Thursday, February 12, 2026

Vanish'd is the feverish dream of life



































Click to enlarge.

The gravestone of the chartist leader Samuel Holberry, "who at the early age of 27 died in York Castle, after suffering an imprisonment of 2 years and 3 months, June 21st 1842, for advocating what to him appeared to be the true interest of the people of England."

This is followed by a verse.

Vanish'd is the feverish dream of life,
The rich and poor find no distinction here,
The great and lowly end their care and strife,
The well beloved may have affections tear.
But at the last, the oppressor and the slave,
Shall equal stand before the bar of God,
Of him, who life, and hope, and freedom gave,
To all who thro' this vale of tears have trod.
Let none then murmur 'gainst the wise decree
That open'd the door, and set the captive free.

Seemingly much of the Romantic Era.  Some slight echoes of Wordsworth.

The Wanderer from The Exeter Anthology

The Wanderer

Always the one alone longs for mercy,
the Maker’s mildness, though, troubled in mind,
across the ocean-ways he has long been forced
to stir with his hands the frost-cold sea,
and walk in exile’s paths. Wyrd is fully fixed!(1)
Thus spoke the Wanderer, mindful of troubles,
of cruel slaughters and the fall of dear kinsmen:(2)
“Often alone, every first light of dawn,
I have had to speak my sorrows. There is no one living
to whom I would dare to reveal clearly 
my deepest thoughts. I know it is true
that it is in the lordly nature of a nobleman
to closely bind his spirit’s coffer,
hold his treasure-hoard, whatever he may think.
The weary mind cannot withstand wyrd
the troubled heart can offer no help,
and so those eager for fame often bind fast
in their breast-coffers a sorrowing soul,
just as I have had to take my own heart —
often wretched, cut off from my homeland, 
far from dear kinsmen — and bind it in fetters,
ever since long ago I hid my gold-giving friend
in the darkness of earth, and went wretched,
winter-sad, over the binding waves,
sought, hall-sick, a treasure-giver, 
wherever I might find, far or near,
someone in a meadhall who knew of my people,
or who’d want to comfort me, friendless,
accustom me to joy. He who has come to know
how cruel a companion is sorrow 
to one who has few dear protectors, will understand this:
the path of exile claims him, not patterned gold,
a frost-bound spirit, not the solace of earth.
He remembers hall-holders and treasure-taking,
how in his youth his gold-giving lord 
accustomed him to the feast—that joy all fades.
And so he who has long been forced to forego
his dear lord’s beloved words of counsel will understand:
when sorrow and sleep both together
often bind up the wretched exile, 
it seems in his mind that he clasps and kisses
his lord of men, and on his knee lays
hands and head, as he sometimes long ago
in earlier days enjoyed the gift-throne.(3)
But when the friendless man awakens again 
and sees before him the fallow waves,
seabirds bathing, spreading their feathers,
frost falling and snow, mingled with hail,
then the heart’s wounds are that much heavier,
pain after pleasure. Sorrow is renewed 
when the mind flies out to the memory of kinsmen;(4)
he greets them with great joy, greedily surveys
hall-companions — they always swim away;
the floating spirits bring too few
well-known voices. Cares are renewed 
for one who must send, over and over,
a weary heart across the binding of the waves.(5)
And so I cannot imagine for all this world
why my spirit should not grow dark
when I think through all this life of men, 
how they suddenly gave up the hall-floor,
mighty warrior tribes. Thus this middle-earth
droops and decays one day at a time;
and so a man cannot become wise, before he has weathered
his share of winters in this world. A wise man must be patient, 
neither too hot-hearted nor too hasty with words,
nor too weak in war nor too unwise in thoughts,
neither fearful nor fawning, nor too greedy for wealth,
never eager for boasting before he truly understands;
a man must wait, when he makes a boast, 
until the brave spirit understands truly
whither the thoughts of his heart will turn.
The wise man must realize how ghostly it will be
when all the wealth of this world stands waste,
as now here and there throughout this middle-earth 
walls stand blasted by wind,
beaten by frost, the buildings crumbling.
The wine halls topple, their rulers lie
deprived of all joys; the proud old troops
all fell by the wall. War carried off some, 
sent them on the way, one a bird carried off
over the high seas, one the gray wolf
shared with death—and one a sad-faced man
hid in an earthen grave. The ancient
ruler of men thus wrecked this enclosure, 
until the old works of giants stood empty,
without the sounds of their former citizens.(6)
He who deeply considers, with wise thoughts,
this foundation and this dark life,
old in spirit, often remembers 
so many ancient slaughters, and says these words:
‘Where have the horses gone? where are the riders? where is the giver of gold?
Where are the seats of the feast? where are the joys of the hall?
O the bright cup! O the brave warrior!
O the glory of princes! How the time passed away, 
slipped into nightfall as if it had never been!’
There still stands in the path of the dear warriors
a wall wondrously high, with serpentine stains.
A torrent of spears took away the warriors,
bloodthirsty weapons, wyrd the mighty, 
and the storms batter the stone walls,
frost falling binds up the earth,
the chaos of winter, when blackness comes,
night’s shadow looms, sends down from the north
harsh hailstones in hatred of men.
All is toilsome in the earthly kingdom,
the working of wyrd changes the world under heaven.
Here wealth is fleeting, here friends are fleeting,
here man is fleeting, here woman is fleeting,
all the security of this earth will stand empty.”
So said the wise one in his mind, sitting apart in meditation.
He is good who keeps his word,(7) and the man who never too quickly
shows the anger in his breast, unless he already knows the remedy,
how a nobleman can bravely bring it about. It will be well for one who seeks mercy, consolation from the Father in heaven, where for us all stability stands. 


source: the Exeter Book 
translation: R. M. Liuzza

1 Wyrd is the Old English word for Fate, a powerful but not quite personified force. It is related to the verb weorthan, meaning roughly ‘to occur’; it may be useful to think of wyrd as ‘what happens’, usually in a negative sense. In a poem so preoccupied with puzzling over the nature and meaning of fate, it seemed appropriate to leave the word untranslated.
2 The Exeter Book manuscript in which the poem survives does not have quotation marks, or clear indications of where one speech begins and ends in this poem; we are not sure whether lines 1-5 are spoken by the same character that speaks the following lines, or whether they are the narrator’s opinion on the general situation of the Wanderer.
3 The description seems to be some sort of ceremony of loyalty, charged with intense regret and longing.
4 Or “when the memory of kinsmen flies through the mind.”
5 The grammar and reference of this intense, almost hallucinatory scene is not entirely clear; the translation reflects one commonly-proposed reading.
6 Ruined buildings are called ‘the work of giants’ (enta geweorc) in several places in OE literature.
7 Or ‘keeps faith’. These last lines offer an answer to the Wanderer’s unresolved melancholia – the wisdom of self-control and the hope of Christian salvation.

History

 

An Insight

 

And all established enterprises and institutions struggle with a high rate of change, no matter what the source.

From BRO-BOTS ☙ Thursday, February 12, 2026 ☙ C&C NEWS by Jeff Childers in his substack Covid & Coffee.  

Childers is a practicing attorney and I do not know how he manages to publish a daily news update which connects dots from obscure sources to articulate a plausible interpretation of what is going on.  He is determinedly upbeat but sees warts and all.  And his insights are generally superior to most sources I follow.  

I have been following this story over the past week.  The case study is KPMG, one of the Big Four Accounting firms.  My career was in management consulting, first with Arthur Young in the Big Eight days, then as a partner at merged Ernst & Young, then later with demergered Cap Gemini Ernst & Young. 

I came up as a strategy consultant and then deep into technology once I started managing business units.  I am deeply familiar with the whole issue of billing by the hour.  For easily half my career, we had various strategies to move away from hourly billing.  As Childers points out, hourly billing has a certain resiliency for all sorts of reasons.  Many of which have to do with who pays the risk premium for highly complex, contingent and difficult work.

From today's C&C.

Pay attention! It’s happening. Late last week, the Financial Times quietly reported “KPMG pressed its auditor to pass on AI cost savings.” Is the billable hour on its last legs?

The Financial Times reported that KPMG— one of the world’s Big Four accounting firms— bullied its own auditor into a 14% fee cut. Their argument was elegant in its simplicity: if your AI is doing the work, your people shouldn’t be billing for it. KPMG’s hapless auditor, Grant Thornton, tried to kick but quickly folded like a WalMart lawn chair, dropping its auditing fee from $416,000 to $357,000.

And now every CFO on Earth is reaching for a calculator.

Here’s the dark comedy. Grant Thornton’s UK audit leader bragged in a December blog post that AI was making their work “faster and smarter.” KPMG took note, and immediately asked why it was still paying the slower-and-dumber price. This is why lawyers tell their clients to stop posting on social media. The marketing department just became the billing department’s worst enemy.

As a lawyer who bills by the hour —and I suspect many of you work in professions that do the same— I can assure everyone that this story sent a terrifying chill racing through the spines of every white-collar professional who’s been out there cheerfully babbling about AI adoption at industry conferences.

The billable hour has survived the fax machine, personal computers, email, electronic filing, spreadsheets, and the entire internet. The billable hour has the survival instincts of a post-apocalyptic cockroach and the institutional momentum of a Senate tradition. But AI might finally be the dinosaur killer, and KPMG just showed everyone exactly how the asteroid hits: your client reads your own press release and demands a discount.

[snip]

The billable hour won’t die overnight. But it just got a terminal diagnosis. Every professional services firm that’s spent the last two years bragging about AI efficiency is now staring at the same problem: you can’t brag to your clients you’re faster and also charge them for the same number of hours. As they say at KPMG, it doesn’t add up. Somewhere in a law firm right now, a partner is quietly deleting a LinkedIn post about how AI is “transforming their practice.” Smart move.

The first rule of AI efficiency fight club is: you never talk about AI efficiency.

It reminds me of an incident in my firm in the late 1990s, maybe early 2000s.  I was the Asia Pacific partner for a global account where we were doing work for many subsidiaries all across the world.  I was on a global account call late one night (perhaps the most significant drawback to being based in Australia, you are on the short end of the timezones stick.) 

We had a new global initiative, establishing an Accelerated Development Center in India.  Client teams in the client country would do the needs and specifications development with the client and then the coding would be done in India.  Basically a labor cost arbitrage strategy.

The head of the ADC was on the call to make a pitch for the ADC services to the assembled global account partners.  At some point in her presentation, the ADC leader enthusiastically declared something along the lines of:

ADC Leader:  We have done multiple projects and trials and we have found we can reduce project costs by a third.

 To which our North American account leader responded by asking:

NA Account Leader:  Next week, I am submitting a proposal to the client for a $6 million project.  Does that mean that I can use the ADC and reduce the cost to $4 million?

What a lesson in being careful of what you claim.  The verbal backpedalling was spectacular.  

The ADC was an advance in efficiency.  It had value, most of which we shared with clients.  But never believe your own marketing.  Big complex projects are - big and complex.  Don't use rules of thumb (minimum of one third reduction) unless you are willing to stake your financial health on them.

Will AI create spectacular efficiencies?  I imagine so.  There will be some rough patches.  Systemic problems will be discovered.  Are the big Law and Accounting firms ready?  Probably not.  AI puts a lot of law and accounting within DIY reach for many firms.  And regardless of that, as Childers points out, if AI is providing dramatic improvements in efficiency, the competitive market will mean that most of that benefit will not go to the bottom line of the Accounting firm but to the client.  That's just the way of the market.

Technology isn't really the issue, its the rate of change.  And all established enterprises and institutions struggle with a high rate of change, no matter what the source.

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

Two fundamental and consequential trends moving together without much discussion

Two nuggets of information.  Both from the same side of the political aisle.  I suspect them to be directionally correct though the absolute numbers may have a material margin of error.  

First. 

And then

I haven't seen anyone putting these two trend lines together.   There is a lot of noise in the economic system right now with government policy changes, agency changes, changes in regulations, the year long focus on tariffs, the prospects of AI, reshoring of manufacturing, reshoring of investments, etc.

Against the expectations of mainstream establishment economists, the American economy seems to be doing well.  Productivity is up dramatically, capital markets are booming.  Labor force participation rates and unemplyment rates are only stable but that in itself is a bit of an achievement.  

Those two X posts highlight two fairly fundamental trends which are policy driven, are drags on the economy in the short term and are likely spurs to productivity growth in the long term.  

The new administration immediately launched two broad policies, one explicit, the other more obliquely.

The explicit policy was to close the border to illegal immigration.  And what a huge success.  Cheap and less regulated labor that can be badly exploited went to zero in three months to the long term benefit of the bottom quintile of the American labor force, those least skilled.  Reduction in cheap foreign labor supply is disruptive but ultimately increases the demand for American labor and is an incentive to improve the capital investment in labor.  

We are seeing that policy consequence in hourly wages rising.  

The less explicit policy has to do with government headcount.  During the Biden administration, an increasing percentage of the labor force was sourced to government employment.  The Trump administration came in with a bunch of policies which ultimately drive a reallocation of labor away from government to the private sector where productivity is always higher.

Some of those policies were explicit - close the Department of Education and early retirement programs for example.

Some were indirect.  Other policies objectives which indirectly led to reductions in headcount.  The restructuring of the CDC for example or the massive turnover at the Department of Justice as the change from pursuit of DEI and Woke to the pursuit of criminal justice entailed massive resignations.  

Whatever the actual absolute numbers turn out to be, these two tweets are indicative of the consequences of the first year of policies.  Since many of the policies have been challenged with lawfare in court and therefore have been delayed in impact or otherwise have so far only been partially implemented, I suspect that in year two we will see an acceleration.  The administration has usually eventually won its court cases as they work their way up the legal chain.  

So the headlines it seems to me is that we have had at least a 1% reduction in the real (legal and illegal) labor force.  2.5 million deported (self-deported and ICE deported) even when the whole effort was being ramped up and still being challenged in court.  I suspect we will see even larger numbers this year.  Yet further reductions in illegal labor and a consequent boost to demand for labor from the bottom quintile of American workers.  A demand which has all sorts of potential beneficial impacts on a variety of other social welfare measures.

And the second headline is that we are now growing private sector payrolls and reducing government payrolls, switching labor from low productivity employment to high productivity employment.

And these numbers are really mostly a product of only the past six to nine months given the time required to implement them and fight the delaying tactics in courts.  

A material reduction in the illegal labor pool and a material reduction in low productivity employment (government) and increase in higher productivity employment are huge fundamentals individually and especially when they are happening in tandem.

This is all tremendously disruptive for the individuals involved (illegals departing, Americans reentering the labor market, changing jobs, changing careers, etc.) and for businesses employing people.  But those changes are likely to help drive some very material increases in long term productivity with the associated income and wealth accumulation for all Americans.

We are beginning to see the numbers now but I am not seeing much discussion about those two trends in tandem.  That is surprising to me given how consequential they are to the longer term welfare of all Americans. 

Polar Night, View of Magdalene Bay, Spitzbergen, 1925 by Georg Macco

Polar Night, View of Magdalene Bay, Spitzbergen, 1925 by Georg Macco (Germany, 1863-1933)
















Click to enlarge.

Wednesday, February 11, 2026

How did the Anglo-Saxons pronounce Latin?

I start reading an Old English poem (The Wanderer) and only a few minutes later I discover that I am deep into a rabbit hole about the pronunciation of Latin by Anglo-Saxons.  

What a wonderful time we live in.


Double click to enlarge.

Horace in Athens by C.P. Cavafy

Horace in Athens 
by C.P. Cavafy
translated by Rae Dalven

In the room of Leah the hetaera 
where elegance, wealth, a soft bed are found, 
a young man with jasmine in his hands is talking. 
Many stones adorn his fingers, 

and he wears a himation of white silk 
with red oriental embroidery. 
His language is Attic and pure, 
but a slight accent in his pronunciation 

betrays his Tiber and Latium origin. 
The young man confesses his love 
and the Athenian girl hears him in silence, 
listens to Horace, her eloquent lover. 

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

The Lovers (1888), by Émile Friant

The Lovers (1888), by Émile Friant (France, 1863-1932)



















Click to enlarge.

Tuesday, February 10, 2026

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

Winter Flower, 1964 by Higashiyama Kaii

Winter Flower, 1964 by Higashiyama Kaii (Japan, 1908-1999)






























Click to enlarge.

Monday, February 9, 2026

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

From the series Anubis and yōkai by Joanna Karpowicz

From the series Anubis and yōkai by Joanna Karpowicz (Poland, 1976 - )






























Click to enlarge.

Sunday, February 8, 2026

Why no discussion of Tammany Hall and Minnesota corruption?

It is interesting and odd to me that, with the burgeoning reports of education, health, homeless, and other NGO corruption emerging first in Minnesota, then California, then Ohio, and now elsewhere, I have seen no accounts which reference or allude to our earlier brush with comprehensive immigrant based corruption - the infamous Tammany Hall.  

From Who Stole the People’s Money? – Do Tell highlighting the impact of cartoonist Thomas Nast on the illumination of Tammany Hall corruption.  



















Click to enlarge.

The “Big Four” Ring members — Bill Tweed, Peter Sweeny, Oakey Hall and Richard Connolly — all belonged to Tammany, with Tweed as Grand Sachem (chief) from 1863 until his downfall in late 1871. Dignified John Hoffman served as frontman, first as Mayor and then as Governor.

Tweed confessed shortly before he died in prison in 1878. Asked to define “Ring,” he responded: “A combination of men to do any improper thing.” Nast often used “Tammany” and “the Ring” interchangeably.

Other crooked Tammany/Ring members included judges, law enforcement officers, city contractors, auditors, book-keepers, and token Republicans. They milked the city for somewhere between $30 and $200 million. (Perhaps as much as $4 billion in today’s dollars).

The Ring had multiple income sources, almost all of them illegitimate. While taxes were the most prominent, bond issues were important and kickbacks from employees played a role. (Even a poor teacher had to pay $75 of her $300 annual salary to keep her job.)

The parallels with Minnesota are everywhere. 

Urban corruption

Blatancy

Immigrant group origins

Democratic party

Siphoning off tax revenues

Staggering size and pervasiveness of the corruption

Elected officials involved

Exposure by third-parties (independent journalists and cartoonists)

Co-dependency between the corruptors and the political establishment

If one were to make the argument that the corporate legacy mainstream media are the propaganda branch of the Democratic Party, then it would make sense that no one would want to draw the parallel.  But since I have not seen any allusion in the independent press either, I fear it might simply be historical ignorance.  Hopefully someone will draw out the parallels soon.

Kind of distressing that 150 years later we are suffering similar symptoms as before.  

Maybe we can learning something this time about more permanently excising institutional corruption.

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Birds at the Feeder, 1944 by Adolf Dietrich

Birds at the Feeder, 1944 by Adolf Dietrich (Switzerland, 1877-1957) 




























Click to enlarge.

Saturday, February 7, 2026

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

When you are the custodian of a fragile orthodoxy, you cannot afford to allow a hint of dissent.

Uh oh.  Two writer whose work I have admired.  One now criticizing the other.  

Megan McArdle used to be a strong empiricist of libertarian/Classical Liberal (Hume, Smith, Kant, etc.) orientation.  She joined the Washington Post a few years ago and her empiricism has become more mooted: you can see her working hard to express what the evidence suggests in a way that won't bring the Woke horde down upon her head.  It is regrettable, but at least she is employed.

Anne Althouse is a left/centrist retired constitutional law professor with an abiding interest in language and clear argument.  


From Althouse.

Megan McArdle asks, in "The transgender orthodoxy is cracking/Malpractice suit and shifting clinical guidelines show cracks in transgender orthodoxy" (WaPo)(referencing the book "Private Truths, Public Lies" by political scientist Timur Kuran).

Public orthodoxies that diverge from private opinion may be surprisingly stable, but they can also prove remarkably unstable, because they depend on private thoughts to stay private, giving doubters the illusion that they are lone deviants rather than members of a silent majority....

Why is this surprising? It's the familiar story of "The Emperor's New Clothes," which everyone has always easily understood.  

Starting around 2015, an orthodoxy on transgender issues crystallized, seemingly out of nowhere....

Once you've said "2015," you've got your answer staring you in the face! Why don't you see it? That was the year gay people won their great victory, a right to marry, in Obergefell v. Hodges. McArdle has "an orthodoxy... crystalliz[ing]" — as if a mysterious disembodied force emerged out of nothing — ex nihilo!

But real human beings were involved and their incentive to acquire a new cause is obvious. The activists had won, but they still needed to work, they still needed contributions, they still needed to push conventional people to move forward into challenging new territory. They couldn't just allow people to become decently accepting and empathetic to the gay people who, after all, are human beings who sometimes love each other and want a home and a family. 

Indeed.  In many ways, the entire past forty years feel as if they were driven by the progressive movement seeking to replicate the glory days of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.  That was such a resounding victory, finally righting bad laws.  It was a clear evil that was fully (in the law) rectified.  

That was truly a great victory.  And then progressives sought to reach further, maintain the momentum.  Instead of equal rights, by the 1970s and 1980s, the new cause was special rights for various groups (women and racial minorities principally.)   Affirmative Action and EEO provided the foundation for later DEI.  Momentum.  Activists got to keep active, regardless of the cause, regardless of the principles.  Regardless of the morality.

Till this moment, when virtually all progressive causes can de facto be presumed evil till proven otherwise; entirely incompatible with American traditions, with Classical Liberalism, with Christianity, with Empiricism, and with Age of Enlightenment thinking.  

To be fair to McArdle, I have not seen many others make the connection Althouse does between the Obergefell (gay marriage) victory and the sudden lurch of progressives into true evil (coerced butchery of minors before the age of consent.)  

Althouse has a great insight (Obergefell gay marriage victory as catalyst to Woke and Trans craze) which is worth debating but likely usefully correct.  

But McArdle is making a completely different argument - ideologies at odds with reality depend on suppression of free speech to survive and that once free speech functions, the probability of a preference cascade increases dramatically, overturning the ideological orthodoxy.

Could/should McArdle have included the Obergefell (gay marriage) victory insight?  Possibly.  I think it is an important insight but I also recognize that McArdle is often writing against the orthodoxy of her company and colleagues and also that she is already making a complicated and intricate argument that doesn't need to be made more complicated.  

She introduces new information and a frame of thinking.  She does this sort of thing with some frequency and I like it.

In his groundbreaking book, “Private Truths, Public Lies,” political scientist Timur Kuran attacks a vexing question: How can official orthodoxies persist for so long even when few people believe them?

Then she develops the argument.

These might seem like small shifts. But as Kuran notes, when public orthodoxy differs widely from private opinion, orthodoxies are prone to a “preference cascade” where public opinion snowballs. Medical association support has been one of the strongest arguments offered by proponents of pediatric medical transition. Now that support seems to be weakening, opening up space for more doubt.

Public orthodoxies that diverge from private opinion may be surprisingly stable, but they can also prove remarkably unstable, because they depend on private thoughts to stay private, giving doubters the illusion that they are lone deviants rather than members of a silent majority. Each skeptical voice makes it more likely that further doubts will be raised, triggering a rapid shift to a new equilibrium.

If you’ve wondered how communism collapsed, that’s how. And if you’ve wondered why communist regimes are so oppressive, that’s also your answer. When you are the custodian of a fragile orthodoxy, you cannot afford to allow a hint of dissent.

She has the obligatory head nod to the keepers of the orthodoxy (who, as of Thursday, are now on their way out the Washington Post door.)  

For one thing, I’m not opposed to pediatric transition. I simply believe we need better evidence before making it standard medical practice. 

McArdle raises a very interesting and critical point that needs far more attention but is not treated in this particular column.  

It is now clear that the evidence for these assertions was weak, and it’s not clear why so many medical associations offered such strong endorsements with so little to back them up. But once issued, they all reinforced each other — questions about one could be quelled by pointing to all the others, and who has any right to question our most eminent medical professionals?

Well, anyone has the right, but that orthodoxy was vigorously protected by freelance thought police who answered even the mildest query with accusations of transphobia. Those accusations could have real costs, like your job or your friends.

You think of the long list of public policy positions of the past twenty years which hav had material negative impacts on the majority of the population:

Covid policies
 
Global Warming 

DEI

Trans

Affirmative Action/Racial discrimination

Decarceration

Defunding the police

Homeless policies

Just to mention a few.  All vociferously and brutally imposed.  And all with only the most vestigial evidentiary support and all refuted or in the process of being refuted.

Ordinary people and the Classical Liberal, Empiricist interpretation was right all along.  The fragile, ephemeral, novel orthodoxies were all wrong.

I think the Obergefell (gay marriage) victory insight would have been nice to weave in but I can see why there are reasons why McArdle, even if she had that insight, might have avoided making it.  I think the more egregious claim in the piece is actually this one.  Again, I interpret this as McArdle as having to supplicate to her own Woke colleagues.

This manufactured consensus looked invincible, until it wasn’t. A few years ago, it was risky in many professional circles to even hint at doubt. But slowly, journalists began raising more and more concerns.

This simply is not true for any of the above issues.  In all instances Woke mainstream journalists were proud and vocal advocates of the fragile and baseless orthodoxies.  They did not raise more and more concerns.  They fought desperate rear guard actions against the emergence of evidence and truth, denying the evidence and truth and seeking to suppress it all the way to the point where it became unsuppresable.  Like when a court of evidence awards $2 million against those following the orthodoxy.  Legacy mainstream corporate journalists have almost never been the heroes of this story.  They have been the ignorant, unstable, emotional enemies of Classical Liberalism and Empiricism.

Althouse has a great insight.

But real human beings were involved and their incentive to acquire a new cause is obvious. The activists had won, but they still needed to work, they still needed contributions, they still needed to push conventional people to move forward into challenging new territory. 

But McArdle has a great insight too.

Public orthodoxies that diverge from private opinion may be surprisingly stable, but they can also prove remarkably unstable, because they depend on private thoughts to stay private, giving doubters the illusion that they are lone deviants rather than members of a silent majority. Each skeptical voice makes it more likely that further doubts will be raised, triggering a rapid shift to a new equilibrium.

If you’ve wondered how communism collapsed, that’s how. And if you’ve wondered why communist regimes are so oppressive, that’s also your answer. When you are the custodian of a fragile orthodoxy, you cannot afford to allow a hint of dissent.


Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

Ice Moon by Sabra Field

Ice Moon by Sabra Field (America, 1935 - )  
























Click to enlarge.

Friday, February 6, 2026

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

Crime is a key factor in the affordability equation

From Nothing Costs Like Crime by Rafael A. Mangual.  The subheading is Wrongdoing isn’t cheap—and until it’s brought under control, affordability is just a word.

Often missing from the affordability debate is an appreciation of how public safety and order shape economic well-being. Policymakers seldom draw the connection, yet affordability and safety are tightly intertwined. When leaders fail on public safety, their constituents’ economic prospects decline with it.

Controlling crime and disorder is often treated as a good unto itself, and rightly so. Crime affects a host of other areas: real-estate values, economic mobility, private investment, and, of course, the direct social costs of victimization. Failure to control it undermines the bottom lines of those living in the neighborhoods most affected. This point matters even more because many misguided criminal-justice reforms are justified in part on fiscal grounds. Incarceration is expensive, reformers say, so we should do less of it for taxpayers’ sake. But loosening the social controls exerted by police departments and prisons carries its own price: rising crime imposes massive economic costs.

Mangual delves into the tricky accounting for victim costs, direct and indirect.  He discusses the indirect cost of crime on education attainment and achievement.  

He has an interesting insight in terms of wealth accumulation.  He makes three points, for most Americans, wealth accumulation is via home ownership, home valuations are very sensitive to the  incidence of violent crime, and violent crime is enormously concentrated in poor urban neighborhoods.

Crime can also have concrete effects on the asset that often accounts for most of the average American family’s wealth: their home. The homeownership rate in the U.S. was just under 66 percent in 2022. According to Pew Research, “Half of U.S. homeowners derived more than 45 percent of their wealth from home equity alone.” That share is even higher for black and Hispanic homeowners, for whom home values constitute between 63 percent and 66 percent of total wealth. I note this disparity because black and Hispanic Americans disproportionately bear the brunt of the nation’s violent-crime problem. In testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 2023, I laid out the relevant facts on that disparity.

Consider an illustrative excerpt: “In New York City, . . . a minimum of 95 percent of all shooting victims and 85 percent of all homicide victims have been black or Hispanic every year going back to 2008, despite those groups making up just 52 percent of the city’s population. . . . Relative to their share of the population, these groups are also consistently statistically overrepresented among victims of rape, robbery, and felonious assault.” Meanwhile, “in Chicago, where 57.9 percent of the population is black or Hispanic, those groups constituted 95 percent of homicide victims in 2019, 96 percent in 2020, 96 percent in 2021, and 95 percent in 2022. . . . Relative to their share of the city’s population, those groups are also consistently statistically overrepresented among victims of robbery, aggravated assault, criminal sexual assault, aggravated battery, and violent crime, generally.”

This should matter more to progressive policymakers, who largely attribute the racial wealth gap to disparities in homeownership. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition, for example, notes: “For most families, their home is the primary way they store and build wealth. The Black–White homeownership gap is therefore the primary driver of the Black–White racial wealth divide. . . . In fact, between 2013 and 2022, more than 90 percent of the wealth gains for Black Americans came from homeownership.” One would expect, then, that self-styled progressives would calibrate their public-safety policies to protect the home values of the very people whose interests they claim to represent.

His main argument is that if politicians wish to improve affordability, one of the more important policy levers are those related to crime control.  Crime, both violent and non-violent, are very large contributors to low affordability.  

Landscape, Gloucestershire, circa 1940 by Stanley Spencer

Landscape, Gloucestershire, circa 1940 by Stanley Spencer (England, 1891-1959)



















Click to enlarge.

Thursday, February 5, 2026

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

A Caravan in Algeria, 1899 by Henrik-August Ankarcrona

A Caravan in Algeria, 1899 by Henrik-August Ankarcrona (Sweden, 1831-1917)
















Click to enlarge.

Wednesday, February 4, 2026

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

St. Anthony Preaching to the Fish, 1892 by Arnold Böcklin

St. Anthony Preaching to the Fish, 1892 by Arnold Böcklin (Switzerland, 1827-1901)


























Click to enlarge.

Tuesday, February 3, 2026

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

La Mota Castle in Medina del Campo, Spain, 1909 by Darío de Regoyos

La Mota Castle in Medina del Campo, Spain, 1909 by Darío de Regoyos (Spain, 1857-1913)



















Click to enlarge.

Monday, February 2, 2026

History

 

An Insight

 

I see wonderful things

 

Offbeat Humor

 

Data Talks

 

Apparition of Saint George on the Mount of Olives by Gustave Doré

Apparition of Saint George on the Mount of Olives by Gustave Doré (France, 1832-1883)






























Click to enlarge.

An incapacity to understand and choose to appeal to a disparate electorate.

From Gavin Newsom is very similar to Kamala Harris by Matthew Yglesias.  The subheading is Two San Francisco local elected officials who successfully ran statewide in CA

Not much of a fan of Yglesias but he has some interesting points every now and then.  He spends some time establishing the parallels between the political careers of Harris and Newsom.  But his point is this.

To get to the Super Bowl, you need to win several playoff games against the N.F.L. teams with the best records. To get to the playoffs, you need to win a lot of regular season games. To become an N.F.L. player, you need to beat opposing football teams in college.

This is a pretty normal tournament-type structure, one that we see pretty frequently in a variety of contexts. Because the playoffs are single elimination, there’s no guarantee that the Super Bowl will feature literally the two best teams. But in a broad sense, the Super Bowl is a football game, and you make it to the Super Bowl by demonstrating skill at winning football games.

You could imagine a world where politics is like that, where a Democratic Party presidential nominee is normally someone with a lot of demonstrated skill at beating Republicans in elections, and a Republican Party presidential nominee is normally someone with a lot of demonstrated skill at beating Democrats in elections.

For that to be the case, though, you would need to live in a world where the typical election was highly competitive. And that’s actually not the world we live in. The vast majority of House members and state legislators hold seats that aren’t remotely competitive in a D vs. R sense. Senate races and governor’s mansions aren’t as skewed, but there are still tons and tons of safe seats out there. As a result, a politician can achieve an extremely prominent role in American politics — like governor of the largest state in the country — without ever winning a hard race against a Republican.

Its one thing to win competitively among competitors who are also intramural.  Real winning is at the varsity level where the competition draws from the broadest range of talent.

My point, though, is that going from holding statewide office in California to running in a national election is not like the A.F.C. champion going to the Super Bowl.

It is hard to win these jobs, and getting them involves a real display of political skill. But that skill is not beating Republicans in elections. It’s catering to Democratic Party insiders and affiliated advocacy groups and generating media buzz and endorsements. And this environment is a bad training ground for developing politicians who are good at beating the opposition party. It’s as if you took the winning team from the Champions League and then sent those players to the N.B.A. Finals on the theory that they’re top-notch athletes. You’re selecting on the wrong thing. And it shows.

Yglesias frequently uses the language of beating the Republicans but edges around what is to me the central issue - the capacity to understand and choose to appeal to a disparate electorate.  

I have lived in a deep blue city for decades.  The leading politicians are barely competent and often with the odor of corruption about them.  Yet they are lionized within the Democratic Party as rising stars in the party.  Rising stars whose celestial glow fades once they emerge from the cocoon of intramural mono-party political jostling.  Some crash and burn with convictions, others simply fade away quietly on ill-gotten gains.  

I have long commented that the failure of local City and County governance is primarily because there is little to no real multiparty political competition.  And that is broadly true.  But Yglesias is hinting at what might be the greater point.  An incapacity to comprehend and respond to the full spectrum of electorate interests rather than the narrow band with which those politicians are familiar.