“An outfit in the United Kingdom called Ofcom, the main enforcer of the U.K.’s Online Safety Act, is requiring social platforms to implement onerous procedures to censor ‘hate,’ including stripping users of anonymity — or face mammoth fines, bans in the U.K., and other draconian penalties. Nobody would object to compelling the removal of content that is clearly criminal. But is that what most so-called ‘hate’ content really is? Of course not. Much of what irks censors and the merely censorious is merely vituperative, and no small part of what gets their goat is nothing other than sharp disagreement with those authorities who decide what ‘hate’ is — that is, the censors themselves.” (05/21/26)
“We’ve seen before that students who frequently attend religious services as well as students who are studying religion are unusually tolerant of controversial speakers, meaning they are willing to let them speak on campus. (We measure left- and right-wing tolerance by whether students say they would allow those controversial speakers on those sides.) This raises a few questions. Are religious people more tolerant? More specifically, which religions’ members tend to be more tolerant?” (05/21/26)
Source: Popular Information
by Rebecca Crosby & Noel Sims
“On Tuesday, Trump said that high gas prices amounted to ‘peanuts.’ But according to The Iran War Energy Cost Tracker at Brown University, the Iran War has caused Americans to spend an additional $43.6 billion on fuel costs so far. For that price, Americans could buy 14.5 billion pounds of peanuts, which is more than twice the amount produced annually in the United States.” (05/21/26)
Source: Ludwig von Mises Institute
by William L Anderson
“Of course, one would expect socialists to hate a business like Buc-ee’s. Socialists claim to hate ‘consumerism’ (whatever that is) and the availability of inexpensive and plentiful goods all the while claiming that consumers are being oppressed by capitalists, who apparently are withholding goods from the market. (No, that doesn’t make sense, but when have socialists ever made sense when describing anything that occurs in the marketplace?) At least some of the arguments against the presence of Buc-ee’s mirror the opposition to construction of data centers, as Connor O’Keeffe recently pointed out why some communities are fighting the location of such operations near their homes. The old canards of ‘traffic and pollution’ are always thrown out any time someone wishes to open a business — especially a large one — in a new locality.” (05/21/26)
“Republicans spent the last four years convincing voters they understood the stakes at the southern border as they fought to return to power. They promised to restore law and order, fund immigration enforcement and end Washington’s habit of turning procedure into an excuse for national decline. But today’s reconciliation fight is exposing an uncomfortable truth: the clock is ticking, and the GOP still must prove it can convert a clear electoral mandate into governing power. The immediate fight is whether Senate Republicans can deliver their reconciliation package, which includes critical funding for ICE, Customs and Border Protection, and the broader infrastructure for enforcement. Even with control of Washington and a public mandate to restore law and order, the path is narrow.” (05/21/26)
“Dragging NATO into Iran, or making American participation in NATO contingent on action in Iran, threatens to erode the basics that make NATO functional in the first place. And European NATO states (and Canada) would be foolish to give in to this petulance — there is no formal understanding, ethical motivation, or even pragmatic consideration that would obligate or even argue in favor of Europe joining this American misadventure. If the Iran war is a test for NATO, it is a test of whether the alliance can retain a defined mission, or whether it will be subjected to perpetual mission creep. In the latter case, it cannot possibly survive.” (05/21/26)
“This is a fund with no congressional oversight resolving grievances outside the normal judicial process. Everyone involved in its creation ultimately works for Trump, either in his capacity as president or as a private citizen. Despite the Justice Department’s claims otherwise, it is difficult to imagine this becoming anything other than a partisan mess. Even if Trump or members of his family never directly receive money from the fund, it is impossible to separate his interests from the arrangement.” (05/21/26)
