"People find anything offensive, but we pushed back and we won. So f*** them. Until the next time. They haven’t gone away."

"They’re just licking their wounds. They’ll be back with something madder. But remember who it is next time? Right? It’s always these sort of educated, middle-class, privileged, elitist, sort of people telling ordinary working-class people what they can and can’t do and say and laugh, not realizing how important comedy is to ordinary people."

Said Ricky Gervais, in his new Netflix special, "Mortality," quoted in "Ricky Gervais Uses Netflix Special To Declare Victory Over 'Virtue Signalling' Elites Who 'Find Anything Offensive' — And Reveals Golden Globes Gag He Bottled" (Deadline).

Also: "The most annoying thing about virtue signalling is people being smug about having the morality of the age. You’re what you’re like because of where you are and when you are.... I’m willing to admit that if I’d have been born 300 years ago and I was white and wealthy, I’d have probably owned slaves...."

And then — I'm saying this based on having watched the show — he proceeds to fake-fawn over himself for being a particularly benevolent slaveholder. He virtue-signals within the slaveholder role. And the implication is that's what today's virtue-signalers are doing, praising themselves within the standards of the time but blind to the larger picture.

"To commemorate the abolition of slavery, the [Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee] had recommended an image of Frederick Douglass on the obverse and shackled and unshackled hands on the reverse."

"To honor women’s suffrage, a World War I-era protester carrying a 'Votes for Women' flag. And to evoke the civil rights movement, a 6-year-old Ruby Bridges, books in hand, helping to desegregate the New Orleans school system in 1960. [Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent, authorized by law to make final decisions about coin designs] opted instead for the more general, and much whiter. For the Mayflower Compact, a Pilgrim couple staring into the distance. For the Revolutionary War, a profile of Washington. For the Declaration of Independence, a profile of Thomas Jefferson. For the Constitution, a profile of James Madison. And for the Gettysburg Address, a profile of Lincoln on the obverse, and on the reverse, a pair of interlocking hands. No shackles."

From "The War on ‘Wokeness’ Comes to the U.S. Mint/The Treasury Department unveiled new coins celebrating America’s 250th anniversary. They failed to include planned designs featuring abolition, women’s suffrage and the civil rights movement" (NYT).

It does seem that the celebration of the 250th anniversary should concentrate on things that happened around 250 years ago, not on later events, but even Bessent's 5 choices include 2 that are not from the era of the founding. The Mayflower Compact is over a century earlier, and the Gettysburg Address is almost a century later. 

This sentence bothered me:

"It has come to my attention that a post referencing Indigenous People's Day was published from Official Alamo social media accounts..."

"... on October 13, 2025. Given that on October 9th, President Donald J. Trump issued a proclamation declaring the second Monday of October to be Columbus Day, I have serious concerns regarding the writing, approval, and posting process of the Alamo Trust, Inc. (ATI) Communications Team in coordination with ATI leadership.... This is not the first incident that has highlighted personnel who are misaligned with the culture of The Alamo.... Specifically, the second draft of the Visitors Center & Museum (VCM) script, where a 'Land Acknowledgement' plaque was to be displayed in the lobby. Additionally, 'Freedom' was only mentioned once, 'Liberty' a mere 13 times, but 'Slavery' and 'Enslaved' were mentioned nearly 70 times. This speaks to a pattern of behavior that is completely misaligned with the priorities of my office, and the vast majority of Texans who care so deeply for our Shrine of Liberty...."

Wrote Dawn Buckingham, the Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office, in a letter discussed at a WaPo article titled "Republican overseeing Alamo renovation ousted after ‘woke’ social media post/Kate Roger, a Republican, has filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against state officials after a social media post and PhD dissertation led to her losing the job of overseeing a massive renovation of the Texas landmark" (gift link).

And here's what Rogers had written in her 2023 PhD dissertation: “Personally, I would love to see the Alamo become a beacon for historical reconciliation and a place that brings people together versus tearing them apart, but politically that may not be possible at this time.”

(The headline says "Roger," but the rest of the article says "Rogers," which I believe is correct.)

"One day last year, when she was hungry, a woman came up to her and offered what sounded like a dream proposition..."

"... would she like to work in a studio, performing on camera and earning good money, in safety, without anyone touching her? She went to the studio: a block of flats where an administrator registered her. She soon realised everything she had been told was a lie.... For the clients who watched her she was a fantasy: a young Colombian woman in her bedroom they paid handsomely to act out their desires. In reality she was a prisoner. For three months Victoria was held captive with five other women on the eighth floor of a block of flats, forced into violent sexual exploitation, on camera, for at least ten hours a day. Her earnings were stolen by the men who controlled her.... Every time she asked for the money she’d been promised, they told her she had debts that she had to work off first: food she’d eaten, paper towels they’d given her. If she cried and refused to perform, they fined her.... "

From "Inside the world sex-cam capital" (London Times)(describing conditions in Cúcuta, Colombia).

"Assata Shakur, the Black revolutionary once known as JoAnne Chesimard... died on Thursday in Havana. She was 78...."

"Assata Shakur was both lionized and demonized long after she and the Black Liberation Army, the militant group she had embraced, faded from broad public consciousness. To supporters she was a tireless battler against racial oppression. To detractors she was a stone-cold cop killer, the first woman to land on the F.B.I.’s 'most wanted terrorists' list, with $2 million in state and federal money offered for her capture. For her part, Ms. Shakur regarded herself as 'a 20th-century escaped slave.'..."

From "Assata Shakur Dies at 78; Convicted Revolutionary Found Refuge in Cuba/A member of a militant Black group, she was found guilty in the 1973 murder of a New Jersey state trooper, escaped from prison and fled to Cuba, where she taught and wrote" (NYT).

"The White House published a list of Smithsonian exhibits, programming and artwork it considered objectionable..."

"... on Thursday, one week after announcing that eight of the institution’s museums must submit their current wall text and future exhibition plans for a comprehensive review. The list borrows heavily from a recent article in The Federalist that objected to portrayals at several museums. It argued that the National Museum of American History promoted homosexuality by hanging a pride flag; overemphasized Benjamin Franklin’s relationship to slavery in its programming; and supported open borders by depicting migrants watching fireworks 'through an opening in the U.S.-Mexico border wall.'...:

I'm reading "White House Lists Smithsonian Exhibits It Finds Objectionable/The Trump administration highlighted material dealing with topics like sexuality, slavery and immigration" (NYT).

Here's that official list put out by The White House.

Most striking item on the list: "The National Museum of African Art displayed an exhibit on 'works of speculative fiction that bring to life an immersive, feminist and sacred aquatopia inspired by the legend of Drexciya,' an 'underwater kingdom populated by the children of pregnant women who had been thrown overboard or jumped into the ocean during the Middle Passage.'"

Notably out of context item on the list: "An American History Museum exhibit features a depiction of the Statue of Liberty 'holding a tomato in her right hand instead of a torch, and a basket of tomatoes in her left hand instead of a tablet.'" There's an image of it, and it looks like really bad art — amateurish junk. But here's the Smithsonian's description of the object and why it is in the collection:

I'm reading the front page of The Washington Post with the wild hope of keeping up to date.

 

I mean, what do they think they're doing? What did they say to each other as they chose to put this material on the front page — right under stories about Zelensky at the White House, the National Guard in Washington D.C., terrorism in Texas, and Hurricane Erin? Let's revisit the legacy of slavery and balance it with closeups of black asses? It's as if they had to meet a racial quota and brainstormed and juxtaposed the first 2 things they thought of. 

"I don't give a shit whether the upper middle class and Beverly Hills in Bel Air have got to pay actual American citizens to do their lawn or, you know, clean their gutters."

"And people say, oh, we'll never get American citizens to do it. Well, hey, if you have to pay a decent wage in a competitive market because you don't have millions of illegal aliens that are prepared to work for slave... look, we can't have a country that's based upon servitude. That's what this is."

Said Steve Bannon, quoted in "Steve Bannon’s Battle for the Soul of MAGA," today's episode of the NYT podcast "The Daily" (audio and transcript at Podscribe).

Joe Biden — who declared Juneteenth a federal holiday — celebrates Juneteenth.

At the Reedy Church, yesterday, in Galveston, Texas:

"Delaware is a strange state. Delaware is the first state, but it also is a state that was a slave state, by great shame. But it fought on the side of the North, and it didn't get to the South like Maryland and two other states. And so even when the when we did Juneteenth, didn't affect people in Delaware because they weren't they weren't in the Confederacy nor the Confederate. Wasn't until the Emancipation Proclamation was occurred. What I'm trying to say is that uh I uh I I just learned a lot in the community and uh that's where I worked on East Side that's why I worked as a lawyer and that's why I got involved in public life...."

The actual fact he didn't even approach is that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't abolish slavery in Delaware. It took the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery in Delaware, so on Juneteenth — June 19, 1865 — the Delaware slaves were still slaves. The Thirteenth Amendment was not ratified until December 6, 1865. 

But here's Joe Biden in Galveston on Juneteenth, talking about Delaware, calling it a strange state, and not getting anywhere near what's so strange about Delaware that relates to Juneteenth.

Meanwhile, President Trump "celebrated" Juneteenth by writing this on Truth Social: "Too many non-working holidays in America. It is costing our Country $BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to keep all of these businesses closed. The workers don’t want it either! Soon we’ll end up having a holiday for every once working day of the year. It must change if we are going to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

Until now, we had, living among us, the grandson of the 10th President of the United States.

I'm seeing this in The Richmonder: "Harrison Ruffin Tyler, grandson of 10th U.S. president and longtime Richmonder, dies at 96."

Born on Nov. 9, 1928 in Richmond, Tyler was the son of Lyon Gardiner Tyler and Sue Ruffin. His father was a son of President John Tyler and president of William & Mary for more than three decades; his mother came from another Virginia family of long lineage and ardent support for slavery and secession.... President John Tyler was 63 when Lyon Gardiner Tyler was born; Lyon was 75 when Harrison entered the world.... At age 8, he was invited to the White House to meet President Franklin D. Roosevelt....

My son Chris, who is dedicated to reading a biography of every American President, read "President without a Party: The Life of John Tyler," by Christopher J. Leahy (commission earned). Chris does not read books on Kindle, so when he wants to share something with me, he texts me a photo. For Tyler, he sent this:

"The fallout from the trade disruption will hurt the United States, which relies on China for all sorts of manufactured goods, but will do more damage to China..."

"... aid Wang Yuesheng, the director of the Institute of International Economics at Peking University. 'The impact on China is mainly that Chinese products have nowhere to go,' Mr. Wang said. That will ravage export-oriented companies making things like furniture, clothing, toys and home appliances along China’s eastern seaboard, which largely exist to serve American consumers. 'These companies will be hit very hard,' Mr. Wang said.... Beijing’s strategy now is to push back at the United States and hope that Mr. Trump succumbs to domestic pressure to reverse course, said Evan Medeiros, a professor of Asian studies at Georgetown University who served as an Asia adviser to President Barack Obama. 'They know that if they give in to pressure they will get more pressure,' he said. 'They will resist it with the belief that China can withstand more pain than they can.'"

I'm reading "For U.S. and China, a Risky Game of Chicken With No Off-Ramp in Sight/Neither side wants to look weak by backing down on tariffs. But if their trade relationship collapses, the global consequences could be profound" (NYT).

The off-ramp is free trade!

Until then, it's a test of who "can withstand more pain." I can see thinking Americans will give up first, but the pain is worse for China. They have all this junk they made for us — furniture, clothing, toys and home appliances — and we'd just be saving money and going without a lot of extra items we might be better off without — all that "fast fashion," all the plastic toys, all the home redecorating madness. We may even learn that life is better without so many cheap consumer goods. Less waste. Less damage to our soul from the slave labor.

They need to break before we learn to live without them. But if they don't, we pocket in the money from the tariffs.

Why aren't progressives on Trump's side here?

"Most men live lives of quiet desperation," said Joe Rogan.

On the new episode of Duncan Trussell's podcast — audio and transcript here.

The guys were not talking about Henry David Thoreau. They were talking about men struggling to live with women. Here's the context (which begins at 00:57:11):

ROGAN: I had a buddy of mine who was an actor and he got this part, I think it was in a movie. It was good, you know, good little, small part. He was real excited and his girlfriend started crying and she said, when is something gonna happen for me?... That was her response....

TRUSSELL: Jesus, dude. That's so dark.

ROGAN: I think about that guy sometimes. 'cause I was, I was on a, a show with him, one day, just bit part on a show. And I was like, this guy's gonna be a movie star.... But I remember him telling me, he's like, she started crying, man.... She was crying saying, when is it gonna happen to me? So [he says] I don't know what to do. And I was like Captain Fucking Jettison — I'm Captain Fucking Pull the Parachutes — that's me.... So I was like, dude, you gotta bail out.... You gotta bail now. This one, you can't fix that girl....

TRUSSELL: That's so fucked up.

ROGAN: But she's pretty hot.... 

TRUSSELL: Dude, I wouldn't have bailed.

ROGAN: She had the heavies... she had natural heavies.

TRUSSELL: Natural heavies. It's worth it!

"Wealthy residents of the Hamptons demand perfection"... and live in fear of Trump's deportation agenda.

The NYT drums up sympathy for completely unsympathetic rich people who've been relying on illegal immigration to serve their various needs!

The rich are not the "They" in the headline, "They Help Make the Hamptons the Hamptons, and Now They’re Living in Fear/Latino immigrants care for some of America’s most lavish beachside mansions. Their disappearance would affect the wealthy, too."

Heavens! Affecting the wealthy too. Oh, my!

Maybe the NYT is mocking these people? Nope! The article is well larded with empathy for the migrants who face deportation, but the travails of the rich are presented soberly:

"One of the more perplexing criticisms we have received is that under our account of the common law rule, the freed people would not be citizens...."

"If our understanding of the rule fails to account for that, then that understanding cannot be right. But our account of the rule does extend birthright citizenship to the newly freed people. To reiterate, by social compact, we do not mean the explicit consent from both parties to citizenship as would be required for a contract between private parties. We mean that allegiance of some kind has been exchanged for protection, remedying the defects of the state of nature. Any child born to someone who had entered into that kind of social compact with America would be a citizen. The newly freed people obviously qualify. In our view, enslaved persons brought here against their will were not afforded protection of the law. But obedience and ligeance were demanded of them nonetheless. It was a failure on America's part that it did not provide the protection that it owed in return for that allegiance...."

Write Randy Barnett and Ilan Wurman, at The Volokh Conspiracy, responding to critics of their NYT op-ed, "Don't Assume Trump is Wrong About Birthright Citizenship."

There's a lot more to the Barnett and Wurman response, and here's my post from 3 days ago linking to their original NYT piece.

"Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship."

So say lawprofs Randy E. Barnett and Ilan Wurman (in the NYT).

That's a free-access link so you can read the whole thing, which is very tightly written and hard to excerpt. A lot depends on the idea, expressed by Lincoln’s first attorney general, that "The Constitution uses the word ‘citizen’ only to express the political quality of the individual in his relations to the nation; to declare that he is a member of the body politic, and bound to it by the reciprocal obligation of allegiance on the one side and protection on the other."

Then Barnett and Wurman ask: "Has a citizen of another country who violated the laws of this country to gain entry and unlawfully remain here pledged obedience to the laws in exchange for the protection and benefit of those laws?"

ADDED: Ilya Somin responds with "Birthright Citizenship - A Response to Barnett and Wurman/Their argument for denying birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants born in the US has multiple weaknesses, including that it would also have denied it to former slaves" (Reason).

There are several flaws in Barnett and Wurman's "allegiance-for-protection" theory. The biggest is that, if consistently applied, it would undermine the central purpose the Citizenship Clause: extending citizenship to recently freed slaves and their descendants. Slaves born in the United States (and their parents, who were also usually slaves) obviously weren't part of any social compact under which they traded allegiance for protection. Far from protecting them, state and federal governments facilitated their brutal oppression at the hands of their masters....

Another problem with their analysis is that they rely almost exclusively on sources interpreting the nature of citizenship before enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, such as the 1862 Bates opinion. But the whole point of the Citizenship Clause was to expand the range of people eligible for birthright citizenship....

"Birthright citizenship obviously doesn’t apply in case of war or invasion. No one to my knowledge has ever argued that the children of invading aliens..."

"... are entitled to birthright citizenship. And I can’t imagine what the legal argument for that would be.”

Said 5th Circuit Judge James C.  Ho, quoted in "Is Trump’s Plan to End Birthright Citizenship ‘Dred Scott II’?/The 14th Amendment overturned the 1857 decision that denied citizenship to Black people. Scholars say President Trump’s proposal betrays that history" by Adam Liptak (NYT).

The 14th amendment language, written in the context of acknowledging that the freed slaves are citizens, is "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

The textualist debate focuses on "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." What did that mean to exclude?

“It excludes those persons who, for some reason, are immune from, and thus not required to obey, U.S. law,” [Ho] wrote. “Most notably, foreign diplomats and enemy soldiers — as agents of a foreign sovereign — are not subject to U.S. law, notwithstanding their presence within U.S. territory.” 

As you can tell from the headline, Liptak uses the importance of the citizenship of the freed slaves as a reason to read the phrase in the spirit of inclusiveness. Apparently, the Trump administration will group those entering the country illegally with enemy soldiers. It's an "invasion." We'll see the legal and political effects of this debate about what the Constitution means and what people wish it would mean.

They say it's the "season to be jolly" and Santa is praised as a "jolly old elf," but I've known a couple people who were jolly...

... and I think people found it annoying and wish they'd settle down.

I presented my musing to Grok and received this distinctly non-jolly response: 

The notion of "jolliness" during the holiday season, particularly around figures like Santa Claus, is indeed a cultural expectation that doesn't always align with personal experiences or preferences.... The idea of being "jolly" during the holiday season is deeply ingrained in many cultures, especially those influenced by Western Christmas traditions.... This image has been perpetuated through various media and commercial representations, setting a somewhat unrealistic standard for holiday cheer.... 

Your experience of knowing people whose jolliness was perceived as annoying might reflect a broader sentiment where excessive cheerfulness can seem forced or out of touch with one's actual mood or the realities others might be facing.

"He claimed magnets don’t work underwater.... He bragged about his ability to put on pants.... He said the Civil War could have been 'negotiated.'..."

I'm reading "8 Awful Things Trump Said in Iowa, Ranked" (NY Magazine).

Is it not a good thing to believe wars can be avoided? Is it an article of faith that American slavery could only have been ended through warfare? Why is it "awful" to say that, as President, Trump would have tried to end it peacefully?

Should a politician hold a campaign rally in a church?

Here's "Charities, Churches and Politics" at the IRS website.

I'm not going to give a tax law lecture. I just want to say politicians using churches usually attempt to be somewhat subtle. Is this some kind of joke:

Here's the article, "Biden Tries to Rally Disaffected Black Voters in Fiery Condemnation of Trump."

President Biden sought to rally disaffected Black supporters on Monday with a fiery condemnation of former President Donald J. Trump, linking his predecessor’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election to the nation’s history of white supremacy in what he called “the old ghost in new garments.”

Ghost?! If Trump used the idea of a ghost to scare black people, he'd be accused of trading on the old racist trope. 

"New York Times' Nikole Hannah-Jones tweets the North didn't fight to end slavery in Civil War."

A Fox News headline from last year, interesting today in light of Nikki Haley's recent comments on the Civil War.

On [May 21, 2022], Hannah-Jones tweeted out a quote from her controversial 1619 Project...