"Today's ultra-wealthy are not chic at all..."

Says Tommy Huerter on TikTok, looking at Mark Zuckerberg's new house, which is, he says, best described as "luxury slop." It looks like a hotel, and "there's no real design direction other than make this look expensive."

Meet Jeffrey Epstein.

wild find, how the media first introduced Jeffrey Epstein 25 years ago https://t.co/RZLXdHQvKr

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) February 10, 2026

AND: As long as I'm embedding things from Mike Benz this morning:

"The cuts are a sign that Jeff Bezos, who became one of the world’s richest people by selling things on the internet, has not yet figured out how to build and maintain a profitable publication on the internet."

"The paper expanded during the first several years of his ownership, but the company has sputtered more recently. Matt Murray, The Post’s executive editor, said on a call Wednesday morning with newsroom employees that the company had lost too much money for too long and had not been meeting readers’ needs. He said that all sections would be affected in some way, and that the result would be a publication focused even more on national news and politics, as well as business and health, and far less on other areas."

From "Washington Post Begins Laying Off More Than 300 Journalists/The layoffs will cut into The Post’s local, international and sports coverage, and reduce the number of all its employees by about 30 percent" (NYT).

What's it to Bezos? Why doesn't he just bankroll the operation? Make it so good it's worthy of spending money on?

A famous question: "Now, tell me honestly, my boy, don't you think it's rather unwise to continue  this philanthropic enterprise, this Inquirer that's costing you a million dollar a year?" Famously answered:

A historian weighs in The chief executive of Ish Entertainment uses the work of a historian to comment on the similarity between the U.S. today and France just before the Revolution.

An excerpt from "The Billionaires Have Gone Full Louis XV" by Michael Hirschorn in the NYT. 

The historian Robert Darnton described an uncannily similar moment in “The Revolutionary Temper: Paris 1748-1789,” his brilliant 2023 account of the decades leading up to the French Revolution. The preconditions were all there: suffocating top-down control of the media, rapid technological change, let-them-eat-cake behavior among the courtier class, weaponized religious bigotry, mansions with hideously de trop ballrooms. OK, Marjorie Taylor Greene is not quite Voltaire. But there was a pedophilia scandal involving Louis XV: Public obsession with the king’s many mistresses helped give rise to so-called libelles, cheaply printed, semi-factual pamphlets that speculated on, among other matters, the king’s supposed never-ending supply of teenage girls. It would have fit right in on TikTok. Reverence turned to mockery; mockery begot contempt; and then. …

Libelles ≈ social media. 

REVISION: The original headline was "A historian weighs in on the similarity between the U.S. today and France just before the Revolution," but the historian didn't comment on the similarity. The author of the article Michael Hirschorn, identified at the link as "the chief executive of Ish Entertainment," is the one who picked things out of the history and made the comparison. Thanks to commenter Narr for drawing attention to this.

"Zoran Momani has been elected.... So what?... What's the big deal? Obviously he was going to win.... You can just leave...."

"But there are people out there who... are finding it increasingly difficult to afford New York City. Those people — the paint-by-numbers/pin a ribbon on me/I did all of the right things/I have all of the right views/I post all of the right things on social media.... They're normies.... They're just boring and vapid and surface and dull and pointless.... and their concerns are so small and petty.... That is the coalition that Zoran has. He has a coalition of angry, boring, mediocre people that have done the right things and have gotten very little for it....

"There is a reason the world’s gardens are full of benches that nobody ever sits on."

"We aren’t built for leisure or built to relax. Rather, we are built to strive. We still need fulfilling work. The only difference, in retirement, is that we don’t have to worry so much about whether that work comes with a paycheck."

Wrote Jonathan Clements, quoted in "Five Pearls of Wisdom From a Legend of Financial Writing/Jonathan Clements, the longtime Wall Street Journal columnist, died this weekend. Here are some of his best ideas" (NYT).

Speaking of finance, I was just reading: "It was only last summer that women declared they were looking for a man in finance, 6-5, blue eyes. The goal posts appear to have shifted since then. Now, some social media users are extolling the virtues — with varying degrees of sincerity — of settling for a partner to whom they’re not initially attracted. Such a person, the thinking goes, will ultimately treat you better than someone who is more obviously desirable."

That's in "'Shrekking? Intelligence Gaps? When Did We Get So Cruel to Our Lovers? Social media users have coined new, even meaner terms for 'dating down'" (NYT).

"Even overpriced lobster salad can’t seem to make people out here feel better.... The Hamptons is basically in group therapy about the mayoral race."

Said Robert Zimmerman — some political fund-raiser, not the Robert Zimmerman.

Quoted in "From How Are the Very Rich Feeling About New York’s Next Mayor? The Hamptons is basically in group therapy about the mayoral race." 

Holly Peterson, a Park Avenue and Southampton based novelist who, as she put it, owes her career to being able to skewer the “selfishness” of high society types, said she can barely find anyone on the East End who is over 40, works in finance and is “pro-Mamdani.”

That's reminiscent of Pauline Kael's immortal remark: "I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him." 

"Not so long ago, members of high society were fixated on trying to low-key their way out of the perils of income inequality."

"Minimalism and quiet luxury were in vogue. But in the wake of President Trump’s second election, it’s the luxe life at full volume. He gilded the White House, turning it into a rococo Liberace lair. Swaggy and braggy have replaced stealth wealth. Flaunting it is in. For women, that means sequins, diamonds, tight silhouettes and big hair....  And now there are the Bezos-Sánchez nuptials.... Ms. Sánchez brings to mind another unlikely Vogue subject: Ivana Trump. Ms. Wintour gave her a cover in 1990, shortly before her divorce from Mr. Trump, after worrying, as I reported in a biography of Ms. Wintour, that she was 'too tacky.'... As much as those with more understated taste might turn up their noses at the crassness of the Bezos-Sánchez wedding’s display, tacky is very clearly carrying the day. Maybe hating on tacky oligarchs is itself just elitist...."

Writes Amy Odell, in "The Bezos-Sánchez Wedding and the Triumph of Tacky" (NYT).

"The problem with even a 'TINY' tax increase for the RICH, which I and all others would graciously accept..."

"... in order to help the lower and middle income workers, is that the Radical Left Democrat Lunatics would go around screaming, 'Read my lips,' the fabled Quote by George Bush the Elder that is said to have cost him the Election. NO, Ross Perot cost him the Election! In any event, Republicans should probably not do it, but I'm OK if they do!!!"

Writes Trump, on Truth Social.

"Several billion? That's peanuts for these guys."

Reporter: Do you intend to continue selling crypto products that benefit yourself while President?

Trump: I don’t know if it benefited. Where is it today?

Reporter: You made several billion dollars

Trump: That’s peanuts for these guys pic.twitter.com/eimGxhAZeA

— Acyn (@Acyn) January 21, 2025

ADDED: I asked Grok, "How is a politician's selling of meme coin different from selling tangible items like branded hats and coffee mugs?" and then "How is it the same?"

"Aside from joking about his wealth, Mr. Biden has openly stewed over one of Mr. Trump’s flashier — and apparently effective — stunts as president."

"During [a recent] speech at Brookings, Mr. Biden said he had been 'stupid' not to sign his name to Covid stimulus checks that were distributed to Americans early in his term. Mr. Trump emblazoned his signature on checks distributed after a relief bill was passed in the spring of 2020.... Mr. Biden has also not voiced much public regret for deciding to call his economic plan 'Bidenomics,' though he has privately groused to allies about his dislike of the name. And while his administration has acknowledged mistakes during the chaotic and deadly troop pullout in Afghanistan in 2021, Mr. Biden does not regret pushing forward with the withdrawal."

From an article by Katie Rogers that, I think, is trying to be kind to Biden: "A Reflective Biden Harbors Some Regrets as His Term Winds Down/President Biden will seek solace and 'relief' during a visit with Pope Francis next month, according to people familiar with his plans. His public comments have offered a glimpse into what is on his mind" (NYT)

"Even when Musk decided to waste a chunk of his fortune on buying Twitter, so that he could restore accounts belonging to right-wing dissemblers such as Donald Trump and Alex Jones..."

"Tesla-lovers managed to feel pretty good about themselves. Since then, however, Musk has gone full MAGA. Among the highlights: he has endorsed the antisemitic 'Great Replacement' conspiracy theory, wondered why no one tries to assassinate the Democratic nominee for president, and pledged to give Trump’s campaign $45 million a month....This past weekend, Musk showed up at a Trump rally and reiterated his belief that the country and its Constitution could not continue to exist if Trump weren’t reelected. Among my friends who drive Teslas, Musk’s name comes up a lot in conversation, like an embarrassing skin condition you wish you could ignore. Some manage ably to compartmentalize. A neighbor I see at the dog park rails against Trump voters but raves about his self-driving Model S.... Other Tesla drivers feel stigmatized and vacillate about selling their cars. One friend affixed a magnet to her Tesla that says: 'I bought this before we knew Elon was crazy.'"

Writes Matt Bai, in "The left’s Elon Musk dilemma/Nothing I can think of has plunged liberal friends of mine into a kind of moral anguish quite like Tesla" (WaPo).

Oh, the struggles of Matt Bai's Tesla-driving friends! I wonder what other "moral anguish" problems roil their privileged lives.

But I had to laugh at the notion that Musk "waste[d] a chunk of his fortune on buying Twitter." Musk spent $44 billion. His net worth is $264 billion. What else could he have bought that could have provided him with anything like the satisfaction and power he gets from X? Waste?!

"'One of the things that’s really interesting with Hume’s Treatise is that he introduces the term "sympathy" to explain why we have esteem for the rich and the powerful'..."

"... says Neil Charles Saccamano, associate professor of English at Cornell University. 'Hume talks about how the notion of property enters into why we esteem them – that they own things like houses and gardens.' The beauty of those objects, Saccamano says, is designed to produce pleasure in the owner of the object. 'And we others, who do not own this property, and are not rich and powerful, and who are of a lower class, we simply "sympathise" with the pleasure we anticipate that the owner of the property will receive from the objects,' he says. So, when we watch Meryl Streep and Steve Martin making late-night chocolate croissants at her bakery in It’s Complicated, the sense of pleasure and anticipation we take from the scene is as much about 'sympathising' with the luxuriousness of it all: the softly lit kitchen, the pastry against the cool marble counter, the exquisite indulgence of owning a bakery at all, let alone breaking in after hours for a little erotically charged patisserie-making.... 'And in [Hume]’s analysis, part of the pleasure of the owner is knowing that others envy them – or sympathise with their pleasure,' says Saccamano...."

From "Lights, camera, comfy furnishings: why the ‘beige chic’ of Nancy Meyers is having a revival/In her hit romcoms, the director’s sets were as popular as the films. Now trending on social media more than a decade after her last movie, her coveted look is back" (The Guardian).

"I have harbored a strong dislike of summer activity dating back to a series of failed attempts at camp during childhood...."

"Maine takes up a lot of my mental space, probably because I don’t go there. People in Maine have undiscovered hamlets where everyone has been coming for ages and they barbecue amiably with authentic locals at night. Others belong to Old Families with a private island off the coast tucked into the family tree, a place where only family have been allowed to go for hundreds of years. On this island they have sailboats and clambakes and croquet and break out periodically into song. These kinds of summers are plainly out of reach. The 1 percent of the 1 percent don’t need to plan summer because they have it built in. They have a place on the Vineyard or in the Hamptons. They belong to a club where everyone speaks golf and there’s a long waiting list even for those who can afford it. Summer is when the maw of income inequality gapes wide open and only people who summer are allowed in.... I marvel at people with second homes when I can barely stay on top of my one, and summer traffic stresses me out. And what did I miss, really?..."

Writes Pamela Paul, in "It’s Too Late for Summer Now" (NYT).

Why I read something this blurry.

I'd just watched "What a Way to Go" — the Criterion Channel is featuring Shirley MacLaine movies — and checking Rotten Tomatoes, I saw that Joan Didion wrote a review in the May 1964 issue of Vogue. I could subscribe to Vogue just to read that paragraph, but I found that by calming down and believing in myself, I could read it. It's not much different from reading without one's reading glasses. It's an apt and pithy review. "What a Way to Go" was a big movie in its day, so it deserves the bad reviews it got, but 60 years later, it's fun to look at the stars and the costumes and the sets. The Hollywood that produced it no longer exists. Nothing to get mad at now. Here's a sentence from the contemporaneous NYT review by Bosley Crowther:

Inspired by a Gwen Davis story, which has not swum into my ken, so I cannot tell you how fairly or fouly it has been used, the team of musical-comedy writers is making kookie jokes about a girl whose sad fate it is to marry a succession of burgeoning millionaires.

The "girl" hates money, loves Henry David Thoreau, and only wants to live the simple life, but the movie seems to have been made on the theory that the way to make good art is by spending as much money as possible.

"Mr. Trump ended the first day of public trading $4.6 billion richer on paper...."

I'm reading "Trump’s Social Media Company Opens New Avenue for Conflicts of Interest/Ethics experts say Trump Media, now a publicly traded company, would present a new way for foreign actors or others to influence Donald J. Trump, if he is elected president" (NYT).

Isn't it funny how his haters got him kicked off Twitter and — only because of that — he made his own website and 3 years later, it makes him $4.6 billion?

Anyway, this new Times article, by Sharon LaFraniere — "an investigative reporter currently focusing on Republican candidates in the 2024 presidential campaign" (I love the plural) — casts shade on Trump's insanely good fortune. 

"Trump social media stock skyrockets in first day of trading."

NBC News reports.

ADDED: From the NYT article on the subject: "Before the merger, shares of the shell company... had long behaved as something of a proxy for investor sentiment about Mr. Trump.... By most traditional measures, Trump Media’s valuation is inordinately high. The company took in just $3.3 million in revenue during the first nine months of last year, all from advertising on Truth Social, and recorded a loss of $49 million."

So... overvaluation seems to be a theme with Trump. Here the market is doing the valuation. It's not Trump's valuation his own property and the DA's alternative valuation— the subject of the New York lawsuit.

Any hope of characterizing the buying of the stock, bidding up the price, as an illegal campaign contribution? It's handing billions of dollars to Trump.

"No matter how much one disapproves of Mr. Trump, or wishes that his presidential ambitions fail, every defendant deserves due process, including recourse to appeal...."

"Seeking appeal should not be effectively impossible, or expensive to the point of imposing vast and irreparable harm, particularly when a defendant has a colorable argument before appellate judges, as Mr. Trump appears to have...."

That's the Editorial Board of The Washington Post.

"Precisely how much cash Trump has is not known. He claimed to have '400-plus' million dollars during an April deposition..."

"... in the fraud case. In an August financial disclosure filed with the Office of Government Ethics, he listed hundreds of bank and investment accounts with a total value of between $252 million and $924 million.... Trump has to keep some cash on hand to operate his properties, such as his golf courses and hotels, as maintenance or investment needs require, according to banking experts. Freeing up hundreds of millions of dollars more would almost certainly require Trump to borrow against or sell some of his real estate.... A surety company might accept Trump’s properties as collateral, but that carries its own risks. Experts in issuing bonds may not be equipped to do their own investigations into Trump’s property values, and they may not know what his assets are really worth...."

From "Clock is ticking for Trump to post bonds worth half a billion dollars/Experts say a cash crunch in coming weeks could thrust the former president’s business into greater uncertainty than it has seen in decades" (WaPo).

"they may not know what his assets are really worth" — Ironically, that is what the case itself was about. 

I wonder if Trump's claim that he has "400-plus" million dollars influenced the judge to come up with $355 million penalty (plus interest) as the penalty in the case.

"Donald J. Trump might one day have to pay E. Jean Carroll the $83.3 million she was awarded, but that day is not today...."

"Mr. Trump can pay the $83.3 million to the court, which will hold the money while the appeal is pending. This is what he did last year when a jury ordered him to pay Ms. Carroll $5.5 million in a related case. Or, Mr. Trump can try to secure a bond.... It would... require Mr. Trump to find a financial institution willing to lend him a large sum of money at a time when he is in significant legal jeopardy.... He has enough cash to cover the verdict in various accounts, a person close to him said. In recent years, Mr. Trump has unloaded several assets, including his Washington hotel, which sold for $375 million.... The New York attorney general is seeking a $370 million penalty from the former president and his family business as part of a civil fraud trial that wrapped up this month...."

The NYT reports.

Meanwhile: "Rudy Giuliani targets Donald Trump for ‘unpaid legal fees’ in new bankruptcy filing/Mr Giuliani filed for bankruptcy last month after he was ordered to pay $148m to Georgia election workers he defamed" (Independent). The filing lists a "possible claim for unpaid legal fees against Donald J Trump" in an amount that is "undetermined."