In Tenure Veritas: Libations From The Ivory Tower

 If you scour the internet, you will find few commentators with more vehement criticism of former President Donald J. Trump.  My assessments of Trump have run from the satirically scornful to cold analysis of his criminal behavior.  I have referred to him as Tony Clifton, in reference to the Andy Kaufman character.  I call him "the lying-est liar who ever lied a lie."  I have pushed back on misrepresentations of the Mueller Report, which show clear and distressing relationships between Trump, his people, and Russia, along with indisputable obstruction of justice.  I have seen clear and indisputable evidence of further crimes, most obviously and distressingly the Mar-a-Lago Papers.  If there is a lower bound for the respect for which I can have for a person, Donald Trump is at or near it. Yet I now think I understand why so many millions have voted for him, will vote for him again, and while I stand by every assessment I have ever made of him-- including his history of rape--

 Let's wrap up my entirely superfluous analysis of K.J. Parker's Scavenger Trilogy with a useful, philosophical question.  Can evil be redeemed?  One needs a working definition of evil, and a working definition of redemption, but in any case, the question will be challenging.  Yet, when writing under the pseudonym of K.J. Parker, Tom Holt does not tend to offer uplifting messages.  Interesting ideas, but uplifting?  Not so much.  Consider, then, Memory , which concludes the tale of Poldarn, and his world, which ends his world, as foretold, and the meaning of evil. The first book in the series follows an amnesiac, as he awakens in a ditch after a battle.  He awakens in a fantasy-ish world, and finds himself in the northern provinces of an empire facing periodic raids by mysterious people from elsewhere, while being torn apart by internal divisions and feuds.  Our amnesiac acquires the name, "Poldarn"-- the name of a god-- when the first person he meets (Copis/Xipho) te

 The title of this post would only be clickbait if anyone clicked on these posts.  No clicks, no bait.  Anyway, I see a clear relationship between the January 6 rioters, and those currently engaged in aggressive protests on college campuses in support of a jihadist movement.  Let us be clear about the January 6 insurrectionists.  They were motivated by an insane lie-- that the 2020 election was stolen.  They stormed the Capitol, committing acts of violence and intimidation in an attempt to overthrow democracy, falsely believing themselves to be the new American revolutionaries saving democracy.  How many people did they kill?  That is actually a little complicated.  One of the insurrectionists-- Ashli Babbitt-- was shot during the riots, and several more deaths were connected, including medical incidents like heart attacks.  The rioters did not kill Ashli Babbitt.  She got herself killed, and I do not have much sympathy for her.  Whether or not we count the medical incidents that follo

 Yesterday, Donald Trump had a very good day with the Supreme Court.  To the surprise of some, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, three of whom were appointed by Donald Trump, seemed to look favorably on Donald Trump's specious legal claim that Donald Trump is immune from prosecutions for crimes that Donald Trump-- who again, appointed three of them-- may have committed.  The result is that there is zero chance of a federal trial before the 2024 election, and as my other quick-take today discusses, the odds currently favor the GOP for 2024, so Trump will probably never face a federal trial.  He will probably  win, and then quash the charges, which is exactly why the Supreme Court is doing what it is doing.  Be careful with the teleological fallacy, but in this case, the effect is the intent.  The conservative majority does not have to be as brazen as they were in Bush v. Gore .  But I don't have to be credulous about it. I have, of course, had conversations with le

 We now have data on Q1 GDP growth.  The data are not good, in mourning of which, I will spare you a lecture on grammar.  We got about 1.6% growth, which is positive, yes, but along with that, inflation came in at 3.4% using PCE as the measure (personal consumption expenditures).  The Fed likes that measure, and so do I.  That was a significantly higher measure on inflation, so the combination is particularly troubling.  A lower than expected GDP and higher than expected inflation.  Normally, unemployment and inflation run inversely, and yes, GDP and employment are different, but closely related, but the other point is that the Fed's only real tool is to adjust interest rates.  With inflation still running high, they cannot reasonably bring down interest rates, so interest rates stay high, but that also restricts growth, and growth is coming in lower than expected.  That's a bad combination.  We are not in full-blown stagflation territory, but we are in a bit of a danger zone. 

 Let's take a deserved, Sunday break from the headlines for some science fiction, and literature-based analysis of the underlying themes.  The good stuff.  The stock market has taken a bit of a negative turn, initially from inflation news, and then in response to concerns about the Middle East, but if you have been paying attention to the stock market, you have seen not only a sharp rise prior to week, but a rise led by the companies connected to AI.  Nvidia was not the sole cause of S&P growth, nor were AI-related stocks.  One might legitimately ask whether or not such stocks were producing a late 90s-style tech bubble for AI, but probably  not.  During the tech bubble, investors poured money into companies that did nothing and had no business plans, merely because they had .coms.  Nvidia makes something, and we can already see the direct effects of AI on productivity.  Are there some stocks that need to be cleared out, having been caught up in an AI frenzy?  Almost certainly,