Gus Van Horn

Cue Trump's de Minimis Refund Sh*tshow

2026-03-09T06:04:00.001-06:00

Despite Trump slow-walking the refunds owed to the Americans who had to pay his illegal import taxes, legal clarity about getting refunds appears to be on the way, at least for those who were hit the hardest.

But what of the large number of individuals slammed by the taxes when Trump ended the de minimis exemption for items worth under $800.00?

Oddly enough, lots of them aren't happy, and they're not behaving like well-oiled wheels about it.

They want their money back.

Fortunately for most, major shippers who paid the tariffs before passing them on plan to repay them as soon as they have clarity on their own refunds from the government:

Natasha Amadi, a spokeswoman for United Parcel Service, said the company would support customers in obtaining refunds of IEEPA tariffs once a legal framework was established, adding that this applied to "customers of all sizes."

In a statement, Glennah Ivey-Walker, a spokeswoman for DHL, said that when there was legal guidance for the refund process, the company would "communicate with our customers and take appropriate actions." ...

This is fortunate for them, and good business for the shippers, but there is still plenty of chaos left to go around. Some shippers charged processing fees, which customers want returned along with the tariff loot. People who paid tariffs to overseas entities clearly won't have legal recourse.

Indicative of the confusion, the report discusses people who got screwed by tariffs at the retail level, even though the de minimis exemption has nothing to do with the vast majority of these people. That said, folks who had to pay higher prices at retailers might see lower prices, rather than refunds, if Costco is an indication. (As prices wouldn't show a tax component, this makes sense, but lots of people won't see it.)

And, predictably, class action lawsuits are about to start flying around.

Come November, don't forget that Trump and his party are all in for Round Two, even though they already know the new tariffs are also illegal, and the refund fight is just a small part of what they are putting us through.

-- CAV

Freedom Four

2026-03-06T06:38:00.001-06:00

A Friday Hodgepodge

1. LTE RE: "Donald Trump, Pagan King", by Peter Schwartz (New York Times):

Leighton Woodhouse maintains that Judeo-Christian ethics are "the basis for the American Declaration of Independence." But the opposite is true.

180 words/1 minute

2. "Rights Are Just 'Words on a Page' if Federal Agents Can Ignore Them," by Agustina Vergara Cid (The Orange County Register):

"I'm a [U.S.] citizen, I'm just trying to get to work," [George Retes] said. [Attorney Marie] Miller says George even told the agents where his ID was inside the car. "No one seemed interested," she stated. "They didn't seem to disbelieve him. They just seemed to not care."

This seeming indifference from federal agents regarding the questionable legality of their purported actions -- not to mention their brutality -- should alarm every American.

900 words/3 minutes

3. "ICE Tyranny Is What Democracy Looks Like," by Benjamin Bayer (The Orange County Register):

"Remember: the Athenian democracy voted to put Socrates to death." -- Ben Bayer (Image via via Wikipedia, public domain.)
... The Founders gave us not a democracy, but a constitutional republic, a system premised on limiting government's function solely to protecting the individual's rights.

The laws Trump is enforcing are not "undemocratic." But they do violate constitutional rights. Even non-citizens have a right to liberty. Laws restricting immigrant labor violate the freedom to work and engage in trade. But these are freedoms Democrats long ago sold down the river when they sought ever-increasing regulations on the freedom of businessmen.

If Trump's ICE now assaults procedural rights like due process, it's because he like so many other Presidents have habituated action by executive order...

950 words/3 minutes

4. "'Man's Life' as the Standard of Value in the Ethics of Aristotle and Ayn Rand," by Gregory Salmieri (Book Chapter from Two Philosophers: Aristotle and Ayn Rand, edited by James G. Lennox and Gregory Salmieri):

In the first two sections of this [chapter], I elucidate the content of the human form of life as understood by Aristotle and Rand, respectively. In my third section, I show how the differences in their view of Man's Life reflect (and contribute to) different views of how a form of life can serve as an ethical standard. These differences, in turn, have implications for the extent to which their respective moral philosophies provide objective guidance rooted in knowledge of human nature, rather than merely systematizing existing mores or reading them into human nature. Accordingly, I close with a discussion of the objectivity of what each thinker regards as moral knowledge.

13,600 words/45 minutes

-- CAV

Tough (Nerd) Love for a 'Manosphere' Victim

2026-03-05T08:57:00.001-06:00

With my kids rapidly approaching dating age and being well aware that I might well be a poor source of advice on it, I keep an antenna out for advice on that matter.

A favorite writer who focuses on such advice is Harris O'Malley, a.k.a., Dr. Nerdlove, and he hit one out of the park earlier this year when someone who listens to the likes of Andrew Tate showed up with a question to the effect of, "Help, science says I'm doomed to be single!"

I really appreciate two things about his letter, the first of them being what is really an all-purpose calling-out of people who wrongly claim that "science" backs them up:

Leaving aside that this leads me to think that the source was a study from Dude, Trust Me University or Dr. ChatGPT, the rare times that people do post a particular study, it becomes clear that they didn't actually read it beyond someone else's summary. The conclusions people derive tend to have very little to do with the study's conclusions and usually involves either overlooking the way the data is misunderstood, small sample sizes, poor-to-non-existent controls, self-report surveys, the authors saying "the results are within the margin of error and so are indicative of more experimentation" and occasional straight up P-hacking.

This he follows up with an intelligent discussion of -- gasp! -- an actual paper written by actual scientists.

But O'Malley isn't done, because the question betrays a deeper problem than ignorance about science.

There is also an astounding degree of ignorance about oneself by the questioner that can't be answered except by introspection, which Dr. Nerdlove successfully points out and motivates, assuming the letter writer really is interested in finding female companionship:

Ah, because it means that -- if we accept your premise -- you are "stuck" dating someone who is also of average looks. Let's put aside the assumption that this somehow means that the "average" women are not good looking and instead focus on what you don't seem to realize that you're saying.

Because I don't think it has occurred to you that, as you're complaining that your looks condemn you to date someone who isn't exceptional looking ... you're expecting someone who is exceptional looking to be willing to overlook your average appearance. Not to put too fine a point on it but ... why is that ok for them but not for you? Why are you asking them to give you grace and see beyond your average appearance, when you aren't willing to do the same? Why -- again, if we accept your premise -- is it not ok for an exceptionally attractive woman to prefer dating an exceptionally attractive man, when you yourself also want to date an exceptionally attractive woman? You would think that what's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

Well, the answer here is obvious: because of what it says about you. This is the core of what Red Pill and masculinity influencers peddle: the anxiety of being somehow "lesser" among men. If you are the sort of person who can "only" date "average" women and not dimes who make your friends and peers and randos jealous ... well, clearly you're not a Top G Alpha Player. You're just some Average Frustrated Chump, to dip back into ancient PUA parlance.

While I would hope that no child of mine ends up being this clueless, I remember being a child and a young adult. Introspection and seeing things from the perspective of others are learned skills, and many aspects of our culture discourage both.

Being aware of the latest ways people are being pressured to conform can't hurt, and this example clearly shows both that real adults aren't what Ayn Rand called second-handers, and that being second-handed is hardly the way to achieve happiness. Only by knowing oneself, and respecting the fact that relationships involve shared values can one really hope to find or be worthy of a romantic partner.

-- CAV

Return of Tariff Loot Not Unprecedented

2026-03-04T07:40:00.000-06:00

There may be good news for Americans who paid Trump's "emergency" IEEPA tariffs: The Court of International Trade, which ruled the tariffs illegal before The Supreme Court concurred, has relevant experience dealing with a similar situation:

Nearly 30 years ago, the Supreme Court invalidated something called the Harbor Maintenance Tax as it applied to exported goods. There were as many as 100,000 potential claimants after the high court's March 1998 decision. It fell to the trade court to handle the refunds question. By late 2000, businesses had received more than $730 million. A central figure back then remains a key trade court judge today.

Judge Jane Restani, a Reagan appointee with a fondness for hiking, sat on the original three-judge panel that heard the challenge to the harbor tax and was then assigned to devise an orderly process for administering refunds after it had been in effect for more than 10 years.

With hundreds of cases before the court, she zeroed in on one test case to govern them all.

"When we had the experience with them back then, it worked out," said lawyer Brian Goldstein, who represented the retail conglomerate that challenged the tax, the U.S. Shoe Corp. "I do believe that the court will, together with the party litigants, fashion a program and process of refund. I don't know how long it will take."

This is good news, and somewhat amusing, as it is a direct result of the Trump Administration attempting to delay paying the refunds. The court in that case sent the matter of how refunds would be paid to the CIT.

-- CAV

The Endangerment Finding: Down, But Not Out

2026-03-03T05:33:00.001-06:00

Writing in the Washington Examiner, Steve Milloy of Junk Science explains that the recent rescission of the EPA's Endangerment Finding is far from Job Done to save the American fossil fuel industry:

West Virginia v. EPA ... didn't explicitly overturn Massachusetts v. EPA because the red-state litigants never specifically raised the issue, and the Supreme Court chose to rule as narrowly as possible.

So, here's the problem: While the Trump EPA is now saying that the Obama endangerment finding is illegal under the holding in West Virginia v. EPA (i.e., no congressional authorization), Massachusetts v. EPA remains on the books as good law.

Simply rescinding the Obama decision, as the Trump EPA just did, is technically just a change in policy, not a change in the operative law. In the event that Democrats win the White House in 2028, you can bet they will reinstate the endangerment finding as soon as possible in 2029, citing Massachusetts v. EPA in doing so. [links omitted, bold added]

Here we go again.

Such are the hazards of making the "biggest deregulatory move in history" by fiat, executive or administrative.

Milloy explains what Trump needs to do to cement this good part of his legacy, and that's to have the Justice Department challenge Massachusetts v. EPA and the EPA rescind a separate endangerment finding that applies to stationary sources of greenhouse emissions.

-- CAV

P.S. For the various Trump people who come by from time to time to complain to me when I criticize Trump/don't criticize the Democrats (whom he too frequently imitates) enough, this is two days in a row I have concurred with something he has done, and wanted that thing to be as effective as possible.

We're Finally Fighting Back

2026-03-02T08:32:00.000-06:00

Will it be enough?

Over the weekend, the United States and Israel launched widespread, coordinated attacks against Iran. The apparent aims are of neutering that country's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile capabilities, and toppling its theocratic regime, which has been at war with both countries and the West in general ever since 1979.

Yaron Brook's initial reaction. Commentary starts about 1:50.

It's about time, and I have heard that the top echelon of its leadership, including "Supreme Leader" Ali Khamanei, died during an incredibly short time span.

Good riddance.

The case for attacking Iran -- something that should have been done decades ago -- is clear-cut. Less so is whether the sitting President -- a thoroughly corrupt and amoral whim-worshiper -- will carry through this endeavor to the point that Iran no longer poses a threat to the West.

Worse, as clear as it is that we should obliterate this regime, it is equally clear that Trump does not have the authority to order military operations of this magnitude without Congressional approval. I am concerned that Congress will either fail to offer its belated authorization or even attempt to end our participation in this war before it has been prosecuted to the extent it should be.

I can only hope our militaries do enough damage before things change enough politically that the regime is effectively done, and the Iranian people are able to establish the freer, rights-respecting government they seem to want. By its nature, such a government would be at minimum cease being a threat, and would likely be friendly to our countries and its neighbors. At worse, almost any other government would at least be less of a threat.

Having noted my own reaction to this generally welcome turn of events, I'll end with a short listing of items I gleaned over the weekend, in no particular order:

A Rundown on the War as of 2-28 -- roles of U.S. and Israeli forces, objectives, Iranian retaliation notes, Iranian casualties not yet known
Garry Kasparov -- the good of waging this war and the bad of who's in charge in a nutshell
Agustina Vergara Cid -- expresses qualified agreement with Ilya Somin's analysis of the constitutionality of the war and its feasibility as a means of achieving regime change
Adam Mossoff -- counters Ilya Somin's assessment of the wisdom and morality of the attacks

Although I have not yet had the opportunity to listen to any of Yaron Brook's so far daily updates on the war, I am looking forward to them and unreservedly recommend them, based on his past commentary in general and on the Hamas war in particular. Brook's initial reaction is embedded above.

-- CAV

Four Neat Things

2026-02-27T08:44:00.001-06:00

A Friday Hodgepodge

1. The site hackernews.love, based on comments from the knowledgeable readers at Hacker News, showcases the successful innovations that received pelters there, way back when.

For each success, there are several quotes, such as "It does not seem very 'viral' or income-generating." -- Brandon M, followed by the market's contrary verdict, e.g., "Dropbox IPO'd in 2018 at a $12B valuation. Drew Houston later thanked BrandonM by name when Dropbox went public."

2. By coincidence, I learned about two more ways to employ the humble bathroom mirror as a reminder, one digital and one analog.

Looking for a better way to display my calendar, I learned that some people employ smart mirrors for the task.

On the other end of the technology spectrum -- if you discount the technology behind erasable markers -- Heloise recommends using those.

I just use post-it notes myself, but I love the idea that there are people out there using smart mirrors!

3. Allison Green's recent post on workplace romance includes a few that worked out very well. She calls my favorite of the lot "the sandwich maneuver."

4. Years ago, the Internet Djinni granted my wish -- in the form of a site called junkyarddog.com -- for a cheap Mercedes part after my wife had a fender-bender in the car she was borrowing from her Dad.

I thought they'd disappeared, but in the process of writing this post, I learned otherwise.

I guess now, rather than mere relief at discovering a "replacement," I get to appreciate the fact that there are at least two good ways to find car parts on the internet

Based on a search for a part I recently had to replace in my car, they are different-enough from each other that they might be good for different needs.

See my previous post for how I used Junkyard Dog. Car-Part.com provides a list of dealers and prices, instead, and includes new parts.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Corrected URL to link in Item 4.

Another 'Eight Glasses of Water a Day'

2026-02-26T08:17:33.347-06:00

By coincidence, two items I ran across this morning reminded me of unsolicited medical advice, and I hadn't even gotten to Trump's latest lunatic cabinet nominee.

Although I walk for an hour most days of the week, I had no idea that I was "supposed" to be taking 10,000 steps a day. (Maybe hectoring everyone over this is part of why Bobby K pushes "wearables.")

I'd heard the number before, but not being prone to health fads, I never bothered to look into it, and probably would have blown off anyone who suggested it.

Nevertheless, it's a thing, and it's been debunked:

Walking seems an unlikely exercise to generate debate. But as you point out, that's exactly what happened with the near-mythic 10,000 steps. This number was interpreted as the ideal amount of walking per day. That number actually comes from a Japanese advertising campaign that, in 1965, promoted a brand of pedometer. More recent studies have challenged the 10,000 steps, coming in both lower and higher. Now, new research suggests it's not total steps that matter most to heart health. It's the length of time spent walking at a steady pace that is most important. [bold added]

The two physicians addressing this claim explain more of the research support and reasoning behind that statement at the above link.

Before you say Good, now I won't have to hear that one any more, don't forget that eight glasses of water a day! has been debunked for quite some time, with periodic reminders bubbling up in the press now and again ... and again and again.

So, yes, you will hear get to hear that again.

For anyone who has trouble shutting down the kinds of nostrums MAHA wants you to hear about nonstop, the other, related piece I bumped into offers a graceful way to brush off unsolicited medical advice from the well-meaning. For more persistent types, the grey rock method might come in handy, but I hope it doesn't come to that for you.

-- CAV

Somin on Trump's New, Also Illegal Tariffs

2026-02-25T07:30:00.000-06:00

Writing in the Boston Globe, Ilya Somin, who helped bring down Trump's IEEPA tariffs, explains why Trump's latest power grab would "undermine the constitutional system almost as much as the earlier tariffs did."

It's a relatively short piece, but I'll pass along two highlights.

First, the new Section 122 tariffs are illegal and Trump knows they are:

Shortly after the court's decision, Trump issued a proclamation invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose 10 percent global tariffs. The next day, he increased the rate to 15 percent -- though as of Tuesday, the administration implemented only 10 percent tariffs. Section 122 only permits tariffs for up to 150 days in response to "fundamental international payments problems" that cause "large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits" or "an imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar," or are to cooperate with other countries in addressing an "international balance-of-payments disequilibrium."

As conservative legal commentator Andrew McCarthy explained in National Review, none of these legal preconditions to the use of Section 122 exist. Nor is the scheme part of some plan of international cooperation.

...

Trump's proclamation imposing the Section 122 tariffs cites trade deficits as a justification. But as the Trump administration itself argued in the IEEPA case, Section 122 does not apply to trade deficits. In fact, that is one reason why the administration wanted to use IEEPA to impose the tariffs. [links omitted, bold added]

Second -- and my best guess as to why the new tariffs are "almost" as bad as the old -- is that there is a numeric limit of 15% in Section 122.

That said, while 15% is lower than some of Trump's IEEPA tariffs, it isn't really much of a limit, given how loosely Trump is interpreting the law -- on top of blatantly ignoring the fact that the required conditions for using it haven't even been met:

Justice Neil Gorsuch's concurring opinion in the IEEPA case also relied on the nondelegation doctrine, which limits the extent to which Congress can delegate its authority to executive discretion. The limits of delegation are far from clear. But the Supreme Court held last year that a delegation of authority to impose taxes or fees must have a "floor" and a "ceiling" and that the degree of "guidance" required from Congress is greater "when an agency action will 'affect the entire national economy' than when it addresses a narrow, technical issue." The power to impose 15 percent tariffs -- the highest tariffs since the disastrous Smoot-Hawley tariffs that exacerbated the Great Depression -- is unquestionably one that affects the "entire national economy." And Trump's permissive interpretation of the law would let him impose those rates at almost any time. [link omitted, bold added]

As Somin indicates, the new tariffs will likely be challenged soon. It will be interesting to see if and when the courts enjoin them, given the fact that companies already feel the need to sue to recover the money this Administration looted from them last time.

-- CAV

P.S. I hear Trump bloviated/demonized immigrants/tossed red meat to his base last night. The lengthy transcript is here for anyone who is interested. I read a few sections, and it looks to be about what one would expect.

To wit, Trump asked for another participation ribbon after casting himself as the one thing standing between us and doom: I've always wanted the Congressional Medal of Honor, but I was informed I'm not allowed to give it to myself...

This loser -- whom congressional Republicans refuse to corral -- just cannot allow anyone else, even an actual winner, enjoy the limelight for even a few seconds.

Trump's IEEPA Loot Return Scandal

2026-02-24T08:18:00.003-06:00

"Let's all please stop calling the $175B+ 'proceeds,' 'revenue,' or the like. It is ill-gotten. Call it what it is: LOOT." -- Me

***

I no longer recall where I heard this, but a factor in the courts not stopping the Trump Administration from collecting IEEPA tariffs while the legal system chugged along was, I believe, a promise on its part to refund the loot should the taxes be ruled unconstitutional.

There are rumblings about this being "difficult" and taking a long time.

This is as ridiculous as calling the loot by any other name, as Joseph Calhoun of Alhambra argues bluntly:

As an aside, let me say that a lot of the commentary I saw on the refund issue Friday was the most idiotic I've seen in a long time. I saw multiple comments to the effect that it would be hard to refund the tariffs since we don't know who actually paid them. Anyone making that argument should automatically forfeit their right to debate anything about trade policy ever again, in perpetuity. Let me be very, very clear about this. The refunds will go to the people or entities who actually wrote the check for the tariffs (or authorized the EFT or sent a wire, whatever). The refund has nothing to do with the incidence of the tax, who bears its ultimate burden. A foreign company that reduces its border price so the cost to its US customers remains the same post tariff is, in a sense, "paying" for the tariff. But the entity that is owed a refund is still the US company that imported the item, sent payment to US Customs and Border Protection for the tariff and collected the goods from customs. There is no other right legal answer. [bold added]

Thank you, Mr. Calhoun.

I'll close by naming the all too predictable scandal to come, with the example I gave after the above quote of the use of the word loot in a sentence:

After SCOTUS found the IEEPA tariffs unconstitutional, Trump dragged his feet on repaying the LOOT back to his victims.

On top of this scandal, those who lost businesses and livelihoods to Trump's mad whims cannot took forward even to that remote possibility, although there will be some Trump will attempt to pay off with loot aquired from others through past taxes and future inflation.

-- CAV

SCOTUS Correctly Dumps IEEPA Tariffs

2026-02-23T08:22:00.000-06:00

Friday, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling on the dubious legality of Trump's "emergency" tariffs, which the President claimed the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) empowered him to levy:

A 6-3 Supreme Court majority on Friday struck down President Trump's sweeping emergency tariffs (Learning Resources v. Trump) in a monumental vindication of the Constitution's separation of powers. You might call it the real tariff Liberation Day.

It's hard to overstate the importance of the Court's decision for the law and the economy. Had Mr. Trump prevailed, future Presidents could have used emergency powers to bypass Congress and impose border taxes with little constraint.

As Chief Justice John Roberts explains in the majority opinion, "Recognizing the taxing power's unique importance, and having just fought a revolution motivated in large part by 'taxation without representation,' the Framers gave Congress 'alone ... access to the pockets of the people.'" [link removed]

I agree with Yaron Brook that the ruling, while imperfect, is very good news in that it upholds rule of law in the short term, and with David French that it cannot, alone, save our Republic:

During Trump's second term, I've likened the judiciary to the rear guard of a retreating army. A valiant delaying action can give the army a chance to reinforce, reorganize and strike back. But if the army can't strike back, then rear guards merely delay defeat.

The judiciary isn't perfect, but it is performing its core constitutional function. It is preserving the foundation of America's constitutional structure. But not even the Supreme Court can save Americans from themselves.

If we keep electing men like Trump, they will keep undermining that foundation, until it finally collapses.

One day that may well happen. But on Friday, the Supreme Court said not this day. On this day the presidency is stuffed back into its box. On this day the separation of powers prevails. And on this day the Constitution holds.

It is now our job to make sure that the Supreme Court did not stand in vain.

Those interested in legal analysis would do well to read Ilya Somin's piece about the ruling in The Atlantic, where one of the counsels in one of the three cases briefly explains the reasoning presented by the concurring and dissenting justices.

Yaron Brook discusses the ruling.

This Brook does as well in his commentary, embedded above, spending time delving into Gorsuch's opinion, which was the most devastating to the tariffs, as well as being about as good as one could expect in today's intellectual context.

-- CAV

Blog Roundup

2026-02-20T07:19:00.002-06:00

A Friday Hodgepodge

1. "False: All Claims, Positive or Negative, Require Evidence," by Harry Binswanger (Value for Value):

To know, even to know that something might be the case, is to have formed a valid mental product; it takes the means of doing so. Evidence is that means. No evidence, no means of cognition. No means of cognition, no cognition.

The positive/negative distinction does apply to acts of consciousness: not accepting an idea (a negative) isn't an act at all. It's the commitment of your consciousness that needs justification. The not making of that commitment isn't a disguised commitment.

Atheism is not the belief in non-God. It's not a belief in anything; it's the rejection of belief.

The usual way of defending atheism is wrong. The defense is not: "I don't need a reason to accept atheism, but they need a reason to accept theism." The deepest explanation is: atheism isn't a belief; it isn't something you accept. Atheism is the refusal to accept nonsense stories.

480 words/2 minutes

2. "In Defense of 'Evil Billionaire' Jim Pattison," by Jaana Woiceshyn (How to Be Profitable and Moral):

The worst part of [Green Party leader Emily] Lowan's immoral argument is that it completely ignores the value Pattison's grocery businesses create, not only to him but to his customers (who can shop for plentiful food at local stores), to 59,000 employees (with well-paying jobs across all his companies), and to other businesses who can thrive in areas with value-creating grocery stores.

The anti-capitalist activists use the same arguments not only against grocery stores but against all successful businesses while ignoring the huge role business plays in making our lives better by producing and trading products and services that we need. Penalizing and destroying businesses would make our lives miserable and much poorer.

900 words/3 minutes

3. "The Lawyers Defending Trump's Tariffs Know They're Un-American. Here's How We Can Tell" (November 2025), by Ben Bayer (New Ideal):

Originalism is appealing to those who revere America's Founding Fathers and documents. But too many slip back and forth between thinking that the founders are to be revered because they did something great, and because they represent preserved, long-held tradition. Trump's "originalist" apologists exploit this ambiguity and cash in on the tradition worship, with the effect of negating what actually made the founders great: they overthrew the authority of the king on the basis of revolutionary philosophy that would liberate mankind from shackles. In their desperation to justify Trump's tariff powers, Trump's apologists reveal a willingness to trample on that revolution and reinstitute a monarchy. [footnotes omitted]

3000 words/10 minutes

4. "One Quick Question," by Harry Binswanger (Harry Binswanger Substack):

Crime is a problem. Crime by foreigners in the U.S. is a part of that problem. Crime by foreigners illegally in the U.S. is a part of that part.

Criminals, whether illegals or citizens, have guns and confederates. ICE agents have assault weapons, SWAT gear, and an organization of tens of thousands.

Criminals are condemned by everyone. They are outlaws, operating in the shadows. ICE agents have a moral sanction. ICE was set up by the U.S. Congress. It is funded by Congress. Half the country think ICE agents are doing God's work. Or they did until the recent killings.

310 words/1 minute

-- CAV

Savvy Answers to Stupid Questions

2026-02-19T07:45:00.001-06:00

Writing at Comstock's, Suzanne Lucas tackles clueless/illegal job interview questions, prompted by the situation she uses in her title "I Was Asked My Zodiac Sign During a Job Interview. Should I Be Worried?"

Although she focuses on job interviews, and the other questions would be ordinary in other circumstances, I like Lucas's recommendation for how to answer the title question regardless of that context.

If someone actually takes astrology seriously, that is indeed something I'd want to know about that person, as it likely reflects poor judgment, at least about some things.

Here's the full question and Lucas's answer:

I had a second-round interview at a top-tier company, and the final question completely threw me off: "What's your astrological sign?" It felt unprofessional and, honestly, a bit disrespectful for a serious interview. Curious [about] your thoughts -- red flag or harmless curveball?

Answer: Yes.

The average manager only interviews people about once a year, so they might not know what they're doing when it comes to this (perhaps dreaded) duty. This doesn't mean they're a bad boss or that the company isn't a good one.

In your case, it could mean that this person will be a nightmare boss who checks their horoscope each morning and assigns work based on the predictions. Or it could mean they're nervous and making small talk. It's hard to tell off this one question.

...

There are a couple of great ways to answer this. One is to play it straight and tell your sign. If you say "Aquarius," and the interviewer says, "I KNEW it!! You part your hair on the left!" then you've just learned something very valuable: This manager will rely on silly things to make decisions.

If they reply with something nonchalant, like "Cool," or "Oh, I'm a Libra," then follow up: "Why do you ask?"

...

That said, do you want to work for a company that hires based on the zodiac?

(Conversely, you don't want to write off a job just because someone asked a silly question.)

Lucas's answer shows a way to find out if such questions are serious, or perhaps just tone-deaf attempts at small talk. Lucas's last sentence above shows why it is important to take advantage of such a question in a high-stakes situation.

Whether someone else has nutty beliefs isn't always important, but it's easy to come up with other times one might appreciate knowing about them before they become relevant or have the chance to do so.

-- CAV

P.S. My post title was inspired by my childhood hobby of reading my Dad's old collection of Mad magazines, which carried a feature called, Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions.

Lucas's piece will prompt us to resist the temptation of a smart alec answer and go for knowledge instead.

Trump Begs Questions on Elections

2026-02-18T08:26:00.002-06:00

The fact that President Trump wants to "nationalize" elections immediately raises the question of Why? His pouting for years about his 2020 loss leaves no doubt that he wants to change something about how we conduct our elections. In his mind, he should have won, and by his words, we are to believe he wants to make these "rigged" elections more "fair."

For anyone who has better things to do than listen to whining, but is concerned about what such an openly corrupt politician might want to do, George Will has a nice primer on what is going on.

Spoiler alert: Trump is indeed up to no good. After recounting Trump's indulgence in conspiracism on the matter, Will engages with some facts:

Someone should read to him "Lost, Not Stolen," [pdf] a 2022 report by eight conservatives (two former Republican senators, three former federal appellate judges, a former Republican solicitor general, and two Republican election law specialists). They examined all 187 counts in the 64 court challenges filed in multiple states by Trump and his supporters.

Twenty cases were dismissed before hearings on their merits, 14 were voluntarily dismissed by Trump and his supporters before hearings. Of the 30 that reached hearings on the merits, Trump's side prevailed in only one, Pennsylvania, involving far too few votes to change the state's result. Trump's batting average? .016. In Arizona, the most exhaustively scrutinized state, a private firm selected by Trump's advocates confirmed Trump's loss, finding 99 additional Biden votes and 261 fewer Trump votes. [link and italics in original. Bold added.

Trump, who started his term with the sound and fury of an entire agency allegedly devoted to combating fraud and waste in government, surely has better things to spend his political capital and your tax capital on than "fixing" a clearly functional system -- if, that is, by fixing, one means "causing to work as intended."

"I just want to find 11,780 votes." -- Presdent Donald Trump

As for myself, I'll view this in light of his famously pressuring an official in Georgia to "find 11,780 votes."

-- CAV

Can the Pardon Power Be Fixed Quickly?

2026-02-17T07:46:00.000-06:00

According to reports, Representative Don Bacon (R-NE) has agreed to cosponsor a constitutional amendment that would give Congress oversight over presidential pardons -- apart from the existing remedy of impeaching the President, of course:

The bill was introduced by Rep. Johnny Olszewski (D-MD) last December and would allow for a minimum of 20 House members and five senators to call for congressional review of a pardon, which would lead to a 60-day deadline for Congress to nullify that pardon with a two-thirds majority vote -- similar to a veto override.

While I think the proper solution to Trump's blatant abuse of this power would be his impeachment and removal from office, this measure strikes me as a reasonable middle ground between eliminating that power altogether and having to clear the normally very high bar of impeachment to address less flagrant or obvious cases of abuse or error.

It is interesting to consider the amendment process for the Constitution, as well as history to evaluate the viability of this solution:

Under Article V, a proposal for an amendment must be adopted either by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or by a national convention that had been requested by two-thirds of the state legislatures. Following this, Congress decides whether the proposed amendment is to be ratified by state legislatures or state ratifying conventions. The proposed amendment along with the method of ratification is sent to the Office of the Federal Register, which copies it in slip law format and submits it to the states. To date, the convention method of proposal has never been tried and the convention method of ratification has only been used once, for the Twenty-first Amendment.

A proposed amendment becomes an operative part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (currently 38 of the 50 states). No additional action by Congress or anyone else after ratification is required... [links and footnotes omitted, bold added]

While, historically, most amendments have taken years to be ratified, there is precedent for a rapid-enough process to do some good during Trump's term:

The Twenty-sixth Amendment (Amendment XXVI) to the United States Constitution establishes a nationally standardized minimum age of 18 for participation in state and federal elections. It was proposed by Congress on March 23, 1971, and three-fourths of the states ratified it by July 1, 1971.

That's three months from start to finish.

That noted, it is relevant that those in favor of the lower voting age had worked over most of a decade to curry widespread support for such a measure. As ill-informed and indifferent as most American voters are, and as normalized as corruption has become in American politics, it is hard for me to imagine enough outrage over Trump's pardons to cause this proposed amendment to be ratified during Trump's term.

That said, my off-the-cuff opinion is Go for it, anyway and better late than never.

-- CAV

In Effect, There Is No GOP

2026-02-16T07:22:00.000-06:00

A Reason piece by Eric Boehm should give pause to anyone still under the illusion that a Republican majority in Congress serves any useful purpose when it comes to protecting economic freedom, let alone expanding it:

The first of the two key House votes this week came on Tuesday night, when lawmakers narrowly voted to clear the way for resolutions directly challenging Trump's tariff powers, as Reason's Jack Nicastro detailed. That was followed by a vote on Wednesday to disapprove of tariffs on Canadian imports -- the first of what could be several similar resolutions brought to the floor in the coming weeks and months.

Opponents of the tariffs technically won both votes, thanks to a small faction of Republicans who broke ranks. But the margins were so thin that a presidential veto seems inevitable and likely insurmountable.

"This is a fruitless exercise and a pointless one, and I'm disappointed in it," Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R -- La.) said shortly after the second vote.

If it were a pointless exercise, the blame does not lie with the six Republicans who voted to end the tariffs on Canada. It lies with Republicans like McClintock. [links removed, bold added]

McClintock (R-CA) is a self-described "tariff skeptic" who, like many other Republican representatives, nevertheless voted against both measures.

The rest of the piece will be informative for people who haven't paid much attention to the havoc tariffs are wreaking on the economy, or the fact that this administration has all but admitted they are harmful, and yet won't quit them.

On that latter point:

"Reports of tariff carve-outs offered to win votes against the tariff resolution and of discussions about rolling back the steel and aluminum tariffs are both clear signs the Trump administration is increasingly aware of the damage its signature tariff policy is doing," noted Erika York, vice president of federal tax policy at the Tax Foundation.

[We also see] what little regard the executive branch has for Congress. The Constitution vests trade and taxing power with the legislative branch. Trump's use of emergency powers to set tariffs on imports from Canada (and lots of other places) is subject to serious constitutional questions. But even against that backdrop, the administration views Congress as caring so little about its power that lawmakers can be easily bought off. [links omitted, bold added]

The only reason this independent voter saw for usually voting for Republicans was that I viewed them as more likely to support or enact policies that protected or expanded economic freedom. Absent that, and faced with the obvious prospect that this party isn't going to do anything to contain the lunacy of our President, why on earth should I do anything but vote Democrat this November?

-- CAV

Four How-Tos

2026-02-13T08:40:00.001-06:00

A Friday Hodgepodge

1. Alison Green has some thoughts on what to do about being repeatedly proselytized to while undergoing medical procedures:

The tech is representing the medical practice and the doctor; she's not there to proselytize, and you're not there to be proselytized to. It would be wildly inappropriate under any circumstances, but the fact that she persisted after you asked her to stop makes it even worse.

Tell your doctor what happened. Say it was frequent and persistent, and she didn't stop after you asked her to, and say that you don't come there to be proselytized at.

Some commenters recommend going to professional bodies or regulatory agencies if speaking to the doctor isn't enough. That has merit, but I'd also switch providers after that, if possible.

2. I dislike shoe laces because of how frequently they come undone, and double knots give me the opposite problem. I usually go for loafers or the new type of tennis shoe that doesn't require tying, but the next time I have to deal with laces, I'm trying the Berluti knot, which looks easy to learn, and will both stay tied and be easy to release.

3. If you cook, you might sometimes have to deal with wilted scallions. A MyRecipes post can help with that:

If your scallions do start to wilt and lose that crisp texture, you can shock them back to life. "Soak root ends in cold water for an hour to revive," explains Gunders. (Pro tip? Putting wilted produce in cold water is an easy way to bring a lot of different vegetables and herbs back to life.)

I don't have this problem often, but if you do, the same post also has tips on preventing this altogether.

4. Someone gave me a gift membership to AARP, which caused my junk mail to go from zero to sixty in no time flat.

This induced me to discover that there is a way to cut down on junk mail akin to the National Do Not Call Registry.

I think I'll give that a try.

-- CAV

Use 'Company Ready' to Get to 'You Ready'

2026-02-12T08:26:00.002-06:00

Over at the Unfuck Your Habitat home cleaning site is a post whose general sentiment I agree with, but to which I will add my two cents on implementation.

Yes. "You Ready" is better than "Company Ready" as an overall goal for home cleanliness for moral and practical reasons -- not to mention inspiring some thought on the role of altruism in causing the cycle of messiness and panic cleaning this post alludes to.

But I disagree with bolded part of the otherwise strong closing:

Focus on making your house "you ready." Bring it, gradually, up to your standards of cleanliness. Make it so that you're comfortable, and so that you enjoy looking around your home. When you reach that point, your house will always be company ready. You're the most important person who will step through your door. Try to make your living space reflect that. [bold added]

Sometimes life will get in the way of that.

For example, my wife recently invited a colleague and her young family over to our home since we're along a Mardi Gras parade route. We're in the middle of moving our daughter out of our downstairs guest room and into her permanent room upstairs and not fully out of our moving boxes. This was on top of us being very cluttered from a busy period.

This would have been embarrassing on short notice, but there was enough lead time that it was easy to combine the push to get the house uncluttered again with getting a few things in better shape to move our daughter and -- my big win here -- finally getting the area around our side entrance straightened out.

The side area was cluttered, but workable enough that I could prioritize other things, but I was always low-grade annoyed with it. Now, it has a functioning landing zone for the kids to put their school things and shoes away, and the coat closet, now being easy to reach, can keep the coat rack uncluttered. Oh, and my daughter's trombone has its own little corner now, and won't be getting knocked over anymore.

More generally, I think some amount of tidying is probably always necessary ahead of any lengthy visit, but this will decrease over time.

As part of prepping for guests and gradually getting one's house up to standards, I like to approach every tidying-up as a chance to make a big improvement I've been wanting, but haven't gotten around to.

-- CAV

P.S. I thought of another issue regarding that area I straightened out: One can acclimatize to a mess and become "blind" to it over time. If I recall correctly, the author of UFYH recommends using photographs to overcome this, but I think the prospect of guests coming can help cure this kind of "blindness," too.

Trump's 'Golden Age' Comes Early to Idaho

2026-02-11T08:35:00.001-06:00

Cropped screenshot of ICE Activity Tracker taken by the author about 8:00 a.m. on February 11, 2026.

A town in Idaho, whose residents went 91% for Trump in 2024, is being devastated by ICE raids, which are hardly exclusive to large, blue cities. A quick check on the crowd-sourced ICE Activity Tracker, as illustrated at right, is all it takes to show the nationwide scope of the raids.

Masked thugs recently conducted a "gambling" raid on a racetrack near the town. Among other things, the "agents" asked everyone where they were from, set off flash-bang grenades, ziptied children, and rounded up scores of the farmworkers locals regularly hired for harvests

Now that the town's field workers have all gone into hiding or been deported, it faces an uncertain and wary future:

John Carter runs a security company that worked at the racetrack, and he's a Trump supporter himself. But what he saw that day shook him up. He watched agents point automatic rifles at people and set off flash-bang grenades while arresting Ivan Tellez, who allegedly operated the track.

...

Carter's own 14-year-old daughter was there. She got zip-tied, too. He saw officers pointing guns at teenagers. The whole thing felt less like a law enforcement operation and more like a military raid.

...

The raid left a mark that goes beyond the people who got deported. Gross mentioned that now, when anyone -- Hispanic or not -- sees a black SUV driving through town, they freeze up. There's this constant low-level anxiety hanging over Wilder. Alex Zamora, the school superintendent, summed up how a lot of people feel: 'There was just such confusion. What in the world is going on in Wilder?'

The farmers are staring down a real problem. Without enough workers, crops could end up rotting in the fields. The people who know how to do this work are either gone or too frightened to come out.

The piece adds, "Supporting strict immigration laws is one thing when it's abstract. It's another thing entirely when your neighbour gets deported and there's nobody left to harvest the fields."

Maybe consider thinking about what your slogans mean in practice, next time. Perhaps look harder at the person you imagine you want in power, and who he surrounds himself with.

While it may be true that Trump punishes his political enemies, it is also apparent that he pretty much treats everyone the same rotten way, sooner or later.

As tempted as I am to smirk and say, You asked for it, the fact remains that their problem is our problem. Perhaps a few Trump supporters here and there will wake up before it's too late.

-- CAV

P.S. "Irishman detained by ICE agents describes 'torture' after five months in prison camp despite living in US 20 years, having an American wife and no criminal record." Hispanic or not, indeed.

Trump Doing It Again in Texas

2026-02-10T07:23:00.000-06:00

Donald Trump, who has a history -- once memorably summed up in "Donald Trump Is a Loser", by John Sununu -- of screwing his own party out of Senate seats, is up to his old M.O. in Texas:

As a result of Trump's reluctance to endorse, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas has been drawn into a nasty, and expensive, primary challenge with MAGA fave Ken Paxton. In September last year, Team Cornyn rolled out an ad campaign coloring his scandal-prone fellow Republican as crooked. Months later, and Trump has not endorsed Cornyn or the Texas attorney general who is hoping to oust him.

...

If Paxton were the Republican nominee, it would take a lot more money than usual to keep that Texas Senate seat. People involved in the race estimate it would cost about $100 million extra, because Paxton would need heavy advertising to stay competitive.

Internal polling, the Post reported, showed Cornyn leading Paxton. Paxton, crucially, is also lagging behind Texas state Rep. James Talarico and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett on the Democratic side. Talarico or Crockett winning a general election would be a costly misstep caused by Trump's inaction, if it were to come to fruition. [links omitted, bold added]

As the article indicates, Trump is also screwing over a Senator in neighboring Louisiana, although the state party there changed an election law to help the "man" who violated his Hippocratic Oath en route to confirming Bobby Kennedy as HHS Secretary.

The piece leads with the claim, "Republicans secretly fuming with Trump as midterm disaster looms."

Why not all come out in the open about this now, before it's too late to save your own skins and perhaps your party? The people, not Trump and his cronies, are your bosses, after all.

It is a shame both parties can't lose this year. The Dems are awful, but if I can't see anyone in his party getting control of Trump, I guess I'll have to look to the Democrats this November.

-- CAV

A ... Superb Owl ... Palate-Cleanser

2026-02-09T07:50:00.000-06:00

To skip the rant, follow the very last link below...

This year, I half-watched the Super Bowl -- or the "Superb Owl" as I like to call it -- and was somehow blissfully unaware of the high dudgeon about the halftime show -- until my daughter mentioned that an "anti-Trump singer" would be performing.

A quick search refreshed my vague memory about some counter-show by MAGA, and I assumed that the official show would be a left-wing singer (natch) who would be more insufferable than usual. To be fair, it could have been anyone, and MAGA would carry on the same way if only Trump pouted about it enough.

(For the record, I have no issue with a Puerto Rican singing at the Super Bowl, and he has freedom of speech. I am not sure I'd agree with much of what he had to say, but even if I did, I don't watch sports events hoping to be harrangued about politics. That said, the left is on the better side of ICE/immigration, but is trying its best to find a way to make it off-putting, while packaging it with anti-Americanism.)

Neither "side" in this squabble speaks for me or understands America.

I didn't care much about the game and spent much of the first half and most of half-time cooking dinner. What little I saw of the halftime show was slightly less annoying than others of recent memory in part because I don't understand much Spanish, which I took to be a feature rather than a bug.

The counter-show apparently had even less artistic merit and was equally predictable sermonizing from Turning Point USA. I am not a Christian and I don't care for Kid Rock or country music. Ugh. At least one of Bad Bunny's songs had an interesting rhythm.

As a palate cleanser that has the virtue of being an effective, thought-provoking comment on ICE/immigration, let me recommend Harry Binswanger's latest Substack post, which asks and succinctly answers the following question: "Which is the greater threat -- illegal aliens or ICE agents?"

I suspect that at least one of my Trump-supporting brothers boycotted the Super Bowl this year, and I am impressed enough that I might point it to him, it is that directly on point in only about 300 words.

Either way, this is one to have in the quiver considering how dangerous these lawless, masked people are. Any thoughtful, persuadable person who is concerned about this issue would appreciate the clarity on offer.

-- CAV

Four Things to Review

2026-02-06T07:35:00.000-06:00

A Friday Hodgepodge

When I stumble across possibly useful things on the web, I'll bookmark them with a to-do tag to look at later. Here are a few you might also find useful.

1. If you need to get a quick weather forecast for the week ahead, the National Weather Service is good, as long as you're in the U.S.

But for anywhere else, you might feel stuck with how slow and resource-hogging the bigger commercial sites have gotten.

You might find timeanddate (same example for comparison, but scroll down for week; here's Paris) to be a relief if you want your "quick check" of the weather to be quick.

The site also provides lots of other information, like sunrise/sunset, time zone information, and moon phases.

2. They aren't all underground websites (unless can't find with Google is your criterion), but many of these "useful underground websites" look promising.

I didn't find timeanddate here, although I bet it shows up, and I can't vouch for many of these as going through this remains on the to-do list...

3. I was a submariner in a past life, and on that basis alone would recommend going through The Rickover Corpus, which is an archive of the speeches and memos of the father of America's nuclear navy.

The commenters on this thread at Hacker News would seem to agree that it is worthwhile.

4. On some preliminary inspection, I'm not sure how useful this thread on tricks of the trade that folks in technology think they "took too long to learn" will be. That said, a couple of things keep it on the list for perusal during a walk some time, so I'll log it here, too.

-- CAV

'Out of Touch' Advice Can Be Worse Than Rude

2026-02-05T09:14:00.000-06:00

Over at Ask a Manager, someone asks about a bit of advice I once got twenty years ago and also dismissed: Show up at potential employers and hand-deliver a printed-out resume!

While almost anyone hearing this will laugh and move on, it is worthwhile to read Alison Green's complete demolition because it shows the value of taking the time to understand and evaluate advice

Green replies in part:

First, they're highly likely to just tell you that you need to apply online ... because you do in fact need to apply online. As has been the case for a long time now, most organizations use electronic applicant tracking systems. If your application isn't in there, it's not getting considered.

Second, with the rise in remote work, a ton of people don't even work at companies' main addresses anymore. There may not be anyone involved in hiring for the position even physically there. And even if they're there, they're generally going to be very busy and aren't going to come out and talk to you just because you randomly showed up holding a resume -- so anyone you do talk to is incredibly unlikely to have anything to do with hiring for that particular job.

Third, it will still annoy the crap out of most people involved in hiring and make you look naive/out of touch at best ... and at worst, like you don't think instructions apply to you. Their instructions are there for a reason. [bold added]

Alison goes a bit further to note that the time spent on such an exercise would be better-spent doing much more effective things.

In addition to showing a disregard for the potential employer, blindly following the advice would hinder one's own progress in other ways on top of that.

Sometimes, one can see how ridiculous an idea is by imagining how implementing it would work out, but if in doubt, do as the letter-writer did and seek out a more experienced third party you respect.

-- CAV

Trump Effs Around, and an American Sector Finds Out

2026-02-04T08:13:00.001-06:00

Over at Reason, two articles show in general and specific terms how Donald Trump's ignorant and unprovoked trade war is backfiring.

The first of these is a piece about just three things the President got wrong -- Life is short. -- in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed in which he took a pretend victory lap.

He was far from perfect, but on top of being correct, Ronald Reagan builds more broad-based political momentum in one six minute address than Trump has built (or can build) in eons of name-calling and chain-yanking.

Although everyone except Trump and his yes-men understand that trade deficits are not, in fact, a problem, the below is my "favorite," since a major stated premise for imposing illegal import taxes is to "fix" this "problem:"

Trump's op-ed claims that he has "slashed our monthly trade deficit by an astonishing 77%."

That would be astonishing. But in reality, the Census Bureau reported last week that the trade deficit increased -- not decreased -- by nearly 37 percent in November, the most recent month for which data are available. Through the first 11 months of 2025, the trade deficit was 4 percent higher than it had been in 2024. That is literally the opposite of what Trump is claiming.

It's somewhat astonishing that the Journal allowed such a wildly misleading claim to appear in its pages. Someone really should have fact-checked this before it went to print. [links in original, bold added]

The second describes how the combination of Trump's tariffs, his continuous insults aimed at our neighbors to the north, and the fact that, strangely enough, people who are treated badly often return the favor, have wreaked havoc on American wineries and distilleries, who used to enjoy brisk trade with Canada -- the top export destination for their products:

As reported by The Independent, large distilling companies like Brown-Forman Corporation (producer of Jack Daniel's) have seen their organic net sales to Canada plummet by 60 percent in the first half of the 2026 fiscal year. Jim Beam faced such a significant drop in sales from both the Canadian boycott and the general drying up of its international markets on account of the tariff wars that it suspended production entirely at its flagship plant.

According to The Independent, smaller distillers in states like Minnesota have suffered 70 percent declines in sales and have been forced to ship production to Canada by working with Canadian contract distillers. The result, in turn, is fewer U.S.-based manufacturing jobs and more Canadian-based jobs. [links in original, bold added]

MAGA, blinded by its confusion of rank bullying with decisiveness and masculinity, is fond of the motto, FAFO.

Too bad that motto applies to our economy due to one clueless dolt effing around, while his lackeys in Congress sit on their hands, leaving us all to find out.

-- CAV

Trump's Magical Thinking on Credit

2026-02-03T06:56:00.000-06:00

David Harsanyi rightly calls out Trump's demagoguery on credit card rates by likening them to the anti-capitalist rhetoric and price control policies of New York's new, socialist mayor:

Banks are businesses, after all, not charities.

Image from Ways and Means Democrats.
But if banks lose out charging riskier customers lower interest rates to get on the good side of the administration, they'll simply raise fees elsewhere, pull back on rewards and find other creative ways to make their reliable consumers pay.

Price-fixing never alleviates cost -- it merely displaces it.

Take Mamdani, the socialist mayor of New York, as he "cracks down," as one travel magazine referred to it, on "junk fees" in city hotels.

"Junk" is just a description of a cost that consumers and politicians have arbitrarily decided shouldn't be paid.

But they will be: Hotels will almost inevitably raise prices elsewhere or decrease services to make up for it.

Economic magical thinking never dies, however, because it's tethered to envy and anger rather than rationality.

Harsanyi even follows this with a quote from Thomas Sowell, whom I am tempted to call "The Forgotten Man of the Right," although that might be debatable, as some Democrats, at least, seem to remember him fondly.

My one criticism of this fine piece is that I wish it had explicitly stated the underlying economic principle, that price controls cause shortages. But then again, perhaps Harsanyi knows that his audience will be able to figure it out, while the rest won't, or won't care.

-- CAV