Confront the Obesity Crisis with Personal Responsibility, Not Technocracy

(adrian825/Getty Images)

Is obesity imposed on victims by nefarious outside forces? That’s what “health journalist” Julia Belluz argues in the New York Times:

The three-day meeting was infused with an implicit understanding of what obesity is not: a personal failing. No presenter argued that humans collectively lost willpower around the 1980s, when obesity rates took off, first in high-income countries‌, then in much of the rest of the world. Not a single scientist said our genes changed in that short time. Laziness, gluttony‌‌ and sloth were not referred to as obesity’s helpers. In stark contrast to a prevailing societal view of obesity, which assumes people have full control over their body size, they didn’t blame individuals for their condition, the same way we don’t blame people suffering from the effects of undernutrition, like stunting and wasting.

The researchers instead referred to obesity as a complex, chronic condition, and they were meeting to get to the bottom of why humans have, collectively, grown larger over the past half century. To that end, they shared a range of mechanisms that might explain the global obesity surge. And their theories, however diverse, made one thing obvious: As long as we treat obesity as a personal responsibility issue, its prevalence is unlikely to decline.

But personal responsibility must play some role. Weight is something that is within the power of most people to influence. I look to my own life as an example. I have fought the weight battle much of my life, but that’s on me. I decide to overeat, and when I do, I gain weight. Sometimes, I eat because I am bored or anxious or because the food tastes so good. Conversely, when I discipline myself, I am able to lose weight or find a place of equipoise. No one stuffs food into my mouth. If I go back for seconds or thirds of Thanksgiving stuffing and pie, that’s on me.

The alternative to personal responsibility and individual agency is to assume that all problems are beyond one’s own control — and, thus, that we need some outside expert class to “help” us. Indeed, years ago, I wrote a piece noting that obesity was becoming the new global warming because the proposed solutions to both issues were very much the same: Coerce people out of their cars, destroy the meat industry, build more bicycle lanes, and regulate, regulate, regulate. Sure enough:

When I asked many of the researchers how they’d tackle obesity, given the uncertainties, they pointed to policies that would alter or regulate our environment, like outlawing junk food marketing to kids, banning vending machines in schools and making neighborhoods more walkable. They talked about changing the food system in ways that also address climate change — a related crisis once met with policy inertia that now has international momentum. But when it comes to obesity, governments are still accused of being nanny states if they try to intervene with regulation.

So it’s not surprising to see more examples of arguments that this problem demands not personal responsibility but protection by “the experts” within the warm embrace of an imposing technocracy.

Advocacy such as this is the real problem:

Until we see obesity as something that’s been imposed on societies, not as something individuals choose, the fat shaming, magic hacks and bad policies will continue. Until we stop blaming ourselves and one another and start focusing attention on environments and systems, the global obesity rate will continue its ascent — a trend no country has substantially reversed, not even in children‌.

No. Eschewing personal responsibility breeds dysfunction and dependency. The more we believe that our mistakes are beyond our control, the more mistakes we will make.


How to Know Why Shootings Happened


As you might have heard, the Club Q shooter is supposedly non-binary.

Jon Gabriel notes that a narrative update may be necessary, and posts his guide to such narratives:


Trump vs. DeSantis


A new YouGov poll captures what you’d intuit about the potential pitfalls of Trump and potential promise of DeSantis as general-election candidates:


Even the NHL Is Ridiculous Now


The NHL wasn’t going to be an early adopter of woke nonsense, but it has, inevitably, I guess, come along:


Outrageous: Biden Pardons Criminal Turkeys

The National Thanksgiving Turkeys “Chocolate” and “Chip” stand on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C., November 21, 2022. (Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters)

In what amounts to further abuse of the executive branch and its privileges, President Biden has pardoned not one but two turkeys, National Review reports. These fowl, using pseudonyms “Chocolate” and “Chip” to elicit sympathy from the Commander-in-Dotage, will be transferred to the North Carolina State pen to serve out the rest of their life sentences as turkeys. Guilty of crimes ranging from inciting riots to grand larceny and tom-foolery, not to mention the assault of the Whidbey Island weapons station and predation upon Seattle’s homeless, Messrs. Chocolate and Chip are the worst of their gaggle. Biden’s scheme will prevent the gobblers from paying for their crimes trussed up and golden brown on an autumnal runner as established in the Supreme Court’s 1797 Turcia v. Stuffing decision.  

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Ellsworth penned two centuries ago:

In matters of avian tyranny, homicide, and anarchy, we, the court, cannot find the same Eighth Amendment protections applicable, as turkeys refused representation under our government and constitution — young as it may be. It is then the regrettable duty of this court to view the genus Meleagris as foreign agents upon American soil and afford them only so much leniency as they show this fledgling nation.

The Court finds in favor of Stuffing.

One can only hope that a Tarheel fraternity might see justice done, busting those bum turkeys out of their unearned life of leisure and popping them in a frier for the needy and hungry of greater North Carolina — though such extralegal activity may ruffle the feathers of the turkeys’ gamecock brethren to the south should they catch wind.

PHOTOS: White House Turkeys

Politics & Policy

Here’s a California School That Performs Very Well — but Don’t Expect More Like It


In this Independent Institute piece, Professor Lee Ohanian writes about the Kairos School, a charter school in California that has great success with students. The school has a long waiting list.

Couldn’t more schools like Kairos be created? That’s what would happen under market competition. But this is the realm of education, under government control. More successful schools cannot be created without political approval. Ohanian explains: “The Kairos charter school recipe for success can be replicated. But a recent California law has made it difficult to form new charter schools. California Assembly Bill 1505, which passed in 2019 despite strong opposition from the Senate Republican Caucus, changed the approval process for new charter schools. Under AB 1505, an application for a new charter school can be denied if the charter would have a negative fiscal impact within the district.”

This is the education blob at work, stifling competition to protect itself.

Not only will more schools like Kairos not be forthcoming, but I fear that the “woke” mania will infect it and undermine educational standards.

Hat tip: Don Boudreaux


Danny Kalb

American band The Blues Project perform at the Apollo Theater in New York, circa 1965. (Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images)

I saw in the paper an obit for Danny Kalb, best known as guitarist with the Blues Project, but a considerable player before and for many years after that. His political trajectory was also interesting.

I met him early in the millennium at a book party for the urbanist Fred Siegel, whose friend he was. When I mentioned it to my wife, she said she had met him much longer ago — in 1965, the summer after her graduation from high school, on the Aurelia, a ship that carried students cheaply to Europe. Danny was half the entertainment. You could also sing madrigals with a chorus director from Antioch. Madrigals are wonderful, but Danny must have been better.

The Blues Project was a flare of the Greenwich Village folk revival, which I was just young enough to miss. Danny knew Bob Dylan when he was Zimmerman, and took guitar lessons from Dave Van Ronk (who reputedly threw him out one day when he played back a tricky riff after only one hearing). The Blues Project burned brightly for a season. Danny was famous for having tuned his guitar in the middle of a recording session, but making it sound like a bluesy squawk. Heaven was when Muddy Waters himself complimented their version of “Two Trains Running.”

Then it broke up, as many groups did. Danny played in clubs, at reunions, with other musicians. The musicians’ life. Bob Dylan won the Nobel Prize.

His parents’ communism was an element in the turbulence of his early days. He moved past it, but kept trying to integrate radicalism somehow with patriotism. He liked recounting how Dylan, whom he worshipped, gave his first post-fame Paris concert in front of an enormous American flag. Let the French lefties make of it what they would. On 9/11, Danny shared the general distress by calling and crying “No pasaran!” as if summoning La Pasionaria to smite Osama bin Laden.

He was demanding and difficult and I had to stop taking his many, many phone calls. But I will never forget the times I heard him play, once at one of his birthday parties, again for Jeanne and me when we visited him at his apartment. His voice was a growl, but he could put a song across. His guitar playing was peerless. He did “The Water Is Wide” at his party, “In My Time of Dying” for us.

Meet me, Jesus, meet me
In the middle of the air
If these wings should fail me
Won’t you meet me with another pair.

Politics & Policy

The President Is Abusing His Emergency Powers, and Congress Must Take Them Away

(tupungato/Getty Images)

Per CNN:

The Biden administration is yet again extending the pause on federal student loan payments, a benefit that began in March 2020 to help people who were struggling financially due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The extension comes as the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness program is tied up in the courts. Officials had told borrowers the forgiveness program, which is worth up to $20,000 in debt relief per borrower, would be implemented before loan payments were set to resume in January.

The payment pause will last until 60 days after the litigation is resolved. If the program has not been implemented and the litigation has not been resolved by June 30, payments will resume 60 days after that, according to the Department of Education.

That “yet again” is well deserved. Payments on federal student loans have now been “paused” for two and a half years — across two presidencies — on the grounds that (a) we are in the middle of an emergency, and (b) this emergency is materially hurting borrowers. At one point, this was arguable, albeit, in my estimation, unconvincing. Now, it is a joke. At this stage, the measure no longer represents a “pause” but a policy, and the “emergency” no longer resembles an emergency but an excuse. At the first opportunity, Congress must bring an end to the ruse.

Unlike with his flagrantly illegal attempt to “cancel” — read, transfer — student-loan debt, President Biden does have the statutory authority to defer student-loan repayments in case of emergency. But that authority relies entirely on there being an extant emergency in the first place, and, as the president himself has conceded, that emergency no longer exists. Why does he keep formally extending the declaration nevertheless? Simple. Because, given the makeup of Congress, that emergency declaration now represents the primary source of his power. With the emergency, he can keep student-loan repayments paused, expand Medicaid, and more. Without the emergency, he’s a lame duck.

Or, rather, without the emergency, he’s not a king but a president of the United States, as the role was envisioned under Articles I and II. Covid is over. And, because Covid is over, it is high time that Congress stepped in and told the president that enough is enough. Earlier this month, the Senate did just that, by 62–36. That measure, alas, is likely to die a quick death in the Nancy Pelosi–controlled House. But next year, when Pelosi is gone and her role is being played by a Republican, things may look a little different.

At the very least, lawmakers in both houses of the next Congress ought to vote again to end the declaration — even if they do not have sufficient support to override a veto. And, once they’ve done that, they should do so again and again and again, until they have successfully restored authority to their own branch. When the Senate voted to end the emergency last March, the tally was 48–47. By November, it was 62–36. At some point, that number will hit 67 — enough to overcome a veto — and, when it does, Congress will have a chance to restore our system of government to some semblance of normalcy. It must take that chance, and while it’s at it, it might consider scouring the statute books with an eye to trimming the vast reef of emergency powers that has developed without check over time, and which makes an ongoing mockery of our hallowed separation of powers.

Economy & Business

Today in Capital Matters: Welfare Reform and Unions


Matt Weidinger of the American Enterprise Institute writes about the need to reform welfare programs:

Fortunately, there’s a path out of this maze: Policy-makers can reorient safety-net programs away from simply staving off poverty toward helping struggling families achieve a brighter future. That’s what my AEI colleagues Angela Rachidi and Scott Winship and I argue in American Renewal, a just-released book co-edited by former House speaker Paul Ryan offering a full spectrum of conservative policy solutions.

We believe there can be no real societal renewal unless we first reform our country’s labyrinth of welfare programs.

In designing such reforms, policy-makers should reject the idea that the only way to help low-income Americans with limited opportunities is to redistribute more income from wealthier Americans, as many on the political left unconvincingly suggest.

I write about the efforts of freight-rail union president Jeremy Ferguson to portray unions as victims:

Ferguson acts as though he’s a powerless bystander in this process. He’s the president of a union that in September refused to make a tentative agreement based on the independent recommendations of the Biden-appointed presidential emergency board (PEB). Nine of the twelve unions covered by national bargaining made agreements based on it, but it wasn’t good enough for Ferguson and SMART-TD.

That refusal, along with the refusal of the BLET (the second-largest union) spurred the 20 hours of negotiations brokered by Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh that culminated in the White House Rose Garden celebration of a deal and headlines everywhere of “Rail Strike Averted” back in September. Unlike SMART-TD, though, BLET membership voted to approve the deal their president held out for.


The Left Relies on Statistical Illiteracy — and What We Should Do about It

(pickingpok/.Getty Images)

Leftists have a big bag of tricks to get people to go along with their agenda of social control. One of them is to create seemingly scientific arguments that bolster the need for more government, but which are built upon faulty statistics.

In today’s Martin Center article, David Randall of the National Association of Scholars addresses this serious problem. Randall writes, “In September 2022, three researchers published the provocatively titled article, ‘Do Introductory Courses Disproportionately Drive Minoritized Students Out of STEM Pathways?’ That article got loads of social media publicity for its conclusion that unequal withdrawal rates from STEM degree tracks are due to systemic racism.”

Horrors — more racism keeping “minoritized” students from good careers. Proof that America must be transformed. Right?

Wrong. Randall continues, “The scholarly article is bunk. Professor Lee Jussim, a man who has considerable experience in detecting scientific emperors without clothes, eviscerated it on Substack.”

Unfortunately, lots of clueless people believed the conclusion. Worse, such shoddy “research” now abounds in academia, nearly always done to propel “progressivism.”

Randall correctly observes, “The monolithic politicization of science and social-science professionals, alas, is likely to become worse. A growing minority of these professionals have become committed to addressing the intellectual and institutional failures that have led to the irreproducibility crisis, including politicized groupthink. At the same time, unfortunately, the radical advocates in charge of higher education have significantly tightened the politicization of the sciences and the social sciences.”

He suggests that we need to focus on providing the statistical training that will enable more people to spot and call out bogus research.

National Review

‘Really Cool Stuff on the Internet’


On this week’s episode of The Charles C. W. Cooke Podcast, I stop complaining for a moment and express some gratitude for my remarkable good fortune. I could have been born in Sparta in 400 b.c. But I wasn’t. I was born in the 1980s in the West. How lucky is that?

My guest this week is Ricky Cobb, of the Twitter account @Super70sSports, who tells me about his terrifying browser history, about his ongoing surprise at the broad appeal of his work, and about the hilarious messages he received when the hive mind decided that Twitter was going to shut down.

I finished the show with another Q&A. This time: “Are you a dual citizen?” and “Which books about the Beatles should I read?”

As always, you can subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, and more. And if you don’t? Well, I know where you live.


Law-School Admissions’ Perfect Storm

Sign at the American Bar Association in Washington, D.C. (Andrew Kelly/Reuters)

Between the breakdown of the preeminent U.S. News & World Report’s ranking system and the Supreme Court’s possibly being on the verge of issuing a long-overdue ruling banning race-conscious admissions, law schools are staring down their biggest disruption in decades. Now, amidst all this uncertainty, the American Bar Association plans to stop requiring law schools to use the Law School Admission Test (LSAT). The latest shakeup is the culmination of a broader push in academia to forsake standardized testing to facilitate diversity in university enrollment. So what does this mean for the legal academy? Nothing good.

Abandoning the LSAT is incredibly ill-advised. Standardized tests are among the least discriminatory institutions in American society. The LSAT is one of the places where skin color, income, and zip code matter the least. No matter where you come from or who you are, you can take the LSAT, free from prejudice.

Of course, the test is not immaculately impartial. As with all standardized tests, wealthier applicants have an advantage because they can dedicate more hours to studying and more resources toward tutoring services. Unlike the other major standardized admissions exams, however, the LSAT is least susceptible to these criticisms.

The SAT, ACT, GRE, and MCAT are all knowledge-based tests. The LSAT is a logical-reasoning-based exam, testing skills rather than knowledge of legal concepts. This is an ostensible flaw because no skill directly applicable to the practice of law is being assessed, but it has one great advantage: a weaker relationship between the quality of one’s schooling and how prepared one is to take the test.

So sure, there are differences in the amount of time and money applicants can spend studying. Ideally, a standardized exam should be impossible to study for so no one has an inordinate advantage. But attempting to eradicate disparities across applicants’ original positions is a fool’s errand. At least on the LSAT, one’s educational background has far less bearing on how one will do on the test. So even if one concedes that cultivating diversity of background rather than diversity of thought among the student body is a worthwhile pursuit for law-school admissions directors, it’s unclear how eliminating this great equalizer will further that objective.

Politics & Policy

There’s Another Cabinet Secretary Worth Impeaching

Education Secretary Miguel Cardona addresses the daily press briefing at the White House in Washington, D.C., August 5, 2021. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

Kevin McCarthy made headlines today for threatening Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas with impeachment when the next Congress begins with Republicans in the House majority. Mayorkas has done a bad job, and poor border enforcement is certainly worthy of congressional investigation, but there’s a different cabinet secretary whose lawlessness was on display yet again today.

Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona will be extending the supposedly pandemic-related pause on student-loan repayments until litigation is resolved or until June 30, whichever comes first. President Biden today said that extension was necessary due to the ongoing court challenges of the program.

That does not explain why borrowers with debt that will be unaffected by the program should not have to start paying back the money they borrowed. It does not explain why a pandemic-related pause can still be extended after even Biden said the pandemic is over. It does not explain why that pause’s total price tag, which could end up as high as $275 billion, is worthwhile. But at no point in the “forgiveness” program’s history have Biden or Cardona felt the need to make logically compelling or legally sound arguments for it.

Though Biden is cheerleading the flagrant constitutional abuse that this program represents, Cardona is the one actually executing it. It was Cardona’s office of general counsel that produced the specious legal opinion that said he had unilateral authority to forgive student debt in virtually unlimited amounts. Biden has not issued any executive orders concerning this program. It’s all being done by Cardona, who is clearly abusing his office as secretary of education and violating his oath to support and defend the Constitution.

I argued in the post-election issue of National Review that Republicans should impeach Cardona. You can read my full argument here. Today’s announcement of the repayment-pause extension is just another log on the fire.

National Security & Defense

To Fix the DOD’s Misplaced Priorities, Pass the Restoring Military Focus Act

The Pentagon building in Washington, D.C. (Jason Reed/Reuters)

In recent years, the infiltration by left-wing identity politics of the military has garnered significant attention. We should be focused on bolstering our nuclear posture in light of unprecedented threats from Moscow and Beijing. Instead, the Navy is focused on adopting gender-neutral titles. The Biden administration’s chief of naval operations, Admiral Michael Gilday, has added Ibram Kendi’s anticapitalist screed, How to Be an Antiracist, to his list of recommended readings. And this summer, it was uncovered that training materials on the problems of “whiteness” were being disseminated at West Point.

While the wokification of the administrative state isn’t a military-specific concern, the problem is particularly acute at the Department of Defense (DOD). Ideological maladies such as critical race theory and gender ideology threaten our national security. According to a report by Senator Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) and Representative Chip Roy (R., Texas), the Biden administration’s “diversity, equity, and inclusion” initiatives have imperiled the cohesion and professionalism that make the military so effective on the battlefield.

Now the two lawmakers have introduced a bill to remedy the woke malignancy bedeviling the DOD, the Restoring Military Focus Act. The legislation would do away with the chief diversity officer position at DOD and forbid the use of government funding to create comparable offices with a race- and gender-focused personnel agenda. Enacting this proposal would go a long way in eradicating the intersectional rot undermining the armed forces.

Senator Roger Wicker (R., Miss.), one of the bill’s co-sponsors, says, “Our military is not a place for social experimentation. With the rise of severe military threats from China and Russia, any step forward in improving our national defense must include rooting out these corrosive ideas and improving the quality of life for our troops.” He’s right.

While the bill’s passage is undoubtedly a long shot in the Democratic-controlled 117th Congress or the Democratic-controlled Senate in the 118th, not to mention Biden’s veto power, it’s still worthy of GOP support. At the very least, getting a critical mass of Republicans to sign on will signal to the foreign-policy establishment that the military’s foray into the muddy waters of progressive identitarianism will not be tolerated indefinitely.


Glimpses of the Green Economy: Wind Woes and (Wind) ‘Droughts’

A crane lifts the rotor at the top of a power-generating windmill turbine on a wind farm in Avesnes-le Sec, France, September 29, 2022. (Pascal Rossignol/Reuters)

The other day I noted some comments from the CEO of Vestas, a Danish company that is a world leader in the wind-energy sector. He (rightly) had warned that expectations of how cheap renewable energy might become had been overdone. He also warned that supply-chain issues and soaring raw-material costs were likely to push the company into the red in 2022, despite its having increased its prices by some 30 percent over the past year.

Well, the good news keeps coming.

The New York Times (November 22):

Europe’s wind turbine makers, the crown jewels of the region’s green energy industry and a source of manufacturing expertise, are reporting losses and laying off workers. Their problems stem partly from lingering supply chain issues and competition from Chinese manufacturers, and the issues could ultimately hinder Europe’s, and even the world’s, ambitions to quickly develop emission-free energy sources.

Laying off workers?

Chinese competition?

I don’t think that this quite fits in with the narrative of a prosperous green economy being pushed on both sides of the Atlantic.

And the problems are not confined to Vestas.

The New York Times:

This month, Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy, a Madrid-based company that is the premier maker of offshore wind turbines, reported an annual loss of 940 million euros ($965 million). The company has announced a cost-cutting program that is likely to lead to 2,900 job losses, or nearly 11 percent of its work force.

Just those Europeans messing up again?

Well, no.


General Electric, a large maker of wind turbines in the United States and Europe, has also struggled in its clean energy businesses. The company said last month that its renewable energy unit was likely to record $2 billion in losses this year…

[A]larms are beginning to sound about growing competition from China, where domestic turbine makers that have spent years catering to the Chinese market are beginning to sell their machines overseas. Some Western manufacturers of turbines fear a repeat of the bitter experience with solar panels, a technology first developed in the West but now largely dominated by China and other Asian manufacturers. . . .

While Chinese makers have made only modest inroads outside their home country, analysts say they have used the large volumes of sales in China to hone their manufacturing skills and train large work forces that can deliver turbines at prices well below those asked by their Western rivals.

“Europe is now facing the very real possibility that the E.U. energy transition will be created by China,” Siemens Gamesa warned in a recent paper asking for support from European governments.

Chinese companies already produce as much as 70 percent of the components that make up turbines used in the West, according to Mr. Lico. “China is the epicenter of the global wind supply chain,” he said, referring to makers of components.

Leaving aside the problem that wind-based energy (because of intermittency the wind doesn’t always blow — and the lack, so far, of effective, sufficiently scalable storage technologies) is not ready for prime time, it looks as if Europeans may well, if they want to accelerate their decarbonization (and they are saying that they do), have to throw further massive subsidies in the direction of a technology that doesn’t really deliver the goods.  Central planning is what it is.

These subsidies may be direct, or, if Europe erects high tariff walls, indirect, or, quite possibly, both. And if those tariff walls don’t go up, the likelihood is that Chinese manufacturers will obliterate Europe’s domestic wind-power sector, leaving the Europeans doubly dependent on China (for solar and wind; we can talk about electric vehicles later). Should that occur, Europe would have swapped reliance on Putin’s gas for reliance on Xi’s “green” hardware, not something that they should be looking to do.

So I’d bet on those subsidies, and greenflation will be what it will be.

As mentioned above, wind doesn’t always blow as much as it is meant to. But what if such shortfalls are set to be more frequent than in the past?


Anjana Ahuja, writing in the Financial Times:

We tend to think of an extreme weather event as a moment of high drama. It is the waist-deep flood, the perishing heatwave or the famine-inducing drought.

One climatic extreme, called a wind drought, has largely escaped attention, perhaps because it is the very absence of drama. A wind drought — a prolonged period of slow wind — happened in Europe in summer 2021, with some countries recording their lowest wind speeds for decades.

The slowdown may have been due partly to natural variability but also tallied with predictions that climate change will cause wind speeds to drop over the long term, a phenomenon known as “global stilling”. As wind power spins its way into the European energy mix, operators will need to plan how to keep the lights on in a warming world girdled by lazy winds…

And Ahuja is not an outlier to believe this.

From September, Frank Jacobs in The Big Think :

Unfortunately for Europe, it doesn’t seem that last year’s “wind drought” was a one-off. In its latest report, the IPCC predicts a drop of 6% to 8% in average wind speeds across Europe by 2050. As wind speeds become increasingly inconstant, the cost of wind energy will become more unpredictable and its provision more unreliable…

I’m not sure that the central planners have thought this all through.

But do they ever?

I, for one, being a trusting fool, believe that we will not make the same mistakes over here.



Cuba’s Miguel Díaz-Canel and Russia’s Vladimir Putin attend the unveiling of a monument to the late Cuban dictator Fidel Castro in Moscow, November 22, 2022. (Sputnik/Sergey Guneev/Kremlin via Reuters)

As you can see, above, Vladimir Putin has unveiled a statue of Fidel Castro in Moscow. He did so in a ceremony with Miguel Díaz-Canel, the current boss in Cuba. From the Associated Press, the headline reads, “Russia, Cuba leaders meet in Moscow, honor rebel icon Castro.” (Article here.) “Rebel icon”? Yes, that’s true, to a degree. It’s also true to say that Fidel Castro was a dictator, a tyrant, persecuting Cubans for 50 years.

The friendship between the Kremlin and the Cuban regime is natural. It was natural in Soviet days, and it is natural in Putin days. In 2014, I wrote a three-part series called “Fraternal Relations.” It examined Havana’s relations with North Korea, Russia, and China. To read the Russian part, go here.

Díaz-Canel “is set to travel on to Turkey and China,” according to the AP. That makes sense.

Authoritarian regimes are very good at allying with one another. Democracies tend to be less good, I think. As there was a Communist International, there is an Authoritarian International. In Moscow, Putin and Díaz-Canel exchanged tender expressions of solidarity.

In a piece last month about Nicaragua and its political prisoners, I wrote,

This regime has many allies, birds of a feather — chiefly Cuba, Venezuela, and Russia. In June, Ortega invited Russian troops to train in Nicaragua. There are eight countries that, in 2014, recognized Russia’s annexation of Crimea. One is Nicaragua. The others are Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Bolivia, and North Korea.

In 2018, Erdogan, the Turkish boss, staged an inauguration, after staging an election. The list of attendees, I wrote,

was instructive, and predictable: Medvedev of Russia (standing in for Putin). Orbán of Hungary. Maduro of Venezuela.

Maduro pronounced Erdogan a “leader of the new multi-polar world” — which is accurate.

The year before, Orbán had said, “We all sense — it’s in the air — that the world is in the process of a substantial realignment.” He was meeting with Putin — who hailed Hungary as an “important and reliable partner for Russia in Europe.”

Hungary and Turkey present ticklish cases. The second is a member of NATO. (I wrote at length about this issue in 2019, here.) The first is a member of both NATO and the European Union. An AP report last Friday was headed, “Hungary will not support EU aid plan to Ukraine, Orban says.” Earlier this week, the Hungarian foreign minister traveled to Russia, to participate in an expo. A year ago, the Kremlin bestowed on him its Order of Friendship.

You know who needs friendship? Russia’s political prisoners. And Cuba’s. And Ukrainians, as a people. And people all over. Freedom, democracy, and human rights need friendship. The new statue in Moscow says a lot. There are Putin fans and Castro fans. The former tend to be rightists and the latter tend to be leftists. They are cut from the same general cloth, regardless.

Solidarity should not be left to the authoritarians. The democrats should meet them, step by step, and ultimately prevail against them.


Online-Harassment Rules for Thee but Not for Me

The Washington Post Company building in Washington, D.C. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

Washington Post columnist Taylor Lorenz is a regular object of conservative ire — and rightly so. When Lorenz went to great lengths to find and publicize the identity of Chaya Raichik, the woman behind the once-anonymous right-wing “Libs of Tik Tok” Twitter account, the Post journalist defended the move as “basic reporting practices.” (Raichik, for her part, said that she had to “hole up in a safe location” to wait out the backlash sparked by Lorenz’s reporting.) Lorenz “even showed up to the home of the account owner’s relatives and harassed a random Instagram user with a similar name, asserting that she was going to be ‘implicated as starting a hate campaign against LGBTQ people,’” the Spectator’s Amber Athey reported at the time. The Washington Examiner‘s Jerry Dunleavy noted that Lorenz “originally linked to the real estate license for the person behind the Libs of TikTok account,” which included her real name and a physical address. According to a statement from the Post, the link “to publicly available professional information” was “ultimately deemed . . . unnecessary” and removed. But of course, this is the internet we’re talking about; the damage was already done.

Lorenz’s latest Post column, “Online mobs are now coming for student journalists,” takes a considerably different line:

Olivia Krupp, a sophomore at the University of Arizona, knew she wanted to write for the student newspaper since she started college. She was hoping to build her reporting and interviewing skills and was thrilled when a spot on the paper opened up the second semester of her freshman year.

But since late September, after writing a critical profile of a TikTok star and fellow student, she has received an onslaught of harassment that has upended her life.

Krupp’s ordeal highlights the growing threat that online harassment poses to journalists, especially those just starting out. Targeted online harassment has become a pervasive threat to newsrooms across the country. A 2019 survey by the Committee to Protect Journalists found that 85 percent of respondents believed their career had become less safe in the past five years and more than 70 percent said they experienced safety issues or threats as part of doing their job. [Emphasis added.]

Of course, student journalists are in a different category from Twitter accounts with hundreds of thousands of followers, but the aim of Lorenz’s story is to connect the backlash against student journalists to online attacks on professional journalists. Lorenz has routinely made herself out to be a victim when she becomes a subject of the same kind of online criticism that she regularly sics on right-wing influencers. The upshot: “It’s basic reporting practices when we do it to them. It’s online harassment when they do it to us.


College Is Too Hard!


Rick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute has a good piece on the decline of academic standards in college.

He builds his piece around two points: first, the termination of NYU chemistry professor Maitland Jones after a number of his students griped that his organic chemistry course was too difficult, and second, a survey showing that a large percentage of college students think that too much is being asked of them (despite the fact that they don’t actually do many hours of work per week).

This is the inevitable result of our schools being more concerned with student happiness than with academic achievement. Teachers are less and less willing to demand much of students because it means being unpopular and sets up the possibility of hostile action, as in the case of Jones. It’s so much easier to adjust things down to the level where students won’t complain.

Many students have come to think of college as an entitlement (to be paid for mostly by other people), and they want it with a minimum of effort. College costs a great deal and delivers remarkably little value, a by-product of government involvement.


Two New National Polls Show Republicans Evenly Split between Trump and DeSantis


Echelon Insights finds Ron DeSantis surging since the midterm elections and tied with Donald Trump in a 2024 matchup:

Quinnipiac: “Republicans are evenly split over who they prefer to win the Republican nomination with 44 percent preferring Trump, 44 percent preferring DeSantis and 11 percent not offering an opinion.”

Another interesting finding in the Quinnipiac poll is that a majority of Americans have an unfavorable view of both Trump and Biden, but a plurality of Americans haven’t yet heard enough about DeSantis to have an opinion about him:

  • Joe Biden: 38 percent favorable, 52 percent unfavorable, 7 percent haven’t heard enough about him;

  • Donald Trump: 37 percent favorable, 54 percent unfavorable, 5 percent haven’t heard enough about him;

  • Ron DeSantis: 33 percent favorable, 29 percent unfavorable, 36 percent haven’t heard enough about him;

  • Kamala Harris: 28 percent favorable, 48 percent unfavorable, 22 percent haven’t heard enough about her.

Economy & Business

Today in Capital Matters: Nuclear Power, Climate, and Twitter

The Isar 2 nuclear power plant by the river Isar in Eschenbach, Germany, August 17, 2022. (Christian Mang/Reuters)

Eric Scott Dawson writes about a weak argument against nuclear power:

The takeaway here is that the perfect is the enemy of the good. The reason that France expanded its nuclear power so dramatically was not to decarbonize but instead to decrease its energy dependence on OPEC in the wake of the energy crisis of the 1970s. Given that France achieved both of these ends by expanding nuclear energy, it makes no sense to insist on a precarious, renewables-only grid that has been achieved in the developed world only by a couple of low-population countries naturally blessed with uncommonly great hydropower potential (Iceland and Norway). We must not miss the forest for the trees by accepting irrational policies that are all but certain to harm the people purported to be helped by them.

Andrew Follett writes about a new climate agreement the Biden administration is entering into:

At the COP27 climate summit in Egypt earlier this month, American diplomats appointed by President Biden agreed to pay poor countries for supposed damage caused by America’s emitting carbon dioxide.

This represents a major reversal in U.S. climate policy. Similar agreements had previously been blocked by both the Obama and Trump administrations, and for good reason: The “loss and damage” fund is both incredibly expensive and could be used to create a legal liability for greenhouse-gas emissions.

In short, it is a total shakedown. A major beneficiary of the deal is China, despite the fact that it has much higher emissions than the United States.

David McGarry writes about why Twitter isn’t a monopoly:

Conservative advocates of heavy-handed social-media regulations that violate property rights and the First Amendment should reverse course. It’s disappointing to see so many right-wingers advocating the use of state power to control (and sometimes simply punish) social media.

The pro-regulation Right should eschew the traditionally leftist assumption that popularity implies monopoly. They should stop arguing in a way that suggests that today’s social-media giants will never lose their market shares, an assumption that ignores basic economics. Incumbents, even purported monopolists, tend to lack staying power. Indeed, in any facet of life — business, politics, art, sports, etc. — perpetual performance in the top percentiles is close to impossible.

And David Bahnsen talks to Samuel Gregg on the latest episode of the Capital Record about Gregg’s new (excellent) book, The Next American Economy. Listen here, or wherever you get your podcasts.


Georgia Senate Poll: Warnock 51, Walker 47

Left: Reverend Raphael Warnock, Democratic Senator from Georgia, speaks to supporters during a campaign event in Atlanta, Ga., November 8, 2022. Right: Republican candidate for U.S. Senate Herschel Walker rallies with supporters at a campaign stop in Newnan, Ga., November 4, 2022. (Bob Strong, Dustin Chambers/Reuters)

A new poll shows the December Georgia Senate runoff election leaning in favor of incumbent Democrat Raphael Warnock:

If Georgia Republicans had nominated almost any candidate other than Herschel Walker, they probably would have defeated Warnock on November 8. But they rallied in the primary behind a Trump-backed celebrity, who ran nine points behind Republican governor Brian Kemp. If Warnock prevails in December, Republicans across the country should remember it didn’t have to end this way.


A Woman in the Arena

Betsy DeVos visits a middle school in Dallas in April 2018. (Jay Nordlinger)

Betsy DeVos is my latest guest on Q&A (a podcast). To hear her, go here. She has worked in education for some 35 years: as a reformer, as a policy expert — a sometime crusader. She has been an incredibly generous philanthropist as well. I interviewed and wrote about her in 2018. For that piece, go here.

Two weeks after Election Day 2016, President-elect Trump tabbed her to be education secretary. She never expected to serve in that role. How did it come about?

As Mrs. DeVos relates in the podcast, Jeb Bush sent her an e-mail the morning after the election — planting the idea that she ought to be secretary. Mrs. DeVos had worked with Jeb Bush, and George W. Bush, for a long time. They were notable education reformers in their states — Florida and Texas — and the Texan continued to be one in Washington.

Anyway, Betsy DeVos went to Washington herself. And she has written a book about that experience — and her life, and education policy: Hostages No More: The Fight for Education Freedom and the Future of the American Child.

In our podcast, I ask her about some of the words in that title, and subtitle: “hostages,” “education freedom.” Further questions: Should there be public schools, or “government schools,” as Milton Friedman called them? Does the K–12 model need to be destroyed? Can the health of our schools be better than the health of our society in general? What about “common core”? Should all education be local — meaning that schools in San Francisco will be very different from schools in Murfreesboro?

We also discuss some specific episodes of her tenure in Washington: the controversy over Special Olympic funding; a segment — a number — that 60 Minutes did on her; and her resignation from the administration after January 6.

She has led a remarkable life, Betsy DeVos. Her father, a brilliant engineer, made a fortune. Betsy could have done almost anything. But she threw herself into the cause of education, and in particular “education freedom,” as she says — not for the sake of her own children, who were going to be fine, regardless, but for the sake of children without advantages. She has her critics, and defamers. She also has a nationful of fans by this point.

Again, to hear her in her own words — as they say in courtroom dramas — go here.


Soccer Is Unwatchable Brilliance


To the critical words of Dominic Pino and Nate Hochman, may I offer that soccer, much like baseball, is at its best when consumed as one would music, i.e., in audio format? The constancy of movement in the “beautiful game” creates a pleasant murmur in the background. It is only when the crowd informs us of impending fatal action that our eyes should move to the screen.

A game that comes to us from before television and radio, the physical presence of the throng and her voice communicate what we need to know. For the initiate, he needn’t sit and watch the games — I’d pity you if you did — but try listening to them. Like a young boy without tickets loitering outside of Wrigley or Lambeau, we depend upon the tens of thousands within to inform us of the game’s end — an exhilarating spectacle in one’s mind.

As a former goalie and yellow card magnet, soccer is frustration incarnate. But it has good in it, something that a series of calls may further illuminate:

As Americans, a people blessed with better sports, we needn’t love soccer. But we can at least appreciate why others might.


Twitter: The Necessity of Failure

A person approaches the New York Twitter offices in New York, N.Y., July 29, 2021. (Andrew Kelly/Reuters)

In a post the other day, I looked at the way that Antonio García Martínez had analyzed the battle over Twitter as a form of class struggle.

In one tweet (part of a must-read) thread, Martinez had written:

What Elon is doing is a revolt by entrepreneurial capital against the professional-managerial class regime that otherwise everywhere dominates (including and especially large tech companies), and that same PMC (which includes the media) is treating it as an act of lèse-majesté.

To repeat what I wrote in that earlier post, I reckon (broadly speaking) that Martínez is right about that. Moreover, it’s important to remember that Martínez includes the media as part of that same professional-managerial class. More specifically, I think, he is not so much referring to the media (an abstraction) as to those who work in it, many of whom have not only been hit economically by the effect of the Internet on many traditional news sources, but also suffered a drop in status, in part for the same reason. One of the crimes of Elon Musk in their eyes is that he is a symbol of Silicon Valley. Making him more reprehensible still is the way that he makes no secret of the way that Twitter is bypassing the established media role as gatekeepers of information.


Twitter is like open-sourcing the news


Twitter *must* fail after the purge of such a former elite. For if Twitter does not fail, if in fact it manages to emerge stronger than before, then what sort of example would this set for every other organization similarly captured by this elite? Unthinkable.

Twitter may fail. If it does, that failure will owe quite a bit to the fact that Musk overpaid for the company, the application of Musk’s vintage start-up style to an existing business with an entrenched (and ideologically uncongenial) culture, and the crumbling of Twitter’s advertising-based model. It won’t fail because of media ill will.

Nevertheless, looking at some of the coverage, it’s not difficult to see hints that some members of the media class want this interloper gone.

To take one example, Austin Carr in Bloomberg, in a piece entitled “Elon Musk Is Running Twitter Like a Failing Newspaper Business” (note that it’s often the case that the author of an article is not responsible for its headline), writes:

Seen one way, the series of events is extraordinary and unprecedented: The world’s most successful technology entrepreneur buys one of the most influential social media companies, quickly sabotages some of its best qualities and drives out much of its brightest talent. Seen through a different lens, Musk is just the latest wannabe media mogul torturing his new plaything.

Now return to Martínez’s feed to find him commenting on a (remarkably pompous) tweet by CBS:

After pausing for much of the weekend to assess the security concerns, CBS News and Stations is resuming its activity on Twitter as we continue to monitor the situation.


Media source discovers who’s downstream of whom all of a sudden.

That goes too far. The relationship between Twitter and established journalism is a curious symbiosis (something that Carr discusses, but without, tellingly, dwelling on the extent to which Twitter is a source of news). But it’s hard not to see CBS’s comment both as a bit of virtue-signaling and an attempt to pull rank. In any event, CBS was back on Twitter after “much” of a weekend.

At the Spectator, Bill Zeiser watches the whole thing, noting that:

Musk has committed two great sins in the eyes of the left. The first is that he is supposedly a fascist because he does not believe in deplatforming figures over speech…He has disrupted the left’s relative chokehold on what is considered allowable speech on social media. But fascism? Musk himself tweeted that Twitter’s new policy is “freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach.” Hate tweets won’t be found unless users seek them out, Musk said, “which is no different from the rest of the internet.” This should hardly be controversial.

Musk’s second transgression is that he is supposedly not competent enough to run Twitter. It’s hard to say whether this is true. Musk has axed a lot of longtime employees, but Twitter is bleeding money. He was derided for a new scheme to sell the coveted “blue checkmarks” indicating verified accounts, but it got people talking about the app. By Musk’s own admission, Twitter will do “stupid” things in the coming days and take chances. He is acting as a tech disruptor, an archetype once beloved by the left.

Leaving aside my doubts as to how fond the left really was of that archetype, Zeiser is surely correct when he notes that it is “hardly believable that a man who is spearheading private space travel is ‘failure incarnate,’ as [one commentator] called him, even if he can’t make Twitter work.”

Meanwhile, there are those in the media, opening up another front in the class wars, who are linking Musk’s Twitter travails to signs of weakness in Amazon, and the mess at Meta to suggest that the age of the tech tycoon is fading.

But that’s another story.


COP27: Reparations

John Kerry, U.S. Special Envoy for Climate, speaks at the opening of the American Pavilion at the COP27 climate summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, November 8, 2022. (Mohammed Salem /Reuters)

Prometheus may be unimpressed by the COP27 reparations, but writing for the Wall Street Journal, Gerard Baker does not appear to be (#understatement) a fan either:

[T]he idea that the least developed countries in the world have received only the cost of industrialization and not the many benefits is ahistorical. The sophists at the United Nations insist that the new fund is a model of “climate justice,” but it sounds an awful lot like a vehicle for the “reparations” climate extremists have long demanded from the countries that were first to industrialize for supposedly having inflicted their environmental costs on the world.

If we in the West are to pay damages for the Industrial Revolution, shouldn’t we also consider the extraordinary wealth that process has helped spread around the world?

Maybe Pakistan could have become a thriving economy with little industrial activity, producing carbon-free economic growth and prosperity for its people. But the nation’s gross domestic product per capita has roughly tripled in the past 50 years, and I’d wager that a significant amount of that growth has been the result of innovations such as the combustion engine, air conditioning, the microchip, the personal computer and all the other wonders of the developed world.

Critics say that the developed world has already received the benefits of those advancements in the form of profits for the West’s capitalists. But have they? If we are going to examine the wider social and environmental effects of rapid growth, isn’t it reasonable to ask what would be the level of the world’s overall income and wealth without the innovations of industrial capitalism?

No good deed goes unpunished, they say. So, for having the genius to produce the ideas, create the economic system and develop the capital that has in a little more than a century given the world unimaginable prosperity, eliminated deadly diseases that once killed millions, reduced infant mortality, extended life expectancy and lifted hundreds of millions of people out of hunger and poverty, we must now be made to pay.

To support the idea of these reparations (regardless of the uncertain quality of the data on which they may be based) is, at a very fundamental level, to be opposed to the idea of scientific advance and of human flourishing.

But that is the position that the West’s leadership has taken.

Also from the Wall Street Journal:

John Kerry, the U.S. climate envoy, dismissed the idea earlier this month: “It’s a well-known fact that the United States and many other countries will not establish . . . some sort of legal structure that is tied to compensation or liability. That’s just not happening.” But on Thursday Europe abandoned the U.S. by proposing a deal, and Mr. Kerry rolled over.

To be fair, our climate Metternich must have felt a little adrift without the steadying presence of James Taylor to lend him a hand, but for the U.S. to have caved in like this because of pressure from the EU is yet another reminder of American weakness in the era of Kabul Joe.

That’s bad enough, but even a basic knowledge of European history should have been enough to tell Kerry that the continent’s remarkable economic development since the industrial revolution has been shadowed by a pathological distrust of the fruits of that advance.

Under the circumstances, for Kerry and Biden to buckle before Brussels is as idiotic as (doubtless) it will be expensive.


COP27: Prometheus’s New Punishment


Prometheus (or so the best-known version of the story goes) was the Titan who stole the gift of fire, which had been taken away from mankind by an angry Zeus, and restored it to humanity. In other accounts, Prometheus gave man other skills too, from technology to medicine, as tools to help us advance.

As punishment, an even angrier Zeus had Prometheus chained to a rock. An eagle was sent to eat his liver each day (it regrew overnight).

That was bad enough, but for poor Prometheus to be hit by a demand for reparations by the COP27 crowd for the climate change supposedly caused by the progress he had set in motion, for that fire, seems a touch ungrateful.

To be sure, some say Prometheus was rescued by Hercules, but, if so, climate activists will soon have the poor Titan back on that rock, while we are just left to stagnate in the cold.


Does DeSantis Have to Beat Trump on the Debate Stage?

Left: Then-presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a campaign event in 2016. Right: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis gives a speech at the Tampa Convention Center in Tampa, Fla., July 22, 2022. (Kamil Krzaczynski, Octavio Jones/Reuters)

In his excellent column today, “Trump 2024 Doesn’t Have a Jeb,” Rich notes that Jeb Bush “served, largely through circumstances beyond his control, as the ideal opponent for Trump in 2016.” But “there’s no Trump rival on the horizon in 2024 so neatly tailored to Trump’s purposes, in part because Trump-catalyzed changes in the party now make a Jeb Bush–type figure impossible. . . . No one comes close to fitting this bill this time around. Ron DeSantis, who projects as Trump’s main threat in the very early going, is different on all counts.” He continues:

All this said, it’s important to remember that if Bush was Trump’s favorite target — and the one who put the strengths of Trump’s campaign in starkest relief — he wasn’t the only one. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio ultimately got run over, too.

It’s true that Bush never figured out how to deal with Trump’s insults and full-spectrum animosity, but neither did anyone else.

That’s a condition that still may obtain. It’s easy — and the right play — for DeSantis to brush off Trump’s attacks for now. Yet the time for side-stepping will end eventually, and DeSantis might find it harder than he anticipates to solve the dilemma of responding to Trump that Bush faced in 2016.

This is something I’ve been wrestling with. Due to his sharp political instincts, DeSantis has positioned himself extremely well vis-à-vis Trump going into a likely 2024 matchup. But everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face — and face punches are what Trump doled out in healthy servings in the 2016 primary. While Trump may trail DeSantis in focus and competence, he beats him in raw charisma. DeSantis would be a good president because he’s an extremely competent executive and a shrewd political operator, and he has a proven ability to deliver on conservative priorities, even (or especially!) over the objections of powerful left-wing institutions. He does not have the sort of world-historical stump energy that Trump has. To be fair, no one does.

I’m sure this isn’t news to DeSantis. He is almost certainly aware of this weakness, and insofar as he’s gaming out a future debate with Trump, it’s surely something he’s planning for. The advantage that he — or anyone hoping to challenge Trump in the 2024 primary, for that matter — has is that Trump no longer enjoys the element of surprise. By the time Republican elites figured out that Trump’s bull-in-a-china-shop, take-no-prisoners style was working in 2016, it was too late to organize a counterattack. That won’t be an issue in 2024.

Thus far, DeSantis’s initial back-and-forths with Trump have appeared to be successful, but they’ve been mediated via third parties. Even years of preparation might not give DeSantis an edge over Trump on the debate stage. Charisma can be learned, but only to an extent. The political-science research, with a number of caveats, tends to show that televised presidential debates have surprisingly little effect on the general election, but they can sway significant numbers of voters in the primary. With that being said, the available data also tend to show that debates are the most consequential in situations where voters don’t already know much about the candidates — not a significant issue for either Trump or DeSantis. I don’t think DeSantis has to beat Trump outright in the debates to clinch the nomination. But I do think he has to avoid a viral total-meltdown moment, like the murder-suicide orchestrated by Chris Christie against Marco Rubio in 2016. Those are the kinds of moments that can sink an otherwise promising candidate.

NR Webathon

Overwhelmed with Gratitude

National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr. (National Review)

As you may have noticed, we are in the midst of a webathon, to which you can contribute here.

You, our readers, on whose support and readership we depend, and without whom we could not exist, continue to make us grateful in ways we didn’t even expect. For the past few days, we have had to keep revising our goal for this fundraiser upward, as we continue to be overwhelmed by the level of support you are willing to give us. As I write this, we have just broken through the $100K marker. The response has been so overwhelming that we have decided to stop setting hard goals. Your support has literally outpaced our fundraising parameters. So now, we’ll let you determine how far we can go.

Whether it’s $5, $10, $50, $100, $1,000, or whatever you can give, we are grateful for every dollar. Every day, we strive to be worthy of your support. Occasions like this remind us how much we owe you — and how fortunate we are to have you on our side.

Science & Tech

Don’t Make Too Much of a New Study on the Health Effects of Marijuana-Smoking


In response to Is Marijuana Less Harmful Than Cigarettes?


That’s an interesting paper, although I wouldn’t make too much of it, and nor, it seems, would its authors (my emphasis added):

Airway inflammation and emphysema were more common in marijuana smokers than in nonsmokers and tobacco-only smokers, although variable interobserver agreement and concomitant cigarette smoking among the marijuana-smoking cohort limits our ability to draw strong conclusions.

That said, I doubt if most people who smoke marijuana (there are always gummies, vapes, etc.) expect that the smoking would do them much good. Still, it does no harm to warn of a possible risk, and indeed it may do some good. The more information that is out there the better, assuming it is honest (anti-vaping activists have not covered themselves with glory in this respect).

Of course, an increased risk of emphysema or airway inflammation shouldn’t be used as a reason to ban marijuana for adult consumption. Caveat emptor and all that. It’s also no reason to slap onerous taxes on weed (the same can be said about the larcenous taxes so often imposed on cigarettes, which should be cut).

The U.S. Still Doesn’t Care about Soccer

United States forward Christian Pulisic (10) controls the ball against Wales midfielders Joe Morrell (16) and Aaron Ramsey during a match at the 2022 FIFA World Cup at Ahmed Bin Ali Stadium in Al Rayyan, Qatar, November 21, 2022. (Danielle Parhizkaran-USA TODAY Sports)

As a sporting event called the “World Cup” is currently ongoing in the Persian Gulf country of Qatar, Americans will yet again be pressured by our moral superiors to pay attention to “football,” or as Americans call it, soccer, so as not to confuse it with, you know, football.

Today, Team USA played Wales, which has not been an independent country since 1535. The final score was (you guessed it) 1–1. If you’re on Twitter, you might be under the impression that most Americans care about soccer, but, as in so many other areas, Twitter is not real life. Soccer remains

‘Emergency’ Fundraising for Herschel Walker and . . . Rick Scott?

Sen. Rick Scott (R., Fla.) speaks to reporters after the weekly Senate Republican caucus policy luncheon on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., June 8, 2021. (Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters)

A fundraising email sent to would-be GOP donors this morning by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) implores its recipients to “make an emergency donation as soon as possible” to help Herschel Walker unseat incumbent Democrat Raphael Warnock in the upcoming Georgia runoff election.

According to the Daily Beast‘s Roger Sollenberger, though, the default settings attached to the donation link on the email would have directed $98 of a $100 gift to the NRSC itself. The remaining $2 would be divided between Florida senator Rick Scott, the organization’s chairman, and the Walker campaign. It appears that in the hours since, the NRSC

Hong Kong Eager to Participate in San Francisco Summit Next Year: Report

The Chinese and Hong Kong flags flutter at the office of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in Beijing, China, June 3, 2020. (Carlos Garcia Rawlins/Reuters)

Since the Chinese Communist Party’s crackdown in Hong Kong, the city’s Beijing-backed leadership has weathered a battery of sanctions. That leadership is now working to rehabilitate its international reputation.

Hong Kong officials have had some early successes, recently enticing a group of U.S. financial-industry executives to attend a conference in Hong Kong, thus shifting the conversation away from the Party’s draconian enforcement of Beijing’s line. And in Bangkok this week, Hong Kong chief executive John Lee made the rounds at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, an international trade forum, to drum up trade activity for his city.

Next year’s forum is slated to

Health Care

Is Marijuana Less Harmful Than Cigarettes?


“Marijuana might do more damage to smokers than cigarettes alone,” the Wall Street Journal reports.

A study published Tuesday in the journal Radiology demonstrated higher rates of conditions including emphysema and airway inflammation among people who smoked marijuana than among nonsmokers and people who smoked only tobacco. Nearly half of the 56 marijuana smokers whose chest scans were reviewed for the study had mucus plugging their airways, a condition that was less common among the other 90 participants who didn’t smoke marijuana.


Virgin Atlantic Abandons Virtue-Signaling for Qatar World Cup

A Flight service staff member poses amongst the economy passenger seating area of Boeing 747 jumbo G-VROY, being retired from service by Virgin Atlantic Airways, in Heathrow Airport, London, Britain, December 11, 2020. (Toby Melville/Reuters)

Virgin Atlantic, which previously announced a gender-fluid uniform policy — giving “individuals the freedom to wear a uniform that best represents them” — instructed its staff to refrain from doing so on its flight transporting the England soccer team to the World Cup in Qatar.

“Following a risk assessment, it was recommended the policy was not applied on today’s charter flight to ensure the safety of our people,” the airline’s spokeswoman said.

Qatar enforces sharia law, criminalizes homosexuality, and limits the freedom of women. Various Western soccer teams, including England, Wales, and some from European nations, said they would wear an LGBTQ+ armband but backed down out of fear.

Virtue-signaling is an entirely self-aggrandizing pursuit. As soon as it costs anything, it’s abandoned.

As Piers Morgan wrote:

NR Webathon

Americans Love a Winner

National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr. (National Review)

Americans love a winner and they will not tolerate a loser.

Whether or not General George Patton said those exact words, the readers of National Review are certainly proving them true today.

For 67 years, National Review has stood tall in opposing the overreach of a revolutionary Left and the unserious cranks of the far Right. It hasn’t always been easy. But we’ve won more often than we’ve lost, and from the very beginning, our readers, subscribers, and friends have been proving wrong all those who have predicted our imminent demise. Even today, characters such as Donald Trump breathlessly claim that NR is “failing” and just a day or two away from closing up shop.

Well, I’m sorry to break it to the Donald and our many critics, but we’re not going anywhere.

And that’s entirely thanks to you.

This morning, we surpassed $75,000 for the webathon that was initially set to run just a few days. The response from readers like you, however, has been so astounding that we’ve extended it.

You see, NR has never had a single Mr. Monopoly–type who backs us financially. We’re not, like the Washington Post, owned by Jeff Bezos. We’re not, like the Atlantic, owned by Laurene Powell Jobs.

For nearly seven decades, National Review has been kept humming by subscribers, readers, and small-dollar donors. We’re proud of that, and we prefer accountability to our readers over being forced to toe the line of any controlling owner or donor. That independence gives us the freedom to tell the truth as we see it, always; to tell the truth about America and the best way forward for her under a conservative vision that’s pro-citizen and pro-family, even when it’s unpopular or when those on the left or right try to shout us down and shut us up.

Because of you, they’ve never been able to do that. If you think the work we’ve been doing at NR is worth your support, please consider contributing to the National Review webathon — we’ve just increased our goal to $100K! — in any amount: $5, $10, $50, $100, $1,000, or whatever you can.

No amount is too small. We’re conservatives, after all, and we believe that institutions are held together by everyone doing his or her respective part. To all who’ve contributed, to all those who’ve subscribed, to all our readers — thank you.

National Security & Defense

Tom Cotton: Low Defense Spending ‘Entices Our Adversaries’

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) questions David Marcus, head of Facebook’s Calibra, during testimony before a Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing on Capitol Hill, July 16, 2019. (Erin Scott/Reuters)

Senator Tom Cotton predicted that Congress would approve a defense budget that exceeds the Biden administration’s proposal for the coming year, while warning that low defense spending “entices our adversaries.”

Speaking at an event hosted by the Vandenberg Coalition last week, the Arkansas Republican said that he believes military spending should be increased by 3 to 5 percent over inflation annually, and that keeping defense spending at 3 percent of GDP is “way too low historically. It’s something that entices our adversaries.” Cotton said that, like President Jimmy Carter during his first year in office, Biden “was mugged by reality” — in Biden’s case, by the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal and other crises — but that, unlike Carter, the White House’s current occupant has refused to “arm up our military as he should.”

For two consecutive years, the White House’s budget proposal endorsed cuts to defense spending in real terms. As part of the defense-budget authorization process last year, Republicans and Democrats passed a measure that approved $37 billion more than what the Biden administration had requested. Lawmakers are expected to approve a similarly higher topline number this year, after the House passed a package authorizing nearly $840 billion in defense spending.

Cotton said that his new book reveals how House speaker Nancy Pelosi was compelled to strip last year’s package of socially progressive proposals in order to secure GOP support and get the bill to the president’s desk, after congressional progressives refused to support the higher topline. “I hope that dynamic plays out again over the next month or so,” he added.

He also predicted that the election of a Republican majority in the House this month would change that dynamic going forward.

“I know the House majority is not as large as I might have hoped, but it’s still a majority,” Cotton said. “That means they’re going to have a majority on the Armed Services Committee and on defense appropriations as well. So I think you’ll see more substantial increases in defense spending.”

Meanwhile, other conservative defense experts and lawmakers have called for defense budget boosts that would result in a topline figure exceeding $1.2 trillion.

Politics & Policy

Running Unafraid

Then-President Donald Trump speaks about Operation Warp Speed during an event at the White House in Washington, D.C., November 13, 2020. (Carlos Barria/Reuters)

This past weekend, at the Republican Jewish Coalition’s Annual Leadership Meeting in Las Vegas, some likely Republican 2024 hopefuls voiced their remonstrations of Donald Trump to a maelstrom of applause. This is yet more evidence that Trump might currently be enduring his biggest reputational collapse since the aftermath of the January 6 riot at the Capitol.

Some commentators have noted that the 2024 presidential campaign is shaping up to look like a repeat of the 2016 GOP primary, where over a dozen major candidates jumped in the race in vain attempts at self-aggrandizement. Trump capitalized on the tumult as the other candidates cannibalized each other, clearing his way to the nomination.

The need for Republican consolidation around one alternative to Trump has never been more apparent, and at this stage, the most viable option is Florida governor Ron DeSantis. However, we must resist this premature temptation. It’s extremely early in this contest. And before we make DeSantis’s coronation as Trump’s successor a foregone conclusion, we ought to welcome, not warn against, open defiance of the former president. It’s been a while since we’ve witnessed anything like this open disapproval of Trump, and it should be celebrated as a moment for potential renewal.

There is a theory among some on the right that a politician’s job is simply to cater to his base by reflecting the base’s views rather than to do what he was actually elected for: lead. This idea is rooted in a flawed conception of representation. Elected officials are supposed to be trustees, not surrogates, of public opinion.

Edmund Burke once said that your representative owes you “not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” Republican leaders would be wise to heed his words. Don’t let the 400-pound gorilla in the room deter you. The time for unity will come.


Aid to Ukraine Is a Small Fraction of the U.S. Defense Budget

Ukrainian servicemen attend a national flag raising ceremony in Kherson, Ukraine, recently recaptured by Ukrainian Armed Forces, November 14, 2022. (Ukrainian Presidential Press Service/Handout via Reuters)

A new analysis by the Center for European Policy Analysis finds that congressionally approved funds to support Ukraine this year amount to about 5.6 percent of U.S. defense spending, while resulting in a significant degrading of Russia’s military:

Altogether, the Biden administration received Congressional approval for $40bn in aid for Ukraine for 2022 and has requested an additional $37.7bn for 2022. More than half of this aid has been earmarked for defense.

These sums pale into insignificance when set against a total US defense budget of $715bn for 2022. The assistance represents 5.6% of total US defense spending. But Russia is a primary adversary of the US, a top tier rival not too far behind China, its number one strategic challenger. In cold, geopolitical terms, this war provides a prime opportunity for the US to erode and degrade Russia’s conventional defense capability, with no boots on the ground and little risk to US lives.

The Ukrainian armed forces have already killed or wounded upwards of 100,000 Russian troops, half its original fighting force; there have been almost 8,000 confirmed losses of armored vehicles including thousands of tanks, thousands of APCs, artillery pieces, hundreds of fixed and rotary wing aircraft, and numerous naval vessels. US spending of 5.6% of its defense budget to destroy nearly half of Russia’s conventional military capability seems like an absolutely incredible investment. If we divide out the US defense budget to the threats it faces, Russia would perhaps be of the order of $100bn-150bn in spend-to-threat. So spending just $40bn a year, erodes a threat value of $100-150bn, a two-to-three time return.  Actually the return is likely to be multiples of this given that defense spending, and threat are annual recurring events.

This simple point is important to keep in mind when considering the raucous debates that are expected to emerge surrounding this issue in the next Congress. There’s been a lot of conversation about how congressional Republicans might slash U.S. aid, given the votes by 57 House Republicans against the most recent Ukraine appropriations package, as well as Speaker-elect Kevin McCarthy’s insistence that aid to Ukraine “can’t be a blank check.”

But in light of the degree of support that exists for continuing to back Kyiv’s war effort, it is highly unlikely that, in the near term, Congress will significantly scale back U.S. support. Most lawmakers — including those who didn’t support the last appropriations package — recognize the point made in this CEPA analysis. Republicans concerned about the degree of U.S. support to Ukraine might demand that the U.S. cut economic aid to Kyiv, as this was a sticking point during the last vote. But even those who oppose that form of assistance have expressed support for continuing, even expanding, the effort to arm the Ukrainian military.

In June, the Republican Study Committee — the largest group of conservatives in the House — put forward a budget proposal that expressed support for doing just that, after its chairman, Representative Jim Banks, and other members voted against the Ukraine aid package this spring:

The RSC Budget would also help Ukraine defend itself and win the war by providing Ukraine with heavy artillery, armored vehicles, air defense systems, helicopters, javelin anti-tank missiles, harpoon anti-ship missiles, stinger anti-air missiles, as well as intelligence support, ammunition, and expedited shipments of military equipment to Ukraine. This budget would also backfill our European NATO allies such as Slovakia, which has provided the S-300 anti-air defense system to Ukraine, with U.S. replacements such as the Patriot missiles. In addition, this budget would provide combat aircraft to NATO countries and other partners willing to provide their combat aircraft to Ukraine.

Meanwhile, in an interview with CNN just ahead of Election Day this month, McCarthy expanded on his blank-check remark, suggesting that he meant that Republicans would subject aid to more robust oversight:

I’m very supportive of Ukraine. I think there has to be accountability going forward. . . . You always need, not a blank check, but make sure the resources are going to where it is needed. And make sure Congress, and the Senate, have the ability to debate it openly.

All of this would strongly suggest that heightened congressional oversight of Ukraine aid is wholly compatible with the belief that the U.S. investment in Kyiv’s war machine is an effective use of funds. There’s going to be a vibrant debate about the U.S. approach to Ukraine in the next Congress, and lawmakers might keep the point made in this CEPA analysis at the front of their minds.


Colleges Should Be More Open with Key Data


Those who are looking for a college face a difficult task. It’s easy to make a poor choice — one that might be regretted for a long time. Information is key.

Colleges keep what’s called a Common Data Set (CDS) that can be very helpful in making that decision. But, as Dan Way points out in today’s Martin Center article, not all schools are equally good at making a CDS available to the public. He writes, “Colleges’ tuition costs are easy enough to find, but not every student pays list price. Education experts agree that data about so-called discount rates could be an invaluable tool for parents and prospective students seeking the best and most affordable fit for their higher-education pursuits. But the facts and figures in question are buried treasure, if they are available at all, on many institutional websites. These troves, known as the Common Data Set (CDS), should be widely distributed for the sake of prospective higher-ed consumers.”

Looking at North Carolina, Way finds that most of the public schools are good about making CDS available, while only some of the private schools are.

Apparently, officials at some institutions would rather that students not be able to find out how much of a discount others have gotten.

Way concludes, “Possessing Common Data Set information would place parents and students in a much better bargaining position. Thus, universities should make their data freely available.”

Politics & Policy

When Richard Nixon Congratulated a Young Joe Biden

Senator-elect Joseph Biden in 1972. (Bettmann Archive/Getty Images)

As Dan McLaughlin noted earlier, Joe Biden turns 80 today, making him the first president ever to be that old in office. Biden has been in national politics for so long that some of the touchstones of his history as a politician — busing, for instance — hail quite literally from a prior generation (or even further back than that).

But some of the best evidence of Biden’s longevity comes from the very beginning of his political career. Biden won his first election to the Senate in Delaware in 1972, the year that Richard Nixon won in a 49-state landslide, including in Biden’s own Delaware. And yet, Nixon doesn’t think he could have stopped Biden even if he had gone and campaigned for the incumbent there. “If I had gone to Delaware, I don’t think it would have changed one iota,” Nixon said. “He just had a damn good young candidate running against him.”

That “damn good young candidate” was Biden, just 29 at the time of his campaign for Senate. He turned 30 a few weeks later. A few weeks after that, his first wife and youngest child died in a car accident. Thanks to the (in)famous tapes, we know that Nixon called the young senator-elect both to congratulate him and to offer condolences. You can listen here. A brief transcript of their conversation is below:

Biden: Hello, Mr. President, how are you?

Nixon: Senator, I know this is a very tragic day for you, but I wanted you to know that all of us here at the White House were thinking about you, and praying for you and also for your two children, and —

Biden: I appreciate that very much.

Nixon: I understand you were on the Hill at the time, and your wife was just driving by herself.

Biden: Yes, that’s correct.

Nixon: In any event, looking at it as you must in terms of the future, because you have the great fortune of being young, I remember I was two years older than you when I went to the House. But the main point is you can remember that she was there when you won a great victory, and you enjoyed it together. And now, I’m sure that she’ll be watching you from now on. Good luck to you.

Biden: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I appreciate your call. I appreciate it.

That Biden began his political career with a call from President Nixon just goes to show how long he’s been in politics. And it makes one wonder what young political talents may have another half century left of their times in public life.