Jordan Weissmann on Presidential power; Steve Stewart-Williams on evolution; James Marriott on declining literacy; Michael Magoon on early modern Europe
This is the most original and enlightening summary of the current situation I have ever read: "in the culture war the academics and the mainstream media act as both a protagonist and the referee. Maybe the right ends up needing a leader who ignores the ref."
"But Weissmann’s larger point is compelling. He says that strong Presidential power is a bad thing. He says that it should not be embraced by Democrats in the future."
Easy enough when you have a permanent bureaucracy firmly on your side. One might say the Ds rehearsed the low-power presidency in 2020-2024.
The bureaucracy is part of the executive and, properly speaking, an extension of presidential power.
Once one understands that, one sees that Biden and Obama both exercised very high power presidencies.
Trump 1, and to lesser extents the Bush years were relatively low power except when the interests of both executive factions aligned (post 9-11). Then it was quite strong.
This misses the power held by top level and lower level career federal employees to write policy and take actions that aren't aligned with the presidential party. On top of that, AK posted about the power of professional societies and other non-government groups that write the standards and licensing rules implemented by government. Not mentioned were the academic groups that decide what research projects get federal research grants.
I might not have been clear, but in fact that's exactly what I was trying to emphasize!
The "Presidential power" is the sum total of executive power, and as you say, a lot of that power actually rests in both the formal bureaucracy and the informal ones that have evolved.
A simple way to put it is that presidential power has rapidly grown beyond presidential control.
1. What's happening now isn't an expansion of presidential power, it's a reassertion of presidential control.
2. This separation of power and control is asymmetrical because, effectively, the interests of the unelected bureaucracies and the democratic presidents have overlapped. So Democratic presidents have more control in practice.
We agree that democrat power remains in the executive branch regardless of who is President but I don't agree that Trump has reasserted control. What he hasn't removed (very little removed) remains largely intact, unchanged, and parts are rather liberal.
Note: while the liberal influence may be rather pervasive, it is still a relatively small part of the whole.
Oh i agree that Trump hasn’t reasserted anything like complete control. Just pointing out that what really seems to anger the other side is that hes trying to assert control over that power, not that the power exists.
I suppose that's true though there is also a lot of dislike for the ham-fisted way he has done most of what he has done so far this term. I think it's hard to separate the two dislikes.
Or maybe the two things are that it's ham-fisted and they don't like what he has cut or threatened to cut. I doubt many understand that the bureaucracy leans left or that many on the right desire a change to that.
The Dems always want a strong, effective President, one who sells to the public what the Dem elites who occupy the bureaucracy want—and who most often oppose any Rep who has a policy they disagree with. Based on successful Biden policies, like Yglesias or Noah Smith will talk about, Biden used lots of Dem desired President-power, it’s just that Biden wasn’t really the decider.
Getting rid of USAID was a fine step in reducing the power of future Dem presidents, as is reducing the Dept. of Education.
Virtually all the power within DoEd is below the Secretary level and changes little from Dem to GOP President. I doubt cuts by Trump will change that much either. Even eliminating the department and moving legally required functions elsewhere would leave most of the bureaucratic power in place.
As for USAID, it seems certain there were lots of problems there but I doubt the share of funds going to waste and corruption was all that much different than under GWBush. Bush had very high favorability throughout Africa and besides helping the poor and suffering, it gave him a lot of soft power across the continent that is largely gone now. I have no doubt we've lost far more than what was gained by the tiny decrease in spending.
I remember the time when Biden unleashed the FBI against parents exercising their first amendment rights at local school board meetings. How many on the left celebrated this and how many called it for the authoritarianism that it was? If you were on left and celebrated at the time, then I have no use for anything you might utter today about the trivial Trump/Kimmel affair.
Also, Biden did what he did in stealth mode. Trump did what he did in a completely transparent way for all to see how foolhardy he was.
I also remember the time when the Democrats tried to cancel three television networks. But, they are outraged on 1A grounds by the 4 day paid vacation for Kimmel?
***
Two prominent House Democrats have fired off a letter to AT&T, Comcast and Amazon and other channel distributors, asking them whether they plan to continue carrying Fox News, One America News Network and Newsmax.
In the letter, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) and Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA) single out the networks as “misinformation rumor mills and conspiracy theory hotbeds that produce content that leads to real harm.”
“Misinformation on TV has led to our current polluted information environment that radicalizes individuals to commit seditious acts and rejects public health best practices, among other issues in our public discourse,” they wrote in the letters. The letter was sent to 12 cable, satellite and streaming companies.
That's the biggest difference between Trump and almost every other politician. Trump is an economic moron who changes his mind for any reason or no reason, but he does it transparently; we learn what he wants the same moment he does.
The amount of abject poverty eliminated in the last few decades counters every argument i have seen for the collapse of society, and every diatribe against technology trends.
I surely agree that any collapse of U.S. society started no earlier than about 2015.
If people wanna say it had roots going back even decades earlier, fine. But that’s not the same thing.
I am not as absolutist as you about the past 10 years.
I agree with you re: technology trends. The only *possible* one going forward that would be concerning is if and when AI reaches full AGI and then on to ASI. For anything short of ASI, however, your point about technology trends is absolutely correct
And with respect to children, Harvard's Martin West states:
"Reading scores for American students peaked in 2015 in Grade 4, and in 2013 actually in Grade 8. In Grade 8, the scores have been falling steadily since 2017. And if I showed you a graph of that decline, you wouldn’t be able to pick out the years in which school closures took place and the pandemic was raging. Rather it looks like just a steady linear decline over, now, close to a decade."
The literacy trends in the United States, as revealed by the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) from 2017 to 2023, indicate a significant and widespread decline in adult literacy skills. The average literacy score for U.S. adults decreased by 12 points, from 271 in 2017 to 258 in 2023, reflecting a deterioration in overall proficiency levels.
This decline is not isolated to a single demographic group; it was observed across all racial and ethnic categories, genders, age groups, educational attainment levels, employment statuses, and both native-born and non-native-born adults.
The percentage of adults performing at Level 1 or below in literacy increased from 19% in 2017 to 28% in 2023, translating to approximately 58.9 million adults lacking basic literacy skills.
Specific demographic groups experienced particularly sharp increases in low literacy levels. The percentage of Black adults performing at Level 1 or below in literacy rose from 36% to 50%, while for Hispanic adults, it increased from 31% to 45%.
The proportion of White adults at this lowest level also rose, from 12% to 16%.
The decline in literacy skills is accompanied by a growing gap between the highest- and lowest-performing adults, as top scorers remained relatively stable while scores for others fell.
The United States now ranks 14th out of 31 participating countries in literacy skills, a position that reflects a worsening international standing compared to 2017.
These trends are mirrored in numeracy and adaptive problem-solving skills, with average scores declining across all groups in these domains as well.
The data suggests that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted education and learning, has had lasting effects, contributing to a "new normal" of lower literacy levels that have stabilized at a reduced level since 2023.
The 2025 assessment data confirms this stabilization, with the overall literacy rate remaining at 79% and the average PIAAC score at 258, indicating that the decline has plateaued but not reversed."
My not yet two year old grandson can pick up a remote and get to the Disney channel on a completely off TV in under 10 seconds. The three year old can find the on and off switch and connect to wifi on any gadget in the house. And these are kids that don't watch much TV and don't have their own cell phones (obviously). But all kids have a certain kind of gadget literacy that is being ignored. Over 8 years old they know emojis. They can multitask. They are differently literate. We are using old measuring tools.
New tech replaces old. Is there much use for teaching cursive any more? I'm sure farmers 5000 years ago knew more about seasons and reading the weather than almost everybody today, including modern farmers, but that skill has no use today.
I know most of my multiplication tables up to 15x15, probably. Why? Because I like numbers and it's fun to do back of the envelope crude calculations in my head. How do good writers learn to write well? By reading a lot. By writing a lot and reading it back or getting feedback.
Most people have very little need for most of what's taught K-12, and even non-STEM college degrees. Complaints about literacy tests don't impress me, since all they measure is stuff that kids only remember long enough for the next test.
So "There is no declining literacy by any measure" is just hyperbole and all available data shows decline except for some as yet to be in invented measure of some group of undefined skills that may or may not relate to what most people consider"literacy.". Noted.
Kimmel lied about the shooter in the hopes it would provide cover for the assassination. The killer acted on the ideological justification provided by people like Kimmel for the killing. The assassination was wildly celebrated and excused on the left.
This is the real problem. Free speech is a side show to it. "Cancel culture" was about getting people fired for saying obviously true things like there are two genders. It wasn't about justifying calls and excuses for violence.
I am so confused. I thought 1A free speech was protected only from governmental punishment, not protection from consequences by affected individual citizens or private companies (like ABC or Nextar or Sinclair): "If you believe that the right of free speech is absolute, then he should not be punished." Then there is that whole "public interest" thing in the FCC debate. That said, Brendan Carr is an idiot and the FCC should be banished as the horrid New Deal relic it is.
The most noticeable thing about this Kimmel tempest in a teapot that no one seems to be talking about is that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have come out in favor of is hanging a 'for sale' sign on the radio spectrum and getting the government permanently out of the business of spectrum management.
Great point. The Democrats are always in favor of more government, while most Republicans cannot even imagine changing anything, confusing mere inertia with conserving something worthwhile. Fortunately, Trump is able to consider actual change. I would be happy if the Department of Education went first . . . with FCC sold off next. Unfortunately, the Department of Education has nothing worth selling.
Tom Hazlett, an economist who specializes in the economics of spectrum management, titled his last book 'The Political Spectrum.' As he tells the story, the airwaves were nationalized under Herbert Hoover (!), cutting short an evolutionary process whereby private property rights in spectrum were developing through the common law. Public ownership of productive assets is always and everywhere a source of political power, and neither party wants to give that up with regard to spectrum. And despite the drawbacks, private users of spectrum have a vested interest in the existing system.
Exactly! Is AK saying the, by our First Amendment, the USA government was obligated to disallow ABC's choice to suspend Kimmel? Is the government going to force Sinclair to broadcast a show that Sinclair doesn't want to broadcast?
Kimmel's free speech was not imposed on. If ABC management was intimidated, by illegal threats against free speech, into putting Kimmel back on the air, then it was the ABC's free speech that was not protected.
Re: empires, I think a lot of this had to do with gunpowder. In medieval times, small kingdoms and city states could be protected by castles and walls fairly effectively, but after the development of the cannon, that was no longer true, and thus a lot of small kingdoms disappeared, because they simply weren't militarily viable any longer. No surprise that commercial cities suffered the same fate.
Magoon's narrative makes no historical sense. Europe had a few giant, centralized empires that got conquered or fell apart for various reasons too, including advances in military technology like gunpowder.
For example. The Byzantine Empire lasted 1,500 years and the trebuchet-proof Theodosian Walls of Constantinople stood against countless assaults and sieges for -eight centuries-! Then the Ottomans brought their bombards and cannons and especially Orban's Basilic and kept launching massive stones at a fixed point until finally creating a breach they could overrun with their overwhelming massive infantry force who were armed with mere blades. Even after taking all that punishment, most of the walls were still in good-enough shape that the Ottoman's were able to easily restore them.
But notice the year - 1453. What DID change immediately afterwards was that fortresses were no longer thought of as able to withstand prolonged sieges and, if taken, usually not in a good condition or of much remaining use to the conquering force. Instead, they could be taken quickly and, because of long-range artillery, without the former risk of big losses involved in having your invasion force making itself vulnerable when getting too close to the walls.
Suddenly fortresses were -much more easily convertible- that is, they could be captured and then used profitably by the invasion forces themselves. (Compare the Army Airborne and Air Assault doctrine of dropping in on enemy bases, clearing them, then using them as your new bases to control the local area of operations and for follow-on operations. "All your base are belong to us.") As such, your fortress was no longer just an asset but potential future vulnerability. Just like a ship. Which is why navies are prepared to scuttle ships to sink them fast and prevent them from falling into enemy hands. So suddenly you had to be prepared to scuttle your fortresses.
Which became common quickly enough in Italy for Machiavelli to write about it in The Prince (Chapter 20).
This idea of natural selection for too-big fetuses seems about as useful as saying we shouldn't try to cure diseases or physical ailments. No more knee or hip replacements. No more Tylenol. No more prescription glasses. Hell, we shouldn't even allow clothing or shelter or agriculture or fire, since they all take us out of evolution's One True Path.
Stewart-Williams equates evolution with gravity. That’s misleading. Gravity can be tested every second of every day; evolution, especially at the grand scale, is reconstructed from fragments and inference. The fossil record doesn’t show smooth transitions — it shows sudden appearances. That’s not “just like gravity.” That’s a leap of faith dressed up as science.
2. **He whitewashes history.**
He claims belief in evolution reduces prejudice. Really? Tell that to the victims of eugenics programs, or the millions sterilized under “survival of the fittest” policies in the 20th century. Evolutionary rhetoric was weaponized to justify racism and genocide. Pretending otherwise isn’t enlightenment — it’s historical amnesia.
3. **He leans on speculation.**
His evolutionary psychology examples are classic “just-so stories.” Men hunt, women nurture — not because of culture or history, but because of some invisible ancestral script? That’s not science, that’s armchair storytelling. If you can’t test it, you shouldn’t present it as fact.
4. **He misleads about ongoing evolution.**
Yes, gene frequencies still change. But modern medicine and technology blunt natural selection. We don’t live or die by tooth decay or weak eyesight anymore. Claiming “we’re still evolving” is technically true but hides the reality: the evolutionary pressures that supposedly shaped us are gone.
5. **He ignores what doesn’t fit the script.**
Darwinian natural selection isn’t the whole story. Epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, genome duplication — all show biology is more complex. By sticking to old-school Darwinism, Stewart-Williams gives a 19th-century answer to a 21st-century question.
6. **He overreaches into philosophy.**
Evolution may explain bacteria or finches. But when he stretches it to explain morality, culture, even human meaning, he’s no longer doing science. He’s doing scientism: trying to turn one theory into a worldview. That’s ideology masquerading as evidence.
---
### Closing Strike
Stewart-Williams’ “12 Things” isn’t a balanced account of evolution; it’s a sales pitch. He cherry-picks what supports his case, ignores the gaps, dismisses the harms, and overreaches into areas science can’t touch. Evolutionary theory has real insights — but it’s not the neat, all-explaining story he wants it to be.
I hope you are joking. I’m sure you know that evolution is not teleological, there is nothing at the back of it that “cares” about ends.
But there have been plenty of literal ends.
(Apologies to AK, I have no idea what the linked article is getting at, about big babies so make no comment on that. Obesity? More caesareans so that mothers don’t die giving birth to big babies?)
But that is not the same thing as recognizing that modernity, with virtually no comment by anyone, flirts with an attempt to override selection and obviate “fitness”.
This is most obvious in the ever-boundary-pushing world of vanity reproductive technology.
But it is evident too in the societal impulse of the last sixty-odd years, for western governments to pay people to reproduce, leaving all idea of “what is natural” behind.
Where we once had government mules, we now have government babies.
This might not be so bizarre if it were not accompanied by an elite indifference to life generally, and an active distaste for maternity.
It's simple enough. If you cure diseases or ailments, then evolution never gets a chance to select for those who are naturally immune or less susceptible to ailments.
Shorter: just because I get on a conveyor belt every morning, and proceed through a shower and am dressed by a mechanical robot and my breakfast is deposited in front of me when I step off - doesn’t mean I’m “outside of” evolution. Its mechanisms remain the same on a long enough horizon, in my view.
I see what you are saying, as far as getting over the hurdle of childhood ailments. But then one might if wanting to see a “purpose” or a deviation from it say that those people who brought forth a great and beneficial change in how many people survived childhood - were themselves selected.
It’s not that the environment is static.
But the belief that nature can safely be ignored and has nothing to teach us, even given our imperfect understanding of genetics - is a good way to make sure that this marvelous period where parents could expect their children to live past seven, and various other illnesses could be treated so that people could go on and reproduce - is a blip in time.
Would Beethoven have written such good music if he hadn’t gone deaf? Would Stephen Hawking have been such a good thinker without his physical obstacles?
Someone, maybe Milton Friedman, said the best way to reduce traffic injuries was not seat belts or ABS brakes, but mounting a spike in the center of the steering wheel.
The problem with government is it makes it possible for the power-hungry to try to act on all these questions, as if they alone have all the answers.
I doubt anyone knows the full story of what transpired, but given Kimmel's already back, it does not seem like an authoritarian crackdown to me.
I think there should be a bigger crackdown. The right is more correct than incorrect that the mainstream media produces propaganda for the left. They should not have any support from the government whatsoever as long as that's the case. Perhaps the actors involved are genuinely trying to right that ship given the things they see are happening to universities.
"A few weeks ago, you would have found the left riding the misinformation horse and the right riding the free speech horse. The sudden reversal is head-spinning."
This misses the obvious difference. The threats to free speech are coming from Trump and top appointees, even if they are only threats. Threats made by the left were mostly private sector in origin and any political involvement was done behind closed doors.
“The threats to free speech are coming from Trump and top appointees, even if they are only threats.”
The threats were immediately condemned as a “mafioso" shakedown by Senator Ted Cruz. Senator Rand Paul and many other Republicans also condemned them. It looks like the Republicans were able to police themselves in this instance.
“Threats made by the left were mostly private sector in origin and any political involvement was done behind closed doors.”
This is demonstrably false as I have already laid out here in the comments, not to mention the *successful* attempts by the Biden Administration to silence opponents on the platforms of Meta, Google and Twitter, which is well documented. In these instances, it does not appear that the Democrats were able to police themselves. Actually, they celebrated the censorship as ridding the public space from “misinformation.”
1 Cruz and Rand condemning Trump threats is certainly good but they are not only two of a great many who should be condemning but their condemnation does absolutely nothing to stop Trump from doing it again, and he no doubt will.
2 yes, the example you cite is as I said, made behind closed doors ... unless you can show me the video of Biden telling them to do so, which would be the equivalent of what Trump does.
There is now LOTS of evidence of the Biden Administration pressuring twitter, Facebook and Google YouTube to censor information and deplatform people that was counter to the regime’s preferred narrative, on COVID in particular.
“This misses the obvious difference. The threats to free speech are coming from Trump and top appointees, even if they are only threats. Threats made by the left were mostly private sector in origin and any political involvement was done behind closed doors.”
I read very carefully.
Your statement *is* technically correct.
My eye roll was not meant to say that you were TECHNICALLY incorrect, it’s that your emphasis on overt vs private so completely misses the important substantive point about the use of political power to censor.
The distinction between “overt” and “‘covert” is not what’s important. Nor, for that matter, is it particularly explanatory, save perhaps for those on the most clueless margin.
If there IS any importance to the distinction, then it’s the fact that covert censorship is even worse than overt censorship. And so the outrage over Carr and Kimmel should be lesser, not greater.
Because we the public aren’t aware of the anti-constitutional use of power when it’s done covertly.
The land empire vs. commercial (sea) empire discussion is radically oversimplified by Magoon. The definition is also really quite questionable given that a lot of cities in France would qualify as "commercial" and even "republican" in terms of municipal government during the time period he's talking about, which his inclusion of of a number of cities like Rouen suggests.
This is kind of like saying pointing to Chicago and saying that it's superior to Peoria in every way, so therefore Chicago is the primary driver of progress in Illinois. It's almost tautological and not terribly helpful.
That said I think the historical narrative is interesting and the assembly of facts is interesting and worth considering. Just that the argument makes no sense whatsoever.
I want to like the Marriott piece, because there is plenty to dislike about our smartphone culture, but I don't find it compelling at all. When I was a boy in the 80's and 90's, almost none of my peers read. Only nerds like me did. And when they did read, they didn't understand difficult literature either. Just like today, Shakespeare, Austen, and company, were not easy reads.
Another problem is, even assuming everything he says is correct, he doesn't begin to identify a solution -- likely because no such solution is at all apparent.
Arnold's conclusion is too tentative (or perhaps he is intentionally understanding it): The Marriott piece is a classic example of exactly the type of doomscrolling-inspired blog post that the piece condemns.
Re the log flume ride, and all the spray it’s throwing in our faces, some of it refreshing, and RFK Jr. is craggy enough he would make a good animatronic old-timer mechanically raising a smoking corncob pipe to his lips, although on the log flume ride of my childhood it was a ma kettle type, and she gave me a peculiar thrill/shock - a woman smoking a pipe! - not sure why since all women smoked cigarettes back then …
What is unclear to me is whether the authoritarianism is actually a response to immigration enforcement, which is popular, so deflected to “free speech” where we have to pretend Kimmel said something shocking that he hasn’t probably said in proto or exact form virtually every night since he got on the air, and pretend also that people are suddenly upset about it, insofar as anyone saw it apart from its danger being enthusiastically promulgated by both putative sides, and pretend it was super “chilling” and he was in real jeopardy over it, for approximately a half-week, instead of it being an internet concoction and belonging there, and ultimately having raised his profile in Hollywood (maybe Brendan Carr has stock in … whatever studio conglomerate Kimmel belongs to?)
Official, versus institutional, versus voluntary-for-survival - censorship in the era of the internet?
It’s really about immigration, right?
I mean they didn’t give us permission to talk about it, to talk about crowding and culture and population and so forth - not like they gave themselves permission to write about it in the travel section, as in the NYT article about Iceland that Sailer linked to the other day -
So that must be what’s really galling. Speech was prohibited yet Trump came along anyway with his idee fixe about it. And was embraced for it by people who might as well have had duct tape over their mouths.
What else are people not saying? We sure don’t want to find out so we’re going to remind them who owns “free speech”.
Or is somebody preparing a typewritten samizdat version of what Kimmel said?
How do we know ABC didn't just want to remove him as not appropriate for their network?
Here is what Disney said (parent of ABC): "Last Wednesday, we made the decision to suspend production on the show to avoid further inflaming a tense situation at an emotional moment for our country. It is a decision we made because we felt some of the comments were ill-timed and thus insensitive."
There is no mention of the FCC or of Trump.
Relatdly, here is what Nextstar has to say:
>>>>We made a decision last week to preempt “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” following what ABC referred to as Mr. Kimmel’s “ill-timed and insensitive” comments at a critical time in our national discourse. We stand by that decision pending assurance that all parties are committed to fostering an environment of respectful, constructive dialogue in the markets we serve. In the meantime, we note that “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” will be available nationwide on multiple Disney-owned streaming products, while our stations will focus on continuing to produce local news and other programming relevant to their respective markets.<<<<
Again, they are not taking action because of the FCC or because of Trump. They are not punishing Kimmel or limiting his ability to speak. They just don't want to carry his show.
I encourage people to check the monologue for yourself. Here it is:
For me, I found it a tough watch, even aside from the Kirk swipes. While I agree with many of Kimmel's points, the show is constant jeering and sneering, and it hurts my head due to the internal inconsistencies. I can see this being off-brand for ABC, much less Disney. I think of ABC as the benign, lukewarm station that you can run in the background while your mother-in-law is over for the weekend.
This is the most original and enlightening summary of the current situation I have ever read: "in the culture war the academics and the mainstream media act as both a protagonist and the referee. Maybe the right ends up needing a leader who ignores the ref."
"But Weissmann’s larger point is compelling. He says that strong Presidential power is a bad thing. He says that it should not be embraced by Democrats in the future."
Easy enough when you have a permanent bureaucracy firmly on your side. One might say the Ds rehearsed the low-power presidency in 2020-2024.
The bureaucracy is part of the executive and, properly speaking, an extension of presidential power.
Once one understands that, one sees that Biden and Obama both exercised very high power presidencies.
Trump 1, and to lesser extents the Bush years were relatively low power except when the interests of both executive factions aligned (post 9-11). Then it was quite strong.
Well said.
Trump 45 was in fact less authoritarian than the Biden Administration, and not worse than Obama (and arguably lesser, but I concede that is arguable)
Trump 47 in at least some ways has acted as authoritarian as Biden did.
This misses the power held by top level and lower level career federal employees to write policy and take actions that aren't aligned with the presidential party. On top of that, AK posted about the power of professional societies and other non-government groups that write the standards and licensing rules implemented by government. Not mentioned were the academic groups that decide what research projects get federal research grants.
I might not have been clear, but in fact that's exactly what I was trying to emphasize!
The "Presidential power" is the sum total of executive power, and as you say, a lot of that power actually rests in both the formal bureaucracy and the informal ones that have evolved.
A simple way to put it is that presidential power has rapidly grown beyond presidential control.
1. What's happening now isn't an expansion of presidential power, it's a reassertion of presidential control.
2. This separation of power and control is asymmetrical because, effectively, the interests of the unelected bureaucracies and the democratic presidents have overlapped. So Democratic presidents have more control in practice.
We agree that democrat power remains in the executive branch regardless of who is President but I don't agree that Trump has reasserted control. What he hasn't removed (very little removed) remains largely intact, unchanged, and parts are rather liberal.
Note: while the liberal influence may be rather pervasive, it is still a relatively small part of the whole.
Oh i agree that Trump hasn’t reasserted anything like complete control. Just pointing out that what really seems to anger the other side is that hes trying to assert control over that power, not that the power exists.
I suppose that's true though there is also a lot of dislike for the ham-fisted way he has done most of what he has done so far this term. I think it's hard to separate the two dislikes.
Or maybe the two things are that it's ham-fisted and they don't like what he has cut or threatened to cut. I doubt many understand that the bureaucracy leans left or that many on the right desire a change to that.
The Dems always want a strong, effective President, one who sells to the public what the Dem elites who occupy the bureaucracy want—and who most often oppose any Rep who has a policy they disagree with. Based on successful Biden policies, like Yglesias or Noah Smith will talk about, Biden used lots of Dem desired President-power, it’s just that Biden wasn’t really the decider.
Getting rid of USAID was a fine step in reducing the power of future Dem presidents, as is reducing the Dept. of Education.
Virtually all the power within DoEd is below the Secretary level and changes little from Dem to GOP President. I doubt cuts by Trump will change that much either. Even eliminating the department and moving legally required functions elsewhere would leave most of the bureaucratic power in place.
As for USAID, it seems certain there were lots of problems there but I doubt the share of funds going to waste and corruption was all that much different than under GWBush. Bush had very high favorability throughout Africa and besides helping the poor and suffering, it gave him a lot of soft power across the continent that is largely gone now. I have no doubt we've lost far more than what was gained by the tiny decrease in spending.
I remember the time when Biden unleashed the FBI against parents exercising their first amendment rights at local school board meetings. How many on the left celebrated this and how many called it for the authoritarianism that it was? If you were on left and celebrated at the time, then I have no use for anything you might utter today about the trivial Trump/Kimmel affair.
Also, Biden did what he did in stealth mode. Trump did what he did in a completely transparent way for all to see how foolhardy he was.
I also remember the time when the Democrats tried to cancel three television networks. But, they are outraged on 1A grounds by the 4 day paid vacation for Kimmel?
***
Two prominent House Democrats have fired off a letter to AT&T, Comcast and Amazon and other channel distributors, asking them whether they plan to continue carrying Fox News, One America News Network and Newsmax.
In the letter, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) and Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA) single out the networks as “misinformation rumor mills and conspiracy theory hotbeds that produce content that leads to real harm.”
“Misinformation on TV has led to our current polluted information environment that radicalizes individuals to commit seditious acts and rejects public health best practices, among other issues in our public discourse,” they wrote in the letters. The letter was sent to 12 cable, satellite and streaming companies.
https://deadline.com/2021/02/house-democrats-fox-news-newsmax-oan-1234698262/
Every American who values our Constitution and First Amendment should be outraged by what Carr said..
Despite the fact that Kimmel might be despicable, and undeniably put out misinformation.
That's the biggest difference between Trump and almost every other politician. Trump is an economic moron who changes his mind for any reason or no reason, but he does it transparently; we learn what he wants the same moment he does.
Sigh. There is no declining literacy by any measure.
The amount of abject poverty eliminated in the last few decades counters every argument i have seen for the collapse of society, and every diatribe against technology trends.
I surely agree that any collapse of U.S. society started no earlier than about 2015.
If people wanna say it had roots going back even decades earlier, fine. But that’s not the same thing.
I am not as absolutist as you about the past 10 years.
I agree with you re: technology trends. The only *possible* one going forward that would be concerning is if and when AI reaches full AGI and then on to ASI. For anything short of ASI, however, your point about technology trends is absolutely correct
And with respect to children, Harvard's Martin West states:
"Reading scores for American students peaked in 2015 in Grade 4, and in 2013 actually in Grade 8. In Grade 8, the scores have been falling steadily since 2017. And if I showed you a graph of that decline, you wouldn’t be able to pick out the years in which school closures took place and the pandemic was raging. Rather it looks like just a steady linear decline over, now, close to a decade."
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2025/09/whats-driving-decline-in-u-s-literacy-rates/
At least one browser AI begs to differ:
The literacy trends in the United States, as revealed by the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) from 2017 to 2023, indicate a significant and widespread decline in adult literacy skills. The average literacy score for U.S. adults decreased by 12 points, from 271 in 2017 to 258 in 2023, reflecting a deterioration in overall proficiency levels.
This decline is not isolated to a single demographic group; it was observed across all racial and ethnic categories, genders, age groups, educational attainment levels, employment statuses, and both native-born and non-native-born adults.
The percentage of adults performing at Level 1 or below in literacy increased from 19% in 2017 to 28% in 2023, translating to approximately 58.9 million adults lacking basic literacy skills.
Specific demographic groups experienced particularly sharp increases in low literacy levels. The percentage of Black adults performing at Level 1 or below in literacy rose from 36% to 50%, while for Hispanic adults, it increased from 31% to 45%.
The proportion of White adults at this lowest level also rose, from 12% to 16%.
The decline in literacy skills is accompanied by a growing gap between the highest- and lowest-performing adults, as top scorers remained relatively stable while scores for others fell.
The United States now ranks 14th out of 31 participating countries in literacy skills, a position that reflects a worsening international standing compared to 2017.
These trends are mirrored in numeracy and adaptive problem-solving skills, with average scores declining across all groups in these domains as well.
The data suggests that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted education and learning, has had lasting effects, contributing to a "new normal" of lower literacy levels that have stabilized at a reduced level since 2023.
The 2025 assessment data confirms this stabilization, with the overall literacy rate remaining at 79% and the average PIAAC score at 258, indicating that the decline has plateaued but not reversed."
My not yet two year old grandson can pick up a remote and get to the Disney channel on a completely off TV in under 10 seconds. The three year old can find the on and off switch and connect to wifi on any gadget in the house. And these are kids that don't watch much TV and don't have their own cell phones (obviously). But all kids have a certain kind of gadget literacy that is being ignored. Over 8 years old they know emojis. They can multitask. They are differently literate. We are using old measuring tools.
New tech replaces old. Is there much use for teaching cursive any more? I'm sure farmers 5000 years ago knew more about seasons and reading the weather than almost everybody today, including modern farmers, but that skill has no use today.
I know most of my multiplication tables up to 15x15, probably. Why? Because I like numbers and it's fun to do back of the envelope crude calculations in my head. How do good writers learn to write well? By reading a lot. By writing a lot and reading it back or getting feedback.
Most people have very little need for most of what's taught K-12, and even non-STEM college degrees. Complaints about literacy tests don't impress me, since all they measure is stuff that kids only remember long enough for the next test.
So "There is no declining literacy by any measure" is just hyperbole and all available data shows decline except for some as yet to be in invented measure of some group of undefined skills that may or may not relate to what most people consider"literacy.". Noted.
Kimmel lied about the shooter in the hopes it would provide cover for the assassination. The killer acted on the ideological justification provided by people like Kimmel for the killing. The assassination was wildly celebrated and excused on the left.
This is the real problem. Free speech is a side show to it. "Cancel culture" was about getting people fired for saying obviously true things like there are two genders. It wasn't about justifying calls and excuses for violence.
I am so confused. I thought 1A free speech was protected only from governmental punishment, not protection from consequences by affected individual citizens or private companies (like ABC or Nextar or Sinclair): "If you believe that the right of free speech is absolute, then he should not be punished." Then there is that whole "public interest" thing in the FCC debate. That said, Brendan Carr is an idiot and the FCC should be banished as the horrid New Deal relic it is.
The most noticeable thing about this Kimmel tempest in a teapot that no one seems to be talking about is that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have come out in favor of is hanging a 'for sale' sign on the radio spectrum and getting the government permanently out of the business of spectrum management.
Great point. The Democrats are always in favor of more government, while most Republicans cannot even imagine changing anything, confusing mere inertia with conserving something worthwhile. Fortunately, Trump is able to consider actual change. I would be happy if the Department of Education went first . . . with FCC sold off next. Unfortunately, the Department of Education has nothing worth selling.
Tom Hazlett, an economist who specializes in the economics of spectrum management, titled his last book 'The Political Spectrum.' As he tells the story, the airwaves were nationalized under Herbert Hoover (!), cutting short an evolutionary process whereby private property rights in spectrum were developing through the common law. Public ownership of productive assets is always and everywhere a source of political power, and neither party wants to give that up with regard to spectrum. And despite the drawbacks, private users of spectrum have a vested interest in the existing system.
Exactly! Is AK saying the, by our First Amendment, the USA government was obligated to disallow ABC's choice to suspend Kimmel? Is the government going to force Sinclair to broadcast a show that Sinclair doesn't want to broadcast?
Kimmel's free speech was not imposed on. If ABC management was intimidated, by illegal threats against free speech, into putting Kimmel back on the air, then it was the ABC's free speech that was not protected.
Re: empires, I think a lot of this had to do with gunpowder. In medieval times, small kingdoms and city states could be protected by castles and walls fairly effectively, but after the development of the cannon, that was no longer true, and thus a lot of small kingdoms disappeared, because they simply weren't militarily viable any longer. No surprise that commercial cities suffered the same fate.
Magoon's narrative makes no historical sense. Europe had a few giant, centralized empires that got conquered or fell apart for various reasons too, including advances in military technology like gunpowder.
For example. The Byzantine Empire lasted 1,500 years and the trebuchet-proof Theodosian Walls of Constantinople stood against countless assaults and sieges for -eight centuries-! Then the Ottomans brought their bombards and cannons and especially Orban's Basilic and kept launching massive stones at a fixed point until finally creating a breach they could overrun with their overwhelming massive infantry force who were armed with mere blades. Even after taking all that punishment, most of the walls were still in good-enough shape that the Ottoman's were able to easily restore them.
But notice the year - 1453. What DID change immediately afterwards was that fortresses were no longer thought of as able to withstand prolonged sieges and, if taken, usually not in a good condition or of much remaining use to the conquering force. Instead, they could be taken quickly and, because of long-range artillery, without the former risk of big losses involved in having your invasion force making itself vulnerable when getting too close to the walls.
Suddenly fortresses were -much more easily convertible- that is, they could be captured and then used profitably by the invasion forces themselves. (Compare the Army Airborne and Air Assault doctrine of dropping in on enemy bases, clearing them, then using them as your new bases to control the local area of operations and for follow-on operations. "All your base are belong to us.") As such, your fortress was no longer just an asset but potential future vulnerability. Just like a ship. Which is why navies are prepared to scuttle ships to sink them fast and prevent them from falling into enemy hands. So suddenly you had to be prepared to scuttle your fortresses.
Which became common quickly enough in Italy for Machiavelli to write about it in The Prince (Chapter 20).
This idea of natural selection for too-big fetuses seems about as useful as saying we shouldn't try to cure diseases or physical ailments. No more knee or hip replacements. No more Tylenol. No more prescription glasses. Hell, we shouldn't even allow clothing or shelter or agriculture or fire, since they all take us out of evolution's One True Path.
My ChatGpt chat sums it up pretty well
---
## Debate Argument: Why Stewart-Williams Is Wrong
1. **He oversells the certainty.**
Stewart-Williams equates evolution with gravity. That’s misleading. Gravity can be tested every second of every day; evolution, especially at the grand scale, is reconstructed from fragments and inference. The fossil record doesn’t show smooth transitions — it shows sudden appearances. That’s not “just like gravity.” That’s a leap of faith dressed up as science.
2. **He whitewashes history.**
He claims belief in evolution reduces prejudice. Really? Tell that to the victims of eugenics programs, or the millions sterilized under “survival of the fittest” policies in the 20th century. Evolutionary rhetoric was weaponized to justify racism and genocide. Pretending otherwise isn’t enlightenment — it’s historical amnesia.
3. **He leans on speculation.**
His evolutionary psychology examples are classic “just-so stories.” Men hunt, women nurture — not because of culture or history, but because of some invisible ancestral script? That’s not science, that’s armchair storytelling. If you can’t test it, you shouldn’t present it as fact.
4. **He misleads about ongoing evolution.**
Yes, gene frequencies still change. But modern medicine and technology blunt natural selection. We don’t live or die by tooth decay or weak eyesight anymore. Claiming “we’re still evolving” is technically true but hides the reality: the evolutionary pressures that supposedly shaped us are gone.
5. **He ignores what doesn’t fit the script.**
Darwinian natural selection isn’t the whole story. Epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, genome duplication — all show biology is more complex. By sticking to old-school Darwinism, Stewart-Williams gives a 19th-century answer to a 21st-century question.
6. **He overreaches into philosophy.**
Evolution may explain bacteria or finches. But when he stretches it to explain morality, culture, even human meaning, he’s no longer doing science. He’s doing scientism: trying to turn one theory into a worldview. That’s ideology masquerading as evidence.
---
### Closing Strike
Stewart-Williams’ “12 Things” isn’t a balanced account of evolution; it’s a sales pitch. He cherry-picks what supports his case, ignores the gaps, dismisses the harms, and overreaches into areas science can’t touch. Evolutionary theory has real insights — but it’s not the neat, all-explaining story he wants it to be.
I hope you are joking. I’m sure you know that evolution is not teleological, there is nothing at the back of it that “cares” about ends.
But there have been plenty of literal ends.
(Apologies to AK, I have no idea what the linked article is getting at, about big babies so make no comment on that. Obesity? More caesareans so that mothers don’t die giving birth to big babies?)
But that is not the same thing as recognizing that modernity, with virtually no comment by anyone, flirts with an attempt to override selection and obviate “fitness”.
This is most obvious in the ever-boundary-pushing world of vanity reproductive technology.
But it is evident too in the societal impulse of the last sixty-odd years, for western governments to pay people to reproduce, leaving all idea of “what is natural” behind.
Where we once had government mules, we now have government babies.
This might not be so bizarre if it were not accompanied by an elite indifference to life generally, and an active distaste for maternity.
It's simple enough. If you cure diseases or ailments, then evolution never gets a chance to select for those who are naturally immune or less susceptible to ailments.
Shorter: just because I get on a conveyor belt every morning, and proceed through a shower and am dressed by a mechanical robot and my breakfast is deposited in front of me when I step off - doesn’t mean I’m “outside of” evolution. Its mechanisms remain the same on a long enough horizon, in my view.
I see what you are saying, as far as getting over the hurdle of childhood ailments. But then one might if wanting to see a “purpose” or a deviation from it say that those people who brought forth a great and beneficial change in how many people survived childhood - were themselves selected.
It’s not that the environment is static.
But the belief that nature can safely be ignored and has nothing to teach us, even given our imperfect understanding of genetics - is a good way to make sure that this marvelous period where parents could expect their children to live past seven, and various other illnesses could be treated so that people could go on and reproduce - is a blip in time.
Would Beethoven have written such good music if he hadn’t gone deaf? Would Stephen Hawking have been such a good thinker without his physical obstacles?
Someone, maybe Milton Friedman, said the best way to reduce traffic injuries was not seat belts or ABS brakes, but mounting a spike in the center of the steering wheel.
The problem with government is it makes it possible for the power-hungry to try to act on all these questions, as if they alone have all the answers.
I doubt anyone knows the full story of what transpired, but given Kimmel's already back, it does not seem like an authoritarian crackdown to me.
I think there should be a bigger crackdown. The right is more correct than incorrect that the mainstream media produces propaganda for the left. They should not have any support from the government whatsoever as long as that's the case. Perhaps the actors involved are genuinely trying to right that ship given the things they see are happening to universities.
“ I think there should be a bigger crackdown. The right is more correct than incorrect that the mainstream media produces propaganda for the left.”
You are 100% accurate in your second sentence here.
But 1,000% wrong with the prescription in your first sentence.
Respectfully.
“On the other hand, I have a concern that in the culture war the academics and the mainstream media act as both a protagonist and the referee.”
Brilliant point.
Once you remove the “I have a concern that” bit…
"A few weeks ago, you would have found the left riding the misinformation horse and the right riding the free speech horse. The sudden reversal is head-spinning."
This misses the obvious difference. The threats to free speech are coming from Trump and top appointees, even if they are only threats. Threats made by the left were mostly private sector in origin and any political involvement was done behind closed doors.
“The threats to free speech are coming from Trump and top appointees, even if they are only threats.”
The threats were immediately condemned as a “mafioso" shakedown by Senator Ted Cruz. Senator Rand Paul and many other Republicans also condemned them. It looks like the Republicans were able to police themselves in this instance.
“Threats made by the left were mostly private sector in origin and any political involvement was done behind closed doors.”
This is demonstrably false as I have already laid out here in the comments, not to mention the *successful* attempts by the Biden Administration to silence opponents on the platforms of Meta, Google and Twitter, which is well documented. In these instances, it does not appear that the Democrats were able to police themselves. Actually, they celebrated the censorship as ridding the public space from “misinformation.”
1 Cruz and Rand condemning Trump threats is certainly good but they are not only two of a great many who should be condemning but their condemnation does absolutely nothing to stop Trump from doing it again, and he no doubt will.
2 yes, the example you cite is as I said, made behind closed doors ... unless you can show me the video of Biden telling them to do so, which would be the equivalent of what Trump does.
Re 2, 🙄🙄🙄
There is now LOTS of evidence of the Biden Administration pressuring twitter, Facebook and Google YouTube to censor information and deplatform people that was counter to the regime’s preferred narrative, on COVID in particular.
Please read more carefully.
“This misses the obvious difference. The threats to free speech are coming from Trump and top appointees, even if they are only threats. Threats made by the left were mostly private sector in origin and any political involvement was done behind closed doors.”
I read very carefully.
Your statement *is* technically correct.
My eye roll was not meant to say that you were TECHNICALLY incorrect, it’s that your emphasis on overt vs private so completely misses the important substantive point about the use of political power to censor.
The distinction between “overt” and “‘covert” is not what’s important. Nor, for that matter, is it particularly explanatory, save perhaps for those on the most clueless margin.
If there IS any importance to the distinction, then it’s the fact that covert censorship is even worse than overt censorship. And so the outrage over Carr and Kimmel should be lesser, not greater.
Because we the public aren’t aware of the anti-constitutional use of power when it’s done covertly.
Right. Now you have to go back further to see why I made that comment. Hint, it wasn't because one was more or less important.
The land empire vs. commercial (sea) empire discussion is radically oversimplified by Magoon. The definition is also really quite questionable given that a lot of cities in France would qualify as "commercial" and even "republican" in terms of municipal government during the time period he's talking about, which his inclusion of of a number of cities like Rouen suggests.
This is kind of like saying pointing to Chicago and saying that it's superior to Peoria in every way, so therefore Chicago is the primary driver of progress in Illinois. It's almost tautological and not terribly helpful.
That said I think the historical narrative is interesting and the assembly of facts is interesting and worth considering. Just that the argument makes no sense whatsoever.
I want to like the Marriott piece, because there is plenty to dislike about our smartphone culture, but I don't find it compelling at all. When I was a boy in the 80's and 90's, almost none of my peers read. Only nerds like me did. And when they did read, they didn't understand difficult literature either. Just like today, Shakespeare, Austen, and company, were not easy reads.
Another problem is, even assuming everything he says is correct, he doesn't begin to identify a solution -- likely because no such solution is at all apparent.
Arnold's conclusion is too tentative (or perhaps he is intentionally understanding it): The Marriott piece is a classic example of exactly the type of doomscrolling-inspired blog post that the piece condemns.
Re the log flume ride, and all the spray it’s throwing in our faces, some of it refreshing, and RFK Jr. is craggy enough he would make a good animatronic old-timer mechanically raising a smoking corncob pipe to his lips, although on the log flume ride of my childhood it was a ma kettle type, and she gave me a peculiar thrill/shock - a woman smoking a pipe! - not sure why since all women smoked cigarettes back then …
What is unclear to me is whether the authoritarianism is actually a response to immigration enforcement, which is popular, so deflected to “free speech” where we have to pretend Kimmel said something shocking that he hasn’t probably said in proto or exact form virtually every night since he got on the air, and pretend also that people are suddenly upset about it, insofar as anyone saw it apart from its danger being enthusiastically promulgated by both putative sides, and pretend it was super “chilling” and he was in real jeopardy over it, for approximately a half-week, instead of it being an internet concoction and belonging there, and ultimately having raised his profile in Hollywood (maybe Brendan Carr has stock in … whatever studio conglomerate Kimmel belongs to?)
Official, versus institutional, versus voluntary-for-survival - censorship in the era of the internet?
It’s really about immigration, right?
I mean they didn’t give us permission to talk about it, to talk about crowding and culture and population and so forth - not like they gave themselves permission to write about it in the travel section, as in the NYT article about Iceland that Sailer linked to the other day -
So that must be what’s really galling. Speech was prohibited yet Trump came along anyway with his idee fixe about it. And was embraced for it by people who might as well have had duct tape over their mouths.
What else are people not saying? We sure don’t want to find out so we’re going to remind them who owns “free speech”.
Or is somebody preparing a typewritten samizdat version of what Kimmel said?
How do we know ABC didn't just want to remove him as not appropriate for their network?
Here is what Disney said (parent of ABC): "Last Wednesday, we made the decision to suspend production on the show to avoid further inflaming a tense situation at an emotional moment for our country. It is a decision we made because we felt some of the comments were ill-timed and thus insensitive."
There is no mention of the FCC or of Trump.
Relatdly, here is what Nextstar has to say:
>>>>We made a decision last week to preempt “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” following what ABC referred to as Mr. Kimmel’s “ill-timed and insensitive” comments at a critical time in our national discourse. We stand by that decision pending assurance that all parties are committed to fostering an environment of respectful, constructive dialogue in the markets we serve. In the meantime, we note that “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” will be available nationwide on multiple Disney-owned streaming products, while our stations will focus on continuing to produce local news and other programming relevant to their respective markets.<<<<
Again, they are not taking action because of the FCC or because of Trump. They are not punishing Kimmel or limiting his ability to speak. They just don't want to carry his show.
I encourage people to check the monologue for yourself. Here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHT7ICvMtlA
For me, I found it a tough watch, even aside from the Kirk swipes. While I agree with many of Kimmel's points, the show is constant jeering and sneering, and it hurts my head due to the internal inconsistencies. I can see this being off-brand for ABC, much less Disney. I think of ABC as the benign, lukewarm station that you can run in the background while your mother-in-law is over for the weekend.
"Meanwhile, genes associated with intelligence and educational attainment are being selected against."
Why am I not surprised?