Election Day is Nov. 3, but the operational election calendar begins much earlier. Under federal law, states generally must transmit absentee ballots to military and overseas voters at least 45 days before a federal election. That deadline falls on Sept. 19.

Before then, officials must finalize ballot procedures, update databases, print instructions, test equipment, and train personnel. Early voting begins in some jurisdictions not long afterward. Registration activity is already underway, and voters are already relying on rules published by their states.

Changing those rules in August or September could create different requirements for people registering only weeks apart. It could also produce inconsistent implementation among states or even among counties within the same state, as officials interpret hurried federal guidance while defending their decisions in court. [bold added]

It is even more interesting that, surely knowing this, the President is pressuring the Senate to rush this bill through to passage.

Gosh, it's almost as if Trump wants to undermine confidence in the next election and so look justified in meddling with the results.

It's impractical! has never been a great way to fight against terrible policy, but when a policy is so bad that even some of its proponents say that, perhaps there is more reason to hope the bullet in the chamber misses.

-- CAV

'Reforming' the Jones Act?

2026-08-03T08:02:18.160-06:00

With the current waiver of the Jones Act set to expire on August 16 and copious data indicating its repeal would be a boon to the U.S. economy, one might wonder why there isn't significant momentum behind repealing it once and for all.

The general answer -- that precious few of today's politicians are pro-free-market and that we're too deeply mired in a mixed economy for that to even be in the Overton Window -- will be obvious to most regulars here. If the minutiae of the pull peddling interests you, a recent post on the matter at The Abundance and Growth Blog will be of further interest.

That said, I'd also assign a great deal of the blame to our President, with his muddled and unprincipled views on economics. How could a protectionist like him muster the arguments or enthusiasm to use his bull pulpit to advantage despite him own dislike of the law?

So the post explains what it states plainly: "There aren't the votes for an outright repeal of the Jones Act, and there are not likely to be the votes any time soon."

That's the bad news.

The good news, such as it is, is that there might be bipartisan support for more limited reforms that could blunt some of its worst effects.

These measures are:

An exemption for Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, and Northeast states reliant on heating oil, or perhaps just one of that set
Repealing the build requirement of the act but not the crewing requirements, so that labor unions representing US seafarers continue to benefit, and perhaps even gain as the new foreign-built ships hire their members
Pairing adjustments to the act with buyout offers to current US-based shipbuilders, so those affected have resources to choose a new career path and the transition is truly win-win
Pairing changes to the act with subsidies to US-based shipbuilders akin to those in the SHIPS for America Act, so US firms face more competition but also have more resources with which to face it

Given how deadly the Jones Act has been for American shipbuilding (and how little government subsidies help the subsidized), I hate the last of these, but the others would be a real improvement, as much as they all leave to be desired.

-- CAV

Four Wins

2026-07-24T08:44:49.615-06:00

A Friday Hodgepodge

Editor's Note: I'm taking a blogging break next week, although I plan to post on X/Twitter now and then in the meantime. I'll resume posting here on August 3rd or 4th.

***

Whenever possible, I list three wins at the end of each day. Here are a few from a recent review of my planner.

***

1. At our home, a mud dauber built her nest on a glass door facing the back patio, and our daughter noticed that it was possible to see the interior of each chamber, where the wasp had laid an egg.

She has been tracking the development of the larvae by taking photos at night, to avoid daytime glare. Shortly after dinner one evening, she spotted me in the living room, and the following dialogue ensued:

Pumpkin: Dad, are your ready for a larvae update?

Mom: Oh, gross! Let me see!

This is what happens when two geeks pair up...

2. A pet peeve of mine is that, among the choices of messaging, telephones, and email, surprising numbers of people seem ... not good ... at choosing one for the job at hand, or at least seem to have rigid preferences.

I recently had to coordinate my daughter's driving lessons with a text jockey, and needed to make one small change to the proposed schedule.

Knowing that this sort of thing is easier to do by phone, and that it was a good time for that, I called -- and it went straight to voice mail.

So I texted, giving my reason for needing the change and a proposed alternate date. She proposed right back with something just as unworkable as the problem date.

I rolled my eyes at the prospect of having to waste time going back and forth, and not just being done with it.

But then I realized something like use this person's default communication method to propose switching to the appropriate one, and texted back: One of the 18th or 19th can work. Or it might be quicker to do this with a call. I am at my desk with our calendar open now.

The text jockey was suddenly available and, as I expected, we got the issue ironed out in a fraction of the time texting would have required.

I was both pleased and annoyed to wind up getting exactly the alternate time and date I proposed in the first place.

3. Kudos to CVS for their new touchscreen-based system for in-store prescription pick-ups!

It doesn't completely eliminate waiting, but not having to give all the required information when a druggist is finally free helps a lot.

Now, if they can find a way to stop printing receipts that are a mile long...

4. I'll reiterate my recent endorsement of Levi Cowan's Tropical Tidbits hurricane tracking site and X account, which a commenter here introduced me to a few years ago.

Cowan gives 10-15 minute deep dives into the forecast reasoning for Atlantic hurricanes that pose a threat to land, and does so in a way that a layman can easily understand.

His latest -- which you'll find at the recent endorsement link above -- helped me see that Tropical Storm Bertha would likely be a nothingburger for us, and why.

As with any prediction, I recommend continuing to follow updates, of course. For one thing, anyone can make a mistake. For another, tropical weather predictions are often contingent on events that may play out one way or the other. But confidence comes from thorough understanding, and Cowan's explanations will get you as close as it gets for a non-meteorologist.

-- CAV

Open Bigotry as Opportunity

2026-07-23T07:20:07.582-06:00

Letters from readers of Miss Manners and Prudence each show the potential value of meeting bigotry with a dignified response.

One of these letters, to Miss Manners from an American who frequently travels abroad, deals with a common complaint: people who make snide comments about "Americans" at our expense.

Miss Manners replies in part:

As such comments are almost certainly based on the age-old cliche that all Americans are rude or bullies, they ignore the hypocrisy that only rude bullies would offer such an insult to a guest in their country.

The proper response is therefore to silently, but politely, make clear that you know you have been insulted. If you can excuse yourself, do so. If not, look stern and ignore the speaker for a time. This forces others to question their assumptions both about Americans and about themselves -- which will be far better for you than getting into a fight in a foreign country. [bold added]

In the second letter, a reader contributes his perspective to advice she gave to a gay couple about possibly attending a family reunion together. He says in part:

[A]ll the times we calmly showed up and were just nice and pleasant had an effect on my whole religious family. They couldn't keep up the bigotry in the face of two decent and kind guys just living their lives authentically. My relationship with my parents became really close, and my nieces and nephews started telling their parents that they didn't want to listen to them bad-talking their uncle when they preached "love one another" in church, but then talk hatefully about their own brother.

...

I would tell the writer not to do anything they don't think they can handle or that would make them feel unsafe, but sometimes it is the simple act of showing up and being yourselves that brings people around and forces them to confront their bigotry. Plus, you never know which niece or nephew might desperately need to see you living your authentic lives to give them hope and courage to weather their own situation... [bold added]

This is a prime example of the approach Miss Manners advises paying off in getting people to overcome dehumanizing prejudices. (The corollary of politely letting an ass know you've been insulted is to enjoy the company of those who aren't going along with it.)

As the emphasis on safety in the second letter indicates, everyone must make a risk calculation about such situations, especially when they're avoidable, but standing up for oneself in the face of bigotry is a way to improve the world one lives in small, but appreciable ways.

-- CAV

Reparations: Still Unjust

2026-07-22T06:29:37.783-06:00

Judging by the headlines in the New York Post, reparations for slavery are back in the news. This time, Alameda County, California, which notably contains Oakland, is considering cash payments to black residents.

The conservative outlet, predictably, is against the idea and, just as predictably, focuses on the impracticality of the idea and its historical absurdity, while sloppily conceding the moral high ground to its advocates.

California’s Kamala Harris, the first black female presidential nominee, also reportedly has a slave owner among her ancestors.

Is she supposed to pay reparations to herself?

This is humorous for the second or two before one realizes that the very premise that makes it humorous goes completely unchallenged, which is quite a price for a giggle.

By contrast, an older opinion piece by Brian Phillips goes for the jugular, starting with his title of "California Reparations Task Force: Fighting Injustice with Injustice." (The piece also addresses what I suspect is a big factual miss by the Post: The reparations might not even be about slavery, but about racist policies.)

Phillips's central argument is clear, straightforward, and refreshing in an era when the conservative movement has gone so far astray that it has been sighted in the weeds of economic illiteracy and corruption:

Justice demands that the guilty be punished and they make restitution to the victim. To give restitution to those who were not victims is to grant unearned rewards. To punish those who did not participate in an injustice is to penalize the innocent. Neither is an act of justice. Neither restitution nor punishment should be dispensed simply because of skin color. Yet, this was what the task force wants to do.

So, regarding that joke: What is Kamala Harris -- or anyone else -- supposed to do regarding "reparations" that distribute money looted from individuals to others, based on accidental membership in a group, such as a race?

Oppose that idea as the evil, unjust proposal that it is.

-- CAV

Mark Kelly in '28?

2026-07-21T07:00:39.099-06:00

In The Atlantic is a lengthy profile -- over 6500 words -- of Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ), who is contemplating a presidential run.

Based on his standing up to President Trump and Pete Hegseth last year regarding the impropriety of military officers following illegal orders and his subsequent legal persecution by the same, I have come to admire Kelly as among the few good men in politics in a position to offer meaningful pushback against Trump's authoritarian, lunatic administration.

I welcome this news.

While I hardly expect to agree with many of Kelly's political positions, given that he is a Democrat, the need to repudiate today's Republicans without ushering in a woke or socialist administration that would assume it had a mandate makes any sane Democrat worth a look.

Given the strong slant of the profile (and the lefty political slant of the publication), I took a look at Kelly's Wikipedia entry for that purpose, and find that while his political positions are far from ideal, they fall into the category of sane/tempered by facts/I could live with someone like that in office. As for the profile itself, I found it to be a mixed bag.

I was not thrilled to learn, for example, that a willingness to bend politics in the name of altruism is a major part of what got Kelly into politics in the first place:

... I asked Kelly what had made him decide to run for office. First off, he said, he was concerned about "the trajectory of our country with Donald Trump in the White House." This did not exactly make him a brave and lonely voice in the Democratic wilderness. But Kelly traces his particular aha moment to a get-out-the-vote rally that he attended in Phoenix before the 2018 midterms. A woman, probably in her 30s, approached him.

"She just stands next to me and says, 'Hey, my son has Down Syndrome. And I'm terrified he's going to lose his health insurance. Would you please consider running for the U.S. Senate?'" Kelly told the woman he would think about it.

This is not great, but it isn't Eat the Rich, either, and it's pretty culturally in the mainstream, which is (with only the rarest exceptions) what one has to expect of a politician today.

Much more compelling is Kelly's willingness to take a stand to protect our form of government:

Kelly keeps his official letter of censure from Hegseth taped to the door of his Senate office. I hadn't noticed it until he mentioned it to me. The document -- dated January 5, 2026 -- is addressed to "Captain Kelly" and printed on "Department of War" stationery. It is three pages long, one of them crooked. Kelly told me that he hung the missive sloppily on purpose, to reflect his lack of respect for its contents and sender. Perhaps, he said, he should smear it with ketchup.

I asked Kelly why he displays the letter on his door.

"I think that, you know, the seriousness of this whole thing," he said.

"It's good for me to be reminded of what's at stake, and who these people are." [bold added]

And, later:

Kelly made this clear to me too. If "they actually sent me to prison, I'll be fine," he told me. "I'll continue to fight back against these people."

I mentioned that it would seem unlikely at this point that Kelly would be sent to jail over the "illegal orders" video. The government, after all, already failed once to win an indictment against the lawmakers. Kelly agreed, but then went on to describe scenarios in which it could happen: If, Kelly suggested, his lawsuit against Hegseth goes to the Supreme Court and they rule against him, the Pentagon could then have other punishment options. "I could wind up in a nonjudicial punishment process in the Navy," he said. "And you know, that's a big pain in the ass."

"I tell you what they could do; they could try to indict us again," Kelly continued. "Then, maybe do it in a place where maybe they get enough grand jurors. And then I wind up getting charged with seditious conspiracy."

I joked that if Kelly did wind up in prison, he would probably raise $50 million within a week. He reiterated that he was not scared of imprisonment. His wife is not worried about it either, he said. [bold added]

Kelly is surely making a politician's calculation here to the effect that he would be able to raise enough of a public outrage to blunt the effects of such an effort. But this is hardly an easy way out and I see few other politicians willing to confront this Administration so openly.

I could probably support Mark Kelly for President. I am glad he's considering a run.

-- CAV

Murkowski vs. the SAVE Act

2026-07-20T07:11:23.121-06:00

At the Wall Street Journal, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) explains why she will be voting against Donald Trump's ill-considered and disingenuous attempt to federalize and overhaul American elections.

Many of her objections sound like those I raised in March, only greatly exaggerated by Alaska's peculiarities as new, far-flung state with a very low population density:

Or maybe you're a fisherman in Unalaska, out on the Aleutian Islands. The flight to Anchorage -- the closest election office, some 800 miles away -- would cost about $1,500 round-trip. You would also need a hotel, cabs and food while in Anchorage because it would be impossible to fly in, register and return home the same day.

These examples assume you have on hand the documents necessary to prove your citizenship. But take one more: You are an 85-year-old Native elder born in your parents' house, 18 years before statehood. Getting a certified copy of your birth certificate, especially if you have never had one before, would be incredibly difficult.

Previous comparisons of this proposal to a new poll tax are tame compared to the above.

But the fun doesn't stop there: Murkowski notes a few other whoppers most people probably have never heard of:

I've also asked for the effective date of the legislation to be pushed back to give all states enough time for implementation. As written, the bill would take effect immediately -- but it is unreasonable to expect immediate compliance.

This bill would force many states to modify their election laws. Some legislatures might need special sessions to do that. Thousands of local jurisdictions would have to implement new processes and find workers willing to risk being personally sued. Under the bill's private right of action, individuals or groups could sue election officials if they believe verification requirements aren't being strictly enforced.

Even if federal resources are provided through the budget reconciliation process to help facilitate these changes, it will take weeks or months for those dollars to arrive and much longer to overhaul state voting processes. [bold added]

Does the Trump Administration want to suppress voting? Is it grossly incompetent? Both?

Whatever the answer, if there is a bill that should be Dead on Arrival, this is it.

I recommend reading the whole thing.

-- CAV

Blog Roundup

2026-07-17T06:37:10.762-06:00

A Friday Hodgepodge

1. "How About a Genuine America-First Policy?," by Peter Schwartz (PeterSchwartz.com):

The movement Trump launched claims that his policies will "make America great again." Here, too, there is a prior question that demands an answer: What made America great in the first place? And it's the same answer: freedom.

America's exceptionalism rested on the premise that each individual has rights, and that the task of government is not to rule him but to protect those rights, by leaving him free. In the 18th century, a world dominated by despotic monarchies, this was a radical view. America was founded not simply on the idea that the people ought to elect their government representatives, but on the more fundamental idea that the individual has inalienable rights -- rights that may not be violated even by the wishes of a majority.

785 words/3 minutes

2. "Are Taxes 'The Price We Pay for Civilization'?," by Jaana Woiceshyn (How to be Profitable and Moral):

[Author Carol Off's] paraphrased quote from the U.S. Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the early 20th century: "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization," prompted my post. I wanted to challenge the premise that the tax-funded welfare state is the ideal civilized society. The focus here, therefore, is on the chapter about taxes.

Off sets up her defense of the welfare state with a false alternative: either we have a welfare state or a libertarian anarchy (which she equates with capitalism). She argues that the welfare state is ideal as the only social system that can achieve equality of outcomes for all, with the government collecting taxes from the productive and "redistributing" them to the less productive through various subsidies and programs.

865 words/3 minutes

3. "The Key to Sustainable Real World Results and Other Updates," by Jean Moroney (Thinking Directions):

When I see two mistakes of the same type, I look to draw a principle. Given that I've been teaching "motivation by love" (aka the value orientation) since my speech on the topic in 2019, I can talk for hours on the subject, and the principle is integrated into everything I teach in the Thinking Lab, how could I have been blind to these two major areas of threat orientation in my own life? The answer hit me at once: writing and time management are the two skills that I had given the most time and attention to prior to 2019. I had already put more than 20 years into understanding each of them before fully grasping the fundamental importance of a value orientation. This meant that my value hierarchy in these areas was integrated with mistaken beliefs about what was possible.

710 words/2 minutes

4. "Alan Greenspan -- Not a Eulogy," by Harry Binswanger (Value for Value):

[W]hile Alan Greenspan started out as a basically good man, he ended up as a traitor to capitalism, Objectivism, Ayn Rand, and his own soul. He went to Washington, and began to play the game. He chose the road of power.

Here are some points of acceleration in his decline. He "saved" Social Security by expanding its destructive power. At a State of the Union address, he rose up -- next to Hillary Clinton -- to join in giving a standing ovation to the call for universal (socialist) medical care. After the fall of communism, he refused to recommend capitalism to the newly freed regimes.

In the end, he abjured capitalism and, indirectly, Objectivism, as the logic of his premises required. He was an inexcusable blend of Peter Keating and Robert Stadler.

680 words/2 minutes

-- CAV

Taking Pet Adoption Seriously ...

2026-07-16T07:39:19.758-06:00

... sometimes means not adopting at all.

A couple of advice columns dealing with pets reminded me of the time one of my brothers broke up with a girlfriend decades ago.

The straw that broke that camel's back: She came home with two yippy dogs without having consulted him about it.

I am not a dog person. I was sympathetic then, but it took me time to appreciate what a good move this was on his part. That wisdom has nothing to do with my preferences regarding dogs and I would go so far as to say that anyone who seriously appreciates dogs should agree with me.

Why?

Because some pets -- off the top of my head: anything dangerous, high-maintenance past a certain point, or large enough to have the run of the house -- inherently affect the daily life of the members of a household enough that everyone in the household deserves a say before making such a commitment. I can even see the argument that such pets demand a degree of commitment that is comparable enough to a human relationship that whether to adopt one is a major life decision.

Two advice columnists bear this out. In one case, a woman who works in an animal shelter has brought home so many dogs it is beginning to make her family's home life unbearable despite the fact that they all like dogs. In another case, one partner in a dog-loving couple appreciated that a new pet would not work for them at this time in their lives -- but her partner went ahead and brought home a dog, anyway:

Fast-forward: Butch is a sweet, loving pup. I adore him, but he's a ton of work. My fiancé is back in school and working so he's not happy stopping multiple times a day to take Butch out for air and exercise as the dog is an active breed. He does it, but some days are stressful for us both.

Abby, I resent him for this. We're both overloaded and now have another full-time responsibility plus extra bills. We love Butch but are overwhelmed. I would be miserable giving him away, which is what my fiancé now suggests.

Both columnists correctly advise their readers that finding a new home for a pet can be the best option, including being an improvement for the pet itself.

In each letter, it is clear that the writer sees the pet as part of the family and cares for it, which underscores that bringing a pet into one's home is a serious decision. (And conversely, when someone unilaterally does this, it is a red flag.)

On top of my positive point, the cultural baggage of altruism can make this harder than it needs to be: The pet needs a home. Lots of people will deem protecting one's own time and sanity, rather than sacrificing it to an unwanted pet, as "heartless," for example. Such ideas can lead to a bad decision motivated by inappropriate guilt or unwarranted pressure from others.

The discussion about whether to adopt a pet isn't the time for martyrdom, or giving in to an out-of-context desire to help an animal, or appeasing the rest of the family in the moment. Any such discussion has to be made with everyone's best interests in mind, especially those of the caregivers.

If someone truly cares for animals, they will not adopt one on a whim.

-- CAV

Franchise Model Update

2026-07-15T06:16:00.745-06:00

There may soon be good news for businesses that rely on the franchise model, which, along with gig work, has been under assault from the left for quite some time.

The good news comes in the form of proposed regulations concerning "joint employment" that have just passed the required period for public comment:

These distinctions between business relationships and arrangements matter under our labor laws. What's known as "joint employment" occurs when two or more entities are both liable for a single worker's terms and conditions of employment. There's been a fight in Washington over changing the nature of franchising, staffing agenices, and even independent contracting relationships from partnerships to traditional employer -- employee arrangements, to the detriment of all and the communities they serve. The good news is that the Trump Department of Labor planted a flag in the ground to protect these independent arrangements in its thoughtful proposed joint employer rule.

The public comment period just concluded, but from the over 200 submissions, many franchise owners clearly communicated that they are their own boss, not the franchisor. Federal policy should weigh in favor of protecting this distinction rather than increasing legal liabilities for franchisors over the day-to-day employment decisions of independent business owners -- causing the whole model to crumble. [bold added]

The rest of the article does well to flesh out the advantages of contract work and the franchise business model, and by contrast, the potential damage of removing legal protection for them.

While this is good news, one must keep in mind a fact that is also apparent from the piece: As a regulatory change, this measure will be subject to the policies of future administrations. (A similar move in the first Trump term was just about wiped out by Biden.)

Until and unless advocates of liberty gain enough cultural momentum to cause a decisive political shift in favor of free markets, this battle will continue indefinitely, threatening countless small businesses in the long-term and discouraging entrepreneurs.

A battle may have been won, but the war rages on.

-- CAV

Trump Steals Credit Rather Than Sees Light

2026-07-14T04:53:23.247-06:00

The White House is once again in damage control mode after -- get this! -- something the President said turned out to be made up.

I was going to say false, but that would be too good a word for what Trump spews out: False would imply that there is a relationship -- even a negative one -- between reality and what this person says.

Oddly enough, Walmart's recent lowering of food prices had something to do with the fact that the company isn't a charity or a criminal enterprise, and wants to make a profit.

Trump claimed in relevant part:

... one of the biggest, best, and smartest Retailers in America, Walmart, will be lowering prices, by a lot, at my Administration's request... [bold added]

(How some people willingly subject themselves to reading/listening to this irritating communication style on a regular basis is beyond me.)

In fact:

Shortly after Trump's Truth Social boast, Walmart issued a statement detailing its signature Rollbacks and Sam's Club offers, which the chain typically introduces during the summer. The statement mentioned price reductions on beef and other products but made no mention of Trump or the administration.

On July 7, one day after Trump's Truth Social post, The Wall Street Journal reported that an Agriculture Department official had called some of the country's largest grocers to urge them to lower their beef prices.

However, during a call with Walmart, the company told the USDA that it already planned to lower prices on a range of items, including beef, and that the reductions had been in place since June 29. [bold added]

Oh.

Setting aside the whole issue why in hell the government is telling people what to charge... Not only that, the price reductions came due to the February Supreme Court ruling against Trump's tariffs and the company's expectation that (1) a factor in our higher prices will have been eliminated and (2) it will recoup billions in tariff refunds.

Trump could learn from this, and reconsider his idée fixe regarding tariffs as an economic cure-all. He could admit he was mistaken about tariffs, get rid of them, apologize, and earn the nation's gratitude and relief.

But he won't. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to consider why.

-- CAV

Way More Safe Than Politicians

2026-07-13T06:48:04.494-06:00

John Stossel's latest column is eye-opening for three reasons, perhaps the least being the astounding safety record of Waymo's driverless cars:

Waymo claims its cars are 10 times safer than human-driven ones. I wouldn't believe that if insurance companies, with their own money at stake, didn't agree.

Reinsurance News reports Waymos had an "88 percent reduction in property damage claims and a 92 percent reduction in bodily injury claims."

"We have the data," says Adam Thierer, author of Permissionless Innovation. "94 percent of all accidents are attributable to human error ... We can address one of the leading killers of Americans."

Stossel notes earlier that car accidents kill 100 Americans per day.

I heard that such cars were safer, but I had no idea how much safer they were.

Even more incredible -- although appalling is a better term -- is the fact that mafioso-like politicians are waging war against driverless cars and are -- thanks to the altruism behind their featherbedding rationale -- proud of the comparison:

[Luis] Sepulveda [(D-NY)] responds: "Waymo is going to make billions of dollars -- let them pay for the disruption to the labor force."

"Sounds like a mafia pitch," I push back. "'Want to come here, Waymo? You have to pay.'"

"If the pitch sounds like a mafia pitch, so be it," Sepulveda replies.

I thought I might change his thinking by making a creepy comparison, telling him his ban would kill more people than infamous serial killers have. Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and John Wayne Gacy combined killed about 80 people. Human-driven cars kill more people every day.

"The data on Waymo is not 100 percent safety," he replies. "A Waymo vehicle struck a child in California."

Like most critics, he cites isolated incidents. Even that child wasn't injured. [bold added]

The daily human sacrifice of 100 humans to the god of make-work reminds me of Ayn Rand's apt turn-of-phrase to describe altruism: moral cannibalism.

If this isn't a story that at once shows the power of altruism to motivate and whitewash evil, I don't know what is.

-- CAV

Four Random Things

2026-07-10T07:32:40.969-06:00

A Friday Hodgepodge

Screen capture by the author.

1. If you like Wordle, one "pompomsheep" at Hacker News is developing a timed word-solving game called 18 Words. As of this morning, the game gives you 30 seconds to solve words of increasing length and presents your score, in shareable form, for the 18.

2. A recent post at GeekPress notes that $180,000 isn't a "living wage" in San Francisco, reminding me of my move, soon after the 2008 financial crisis, to Boston.

Still reeling from the sticker shock of moving from a three bedroom house ten minutes away from work in Houston for $1000 a month -- to an apartment the size of a matchbox in Boston for $3500 a month -- I would regularly meet people at biotech networking events who had just moved from San Francisco to save money!

On the positive side, since my wife needed to be within a short commute to the hospital for her residency, we were able to ditch our cars altogether since that part of town was very walkable and well-served by subways.

3. On long road trips, my wife and I enjoy listening to audiobooks. Unfortunately, our road trips are usually far shorter than they used to be, now that we're New Orleanians. A possible remedy for us might be The Escape Pod, a science fiction podcast for short stories. (Based on a cursory look, they seem to be in the 30-60 minute range.)

I learned about the Escape Pod by reading and enjoying "Why I Left Harry's All-Night Hamburgers," which I recommend.

And yes, each story is available for reading at the site.

4. If, as I do, you occasionally take a "liver holiday," you might want to peruse this article and discussion on what makes a good mocktail.

-- CAV

(Comic) Relief From Rude Guests

2026-07-09T07:20:35.049-06:00

Sometimes, advice columnists field questions about things that turn out to be non-problems. Case in point: a Dear Prudence question from the owner of a small farm whose guests fled at the prospect of no television set -- yes, set -- for a week after they broached the subject of their host purchasing one.

The writer is concerned that she should have informed the family beforehand that she didn't own a television set.

The answer contains all an egoist needs to know:

[T]hey could have 1) propped a laptop up on the coffee table and gathered around to watch it or 2) placed their own order for a new flat screen. It was incredibly rude of them to make you feel like you failed in some way. I'm just glad they left instead of subjecting you to whatever breakdown they were all going to have if they couldn't watch their shows.

Prudence was kind not to go further and wonder how worthwhile a week entertaining such couch potatoes would be for the host, or to congratulate her for getting rid of them so efficiently!

-- CAV

Tucker: Tip of the Demonic Iceberg

2026-07-08T05:51:50.550-06:00

Witch-Hunting is making a comeback.

If you thought Tucker Carslon's ridiculous assertion that he'd been attacked in his sleep by demons was a one-off, I have news for you: At the Atlantic is a disturbing read about a particularly irrational Christian movement to wage what they call "spiritual warfare."

The piece focuses on a campaign of harassment by a couple, Andrea and Mike Brewer, who deem themselves such warriors, against the owner of a bookstore:

They went abroad as missionaries to India and Haiti, which only confirmed their emerging understanding of a universe with three distinct realms -- the heavenly, the earthly, and the underworld, with the Earth being the realm of spiritual warfare. On one side, the Holy Spirit, angels, and believers comprised an army of God. On the other were the forces of Satan -- legions of demons with names, ranks, and personalities that could inhabit people, geographical regions, and entire nations. In India, the Brewers claimed to have battled Shiva, Brahma, and Kali. In Haiti, Python and Mami Wata. There was Marduk, Osiris, Ra, Horus, Diana, Artemis, Shesha Naga, and so on -- a whole pantheon of demons that represented ancient religions and civilizations, and whose earthly expressions were essential to understanding current events.

By the time the Brewers returned to Maryville, they saw themselves as hardened spiritual warriors. They founded the Well [their charismatic church --ed] to continue the battle, joining an international network of churches and ministries called Global Awakening, which also had a seminary, where Andrea began studying demon history and hierarchies. When Mike asked God for their exact assignment, he told me when I visited in March, "the Lord spoke so clearly. He said, 'I'm giving you and the Well a mandate for the full eradication of witchcraft and demonic activity in the region.'" [bold added]

It should come as no surprise that the couple would eventually threaten the owner of a bookstore across the street from their church over drag shows she sometimes hosted for fundraisers:

[Bookstore owner Lisa Misosky's] recollection is that she called Mike, and that he talked about doing spiritual warfare against voodoo chiefs in Haiti, and that she said, "That's great, Mike. Why don't you have a cup of coffee with me?"

Mike's recollection is that he called Misosky. "I said, 'I'm not calling to resolve differences. We're not going to do that. I am calling to request that you go 18 and older for events,'" he said. " 'If you're marketing to children of this area, we're going to do everything within the law and the spirit to stop you. We will never harm you physically.' I said, 'I'm calling out of respect.'"

And that was the last time they spoke.

Soon after, Misosky got a call from the Anti-Defamation League. There had been some chatter about a protest at Southland [Books and Cafe] on neo-Nazi forums that the group monitored. At the time, all kinds of LGBTQ events around the country were being targeted by extremist groups. A gunman had just killed five people and injured 19 at an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado. Misosky called the police. She called some local pastors she knew and asked that they show up at the fundraiser wearing their collars. She posted on Facebook that "MAGA fascists" were threatening the toy drive. [bold added]

Misosky is completely correct in her assessment that the Well targeted her bookstore and gave "moral cover" to the violent elements that would eventually get wind of this "spiritual battle" and show up.

That phone call was the moral equivalent of a mullah "inviting" infidels to convert or die, knowing that terrorists will feel justified in doing the dirty work if the implied threat doesn't get results.

The article is well worth reading in full, but with the following caveat: It is written from a leftist point of view, and as such, it is by an enemy of liberty about enemies of liberty. The author states in plain English which side she would assume advocates of capitalism are on:

Their version of the Kingdom mapped neatly onto the political goals of social conservatives, libertarians, and, more recently, the MAGA movement. The Kingdom would have limited government, free markets, two genders, one kind of marriage, and one kind of God. The "right now" part, meanwhile, offered an urgent paradigm for mobilizing grassroots believers out of the Church and into electoral politics, government, education, and all other realms of life where they were to assert God's dominion. The new apostles and prophets of the NAR spread these ideas through decentralized networks of churches, international prayer ministries, schools, revivals, and prayer rallies, attracting followers who could find a sense of power and purpose in building the Kingdom. Leaders spoke of believers as "warriors" or "God's army" or even "special forces," and churches as "military bases," and certain apostles as "generals." They believed that being a Christian meant being in a constant state of spiritual warfare. [bold added]

Ronald Reagan's deal with the devil of the religious right has been the gift that keeps on giving to the wrong people, left and right. Any reader of Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal will know to the contrary, for example, that capitalism is incompatible with religious tyranny, that religion cannot provide intellectual support for freedom of any kind, and that personal freedom is incompatible with economic tyranny.

-- CAV

At Least Corruption Took an L

2026-07-07T04:45:39.366-06:00

The World Cup run for the United States Men's National Team came to an end last night in a manner harsh for the players, but befitting the autocrat who tried to influence the game.

Before the game and the controversy that would overshadow it, the Americans were having a good tournament. The head coach, Mauricio Pochettino, had done a fine job of instilling a team identity and a strategy that both played to the strengths of the players at his disposal and entertained the spectator with vibrant, attacking play.

Pochettino's men won their group with a game to spare, and narrowly lost the third game, when he wisely chose to rest some players and give backups playing time. Then, they very comfortably beat Bosnia in their first elimination game.

I've been a long-suffering fan of this team for decades, and I can't recall us ever winning a World Cup game comfortably, let alone three.

This is measurable progress.

But there are levels to go before this country will be a serious contender for the World Cup: I had no illusions about this game. Belgium have one of the ten best national teams in the world and, despite their aging squad, this game, while winnable based on what the Americans showed so far, was never going to be easy, let alone a sure thing.

Then, infuriatingly, on the day or so before the game, Donald Trump felt the need to insert himself into the world championship of a game he knows nothing about, and get overturned the one-match ban forward Folarin Balogun was to serve for being ejected from the Bosnian game.

Yes, the ejection was a mistake. Yes, there ought to have been an appeals process for the ban. But, as with any sport, bad calls are part of the game, and the time for amending the rules is between competitions -- not in the middle of them.

Trump's meddling sets a very bad precedent in a sport whose governing body is already corrupt, and was a very unwelcome injection of politics into a realm most of us enjoy in part because it offers a respite from politics.

(I am old enough to remember conservatives lauding the book title Shut up and Sing. Changing whose politics pollutes the entertainment is not the answer anyone needed here.)

All that said, the American performance last night was mostly unfocused and error-prone, and if there is one thing an elite team will punish mercilessly, it is mistakes.

Ahead of the game, I commented:

Before: If the US lost today, we'd have wondered what might have been absent [Balogun's] bogus red card.

After: Anything this very good team might accomplish will come with an asterisk, courtesy of the Meddler-in-Chief. We had a chance even without Balogun.

I wish Trump had not butted in.

I should have kept going.

We lost with Balogun on the field and we're wondering what might have been.

I may well have overestimated the level of the American team, but I can't imagine how this unwelcome controversy could have helped them prepare for that game or focus during the game. On top of that, what Trump did is also exactly the kind of thing that a good opposition coach will know how to use to motivate his players.

Earlier in the tournament, I watched Belgium's first game and texted my brothers of the turgid performance that Someone needs to take Belgium out back and shoot them. (Belgium improved over its next games, but they have an aging squad, and I can't see them getting past Spain in the next game.)

Before this mess, I wondered: Will this plucky, spirited team find a way to beat Belgium without its star forward? I didn't expect a win, but I was looking forward to the game.

As I see it, the Americans had a chance at an unforgettable win or at least a valiant stand. They and their fans got Trump instead.

-- CAV

Recipe: Pardon Me Mac and Cheese

2026-06-26T07:25:08.946-06:00

Editor's Note: I will blog sporadically or not at all until Tuesday, July 7 due to OCON and the upcoming holiday. I will probably continue to post daily on X, however.

***

Shortly after my son got me to work out a new gumbo recipe (which he indirectly named with his review of my first stab), he got interested in coming up with a family mac-and-cheese recipe.

Viewing this as a side dish, I dragged my feet a little, but then two things happened. First, my son developed an interest in cooking, including wanting to help develop the recipe. Second, my wife got an elaborate recipe for "Jailbird Mac and Cheese" (which is actually a casserole) from one of my sisters-in-law.

Boy! That's a lot of work for a side dish. was my first thought at looking over that recipe, but I decided to make it with my son, since he was interested.

I learned how to make a cheese sauce on the way to helping my son learn a few things about cooking. Also, that name inspired my name for the final result, in mocking tribute to our times. The final recipe fairly closely follows this Chick-fil-A mac-and-cheese knockoff, which I decided to try on our third adventure with mac-and-cheese.

It's still lots of trouble for a side, but this makes enough to freeze multiple servings, balancing things out in the end.

It's not a perfect knockoff, but it's quite good, and having a frozen side dish that everyone likes on hand comes in handy.

***

Pardon Me Mac and Cheese

Preparation Time is 1 hour.

Ingredients

elbow macaroni, 1 lb. (3 cups)
butter, 1/4 cup flour
1/4 cup
salt, 1 tsp
paprika, 1/4 tsp
milk, 2 cups egg
American cheese, 8 slices
shredded sharp cheddar, 16 oz.
shredded Italian blend cheese, 8 oz.
cooking spray

Directions

1. In parallel with next steps: set water for pasta to boil, add pasta, cook for 20 minutes, drain, and set aside.

2. Mise en place: a 9x13 inch baking dish; a colander; the butter in the pot for the cheese sauce; the flour, salt, and paprika in a bowl; a whisk; a stirring spoon; the milk; the cheeses; the egg; and a small bowl for the egg yolk.

3. Melt the butter at medium heat and whisk in the flour/salt/paprika.

4. Whisk in the milk a little at a time, then continue whisking for a minute or so until it has thickened.

5. Whisk together the egg yolk and a spoonful of the hot milk mixture in the small bowl.

6. Whisk egg yolk mixture into milk mixture.

7. Reduce heat to low.

8. Add to milk mixture: the American cheese (torn into pieces), and one cup each of the cheddar and Italian blend.

9. Stir cheese mixture to melt and combine the cheeses.

10. Add noodles to cheese sauce and combine.

11. Spray baking dish.

12. Place mixture into baking dish.

13. Top mixture with remaining cheddar.

14. Broil under constant observation until cheese just starts to brown.

Notes

1. Overcooking the pasta keeps it from sucking the moisture out of the other ingredients

2. The yield is 16 servings.

3. Freezes/reheats very well.

4. Do not take your eyes off this when it's under the broiler. Once it begins to brown, it can very quickly burn.

-- CAV

Altruism vs. Goodwill: A Prime Example

2026-06-25T08:17:04.641-06:00

A Dear Prudence reader who needs to unplug from current events every few weeks asks (search "autism and ADHD") what to do about people who "accuse me of not caring about what's happening outside my house's four walls" for taking a break from Things.

The question and the answer remind me of an acquaintance from my pre-Objectivist college days who seemed compelled to help people to the point it was negatively affecting his grades and other aspects of his life. You can't help them if you don't even take care of yourself, I observed. (Ayn Rand soon helped me get to what I was missing: That nobody has an unchosen obligation to help anyone.)

Prudence's answer is a little bit like mine then, as it also implicitly assumes altruism:

I appreciate that these people care about the awful things unfolding around us, and I understand that it can be frustrating to hear someone say they're simply not engaging. But don't they realize that if you're ultimately going to be able to tune into current events in a permanent way (and more important, do something to help make the changes you'd like to see) you have to be mentally stable and not in the middle of a family crisis to do so? You know the way you unplug and walk away from the news because it's draining your energy in a way you can't afford? Do the same thing -- but maybe permanently -- to those who are disregarding your wellbeing to shame you for what you're doing to survive. I would be very leery of anyone who saw me struggling with multiple diagnoses, caring for two generations of people, and decided to attack me instead of helping me. [bold added]

Despite its flaws, the answer is excellent advice, and it's too bad it doesn't question altruism since the attackers exemplify by way of a negative example a crucial distinction Rand made, but rarely gets credit for:

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice -- which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction -- which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good. [bold added] ("Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World," Philosophy: Who Needs It)

The attackers certainly can't be accused of goodwill the way -- thoughtless at best -- they would goad the letter-writer to self-destruction! It's an extreme example, but a good one of how altruism is, in fact, the enemy of the welfare of the "others" its preachers express concern about.

-- CAV

Groundhog Day, and They Don't Even Know It

2026-06-24T07:56:07.213-06:00

John Stossel's report on the latest attempt by central planners to "fix" contract work contains the following incredible passage:

The Democratic Socialists said they had a solution. Seattle's city council imposed a $26 delivery driver minimum wage.

What could go wrong?

Two years later, we know the answer: Gig workers make no more money, but prices went up.

Apps like DoorDash and Uber Eats added a $5 fee for consumers "to help cover the costs of these ... regulations."

Now Seattle residents complain about prices. "I ordered a $12 sandwich ... $12 grew to $32!" complains one in my new video. "I just deleted the app."

"[Work] has become slow because of the new law," an app driver complains. DoorDash says it got 1.7 million fewer Seattle orders in 2024.

This is what happens when politicians dictate wages.

...

Former Seattle City Council President Sara Nelson admits that the politicians made a mistake: "We created a problem and it's our responsibility to fix it." [bold added]

The last line is not the good news we might momentarily out of hope imagine it to be: All these fools could come up with to explain the devastation they wrought was that they'd picked the wrong number.

That passage reminds me of the following from Leonard Peikoff's lecture, "My Thirty Years With Ayn Rand:"

Ayn Rand started thinking in terms of principles, she told me once, at the age of twelve. To her, it was a normal part of the process of growing up, and she never dropped the method thereafter. Nor, I believe, did she ever entirely comprehend the fact that the approach which was second nature to her was not practiced by other people. Much of the time, she was baffled by or indignant at the people she was doomed to talk to, people like the man we heard about in the early 1950s, who was calling for the nationalization of the steel industry. The man was told by an Objectivist why government seizure of the steel industry was immoral and impractical, and he was impressed by the argument. His comeback was: "Okay, I see that. But what about the coal industry?" (Voice of Reason, p. 341-342)

Today, our politicians seem to be a choice of outright criminals -- or people like that man.

Forget about rightly pointing out that two people have the inalienable right to contract bewteen themselves how much one will pay the other for an agreed-upon service. These people can't even apply relatively simple priciples like supply and demand to questions such as What happens to a market when a price is set arbitrarily?

And these are the politicians who are at least willing to admit a mistake.

We are in trouble.

-- CAV

An Endangerment Finding Own-Goal?

2026-06-23T08:34:35.060-06:00

One of the few things I hope the Trump Administration succeeds in accomplishing is in grave danger of not happening -- thanks to the incompetence of said Administration.

According to ClimateWire, contradictory briefs on energy-related cases might show up at the Supreme Court like two left feet on a dance floor:

Right-wing advocates including Steve Milloy and Myron Ebell, both of whom served on President Donald Trump's first-term transition team, said in interviews Tuesday that they were particularly concerned about a recent Department of Justice brief that appeared to contradict EPA's repeal of the so-called endangerment finding for greenhouse gas emissions.

In a May 21 amicus brief in Suncor v. Boulder -- an important climate case the Supreme Court will decide next term -- DOJ argued that the Clean Air Act reserves to EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The administration is joining red states and industry groups in urging the court to block local governments such as Boulder, Colorado, from suing fossil fuel producers over their contribution to climate change.

Milloy, a senior policy fellow at the Energy and Environment Legal Institute, told POLITICO'S E&E News that the arguments DOJ made to demonstrate federal preemption of state and local climate action are "the exact opposite" of what EPA argued in its February repeal of the 2009 scientific finding that underpinned most Clean Air Act climate regulation.

"They could both wind up at the Supreme Court, and the court could say, 'Justice Department, you're on both sides of this issue,'" said Milloy. [bold added]

The article notes speculation to the effect that long-timers at the DOJ might be attempting to sabotage the litigation, but whatever stock one puts in that, flawed legal argumentation is hardly the only problem.

The piece goes on to note that, additionally, some proposed rule changes by the Trump EPA are proceeding slowly-enough that they may not get past legal challenges before Trump's term expires.

-- CAV

Graham Contra AOC

2026-06-22T06:58:56.359-06:00

I felt like a skating coach hearing someone say that it's impossible to do a triple axel. Of course it's possible. It's hard, but it's possible. -- Paul Graham on earning a billion dollars

***

In the wake of the latest populist drivel against "billionaires" by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, venture capitalist Paul Graham decimates her assertion, notably its smuggled-in premise that one must necessarily cheat others on the way to amassing a net worth of billion dollars.

The crux of Graham's argument is that startup founders like the ones he coaches and invests in do such a good job helping their customers that word-of-mouth helps their businesses grow exponentially:

A couple days later I was talking to the founder of a startup I'd funded. I began by asking, as I usually do when I meet a founder, what her growth rate was. 93% last month, she said. I pointed out that this meant her net worth was also growing at 93% a month. She was getting richer at a stupendously rapid rate. And yet she hadn't been doing anything bad. The reason her startup was growing so fast was simply that users loved what she'd built. So she could feel from her own experience how wrong that politician was. She wasn't exploiting anyone. Exactly the opposite in fact. The reason her startup was growing so fast was that she and her cofounder had been working their asses off to make their users happy, and as a result the users had been telling their friends. And that gets you exponential growth.

Graham notes further that "A couple million and 93% growth are not, in fact, radically different from a billion. They're nine and a half months apart."

Graham, of course, acknowledges that 93% growth is unusual, but after using the example and helping his readers understand the calculations, he shows that more typical growth rates can see someone who has a good idea and works hard become a billionaire in a decade -- as 30 of the people Graham has trained have done.

The essay notably goes beyond the demolition job by offering broad general advice on how to turn this trick yourself.

My only complaint is that, like most influential people, Paul Graham apparently does not see wealth creation as morally good. The idea that possessing wealth is evil is a moral idea with a stranglehold on our culture and it is that idea -- which Ayn Rand fought with her superior alternative of an egoistic morality -- that must ultimately lose its influence in our culture.

Graham's piece remains well worth the read, for it is a powerful antidote to the base ignorance that altruism excuses and encourages in our culture, such as about how it's possible for an honest person to become wealthy.

-- CAV

Four Wins

2026-06-19T06:41:23.818-06:00

A Friday Hodgepodge

Whenever possible, I list three wins at the end of each day. Here are a few from a recent review of my planner.

***

1. The other day, I finally thought to try this method for baking sweet potatoes and, yes, it works very well!

2. Lucinda nastily refuses all attempts to groom her, so naturally, at winter coat shedding time, she developed lots of knots we needed a professional to remove.

We have a shortage of groomers locally who do cats here, and one must use a vet if knocking them out is required, but even cat groomers at vets are hard to find. (And yes, we tried gabapentin on her to absolutely no avail.)

Going back through vet listings again, I found one I'd overlooked and that turned out to have a cat groomer and hearing we require our clients to be sedated was music to my ears.

She is now, finally, knot-free and seems a little bit happier, and I have a place to deal with her in the future.

There will be no image of her here out of respect for her vanity, but let's say she looks like a head on a stick compared to her usual fluffy self.

3. I have mentioned it here, but only in passing, so I'll repeat it here in part just because it makes me smile just to say it: Arsenal are Premier League Champions!

Ever since a gritty win against Newcastle early in the season, I made it a point to see as many of their games live as I could, and my gut was right.

The circumstances of my finding out are amusing. The race was down to the last few games of the season, with Arsenal merely needing to win their remaining games or Manchester City to lose or draw a game.

City played a mid-week game, the end of which coincided with my taking the kids to the dentist for their annual checkup. My plan was always just to check the score when I knew the game would be over, but I'd forgotten to check before we left the office.

On the way home, I stopped to get gas, and the kids had gotten into an argument in the back seat by the time I got back into the car. Remembering the game, I was oblivious to events in the back seat and checked the score.

1-1.

Yes! I said.

My kids burst out laughing, because the timing made it sound like I was expressing agreement with my daughter's immediately prior Shut up!

It has been a 22-year wait, but not exactly an out-of-the-blue development.

And long may that development continue...

4. After not being sure I'd be able to attend it at all, my calendar opened up and my wife surprised me with a pass to OCON 2026!

If you already know me and plan to attend, drop me a line. If we haven't met and you'd like to meet me, follow these instructions to let me know.

Sooner is better than later as I will not be accessing that email account during the conference.

-- CAV

Evangelism vs. Cultural Activism

2026-06-18T06:31:35.010-06:00

An Ask a Manager reader wants to shut down an employee who is annoying coworkers by constantly discussing the Keto diet. I found Alison Green's answer valuable both for helping me understand why that kind of behavior annoys me so much, and causing me to consider how I can avoid doing the same kind of thing myself in the future.

Alison replies in part:

If Casey were this obsessed with evangelizing for something unrelated to diet and health -- like, I don't know, the Dallas Cowboys or Daylight Savings -- it could still reach a point where you'd need to rein it in, but it being about diet and health gives it an extra layer of obnoxiousness and adds additional urgency for you to tell them to cut it out.

Constant Daylight Savings evangelism would be annoying too (as well as pretty weird) but at least it wouldn't involve judging other people's diets and pushing unsolicited health advice. It would be irritating and boring, but it wouldn't cross boundaries in the same way. [bold added]

This is a great distinction, and I love how the humorous -- and neutral! -- phrase Daylight Savings evangelism makes the knowledge so retrievable by being so memorable.

To make it a little bit more generalized, it's worth taking a moment to unpack why the behavior in question crosses boundaries.

For the sake of argument, assume that this diet (or kind of diet) is indeed what we should be doing. Even so, in today's context, any audience will have (1) heard the same thing asserted about countless other diets; (2) be happy enough with their current well-being to not see a need to make learning/switching a priority over other more urgent matters; (3) have legitimate doubts about the speaker's claims; (4) considered the information already and made up their own minds one way or the other; or (5) have psychological issues with the subject matter and need space and time to even become receptive to thinking about it.

I'm probably missing a few possibilities that aren't rank evasion here.

On top of all of that, our culture is saturated with the influence of Christianity -- which (1) commands its followers to do things (like win converts), (2) preaches that other-centered ethics of altruism (often, among other things, causing people to not see moral questions as personally urgent or worthy of practical consideration), and (3) emphasizes profession of faith, verbally and non-verbally. (Why this somehow doesn't get called out as virtue signaling is a good question.) This influence predisposes anyone being advised on how to live a better life to feel judged and bossed around, for starters.

Building a better culture is not as simple as immersing people in water or haranguing them (especially with the truth) non-stop. Being more discriminating about when and how to share philosophical knowledge is vital to the enterprise.

After learning the truth, respecting the minds of others is high on the list of things to get right when one wants to improve the culture by spreading it.

-- CAV