Just for kicks, I ran the following question through a new AI search engine* I've been evaluating:

"What is the general opinion among economists worldwide of the effect of tariffs on both international trade and national economics?"

It evaluated 52 sites devoted to economic topics and answered as follows. (Ed. note: Be sure to read the comments, where the author links some other experiences with AI, starting with the widely cited ChatGPT.)

"The general opinion among economists worldwide regarding the effect of tariffs on international trade and national economics is largely negative. Here are some key points:

### Impact on International Trade
- **Disruption and Retaliation**: Tariffs often lead to trade disruptions as countries retaliate with their own tariffs. This can create a cycle of tit-for-tat measures that reduce global trade volumes. For example, when the U.S. imposed tariffs on Chinese goods, China retaliated with tariffs on U.S. exports, affecting industries like agriculture and manufacturing.
- **Increased Costs and Prices**: Tariffs raise the cost of imported goods, which can lead to higher prices for consumers and businesses. This inflationary effect can reduce the purchasing power of consumers and increase production costs for businesses. A study found that tariffs on washing machines led to an aggregate increase in consumer costs of over $1.5 billion.
- **Supply Chain Disruptions**: Many modern industries rely on global supply chains. Tariffs can disrupt these supply chains, forcing companies to find alternative suppliers, which can be costly and inefficient. For example, tariffs on steel and aluminum increased input costs for downstream industries, leading to a net decrease in manufacturing employment.

### Impact on National Economics
- **Reduced Economic Growth**: Tariffs can slow economic growth by reducing trade volumes and increasing costs. A study estimated that tariffs could reduce U.S. gross domestic product by 0.6%. Another analysis found that reversing the 2018–2019 tariffs would increase U.S. output by 4% over three years.
- **Job Losses**: While tariffs may protect certain domestic industries, they can also lead to job losses in other sectors. For example, tariffs on steel and aluminum led to a net decrease in manufacturing employment, as the benefits of increased production in protected industries were outweighed by the consequences of rising input costs and retaliatory tariffs.
- **Inflation**: Tariffs can contribute to higher inflation rates, as businesses pass on the increased costs to consumers. This can erode consumer purchasing power and lead to a weaker economy. For example, tariffs on Chinese goods were almost fully passed through to U.S. import prices, resulting in higher consumer costs.
- **Uncertainty and Investment**: The uncertainty surrounding tariffs can deter business investment and job creation. Companies may delay or cancel planned investments due to the unpredictability of trade policies. This can have a negative impact on long-term economic growth and productivity.

### Exceptions and Specific Cases
- **Short-term Gains for Protected Industries**: In some cases, tariffs can provide short-term gains for specific domestic industries by reducing foreign competition. However, these gains are often outweighed by the broader negative effects on the economy.
- **Strategic Protectionism**: Some economists argue that tariffs can be used strategically to protect nascent industries or to address unfair trade practices. However, this approach is controversial and can still lead to retaliation and trade disruptions.

Overall, the consensus among economists is that tariffs generally have a negative impact on both international trade and national economics, leading to reduced growth, higher prices, and increased uncertainty."

It would seem that only a government whose intent was to foment such negative impacts would instigate a large program of tariffs, whether functional of punitive.
One might almost conclude that the objective was to weaken the national economy so as to create anxiety leading to acceptance of even more expanded government control — including non-economic aspects of society — as a "remedy" for the very issues the tariffs might have caused. Who woulda thought?

* The search AI was kimi.ai, another Asian import this week. Fast (time on task < 30 seconds), comprehensive (reviewed 52 sources), and created a comprehensive bibliography of annotated sources complete with key passages used in the report, but with less elegant output than some I've explored. I've omitted the bibliography here. My current favorite for content development is Perplexity.

Next, I asked Kimi to translate the report into Spanish. It did so and produced the text in under 30 seconds. I speak Spanish well and was able to verify the content as essentially the same, but with adaptations to Spanish writing style and vocabulary; I indeed had to look up or confirm only a couple of words, which were superior to the way I would have translated the text. You can read it below.

Finally, I revised the query, this time in Spanish, asking the program to give special attention to relations among Canada, the US and Mexico. Kimi expanded the sources to 62 and replied in < 30 seconds again, this time with most of the same structural points but also with comparative statistics germane to the current dialog among the three countries.

In recent weeks, I've begun to use this technique to prepare factual elements of written work for various publications I work on. My position is that as long as the work is factual not interpretive, identified as AI-sourced, and reviewed by a human, the time saved in literature reviews and fact searching enables one to improve one's product. The risk, of course, is that some users will pass the results off as their own research, including those students who suddenly are writing term papers with knowledge and sophistication beyond their years.

I am impressed with Kimi overall. Of course it's not on par with an analysis by Tucker Carlson or the Very Large Brain; but thank God for that.



En español, sin formato.
La opinión general entre los economistas de todo el mundo sobre el efecto de los aranceles en el comercio internacional y la economía nacional es predominantemente negativa. Aquí hay algunos puntos clave:
Impacto en el Comercio Internacional
Interrupción y Retorsión: Los aranceles a menudo provocan interrupciones comerciales, ya que los países responden con sus propios aranceles. Esto puede crear un ciclo de medidas de represalia que reduce los volúmenes de comercio global. Por ejemplo, cuando Estados Unidos impuso aranceles a los productos chinos, China respondió con aranceles sobre las exportaciones estadounidenses, afectando industrias como la agricultura y la fabricación.
Aumento de Costos y Precios: Los aranceles aumentan el costo de los bienes importados, lo que puede llevar a precios más altos para los consumidores y las empresas. Este efecto inflacionario puede reducir el poder adquisitivo de los consumidores y aumentar los costos de producción para las empresas. Un estudio encontró que los aranceles sobre las lavadoras llevaron a un aumento agregado en los costos para los consumidores de más de 1.500 millones de dólares.
Interrupción de Cadenas de Suministro: Muchas industrias modernas dependen de cadenas de suministro globales. Los aranceles pueden interrumpir estas cadenas de suministro, obligando a las empresas a encontrar proveedores alternativos, lo cual puede ser costoso e ineficiente. Por ejemplo, los aranceles sobre el acero y el aluminio aumentaron los costos de insumos para las industrias downstream, lo que llevó a una disminución neta en el empleo manufacturero.
Impacto en la Economía Nacional
Reducción del Crecimiento Económico: Los aranceles pueden ralentizar el crecimiento económico al reducir los volúmenes de comercio y aumentar los costos. Un estudio estimó que los aranceles podrían reducir el producto interno bruto (PIB) de Estados Unidos en un 0,6%. Otra análisis encontró que revertir los aranceles de 2018-2019 aumentaría la producción estadounidense en un 4% en tres años.
Pérdida de Empleos: Aunque los aranceles pueden proteger ciertas industrias domésticas, también pueden llevar a la pérdida de empleos en otros sectores. Por ejemplo, los aranceles sobre el acero y el aluminio llevaron a una disminución neta en el empleo manufacturero, ya que los beneficios de un aumento en la producción en las industrias protegidas fueron superados por las consecuencias de los costos de insumos más altos y los aranceles de represalia.
Inflación: Los aranceles pueden contribuir a tasas de inflación más altas, ya que las empresas trasladan los costos aumentados a los consumidores. Esto puede erosionar el poder adquisitivo de los consumidores y llevar a una economía más débil. Por ejemplo, los aranceles sobre los productos chinos fueron casi completamente trasladados a los precios de importación de Estados Unidos, lo que resultó en costos más altos para los consumidores.
Incertidumbre e Inversión: La incertidumbre que rodea a los aranceles puede desalentar la inversión empresarial y la creación de empleo. Las empresas pueden retrasar o cancelar inversiones planeadas debido a la imprevisibilidad de las políticas comerciales. Esto puede tener un impacto negativo en el crecimiento económico a largo plazo y en la productividad.
Excepciones y Casos Específicos
Ganancias a Corto Plazo para Industrias Protegidas: En algunos casos, los aranceles pueden proporcionar ganancias a corto plazo para ciertas industrias domésticas al reducir la competencia extranjera. Sin embargo, estos beneficios a menudo son superados por los efectos negativos más amplios en la economía.
Proteccionismo Estratégico: Algunos economistas argumentan que los aranceles pueden utilizarse estratégicamente para proteger industrias nascentes o para abordar prácticas comerciales desleales. Sin embargo, este enfoque es controvertido y aún puede llevar a represalias y interrupciones comerciales.
En resumen, el consenso entre los economistas es que los aranceles generalmente tienen un impacto negativo tanto en el comercio internacional como en la economía nacional, lo que lleva a un crecimiento reducido, precios más altos y mayor incertidumbre.

If "those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it," what can be said of those who actively destroy history?

The destruction of the Library of Alexandria some time before 650 AD (accounts vary) is universally cited as the greatest cultural outrage in history. Scholars will wonder what was lost until the end of time.

The role of the US in stopping a fascist takeover of the world in 1945 — no matter how one feels about the methods ultimately used — might have been an equal inflection point in human history. Tragically, some of the lesser fascists — along with their less vindictive, authoritarian fellow travelers — have been able to hide in the dark holes of their minds for 80 years, ready to emerge whenever the population might become sufficiently confused to restore them to power.

Now certain officials in the USA, believing in their own innate right to rule, are engaged in a pathetic attempt to belittle those who they believe have less value than their own self-exalted status. They are frantically trying to destroy evidence of anything that portraiys anyone or any event with whom or with which they do not personally identify as having played no meaningful role in the nation's history. Anyone who would have the country adopt a more honest view of its past and present unjust actions is also to be forgotten, along with anything that suggests the nation has ever strayed from the path of righteousness they ascribe only to themselves.

The salient example is the removal of photographs of the B-29 that carried the atomic bomb to Hiroshima in 1945. This is apparently due to the inconsequential fact that bomber pilot Paul Tibbets name the ship for his mother Enola GAY, and that's all it took for the insane Tr$mpian masters of purity to axe it.

In the case of the Pentagon documentation cited here, one notes that Tr$mp's musky DOGE fanboys are likely too focused on creating trippy algorithms to know the difference between adjectives like "gay" and surnames like "gay" — as in, "look, Bigballs, they're spelled the same, so they must be the same thing." All this would pathetically comical if it were not so destructive.

It remains to be seen whether light or darkness will prevail. One hopes that somewhere in the bowels of the Pentagon are a few honest men and women who will remember the path to the past. One hopes that others will take up the cause, making their own copies of "disappeared" items and publishing them randomly hither and yon.

Among other topics, neither the Pentagon nor the White House has commented on any reports suggesting that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is gay.

https://apnews.com/article/dei-purge-images-pentagon-diversity-women-black-8efcfaec909954f4a24bad0d49c78074

After Washington Post 6 March 2025 — "Due to a DOGE*-driven spending freeze on federal credit cards, some offices can’t pay phone bills, the employee said, while one office was forced last week to cancel three disability hearings because the staff could not use charge cards to pay for interpreters who speak foreign languages or American Sign Language. One claimant has a terminal illness, and another is in danger of losing their house, the employee said. No new hearings have been scheduled.

"Meanwhile, a DOGE-led campaign to cancel contracts deemed “wasteful” across the government is also hurting Social Security. The agency lost a contract that paid for medical experts to testify at disability hearings, the employee said, along with another contract for mold removal from offices.

"The elimination of the entire civil rights office is causing further chaos and uncertainty; the staff there was responsible not just for processing discrimination cases, but for obtaining office equipment for blind employees — accommodations that are required under federal disability law. No one has explained who will be taking over this type of work, employees said.

"As the agency prepares for a mandated return to in-office work, space constraints in some offices have left supervisors to consider assigning employees to work at desks in supply closets, the worker said.

“'It’s just chaos, people are terrified, and no one knows anything, including our supervisors,' the employee said.

"Another employee said they were briefed on a call last week in which managers received instructions to come up with cuts of half the agency’s staff and the same number of contractors by the end of March. Word of reductions on that scale spread throughout the agency, the employee said. In an internal announcement, Dudek said staff cuts of 50 percent were inaccurate, causing still more confusion.

"For his entire nearly 30-year career at SSA, one employee said, changes came slowly and were accompanied by a barrage of information explaining to staff exactly what was being altered and why. However, since DOGE took hold, changes have come so fast that they are impossible to follow, the employee said.

“'No one really knows what they’re doing, no one has answers, and at some point something is going to break.'

“'Morale is in the toilet, (one) employee said. 'We all know what DOGE wants to do, which is just break us, so they can privatize us.'"

* DOGE is the so-called Dept. of Government Efficiency created by Pres. Donald Trump and his major politcal donor-sidekick Elon Musk.

Source

If you're feeling that, you know, "big gub'mint," might not be the problem behind recent price surges, you're not alone.

The average royalty and lease costs for oil producers extracting petroleum from government lands have recently increased. As of 2025, the minimum royalty rate for oil and gas production on federal lands is 16.67%, up from the previous rate of 12.5%25. This change was implemented as part of the Biden administration's efforts to generate more revenue for taxpayers and better reflect the value of public resources.

In addition to royalties, oil companies must now pay higher fees for leasing federal lands:
Minimum bid price: Increased from $2 per acre to $10 per acre. Annual rental rates: Now start at $3 per acre for the first two years, increase to $5 per acre for the next six years, and then rise to $15 per acre afterwards. Bonding requirement: Increased from $10,000 to $150,000 per lease.

It's worth noting that royalty rates on state and private lands are often higher than federal rates, typically ranging from 12% to 25%1. For example:
• Texas has the highest royalty rates at 20-25%.
• Royalties in the Permian Basin (Texas-New Mexico) and North Dakota Bakken Basin range from 18-20%.
• Many western states charge royalties of 16.67%.

These changes aim to ensure a fair return to taxpayers for the extraction of public resources and to cover potential cleanup costs. The government projects that these new rules will result in approximately $1.5 billion in increased costs for fossil fuel companies between now and 2031.

Supporters of Big Oil will blame these fees for the high price of retail gasoline, etc. However, the profit motive remains the main driver behind short term pricing.

Bottom line, for every dollar received by the actual property owners of public land (just to be clear, that's the public), The producers take 83.3%. The 15% increase in royalties & leases under the Biden administration will amount to about $1.5 billion.

At the same time, based on recent data, oil companies have been earning substantial revenues from oil extracted from public lands, with significant profit margins.

Here are the key details:

Industry revenue for oil drilling and gas extraction in the US reached an estimated $488.5 billion in 2025, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10.6% over the past five years.

Profit margins for the largest companies in the industry are considerable:
The top company had a profit margin of 25.2% in 2025, with revenues of $31.26 billion and profits of $7.86 billion.
The second-largest company had a profit margin of 22.8%, with revenues of $26.26 billion and profits of $5.98 billion.
The third-largest company had a profit margin of 14.0%, with revenues of $23.02 billion and profits of $3.23 billion.

Specifically for public lands, revenues from oil and natural gas leases on onshore federal lands totaled $4.202 billion in fiscal year 2019, representing 86% of total federal revenues from these resources.

The oil and gas industry has maintained strong profitability despite fluctuations in oil prices. From 2014 to 2023, the industry saw a 7% rise in net income, even with an 18% drop in oil prices. Cue recording, "nice work if you can get it."

It's important to note that these figures represent the overall industry, including both public and private lands. The profitability of operations specifically on public lands may vary depending on factors such as royalty rates, lease costs, and production levels.

And there you have the facts behind "drill, baby, drill."

Yesterday in W. Washington, regular gas was $4.29.


(Footnotes omitted. ––RC)

If current plans are fulfilled, California's famed Yosemite Valley will be the site of an enormous memorial to the nation's once and only savior. The plan is to rename El Capitan, the 3,000 foot monolith that greets visitors who enter the Valley via the western gateway and carve a relief reminiscent of Mt. Rushmore into its southward face.

El Trumpitán

There are two competing designs. The other shows only the subject's face with a height of approximately 730' (222.5 meters) or 9x the height of the bust of George Washington at Mt. Rushmore.

The larger concept includes a full length necktie and certain historic details, making the overall height of the memorial almost 3,000 feet (914 meters), which many people are saying would never be surpassed.

Asked now the memorial would be created, lead designer Thorsten Pablum, a descendant of the creator of the Mt. Rushmore national memorial best known for his seminal work, 57 foot "Ode to Trump" statue in New York's Central Park, said that the AI tools Trump plans to develop soon, perhaps to be released in just days, would make the whole thing possible.

Pablum added that he expects to bring the project to completion in at very reasonable cost, not to exceed the rest of the federal budget for the target years 2046/7, when the President --or whatever high(er) office he then holds -- will be able to enjoy the view from the new Trump Tower Yosemite across the valley.

Controversy

Asked about the impact on the natural environment, Pablum admitted that the project would change the monolith forever, causing some Yosemite traditionalists to argue against the creation of the monument.

"We would have to lower the summit by about 100 feet to allow us to fully style the Leader's signature hairdo" he said, adding "and, of course in the full-size design we would be staining the rock to define the president's clothing. The hardest part will be to carefully stain the stripes of the necktie, which is an epic feature everyone loves."

"However, if you're going to honor the man who wanted to bring egg prices down, you have to break some rocks," he quipped.

When asked about how the nation would pay for the memorial, the White House pointed out that instead of reducing taxes the money could be better spent on the memorial, which at the current rates should retire any debt incurred not later than the year 2325, in time for the 300th anniversary of Trump's second inauguration.

Today's geographical analysis — by an actual PhD geographer: Fearless Leader's idea of incorporating "Canada" into the USA might not have the results he imagines.

A quick search of the WWW asking: "If Canadian provinces were states in the USA, which USA party would prevail in each?" — coupled with living within 150 miles of the Frozen North for about 40 years — can be summed up as follows.

First important fact not considered by the Very Large Brain: Canada is not a unitary state; it is a federation of (historically 10 now 11) provinces. Canada extends about 3,049 miles from St. John's, Newfoundland to a point at the intersection of Alaska, NW Territories and the Arctic Ocean, compared to 2,724 from Miami to Seattle or 2,696 from Bangor ME to San Diego or 2,613 from San Diego to Honolulu, with comparable differences in landforms, climate and society. (Of course I left out the 5,158 miles from Honolulu to Bangor, reasoning no one would choose that trip.)

Second: Based on the political leanings and characteristics of Canadian provinces, if they were to become U.S. states, most would likely lean Democratic. However, there would be some variations across provinces:

Quebec: Likely Democratic, but with a unique political landscape. Quebec's politics revolve around nationalism vs. federalism rather than a traditional left-right divide. The province's strong support for public healthcare and progressive policies aligns more closely with the Democratic Party.

Ontario: Strongly Democratic. As Canada's most populous province, Ontario's urban centers and generally liberal attitudes would likely translate to Democratic support.

British Columbia: Likely Democratic. The province's urban areas and environmental concerns align more with Democratic policies.

Alberta: Potentially Republican. Alberta's conservative leanings and focus on oil and gas industries might make it more receptive to Republican policies. However, it would still be more moderate than many current Republican states.

Saskatchewan and Manitoba: Leaning Democratic, but potentially competitive. These prairie provinces have a mix of rural and urban populations, which could lead to closer races.

Atlantic Provinces (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador): Likely Democratic. These provinces generally support social programs and have a history of voting for liberal parties.

Territories (Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut): Likely Democratic, given their significant Indigenous populations and reliance on government services. (Note that the combined population of these territories barely sums to the 125,000 required by the Constitution for statehood.)

Third: It's important to note that Canadian political ideologies don't directly translate to the U.S. two-party system. Many Canadian conservatives would be considered moderate Democrats in the U.S. context. Additionally, about one-third of Canadians describe themselves as "political orphans" who find all parties too extreme, indicating a significant centrist population.

Overall, if Canadian provinces became U.S. states, they would likely add a substantial Democratic-leaning bloc to American politics, potentially shifting the balance in favor of the Democratic Party. Of course, many voters would retain their Canadian perspectives, possibly leading to a structural realignment of the continent's politics, and since only about 1/3 of US voters appear to be dyed-in-the-wool Trumpistas, one imagines that the current administration would have some 'splaining to do.

J.D. Vance, speaking with the Fox News host Sean Hannity, (recently, as quoted in The Atlantic) provided further "Catholic" reasoning for his administration’s approach to migrants and refugees, arguing that he thinks it’s “a very Christian concept that you love your family, and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country, and then after that you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world.”

In fact, J.D., the Bible, a well known religious text to which many Christians purport to adhere, makes no mention of Jesus imposing a hierarchy of whom to love, the sole exception being God. To wit: Jesus provides several key teachings about loving one's neighbor in the Gospels:

"Love your neighbor as yourself." This is one of the most well-known statements Jesus makes about loving one's neighbor, found in Mark 12:31 and Matthew 22:39. In both instances, Jesus presents this as the second greatest commandment, after loving God.

In Matthew 22:37-39, Jesus says:
"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

With regard to "strangers" — AKA foreigners as used throughout the New Testament — Jesus expands on this concept in Luke 10:27, stating:
"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' and 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

Additionally, in John 13:34-35, Jesus gives a new commandment to his disciples:
"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you also must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

In Matthew 25:35-36, Jesus directly equates welcoming strangers with welcoming Him:
"For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me."

Jesus goes on to explain that when we treat "the least of these" with kindness, we are treating Him with kindness. This teaching elevates the act of welcoming strangers to a profound spiritual significance.

Now I frankly don't believe for a moment that these are direct quotes, as they were written decades after Jesus' death and likely mistranscribed over the centuries, but these teachings emphasize the importance Jesus placed on loving one's neighbor as a fundamental aspect of Christian faith and practice. One need not be a professing Christian to grasp the universality of such principles.

Vance in his "Hillbilly Elegy" alludes to the paucity of his upbringing and early education, and now he offers proof.

The US federal budget for 2023 was about $6,307 billion, yes over six trillion. That is the last year for which comparable statistics are available. The average taxpayer paid just over $19,000 in federal income tax in 2023. Most paid less, as outliers with immense incomes skew the statistic upward.

Some of this money goes to "foreign aid," which has been much in the news this week. For 2023, foreign non-military aid including USAID cost the average taxpayer about 40¢ per day. Depending on one's social and moral beliefs, either it was wasted or it paid for health, safety and economic well-being in some of the world's poorest countries.

For comparison, the U.S. military budget for fiscal year 2023 was approximately $820 billion, which accounted for about 13.3% of the federal budget. The average taxpayer paid about $13.99 per day for defense, or $14.40 per day if we include aid to allied military forces.

For example, about $3.3 billion went to Israel, or about $412 per Israeli or 68¢ per square foot, or 4¢ per day per US taxpayer, which roughly quintupled the following year due to the war in Gaza.

In other words the Pentagon's budget is about thirty-six times the foreign aid budget.

Completely eliminating "foreign aid" would save the average taxpayer about $0.80 per day, or, for example, just a bit less than a daily ration of therapeutic pediatric survival food** (photo). Happily for certain leade(R)s, the impact — increased poverty, disease and conflict — would be felt by people who are far away and powerless.

If the overriding goal is really to save some money, consider this. Each year recently something in excess of 40,000 people have died in firearms-related incidents — usually for no good reason. If we assume that each of them loses 20 years of adult life during which they would have produced $100,000 worth of goods and services annually (an amount far below actual US productivity), then the annual loss to the economy is (40,000 X $100,000 X 20 =) $80 billion per year and compounding, which this writer estimates to be much more than the foreign-aid bill of $71.9 reported by Pew Research Center for one recent year.

(It's important to note that estimates of foreign aid range from about $50 million to about $100 million, usually with the clear sound of an axe being ground in the background. We've used median values in this analysis, and we could be off by a factor of two either way, but that does not change the overall trends.)


Sources: (URLs responsive as of 2025-02-07)

** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plumpy'nut

* https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/united-states/individual/taxes-on-personal-income

* https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/undefined/fy2023congressionalbudgetsubmission508cpdf/download

* https://www.nationalpriorities.org/interactive-data/taxday/average/2023/us/receipt/

* various additional government documents

They came for civil servants, health care and public safety workers, but I was not among those, so I said nothing.
They came for public assistance, but I was not poor, so I said nothing.
They came for workers' compensation, but I was self-employed, so I said nothing.
They came for early childhood education, but my children were grown, so I said nothing.
They came for women, but I was not a woman, so I said nothing.
They came for Medicare and Social Security, and because I am old I spoke up.
They came for me, and no one dared speak.

(Apologies for appropriating allusion to much worse events.)

Once upon a time, a president of the Kingdom of America, formerly the Duke of Orangeness, proclaimed from his throne the anointment of Prince Robert of Kennedy the Younger to be physician to the king and —- as time allowed —— to aid such other other subjects of the realm as might shower shekels upon his shoulders, all while eschewing the use of aught from the treasury.

The people of the kingdom responded with mixed emotions. Lamentably, most shrugged and accepted their lot. A minority at the margin whose lives hung in a tenuous balance between simple unreason and perilous insanity hailed the choice. A smaller minority who ofttimes pondered difficult concepts like gravity and chemistry and who carried a memory of the days before the monarchy seized power were verily vexed.

One brave kinswoman of the prince, who had traveled beyond the kingdom and learned the ways of other lands, challenged the king's proposed action, writing thus to the kings ministers...



And the people were sore afraid.


* As transcribed by Couric, et al.

US Pres. Donald J. Tr$mp's press secretary has not confirmed that the president has chosen a nominee for undersecretary of agriculture for animal welfare.

Previous reports have indicated that his choice is Bulgarian immigrant Круела Де Вил (portrait), well known for her discriminating taste in adolescent canines. The choice is said to be a condescension to immigration supporters.

UPDATE: Ms Де Вил has stated that she'd be delighted to accept the appointment, noting that she could think of at least 101 immediate actions she could take in furtherance of the president's platform.

Apology to Disney et al.

The Tr*mp Campaign has neither confirmed nor denied the adoption of a new official presidential portrait to be used in the 47th presidency beginning on January 20, 2025. A purported image has been circulated on the Internet.

More information

From our smirking MAGA fratboy department: The worst of the worst are not only imposing pain and tribulation on their sisters, they're laughing about it.

History

About the meme

Nuance? Hardly

Impact

Cruelty is the whole point

Defense (A-ho Department)

A prince of a fellow.

(No one else dares.)

More on Topic

Suggested by...

The intriguing world of artificial intelligence (AI) has called most producers of online content seductively to its bedside. Some have dipped a toe; others have leapt joyfully. It all bears much more examination than will be possible in a few short lines.

So far I have fenced my own playground around a few simple cartoons, graphs and inquiries into simple facts. Without doubt, the products have on occasion been superior in several ways to what some of my former students and clients could have created for themselves.

Simple cartoons are already equal to what the average commercial art program's students produce, though they are limited to the styles already extant on the Web and exhibit none of the individuality of great cartoonists. The best use file formats allowing them to be scaled for multiple output media.

Graphs based on mathematical equations are for the most part accurate. Rendering is consistent, allowing the visual presentation of complex relationships in two or three dimensions based on tables of data that can themselves be called forth by textual inquiries.

So far these results imply no threat, except to the least competent of artists and graphics technicians. That leaves the formulation of inquiries and statements of problems as the probable core of any issues we might have with the beast(s) in the machine.

I asked Perplexity.ai "what is the variability in price of three-quarter inch ball bearings in the USA from 1950 to the present?" The system answered that it did not have enough information on the specific values required to construct an answer. So it gets an A for humility.

Continues...

PDF download