"And she said she spent her limited free time ironing undergarments, sewing fraying skirts and reinforcing loose jacket buttons."

I'm reading "Japan Is Startled by Prime Minister’s Grueling Sleep Schedule/Sanae Takaichi has said she gets just 'zero to three hours' of sleep a night, prompting a debate in the country over work-life balance" (NYT gift link).

The article begins: "Monday was Sea Day in Japan, a public holiday when many people escape the summer heat by swimming, surfing and lounging at the beach. But not Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi."

Work-life balance is important. Sleep is important. But here, I'm more interested in a Prime Minister talking about ironing undergarments and accomplishing tiny sewing repairs. What is this theater of humility? Also, that holiday: Sea Day. 

"President Trump has been rampaging around the globe like Grendel at dinner time, a rapacious, feral creature. Who could stand up to him?"

"The soft-spoken, humble Leo, who strives to unify, squared off against the bombastic, solipsistic Trump, who strives to divide. And watching the saintly pope school the amoral president is a blessed sight...."

Writes Maureen Dowd, in "The Pope Bedevils Trump" (NYT).

That's a gift link, so you can explore the entire argument.

"But history shows that economists and researchers have been terrible at predicting the effects of new technologies on work and workers..."

"... so take forecasts like this one seriously but not literally. Even researchers cranking out studies of AI in workplaces caution that they’re making useful but fallible best guesses. 'All the important questions about AI’s effects on the labor market are still unanswered,' Jed Kolko, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, recently concluded. Economists at Anthropic, the AI start-up behind the Claude chatbot, stressed the need for 'humility' in their analysis of AI seeping into occupations. (Humility is uncommon in Silicon Valley.)

From "Jobs least and most vulnerable to AI" (WaPo)("See which jobs are most threatened by AI and who may be able to adapt"). 

I would have expended one of my 10 monthly gift links on this — so you could fiddle with the graphic depictions — but the graphics are so fussy and overwhelming that I couldn't find the gift-link button. Is that me being vulnerable, unadaptable, and replaceable or is that The Washington Post showing its decline?

Anyway, I like the idea that humility is coming into vogue in A.I. world. Or is that part of its plan to trick us into letting it take over everything?

Extremely humbled.

For the very concerned media - yes, I love America and was extremely humbled when my friends, the newly minted Gold Medal winners on Team USA, invited me into the locker room to celebrate this historic moment with the boys- Greatest country on earth and greatest sport on earth.…

— Kash Patel (@Kash_Patel) February 23, 2026

Background: "FBI Director Kash Patel defends partying with U.S. Olympic ice hockey team/Videos of Patel celebrating in Italy went viral Sunday night, prompting criticism and questions about his judgment during a critical time for the FBI" (WaPo)(gift link).

The video:

A source sent me this video of FBI Director Kash Patel partying with the US Men's Olympic Hockey team. pic.twitter.com/egjmdhOAF6

— William Turton (@WilliamTurton) February 22, 2026

Meanwhile: "U.S. women’s hockey team declines Trump’s State of the Union invitation/The players 'were honored to be included and are grateful for the acknowledgement,' according to a team statement that cited previously scheduled commitments" (WaPo).

That's putting it very politely.

This is also polite, articulate silence:

"I don’t think that … any of these cases that have been decided are the gospel.... And I do give perspective to the precedent. But… the precedent should be respectful of our legal tradition..."

"... and our country and our laws, and be based on something – not just something somebody dreamt up and others went along with.... I think we should demand that, no matter what the case is, that it has more than just a simple theoretical basis.... [If it’s] totally stupid, and that’s what they’ve decided, you don’t go along with it just because it’s decided."

Said Clarence Thomas, quoted in "Clarence Thomas says precedent might not determine cases on upcoming supreme court docket/The court is expected to weigh in next session on same-sex marriage, which it legalized in 2015" (The Guardian).

I picture him gesturing at the shelves of case reports and scoffing These are full of things somebody dreamt up and others just went along with.

That calls an old anecdote up in my mind — a distant memory. What was it? Who was the judge? I'm seeing that it was Learned Hand, the famous 2d Circuit judge. He supposedly said: "The reports are full of cases that were wrongly decided, and the only way to avoid making a fool of yourself is to be humble about it."

"I spend a lot of my time saucer-eyed with horror at the rapid degeneration of this country, agog at the terrifying power amassed by Silicon Valley big shots who sound like stoned Bond villains."

Writes Michelle Goldberg, pushing this new HBO show "Mountainhead," in "From the Creator of ‘Succession,’ a Delicious Satire of the Tech Right" (NYT).

No one, I suspect, can fully process the cavalcade of absurdities and atrocities that make up each day’s news cycle. But art can help; it’s not fun to live in a dawning age of technofeudalism, but it is satisfying to see it channeled into comedy.

I liked "Succession" and will give this show a try, but the trailer did not appeal to me. Was that music needed to mask the deficiencies of the script and the acting? 

"I hope you rich folks don't mind slumming it in the humble abode of the poorest billionaire in the gang" — that's the first line in the trailer! I can't believe present-day billionaires would talk like that. It sounds like the way a high-school student in the 1960s would write dialogue for a rich guy. Remember when any time a door was opened to reveal the innards of a mansion, some character would say "Welcome to my humble abode"?

I don't mind unrealistic dialogue if it's brilliant somehow — comically, tragically — but that's just so embarrassingly dumb. I don't get it. "Succession" was great. But I see this show was written and filmed very quickly:

"President Trump has ushered in an age of political theatre – a collective adrenaline rush that has enabled him to not only move masses of people into his camp..."

"... but also masses of people away from ours. It does not serve us to underestimate the historic nature of what he has achieved. In fact, it’s important that we recognize the psychological and emotional dimensions of Trump’s appeal. We need to understand it to create the energy to counter it. MAGA is a distinctly 21st century political movement and it will not be defeated by a 20th century tool kit.... [W]e must immediately get about the task of creating a new party. It will be….  A party that listens more, and makes people feel that their thoughts and feelings are as important as their wallets. A party that advocates unequivocally for the working people of the United States. A party with the humility to recognize we need to look in the mirror, and be willing to reinvent ourselves...."

Writes Marianne Williamson, announcing that she's running for chair of the Democratic National Party.

ADDED: I like how she spelled "theatre"... especially while touting herself as in touch with the mind of America. "Theatre" is British English. "Theater" is American English.

Ben Shapiro is disgusted by what may or may not be humor.

 "I don't know whether that's parody or whether that's real," says Ben after watching a TikTok. "Either way, it's the end of our civilization, because some of what this person is saying is absolutely true. Do you think that Gen Z is qualified to defend the country in any serious way — mentally, physically, emotionally? I don't either."

Here's Ben, watching the TikTok:

I had a sincere, but odd question, so I decided to ask ChatGPT.

In one second, it began writing what became — 3 seconds later — a lucid 5-part answer.

My question:

Why wouldn't most people decide the best way to live is to be as inconspicuous as possible?

ChatGPT:

There could be several reasons why most people may not decide to live an inconspicuous life. Here are some possible explanations:

Triage.

Rabbi Marc Gellman:

What looks like unfeeling cruelty on the TV screen is most likely the result of hard but decent choices made by people who see exactly what we see, but who, unlike us, are charged with facing the chaos and turning it into hope....

Triage is not a way to decide whom to kill. Triage is a way to decide whom to save so that in the end the most people can be saved. Triage choices are tough, but they are necessary because doing nothing is a choice, and because following the loudest scream is a choice, and because only helping those on television is a choice, but all those choices are driven by impulse and are not supported by coherent moral values. If the resources were unnecessarily limited, and if the triage decisions were made in error we will know in time. The point now is that any finger-pointing must be mollified by a good dose of trust, humility and patience. Just because we see a helicopter on the news flying over a group of victims here does not mean that the helicopter is not following a triage decision to save a group of more needy victims there. Triage is where morality meets reality. It is precisely at times of chaos that morally informed but tough-minded triage decisions must be made, otherwise morality is simply a dilettante’s luxury and a mere intellectual puzzle for the philosophy classroom, but irrelevant on the street.

Comments?