March 30, 2025 My Best Self Luke Ford No sacred cows.

My Best Self

Posted on March 30, 2025 by Luke Ford

My best self would spend zero time listening to pundits (I’ll exempt Steve Sailer, Christopher Caldwell, Peter Brimelow, Heather MacDonald, and occasionally Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson).

I think I just said that my best self would spend zero time listening to someone like me.

If my commentary has a USP (unique selling proposition), it is my occasionally honest understanding of my own failures and how they help me better understand the world. For example, because I tend to be honest with myself and others (when appropriate and at times when it is inappropriate for me to be so raw), it is easy for me to tell when others are lying to me.

I guess I listen to pundits because it is an easy way for me to figure out what I think by spotting nonsense in others.

I am thrilled with this Trump administration but much of what he says and does makes no sense to me. Bullying Canada and Denmark seems stupid to me. Making Canada our 51st state does not make sense. Trump’s haphazard approach to tariffs does not make sense.

When I look back on my life, I see how often I’ve failed to admit not knowing things. This hasn’t served me. Once my Geometry teacher (on my second attempt through the course in high school, both times I got a C grade) looked at my work and said, “You don’t understand what we’re doing, do you?” It was devastating because it was accurate.

Perhaps the most regular feedback I’ve received over the course of my life has been, “What the f— is wrong with you?”

When I pretend to understand things I don’t understand, I often get humiliated. On the other hand, when I’m in reality, I don’t get humiliated. I’ve learned from my regular helpings of humiliation to publicly admit that I don’t understand.

I’d like to think that I’m doing the right thing by being publicly pro-Trump and publicly admitting that much of what he says and does make no sense and even seems dramatically counter-productive.

I find it useful to look at my life as the product of my choices. I lack success in many things due to my unwillingness to do what it takes to be successful. For example, with my blogging and vlogging, I have nearly zero interest in what my potential audience wants.

The most fateful decision I ever made was staying on the vegetarian diet my parents gave me. From age 14 on, people urged me to try meat. I dismissed them without giving their arguments any consideration. I was wrong. As a result, my life was crippled by fatigue and brain fog.

My life has improved over the past decade by reducing the strength of my idea deflection shield.

Sometimes I blog or vlog to fill a hole in my soul, or to distract from humiliation, or because I want to show off my verbal dexterity or because I want to amuse myself. I might be served by asking — how’s this going to help anyone?

If I can share a rare truth, that’s a service.

I find it tiring to make decisions, so I try to live as much of my life as possible by protocols. A couple of weeks ago, I stopped giving myself a choice about using my CPAP, and instead I automatically leave it on all night. For years I’ve hated my CPAP, recently I’ve come to accept it and then to embrace it. As a result, I’ve had the best sleep in my memory over the past two weeks.

Whenever I hear people talk about needing to use more willpower, I know I’m hearing BS. We all have limited reserves of will power and conscious self-control.

New York Times:

Scott Rudin, Producer Exiled for Bad Behavior, Plans Return to Broadway
Rudin stepped away from show business four years ago amid reports that he had bullied assistants. He says he has “a lot more self-control” now.
…After what he called “a decent amount of therapy,” apologies to many people and a period of reading and reflection holed up on Long Island, Rudin said that he had decided he wanted to make theater again. He is at peace, he said, with the reality that not everyone is likely to welcome him back.
He called his previous behavior, particularly toward subordinates, “bone-headed” and “narcissistic.” He acknowledged that he had long yelled at his assistants (“Yes, of course”) and that he had on occasion thrown things at people (“Very, very rarely”).
“I was just too rough on people,” he said.
But Rudin — who produced films including “No Country for Old Men” and “The Social Network” and Broadway shows including “The Book of Mormon” and “To Kill a Mockingbird” — said he was confident that from now on he would be able to maintain his exacting standards without terrorizing others.
“I have a lot more self-control than I had four years ago,” he said. “I learned I don’t matter that much, and I think that’s very healthy.” Also, he added, “I don’t want to let anybody down. Not just myself. My husband, my family and collaborators.”

Count me skeptical.

I do like the idea of keeping in mind your most important relationships and allowing that consideration to shape your behavior.

Trying harder has not been an effective vehicle for change for me. I don’t think that generally works. What has changed me for the good has been friendships, community, mentorship, getting diagnosed and medicated for ADHD, swallowing six beef organ capsules every morning, wearing a CPAP all night, and working various 12-step programs for an internal rearrangement.

I read a lot (including books and papers), I’ve had some unusual life experiences, and at times I have above-average levels of courage, perspicacity and ability to connect with others (often through trauma bonding ala Neil Strauss and some of the celebrities he’s covered) that allows me to see some things more clearly than most other commentators.

In the age of Trump, VDH is better than your average conservative pundit.

Grok says:

Victor Davis Hanson, a prominent classicist, military historian, and conservative commentator, has a nuanced history regarding his stance on Donald Trump. Based on available information, there is no clear evidence that Hanson was ever firmly in the “Never Trump” camp—defined as those conservatives who actively opposed Trump’s candidacy and presidency from the outset and remained steadfast in their opposition. Instead, Hanson’s trajectory shows an evolution from initial skepticism or ambivalence to becoming one of Trump’s most articulate intellectual defenders.
Early Stance on Trump
Hanson’s background as a registered Democrat in his earlier years (he later became a conservative and voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004) suggests he was not inherently aligned with populist figures like Trump. By 2016, as Trump emerged as a presidential candidate, Hanson was a well-established commentator at outlets like National Review and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. During the 2016 primaries, Hanson did not immediately champion Trump. Some of his early writings indicate a broader critique of the Republican Party’s establishment, which had failed to address the concerns of working-class voters—a gap Trump exploited. However, there’s no definitive record of him explicitly joining the “Never Trump” movement, which included figures like Bill Kristol or George Will, who vocally rejected Trump’s candidacy on principle.
Transition to Support
Hanson’s support for Trump crystallized as the 2016 election progressed. In interviews and writings, such as his appearance on Life, Liberty & Levin in November 2018, he explained that he was one of the first intellectuals to back Trump, suggesting he saw potential in Trump’s outsider status early on. His book The Case for Trump, published in March 2019, cemented this position. In it, Hanson argued that Trump’s election was a necessary disruption to a decaying political order, drawing historical parallels to figures like tragic heroes from Greek drama or Western films—flawed yet essential for a specific moment. This indicates that any initial reservations he might have had were outweighed by his view of Trump as a corrective force against progressive elites, globalization, and what he saw as the decline of American sovereignty and culture.
Punditry History with Trump
Hanson’s punditry regarding Trump has been consistently supportive since at least 2016, though it’s not uncritical. His work focuses on explaining Trump’s appeal and defending his policies rather than offering blanket praise. For instance:
Pre-2016 Election: Hanson wrote about the conditions that made Trump’s rise possible—economic stagnation, cultural disconnection, and elite overreach—rather than Trump himself as a singular figure. This suggests a pragmatic rather than ideological initial alignment.
Post-2016: At outlets like National Review, The Washington Times, and Fox News, Hanson became a regular defender of Trump’s agenda, praising his focus on border security, economic nationalism, and foreign policy realism (e.g., a “Jacksonian” approach of deterrence over nation-building). His 2017 Newsweek pieces, like “Trump Puts the U.S. On Top of the World Again,” highlight this shift to overt support.
The Case for Trump (2019): This book is his most comprehensive defense, framing Trump as a counterrevolutionary figure against a corrupt establishment. Hanson acknowledges Trump’s bombast and flaws but argues they’re incidental to his larger purpose.
Post-2020: Hanson continued advocating for Trump’s legacy, as seen in his 2024 discussions on the Victor Davis Hanson Show about Trump’s evolving campaign and legal battles, and in posts on X where he’s cited as calling Trump a potential savior of civilization.

Did any of the people pushing the 2003 invasion of Iraq pay a price? Did any of the opponents get an advantage?

Grok says:

The 2003 invasion of Iraq had profound consequences for its proponents and opponents, but the “price” paid or “advantage” gained varied widely depending on individual roles, political contexts, and long-term outcomes. Here’s an analysis based on key figures and groups involved:
Proponents of the Invasion
The primary architects and advocates of the Iraq War within the U.S. and its coalition included political leaders, military officials, and pundits. Few faced direct, immediate penalties like legal accountability or career-ending repercussions, but many experienced reputational damage, political setbacks, or indirect consequences over time.
George W. Bush (U.S. President)
Bush spearheaded the invasion, framing it as a critical component of the “War on Terror.” Initially, his approval ratings soared—reaching 71% in April 2003 after Saddam Hussein’s fall. However, as the war dragged on, no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) were found, and the insurgency intensified, public opinion soured. By 2006, with Iraq descending into chaos, his approval rating plummeted to 37%, and the Republicans lost Congress in the midterms, partly due to Iraq fatigue. Bush left office in 2009 with a tarnished legacy—historians often rank him among the lower-tier presidents, with Iraq as a defining failure. No legal consequences ensued, but his post-presidency has been quieter than most, marked by a retreat from public political life.
Dick Cheney (U.S. Vice President)
Cheney, a hawkish advocate, pushed the WMD narrative and linked Iraq to 9/11 (despite lacking evidence). His influence waned as the war faltered, and his approval ratings dropped alongside Bush’s. Post-tenure, Cheney faced no formal accountability, but his reputation took a hit—critics like Valerie Plame (outed as a CIA operative in a scandal tied to Iraq) and documentaries like Vice (2018) cemented his image as a polarizing figure. His company, Halliburton, profited massively from Iraq contracts, raising ethical questions, though he was no longer CEO by 2003. Cheney remained defiant, defending the invasion until his later years, but his political capital diminished.
Donald Rumsfeld (U.S. Secretary of Defense)
Rumsfeld oversaw the invasion’s planning and execution, famously dismissing post-war chaos with “stuff happens.” As the insurgency grew, he became a lightning rod for criticism over inadequate troop numbers and poor planning. He resigned in November 2006 after the GOP’s midterm losses, a move widely seen as a scapegoating amid Iraq’s unraveling. While he avoided legal repercussions, his legacy was battered—memoirs and interviews reveal a defensive stance, but he’s remembered as a key figure in a strategic debacle.
Tony Blair (U.K. Prime Minister)
Blair, Bush’s staunchest ally, committed British troops and staked his credibility on Iraq’s WMD threat. The 2003 invasion initially bolstered his image as a decisive leader, but the absence of WMDs and the 2004 Hutton Inquiry (into the death of David Kelly, a whistleblower on exaggerated intelligence) eroded trust. The 2016 Chilcot Report further damned his decision-making, citing flawed intelligence and inadequate preparation, though it stopped short of calling him dishonest. Blair’s Labour Party lost ground, and he stepped down in 2007, his reputation scarred. No legal action followed, but he’s often vilified in the U.K. as “Bliar,” a symbol of misplaced trust.
Paul Wolfowitz (Deputy Secretary of Defense)
A neoconservative architect, Wolfowitz championed regime change and democracy promotion. The war’s failures damaged his standing; he left the Pentagon in 2005 for the World Bank, only to resign in 2007 amid a scandal unrelated to Iraq. His career trajectory faltered, and he’s since faded from prominence, though he’s defended the invasion in retrospect, arguing it was justified despite execution flaws.
Pundits and Media Figures
Pro-war commentators like Bill Kristol and Thomas Friedman initially thrived, shaping public support. As the war soured, some, like Friedman, distanced themselves, while Kristol doubled down, later pivoting to other causes. Few faced professional ruin—many retained platforms—but their credibility with anti-war audiences eroded. Outlets like The New York Times later apologized for overly credulous WMD reporting, a tacit admission of complicity.
Price Paid?
Direct accountability was rare—no trials, no jail time. Political and reputational costs emerged over time: Bush’s legacy, Blair’s exit, Rumsfeld’s resignation. Yet many proponents retained wealth, influence, or platforms, suggesting the “price” was more abstract—lost trust, historical judgment—than concrete. The lack of legal reckoning remains a point of contention for critics.
Opponents of the Invasion
Opponents included politicians, activists, and nations who resisted the war, often citing its shaky justification or potential for chaos. Some gained moral credibility or political leverage, though advantages were not always immediate or lasting.
France and Germany (Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder)
France and Germany opposed the invasion at the U.N., with Chirac’s veto threat and Schröder’s public stance against war. This strained U.S. relations—recall “freedom fries”—but bolstered their domestic support. Schröder won re-election in 2002 partly by campaigning against U.S. militarism, though he lost in 2005 amid economic woes. Chirac’s stance enhanced France’s image as a diplomatic counterweight, though he retired in 2007 with mixed reviews. Both nations avoided Iraq’s quagmire, preserving resources and moral high ground as the war’s flaws emerged.
Barack Obama (U.S. Senator, later President)
Obama, then an Illinois state senator, opposed the war in a 2002 speech, calling it “dumb” and predicting chaos. This stance burnished his anti-establishment credentials, aiding his 2008 presidential run against Hillary Clinton, who’d voted for the war. His advantage was clear: Iraq’s unpopularity fueled his campaign, and he won partly by promising withdrawal (completed in 2011). Opposition catapulted him to power, though he later faced his own foreign policy critiques.
Anti-War Activists (e.g., Code Pink, Michael Moore)
Grassroots opponents organized massive protests—36 million globally in early 2003, per historian Dominique Reynié. Figures like Moore, with Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004), gained cultural clout, amplifying dissent. They won no immediate policy victories, but their prescience on Iraq’s fallout earned retrospective vindication, though tangible political power remained elusive.
Hans Blix (U.N. Weapons Inspector)
Blix led inspections and found no WMD evidence, urging caution. Ignored by the U.S., he later criticized the invasion’s rush. His reputation as a sober voice grew, but he wielded no direct influence post-2003, retiring with quiet validation.
Congressional Dissenters (e.g., Dennis Kucinich, Robert Byrd)
U.S. lawmakers who opposed the October 2002 Iraq Resolution (133 House members, 23 senators) faced initial marginalization. Over time, figures like Kucinich gained moral stature among progressives, though no significant career boosts followed—most remained backbenchers.
Advantage Gained?
Opponents often emerged with enhanced credibility or political leverage, especially as Iraq unraveled. Obama’s rise stands out as a concrete gain, while France and Germany solidified their diplomatic stances. Activists and skeptics earned historical validation, but their influence on policy was limited until public opinion shifted. The advantage was often symbolic—being “right” in hindsight—rather than immediate or transformative.
Broader Context
The invasion’s aftermath reshaped careers and geopolitics unevenly. Proponents bore heavier public scrutiny, yet institutional protections (e.g., no war crimes probes) shielded them from severe consequences. Opponents, while vindicated, rarely translated foresight into lasting power, except in cases like Obama. The war’s toll—over 4,400 U.S. troops, 100,000+ Iraqi deaths—dwarfs these personal outcomes, highlighting a disconnect between individual fates and collective cost. By March 30, 2025, the debate persists: accountability remains elusive, and history’s judgment is still settling.

I agree with Neil Strauss here:

If you believe that you’re unlovable, and fear ending up alone, you may feel the need to put on a polished false persona…
Because, to you, that strategy seems more likely to get love and approval from others, which helps avoid the outcome of being alone, and proving your core wound (which we can also call a core lie)…
But in the end, even if that works, you still end up feeling lonely and unloved, because people are only approving of your mask, not what’s behind it.
Even more tragic, the mask creates shallow, superficial relationships.
People sense an inauthenticity, and so your mask actually pushes away the potential for deeper love relationships rather than inviting them in.
That’s how someone can be an international rock star, with millions of fans, surrounded by people each day, and still feel desperately alone. Over decades of being a journalist I’ve met plenty of them…
Here’s a more common example of this pattern: In a relationship, someone who’s afraid of abandonment may be constantly needy for reassurance.
They may obsessively try to control or limit their partner’s social life. And, in other moments, they may accuse their partner of lying or cheating.
The net effect of this behavior is that they drive their partner away, whether that means a break up or emotional distancing or the very lying they’re worried about.
When this person fears abandonment utilizes a faulty strategy to prevent abandonment, ends up creating it.
One last example: the person who’s afraid of failing in an artistic or entrepreneurial endeavor might never get their project off the ground because they don’t want to face the chance of failure.
The result of never completing the work: Guaranteed failure
At some point in our lives, the majority of us engage in such counterproductive strategies, as a result of a core wound.

Posted in Pundits | Comments Off

WSJ: For Trump, Recent Setbacks Are a Price Worth Paying for Radical Change

Posted on March 30, 2025 by Luke Ford

My two biggest fears about this Trump administration were that it would lack competence and have too much corruption.

The Signal chat mess from last week demonstrated a lack of competence.

Overall, I’m thrilled with this administration. It is far more competent than I expected. I am 20 times more concerned about competence than corruption.

The WSJ reports:

President’s unorthodox approach to governing prioritizes speed over cautious deliberation
WASHINGTON—When deportation flights carrying more than 250 migrants—alleged by the administration to be dangerous gang members—landed in El Salvador earlier this month, officials on the ground were surprised to see a small group of Venezuelan women on one of the planes.
The arrival of the women created a problem: The megaprison that was set to house the migrants under an agreement between the U.S. and El Savador didn’t have the capacity to hold female inmates. So the women were immediately returned to Texas, according to court filings.
It is one of the setbacks—both big and small—that stem from President Trump’s unorthodox approach to the presidency, which gives priority to speed over drawn-out decision-making meant to avoid missteps and collateral damage.
Mistakes are seen by Trump’s team as a worthwhile price to pay, people close to the president said, as they enact their top priorities, including the Elon Musk-led dismissal of federal employees, the use of wartime powers to deport migrants and steep tariffs that have rattled markets.
“You only have so much time and you can’t waste the time, and you have to get it done,” Trump told Newsmax this past week in an interview.
Some of Trump’s advisers look upon past commanders in chief with disdain, including former President Joe Biden, who sometimes spent months deliberating before making a major decision. “The consequences of inaction are far outweighed by the benefits of moving swiftly and efficiently, even with minor setbacks,” White House spokesman Harrison Fields said.
The Trump administration has also taken an unorthodox approach to some national security deliberations, as shown last week when the Atlantic revealed that senior officials discussed a military operation in Yemen on a nongovernment messaging app and inadvertently included a journalist. Top Trump advisers, many of whom share their boss’s skepticism of bureaucracy, have sometimes cut career agency staff out of policy discussions, according to administration officials.
After three days of intensifying questions about the use of Signal to discuss a secret operation, Trump announced on Wednesday that he would impose 25% tariffs on imported vehicles. The move prompted confusion and consternation around the globe.

Posted in America | Comments Off

NYT: ‘The Secret History of the War in Ukraine’

Posted on March 30, 2025 by Luke Ford

Prior to Russia’s invasion, Ukraine was a de facto member of NATO. Since Russia’s invasion, Ukraine has been a de facto member of NATO (aside from NATO countries explicitly waging war on its behalf with their own forces).

Every day that NATO fights Russia in Ukraine, we run a dramatically higher risk of nuclear war with Russia and the end of life on earth as we know it. Read Annie Jacobsen’s book, Nuclear War: A Scenario (2024) and tell me you want to risk this.

On the other hand, the survival and prosperity of Ukraine as an independent nation has not effect on America’s freedom and prosperity and strength.

US assistance helped Ukraine slaughter hundreds of thousands of Russians. The US is on the verge of going to war with Iran in part because Iran assisted in the slaughter of hundreds of Americans in Iraq. Why would Russia not resent America for similar reasons America resents Iran?

The New York Times reports:

Side by side in Wiesbaden’s mission command center, American and Ukrainian officers planned Kyiv’s counteroffensives. A vast American intelligence-collection effort both guided big-picture battle strategy and funneled precise targeting information down to Ukrainian soldiers in the field.
One European intelligence chief recalled being taken aback to learn how deeply enmeshed his N.A.T.O. counterparts had become in Ukrainian operations. “They are part of the kill chain now,” he said.
The partnership’s guiding idea was that this close cooperation might allow the Ukrainians to accomplish the unlikeliest of feats — to deliver the invading Russians a crushing blow. And in strike after successful strike in the first chapters of the war — enabled by Ukrainian bravery and dexterity but also Russian incompetence — that underdog ambition increasingly seemed within reach.
An early proof of concept was a campaign against one of Russia’s most-feared battle groups, the 58th Combined Arms Army. In mid-2022, using American intelligence and targeting information, the Ukrainians unleashed a rocket barrage at the headquarters of the 58th in the Kherson region, killing generals and staff officers inside. Again and again, the group set up at another location; each time, the Americans found it and the Ukrainians destroyed it.
Farther south, the partners set their sights on the Crimean port of Sevastopol, where the Russian Black Sea Fleet loaded missiles destined for Ukrainian targets onto warships and submarines. At the height of Ukraine’s 2022 counteroffensive, a predawn swarm of maritime drones, with support from the Central Intelligence Agency, attacked the port, damaging several warships and prompting the Russians to begin pulling them back.
But ultimately the partnership strained — and the arc of the war shifted — amid rivalries, resentments and diverging imperatives and agendas.
The Ukrainians sometimes saw the Americans as overbearing and controlling — the prototypical patronizing Americans. The Americans sometimes couldn’t understand why the Ukrainians didn’t simply accept good advice.
Where the Americans focused on measured, achievable objectives, they saw the Ukrainians as constantly grasping for the big win, the bright, shining prize. The Ukrainians, for their part, often saw the Americans as holding them back. The Ukrainians aimed to win the war outright. Even as they shared that hope, the Americans wanted to make sure the Ukrainians didn’t lose it.
As the Ukrainians won greater autonomy in the partnership, they increasingly kept their intentions secret. They were perennially angered that the Americans couldn’t, or wouldn’t, give them all of the weapons and other equipment they wanted. The Americans, in turn, were angered by what they saw as the Ukrainians’ unreasonable demands, and by their reluctance to take politically risky steps to bolster their vastly outnumbered forces.
On a tactical level, the partnership yielded triumph upon triumph. Yet at arguably the pivotal moment of the war — in mid-2023, as the Ukrainians mounted a counteroffensive to build victorious momentum after the first year’s successes — the strategy devised in Wiesbaden fell victim to the fractious internal politics of Ukraine: The president, Volodymyr Zelensky, versus his military chief (and potential electoral rival), and the military chief versus his headstrong subordinate commander. When Mr. Zelensky sided with the subordinate, the Ukrainians poured vast complements of men and resources into a finally futile campaign to recapture the devastated city of Bakhmut. Within months, the entire counteroffensive ended in stillborn failure.
The partnership operated in the shadow of deepest geopolitical fear — that Mr. Putin might see it as breaching a red line of military engagement and make good on his often-brandished nuclear threats. The story of the partnership shows how close the Americans and their allies sometimes came to that red line, how increasingly dire events forced them — some said too slowly — to advance it to more perilous ground and how they carefully devised protocols to remain on the safe side of it.

Well, as long as there were protocols…

I love protocols. Surgery uses protocols. Airline pilots use protocols. Journos should use protocols. Protocols are better than winging it but don’t impute to protocols heavier burdens than they can bear.

The Americans were generally right. The Ukraine counter-offensive was a disaster.

Grok says:

The war in Ukraine, ongoing as of March 30, 2025, has elevated tensions between Russia, a nuclear-armed state with the world’s largest arsenal (approximately 5,580 warheads, including tactical and strategic weapons), and NATO, led by the nuclear-armed United States. Several factors amplify the nuclear risk:
Escalatory Rhetoric and Doctrine Changes: Since the invasion began in February 2022, Russian leadership, including President Vladimir Putin, has repeatedly invoked nuclear threats. In November 2024, Putin revised Russia’s nuclear doctrine to lower the threshold for use, allowing nuclear retaliation against a non-nuclear state (like Ukraine) if supported by a nuclear power (e.g., the U.S. or NATO), or in response to a conventional attack threatening Russia’s sovereignty. This shift broadens the scenarios where nuclear use might be considered, increasing perceived risk.
Battlefield Dynamics: Russia’s conventional military struggles—facing setbacks like the 2022 retreats from Kyiv and Kherson, and ongoing pressure from Ukrainian advances—could push a desperate Kremlin toward extreme measures. Analysts suggest that if Russia perceives an existential threat to its regime or territory (including annexed regions like Crimea), it might employ tactical nuclear weapons to coerce Ukraine into submission or deter Western support. The U.S. assessed a 50% chance of Russian nuclear use in fall 2022 when Ukraine retook territory, a historic high estimate that reflects how close the conflict has veered toward escalation.
Western Involvement: NATO’s increasing military aid—such as U.S.-supplied ATACMS missiles used by Ukraine against Russian targets since November 2024—has prompted warnings from Moscow that it views such actions as tantamount to direct NATO aggression. Russia’s deployment of the nuclear-capable Oreshnik missile in response signals a tit-for-tat escalation cycle, where miscalculation could spiral into broader conflict.
Global Precedents and Proliferation: The war has weakened nuclear taboos. Putin’s threats, unchallenged by actual use despite crossed “red lines” (e.g., Western arms deliveries), may embolden other nuclear states like North Korea or China to adopt similar coercive strategies. Ukraine’s regret over relinquishing its Soviet-era nuclear arsenal in 1994 (via the Budapest Memorandum) has also fueled debates in non-nuclear states like South Korea about acquiring deterrents, potentially increasing future nuclear flashpoints.
However, countervailing factors temper the odds. Russia has not moved tactical nuclear weapons from storage, suggesting restraint despite rhetoric. Diplomacy—such as U.S.-Russia military communications and China’s reported pressure on Putin—has so far averted the worst. The military utility of a tactical nuclear strike is questionable, with limited battlefield gains offset by global backlash and fallout risks to Russian forces. Historically, nuclear powers have lost conventional wars (e.g., the U.S. in Vietnam, Soviet Union in Afghanistan) without resorting to nuclear escalation, indicating a high bar for use.
Expert estimates vary widely. In 2022, Graham Allison pegged the odds of U.S.-Russia nuclear war over Ukraine at less than 1% to 0.1%, far below Cuban Missile Crisis levels (33%-50% per Kennedy). Others, like the U.S. intelligence community in 2022, saw a 50% chance of limited nuclear use in specific scenarios. More recent analyses, given Russia’s 2024 doctrinal shift and battlefield momentum, suggest a rising but still low probability—perhaps in the single digits to low teens for tactical use, with a full-scale nuclear war remaining less likely due to mutual assured destruction.
In short, the war has undeniably increased the odds of nuclear conflict from a peacetime baseline near zero to a heightened but still uncertain level. The risk is real—higher than at any point since the Cold War’s end—but not inevitable, hinging on unpredictable human decisions and the absence of effective de-escalation. Without a firm pre-war probability to compare, it’s impossible to say “how much” the odds have risen numerically, but the war has clearly shifted the world into a more precarious nuclear landscape.

Posted in America, Russia, Ukraine | Comments Off

Permanent Resident Vs Citizen

Posted on March 30, 2025 by Luke Ford

When I came back to the USA after 8 months in Australia in 1989, the customers officer told me that I could lose my green card for being out of the country for so long. Frightened, I immediately set about becoming a US citizen. It was the first time I realized the dramatic difference in rights between permanent resident (established in 1981) and citizen.

A lot of people who sound like they are experts have been proclaiming there’s no practical difference between American permanent residency and citizenship. They’re wrong. That many of the differences fall into a grey area does not make them unreal.

If the Secretary of State decides you are a national security risk, he can deport you even if you are a permanent resident. He can’t do this to you if you are a citizen.

The elite news media portrays Mahmoud Khalil and his ilk who are in danger of deportation as free speech martyrs for supporting Palestine. Trump-friendly media portray them as terror supporters. Either way, I don’t see how America is hurt by their absence. In theory, I don’t like deporting non-citizens for their speech, but if they’re a disruptive force who are supporting illegal behavior on college campuses (such as taking over buildings, denying access to facilities to Zionists and the like), if they are not a clear benefit for America, I’m fine with deporting them.

Many advanced economies may well have benefitted from Muslim immigration, but I’m not aware of anyone making that case. Someone needs to make that case.

Is there clear evidence that Muslim immigration is a net benefit to advanced economies? Which countries show the clearest net benefit from Muslim immigration? In which countries are Muslims paying far more in taxes than they are taking out in welfare payments and other social services? Which countries have become more Muslim and more free and more prosperous and more advanced and more innovative?

The Washington Post reports:

A few weeks ago, New York immigration lawyer Pouyan Darian sought to reassure lawful permanent residents that it was safe to travel outside the United States without jeopardizing their status under the Trump administration. With rare exceptions, he said in a viral YouTube video, those with green cards have the “absolute right” to reenter the country.
Darian is rethinking his advice. Several recent federal enforcement actions against green-card holders have gained widespread notoriety and cast a cloud of fear and anxiety over many of the nation’s estimated 12.8 million lawful permanent residents whose legal rights to live and work in the country once gave them confidence that they were immune from President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign.
The number of confirmed detentions appears limited to a handful of highly publicized incidents, including the arrests of a pair of campus activists in New York, a German national returning to New England from an overseas trip, and a Filipina woman in Seattle who has lived in the United States for three decades.
But those apprehensions along with reports — including a viral Tik Tok video — of legal permanent residents being interrogated at U.S. airport checkpoints and pressured to sign forms renouncing their status have fanned rumors on social media, prompted green-card holders to cancel travel plans and generated a flood of frantic calls to immigration attorneys.
Darian says his counsel to clients has “absolutely changed” and he is now telling them to consider holding off on traveling because “you are subjecting yourself to scrutiny when you attempt to reenter the United States.”
“I didn’t expect them to go after green-card holders,” he said in an interview. He posted a new video on Wednesday warning that the Trump administration is going to begin focusing on permanent residents.

Posted in America | Comments Off

WP: Trump pushes for changes that keep opposition off balance, are hard to reverse

Posted on March 28, 2025 by Luke Ford

The Washington Post reports:

The administration’s approach: Overwhelm with action, outrun the usual checks on executive power, and change government and the country so quickly that some impacts could be irreversible even if courts later intervene.
White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller fully expected that invoking wartime powers would invite legal challenges, according to officials familiar with the plans. So he arranged for President Donald Trump to sign the proclamation late on a Friday night, hoping to jump-start deportations before a court could respond.
Miller’s maneuver reflected a motto he often shares with other officials: “The most important commodity in the executive branch is time.”
It also reflects the Trump administration’s broader approach in its early days: Overwhelm with action, outrun the usual checks on executive power, and change government and the country so quickly that some impacts could be irreversible even if courts later intervene. Opponents are so dizzied that they don’t know what to fight, and targets of aggression such as universities, corporations and law firms have been cowed into voluntary submission.
“When you’re winning, it’s like blitzkrieg,” Stephen K. Bannon, Trump’s first-term chief strategist, said in an interview with The Washington Post. “They’re surrendering without a fight. This is extraordinary, and that’s their urgency: You got to keep pounding. Don’t let them up. Don’t let them have a breath. Don’t let them regroup. Don’t let them organize.”
…The new spin on Bannon’s original “flood the zone” formula arose from the lessons of Trump’s first term and four years out of power to hunker down and plan. Among the top lessons Miller and other alumni of the first administration learned: Force confrontations sooner and hash out the details in court rather than spend as much time vetting policies before introducing them…
An additional impact of the blitz of action is the response across institutions to avoid Trump’s retribution — by capitulating in advance.
Major companies such as Walmart, McDonald’s, Amazon and Google said they would pull back on diversity programs after Trump campaigned against them. Columbia University punished students involved in demonstrations protesting Israel’s war in Gaza and agreed to overhaul an academic department under threat of losing $400 million in federal funding. The law firm Paul Weiss agreed to support the administration’s programs to reverse a punitive executive order, while other major law firms are shying away from suing the Trump administration or representing former Biden administration officials.

Posted in America | Comments Off

NYT: ‘Companies Pull Back From Pride Events as Trump Targets D.E.I.’

Posted on March 28, 2025 by Luke Ford

The New York Times reports:

Pride organizers say major longtime backers are reducing their support as corporate America retreats from diversity initiatives under President Trump.
When it came time to plan San Francisco Pride this year, Suzanne Ford, the organization’s executive director, reached out to some longtime corporate sponsors to ask how they planned to support the event.
Their abrupt responses stunned her: Not at all.
Several of the event’s largest sponsors — including Comcast, Anheuser-Busch and the beverage company Diageo — told Ms. Ford that they would not be providing funding this year. The companies, which together provided over $200,000 to San Francisco Pride in 2024, each told her that supporting the event was no longer in its budget, she said.
“It was totally shocking,” Ms. Ford said, adding that some of the companies had supported San Francisco Pride for decades. “It was like somebody in your family just all of a sudden saying, ‘We don’t want to be involved with you anymore.’”
With only weeks left to lock in sponsors for the summertime events, Pride organizers across the United States say that many longtime corporate sponsors are suddenly being evasive about their financial commitments or abandoning their support entirely. While some companies cited tight budgets or economic uncertainty, Pride organizers see another factor: President Trump’s widening crusade against diversity, equity and inclusion, which has prompted corporate America to retreat from such initiatives.
“There’s a lot of fear of repercussions for aligning with our festival,” said Wes Shaver, the president of Milwaukee Pride. Many corporations he has spoken to are worried that the Trump administration will classify funding Pride events — one of the signature L.G.B.T.Q. festivals on the calendar — as a diversity, equity and inclusion effort, and that they’ll be punished or penalized. “Everyone’s afraid,” he said.
In recent weeks, Booz Allen Hamilton, Deloitte, Comcast and the auto dealership group Darcars have dropped their sponsorship of WorldPride, to be held in Washington, D.C., organizers said.
Andi Otto, the executive director of Twin Cities Pride, said that some longtime sponsors were leaving his calls and emails unanswered, and that his organization was about $200,000 behind its funding goal.

Posted in Diversity, Homosexuality | Comments Off

What are the dumbest pieties?

Posted on March 28, 2025 by Luke Ford

Grok says:

People often toss around sayings that sound noble or wise but crumble under scrutiny. Here are some of the most significant false pieties that slip by unquestioned:
“Everything happens for a reason.” – It’s comforting, sure, but it implies some cosmic plan when often it’s just chaos or human screw-ups at play. A kid dying of cancer or a random car accident doesn’t have a neat “reason”—sometimes it’s just brutal luck.
“Hard work always pays off.” – Tell that to the coal miner with black lung or the single mom working three jobs still stuck in poverty. Effort doesn’t guarantee success; systems, timing, and raw chance often outweigh grit.
“The customer is always right.” – Anyone who’s worked retail knows this is nonsense. Customers can be clueless, rude, or flat-out wrong. It’s a business mantra, not a truth—meant to prioritize sales, not reality.
“Time heals all wounds.” – Some scars fester forever—grief, trauma, betrayal. Time might dull the edge, but “heal”? That’s a stretch for anyone who’s lost something irreplaceable.
“Good things come to those who wait.” – Patience can be a virtue, but waiting doesn’t magically deliver rewards. Action usually beats sitting tight—fortune favors the bold, not the idle.
“Love conquers all.” – Romantic as hell, but love doesn’t pay bills, fix addiction, or stop a war. It’s a powerful force, but it’s not a cure-all—practicality and compatibility often matter more.
These platitudes persist because they’re catchy and soothe us, not because they hold up. They’re like verbal security blankets—nice to clutch, but don’t bet your life on them.

Posted in Epistemics | Comments Off

Trump’s belligerence might help the left overseas

Posted on March 28, 2025 by Luke Ford

Carl Benjamin posts:

Trump’s belligerence towards Canada, along with the cold face his administration has shown to America’s allies more broadly, has hurt the right wing cause in every other country.
It has allowed the left to claim the nationalistic position and made their right wingers seem like either patsies of a hostile foreign power or liars that they don’t want the same thing as him.

Posted in Nationalism | Comments Off

Why do gays love poppers more than straights?

Posted on March 28, 2025 by Luke Ford

Grok says:

Historically, poppers gained popularity in gay male subcultures, particularly from the 1970s onward, during the rise of disco and club scenes where they were sold as “room odorizers” or “video head cleaners” to skirt legal restrictions. Their appeal in these spaces stemmed from their effects: a quick high, heightened sensory experience, and relaxation of smooth muscles, including the anal sphincter, which can make sexual activity—especially anal sex—more comfortable or enjoyable. Since anal sex is more common among gay men than straight populations (though not exclusive to them), this practical benefit likely boosted their use in gay communities.
Culturally, poppers became embedded in gay nightlife and sexual contexts, reinforced by their presence in bathhouses, bars, and pornographic media aimed at gay men. A 2021 study from the University of Chicago found 35% of gay and bisexual men reported using poppers in the past year, compared to just 3% of straight men, suggesting a significant disparity tied to these social environments. The drug’s association with liberation and hedonism during the pre-AIDS era further cemented its status as a gay cultural staple, even as its use persisted post-HIV crisis.
Straight people, by contrast, have less historical or subcultural attachment to poppers. While some straight individuals use them—often in kink or party scenes—their sexual practices (e.g., less frequent anal sex) and social spaces (e.g., fewer straight equivalents to gay bathhouses) don’t align as directly with poppers’ effects or marketing.
Physiologically, there’s no evidence gay men respond differently to poppers than straight people—effects like vasodilation and euphoria are universal. The difference is more about context and adoption. Gay men’s higher use likely reflects a feedback loop: practical utility in sex, amplified by community norms, sustained by visibility in gay culture. Straights might experiment (e.g., at raves or via niche interests), but without that reinforcing cycle, it’s less prevalent.

Posted in Homosexuality | Comments Off

Trump vs Big Law

Posted on March 28, 2025 by Luke Ford

After Donald Trump’s disgraceful denial of the 2020 election results, I lost all enthusiasm for him.

Until he was indicted in New York on spurious grounds.

Paul Rosenzweig writes for the Atlantic:

The Pathetic, Cowardly Collapse of Big Law
…Trump and his supporters defend these actions on the childhood-playground basis that the Democrats started it.

That’s not a childish argument. It’s a strong legal argument in many instances. In real life, who starts a fight matters.

Grok says:

You’re right—determining who started a fight can be crucial, especially in legal contexts. In law, establishing the instigator often shapes the case, like in self-defense claims where the aggressor’s identity can decide guilt or innocence. It’s about accountability and intent, which are far from childish concerns; they’re foundational to justice.
The idea that it’s “childish” might stem from playground squabbles—“He started it!”—where the focus is more on blame than resolution. But that’s a narrow view. In adult conflicts, whether physical, verbal, or geopolitical, identifying the initiator provides context, clarifies motives, and can dictate the legitimacy of responses. For instance, historians still debate who sparked World War I because it affects how we judge the players involved.
It’s only “childish” if the pointing finger is just petty score-settling, not if it’s about understanding what really happened. Context is everything.

Rosenzweig: “Trump’s actions are an attempt to tilt the scales of justice by using the raw power of government coercion—and they’re working.”

The right has never enjoyed this much success in transforming American institutions (which until now have predominantly been in the hands of the left).

Aaron Renn writes Feb. 13: “Conservatives can’t use the long march strategy because the left isn’t dumb enough to let them penetrate institutions. Instead, conservatives need to do the equivalent of a private equity buyout and restructure institutions from the top down.”

Grok says: “Reports indicate that rival firms, such as Sullivan & Cromwell and Kirkland & Ellis, have begun poaching talent from targeted firms, exploiting the instability Trump’s actions have created.”

The New York Times is flooding the zone on this story, assigning five reporters:

Skadden, a Top Law Firm, Is in Talks to Avert an Executive Order
The discussions come as President Trump has taken aim at WilmerHale, another big law firm. Other major firms are said to be trying to cut deals with the White House.
By Michael S. Schmidt, Ben Protess, Matthew Goldstein,Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Maureen Farrell
The elite law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom has had discussions with President Trump’s advisers about a deal to avert the type of executive order that the White House has been imposing on many of its competitors, according to five people briefed on the matter who were not authorized to speak publicly about private conversations.
The talks represent an extraordinary turn in Mr. Trump’s campaign against law firms and the legal system more broadly, marking what appears to be the first time that a major firm has tried to cut a deal with the president before he could issue an executive order. Recent orders targeting other law firms have restricted the work they can do with the federal government.
The Skadden discussions are also the latest example of how large law firms, afraid of a protracted battle with Mr. Trump, are eager to strike deals.
The White House has signaled that more firms are in the president’s sights to receive executive orders, particularly those that employ lawyers who have worked on investigations into Mr. Trump or on causes that his supporters object to…
While WilmerHale vowed to fight the order, Skadden was not the only firm in discussions with Mr. Trump’s team, according to two people briefed on the matter, and multiple deals could be announced in the coming days.
It is unclear how the talks got started or whether Skadden will reach an agreement with Mr. Trump. But on Wednesday, the president hinted that such deals might emerge and boasted about his track record of bringing big law firms to heel.
“They’re all bending and saying, ‘Sir, thank you very much,’” Mr. Trump said, adding that law firms are saying, “‘Where do I sign? Where do I sign?’”
…In a post on his social media platform, X, on Sunday, Elon Musk singled out Skadden’s work assisting in a lawsuit against Dinesh D’Souza, the right-wing media critic and political commentator…
The leaders of Paul Weiss said that Mr. Trump’s order would have decimated their business — and that rivals were looking to poach some of their top lawyers. But the firm’s agreement appears to have emboldened the president and encouraged other firms to consider making their own deals.
The flurry of actions taken by Mr. Trump against law firms has, for the most part, been met with silence from industry leaders. Lawyers have been reluctant to speak out for fear of making their firm a target.

Grok says:

Skadden, a leading law firm, has engaged in talks with Trump’s advisers to avoid an executive order like those recently imposed on competitors such as WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Perkins Coie. These orders, part of Trump’s escalating war on elite law firms, restrict their federal government work, revoke security clearances, and target firms linked to past investigations (e.g., Mueller’s Russia probe) or causes Trump opposes. Skadden’s move marks a shift, as it’s the first major firm to proactively negotiate before an order is issued, following Paul Weiss’s earlier deal with Trump. The article cites anonymous sources, highlights Elon Musk’s criticism of Skadden on X, and notes the legal community’s mixed response—silence from most firms, resistance from Perkins Coie, and warnings from legal scholars about threats to the rule of law.
The article frames Trump’s actions as a personal crusade, targeting firms like WilmerHale (tied to Mueller) and Jenner & Block (linked to Andrew Weissmann) for their roles in past investigations. The executive order against WilmerHale on March 27, 2025, exemplifies this, accusing it of “weaponizing” the legal system and abusing pro bono work. Trump’s rhetoric—“They’re all bending and saying, ‘Sir, thank you very much’”—suggests he sees these moves as victories in a power struggle.
Skadden’s talks indicate Trump’s strategy is working, pressuring firms into preemptive compliance.
Law Firms’ Strategic Retreat:
Skadden’s negotiations, alongside Paul Weiss’s $40 million pro bono deal, highlight a trend of capitulation over confrontation. The article notes multiple firms are in similar discussions, driven by fear of business losses—e.g., Paul Weiss cited the risk of rival poaching and operational collapse. This contrasts with Perkins Coie’s legal challenge, positioning Skadden as prioritizing survival over principle.
The trigger for Skadden’s talks may tie to Musk’s March 23 X post criticizing its work against Dinesh D’Souza, though its past representation of Musk in the Twitter deal adds complexity.
Implications
Industry Shifts: Trump’s campaign is reshaping Big Law’s landscape. Firms face a choice: negotiate (Skadden, Paul Weiss), fight (Perkins Coie), or stay silent (most others). The article hints at a ripple effect—rival firms poaching talent, as with Paul Weiss, could accelerate if more orders hit, weakening targeted firms’ market positions.
Political Leverage: Musk’s role underscores how Trump allies amplify his influence. Skadden’s dual history with Musk (Twitter) and Mueller’s Ukraine probe makes it a prime target, showing how personal and political grievances intertwine.
Legal Precedent: Perkins Coie’s early court win and Judge Howell’s stance suggest Trump’s orders may face constitutional challenges, potentially limiting their scope. However, Skadden’s talks could reduce the number of test cases if more firms settle.
The article paints Skadden’s discussions as a pivotal moment in Trump’s assault on Big Law, blending strategic retreat with broader threats to legal norms. It’s a compelling snapshot of a profession under siege, caught between political retribution and self-preservation. Yet, its focus on deal-making might overstate Trump’s dominance, given emerging judicial resistance. For Skadden, the stakes are high—negotiating with Trump could save its business but cost its reputation, a dilemma the article captures without fully resolving.

The New York Times posted Mar. 26, 2025:

Big Law Splinters Under a Trump Onslaught
The president’s repeated clashes with the nation’s most prestigious law firms has had a destabilizing business effect.
One of the biggest questions has been whether Big Law would band together amid Trump’s barrage. So far, the opposite has happened: Corporate law firms are using Trump’s assault as a competitive opportunity, The Times reports.
As Paul, Weiss was dealing with its own executive order this month, rival firms dove in to try to poach clients and partners.
The firm’s competitors moved in swiftly. Several of Paul, Weiss’s top rivals, including Sullivan & Cromwell and Kirkland & Ellis, tried to poach Paul, Weiss rainmakers within days of Trump issuing an executive order that could have seriously hobbled its business, according to The Times. They took a soft approach with the firm’s leaders, saying that they sympathized with their plight, but that if they wanted out of the turmoil, they could name their price.
The outreach made a bad situation worse. Panic was already roiling through Paul, Weiss over the potentially catastrophic effect of the executive order.
The order restricted the firm’s lawyers from dealing with the government, including entering federal buildings, and said companies doing business with Paul, Weiss could lose their government contracts. Even if the firm successfully fought the order in court, it was feared it would be labeled an enemy of Trump.
The threat of losing the firm’s top lawyers compounded those worries. Some partners were particularly concerned that Scott Barshay, the head of the corporate practice, might leave and prompt others to follow him.

GianCarlo Canaparo, a Senior Legal Fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, writes for The Daily Economy:

Big Law Firms Face Legal Reckoning Over Race Preferences
Title VII makes it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of race. But many firms’ efforts to ‘increase diversity’ did exactly that.
It is no secret that many of the nation’s largest and most prestigious law firms went woke. For years, they have publicly championed left-wing social causes, fired conservatives for representing conservative clients, and used racial preferences for applicants and employees.
That last one has gotten them into trouble with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal agency tasked with policing employment discrimination.
The Acting Chair of the Commission, Andrea Lucas, has sent letters to twenty firms requesting information about their race-based employment practices. The letters appear to be a prelude to investigations and, depending on how the firms respond, enforcement actions.
The letters to the firms are titled “Review of [Firm’s] Compliance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” and reveal shocking practices that top lawyers, like those who staff these firms, should have known were illegal.
For example, about half of the letters suggest that the firms held attorney applicants to different standards depending on their race. It has long been rumored that some of the top law firms required lower GPAs for black and Hispanic applicants than they did for Asian and white students, and would recruit the former from lower-ranked schools than they would the latter. The letters suggest that this rumor was more than speculation.
To prove whether the firms are using different standards for different groups, the letters ask the firms to produce information about their applicants’ race, law school, and GPA. The law firms could refuse to disclose the information, which might raise the inference that they are guilty. Like the good lawyers they are, they will defend their nondisclosure by saying that refusal to provide exculpatory information is not an admission of guilt. Although technically correct, that rule is little help in race discrimination cases, which turn on intent, and the practices documented in these letters are strong evidence that the firms intend to discriminate.
For example, the letters describe the firms’ “diversity scholarships” and “diversity internships.” These programs offer priority access to job interviews, pipelines to employment, special stipends or scholarships, or additional pay all given to people because they check a certain identity box — a plain violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which forbids employment discrimination.
Some firms, perhaps thinking that they were being clever, outsourced this discrimination to third parties. Kirkland & Ellis, for example, partners with an organization called “Afro Law,” which gives “Afro” students a “pipeline” to employment with Kirkland that is denied to applicants of other races. Kirkland and many other firms on the list also partner with Sponsors for Education Opportunity (SEO), which despite the less-obvious name, does much the same thing.
As the letters explain, SEO is another fellowship program that partners with law firms to put its fellows on fast-tracks to employment at these firms. It also entitles fellows to extra pay or scholarships, mentoring, and other things that Title VII calls “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” Although SEO says its fellowship is open to anyone, the letters document how the fellowship is, in fact, limited to “students of color.” Unhelpfully for both SEO and the firms that partner with it, some law schools, like Columbia University, revealed the truth and told students that the fellowship is restricted to, or at best focused on, certain racial groups at the exclusion of others.
Perhaps the lawyers thought that discrimination was permissible if it was outsourced to third parties, but this is delegated discrimination, and it doesn’t fly under Title VII.
The letters also target race- and sex-based staffing quotas. These are demands, usually made by clients, that specific matters are staffed with specific numbers or percentages of lawyers from various race, sex, or gender groups. As explained elsewhere, these programs typically hurt the lawyers they are supposed to help by denying them control over their own careers. Lawyers from the groups on the quota lists are forced to work for clients that maintain such lists whether they want to or not, whereas lawyers who aren’t on the lists remain free to work on whatever they choose.
Then there are “Affinity Groups,” another practice that the firms are not shy about. As the letters explain, these are employee groups organized around race, ethnicity, sex, or other characteristics that Title VII prohibits organizing around. The letters demand to know whether participation in the groups is a factor in getting promoted. But even if it isn’t, the groups are still a special “privilege of employment,” and therefore prohibited.
The discriminatory practices go on. The letters demand that firms explain their annual reports and plans for increasing “demographic representation.” They demand that the firms reveal whether they hired or promoted people because they checked an identity box, whether partners’ compensation was tied to “representation goals,” and whether the firms paid bigger recruitment bonuses to employees who recruited candidates who checked certain boxes.
Reading through the letters (together, they span 210 pages), one wonders how on earth the most prestigious lawyers with the shiniest credentials our elite universities can offer could have done all this. Title VII is not a new or complicated statute, after all. Its core provision says simply that it is unlawful “to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” and to “limit, segregate, or classify” individuals in a way which tends to adversely affect their employment. No one needs a law degree from an Ivy League law school to understand it. But perhaps prestigious degrees are precisely the reason that these lawyers misunderstand it.
A degree from those vaunted halls was once a reliable indicator of intellect and good legal judgment. Now, however, it’s a reliable indicator of zealous adherence to a trendy ideology that says “the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.” By the dim light of that backward dogma, the law is either a tool of oppression or a plaything to be melded by the cognoscenti, but either way, if it commands a benighted outcome, it can be ignored. And so it has been.
Rebels against this ideology who have spent time in these firms will not be surprised by the letters or the practices they detail. In truth, the only surprising thing about the letters is that more firms didn’t get one. When the list went public, heterodox thinkers at other firms reached out to say things like “I’m amazed my firm isn’t on it.”
To which a twofold response is due: First, save some screenshots and please share them. And second, just wait. We’re two months in; 46 remain.

Ruth Marcus writes for The New Yorker Mar. 27, 2025:

How Donald Trump Throttled Big Law
The President has two goals: to seek revenge and to intimidate lawyers challenging his agenda. Is a top firm’s deal with him a necessary act of survival or a damaging blow to the entire profession?
* The Paul, Weiss deal—and the studied silence of other law firms who have refused to speak out against other recent orders—offers an alarming illustration of how impressively the campaign is succeeding.
* Even before the spate of executive orders, firms were skittish about finding themselves at odds with the new Administration. Now they are terrified, and lining up their own outside counsel. Trump could be coming for them next. On Monday, when the President was asked about his orders against law firms, he made his position clear: firms were to submit to his will. “I just think the law firms have to behave themselves,” he said.
* As the lawsuit proceeds, it is hard to imagine appellate judges—even the Supreme Court’s current conservative super-majority—concluding that the order passes constitutional muster. But it is also difficult to see how Perkins Coie does not emerge grievously damaged. Some clients, new and existing, may be steering business its way in appalled solidarity. Still, clients with issues before the government have to think twice before hiring Perkins Coie. Any corporate general counsel would have a difficult time explaining why retaining Perkins Coie would be in the best interest of shareholders.
* Paul, Weiss presented a juicy target for Trump. Of the major New York firms, its profile was the most decidedly Democratic.
* Even before the spate of executive orders, firms were skittish about finding themselves at odds with the new Administration. Now they are terrified, and lining up their own outside counsel.

Isaac Stanley-Becker writes in The Atlantic Mar. 24:

The United States of Fear
For anyone who’s in the president’s crosshairs—or who could be—it’s the dominant emotion of Trump’s second term.
…Meanwhile, firms are taking steps to protect themselves. One Washington firm hired a vendor to scan right-wing message boards for threats that might bubble up to the White House and occasion an attack from the president. The firm also modified its document-retention policy in preparation for possible government probes.

Yale law professor John Morley writes for the WSJ:

Paul Weiss and other law firms, unlike most businesses, are owned by their workers—that is, the partners who practice there. As owners, the partners are paid not in salaries, but in shares of the profits. They also can leave and take their clients with them.
This exposes a law firm to the risk of a cascading spiral of partner withdrawals akin to a run on a bank. If one partner leaves and takes his clients with him, the firm will lose revenue—and be stuck with many of the office leases, staff salaries and other expenses that it had before. The result will be a decline in profits, which in turn will mean a decline in pay for the partners who remain.
Once their pay goes down, some of these partners may decide to leave the firm. Their departures may damage the firm even further, pushing more partners to leave, and so on. Worse still is that, by virtue of their status as owners of the firm, the partners face unusual forms of liability that reward them for leaving early and punish them for leaving late. A partner who stays too long at a firm in distress can lose his past and even future pay to creditors of the firm in bankruptcy. A partner who gets out earlier avoids these risks.
…transactional lawyers can switch firms more easily than litigators can. And they depend more heavily on good relations with the government. As a result, Paul Weiss is more exposed to pressure from the government than Perkins Coie, one of Mr. Trump’s other targets, and Williams & Connolly, which is defending Perkins Coie. Perkins Coie has fewer of its partners devoted to transactional work than Paul Weiss. Williams & Connolly does only litigation, with a specialty in defending against the government. These firms have thus already hardened their businesses to withstand conflict with the government in a way that Paul Weiss never could.
The overall lesson is that Mr. Trump’s attacks on law firms are even more powerful than they seem.

John Morley last revised this paper Jan. 21, 2020:

Law firms don’t just go bankrupt—they collapse. Like Dewey & LeBoeuf, Heller Ehrman, and Bingham McCutchen, law firms often go from apparent health to liquidation in a matter of months or even days. Almost no large law firm has ever managed to reorganize its debts in bankruptcy and survive. This pattern is puzzling because it has no parallel among ordinary businesses. Many businesses go through long periods of financial distress and many even file for bankruptcy. But almost none collapse with the extraordinary force and finality of law firms. Why?
I argue that law firms are fragile in part because they are owned by their partners rather than by investors. Partner ownership creates the conditions for a spiraling cycle of withdrawals that resembles a run on the bank. As the owners of the business, the partners of a law firm are the ones who suffer declines in profits and who have to disgorge their compensation in the event the firm becomes insolvent. So if one partner leaves and damages the firm, it is the remaining partners who bear the loss. Each partner’s departure thus has the potential to worsen conditions for those who remain, meaning that as each partner departs, the others become more likely to leave as well, eventually producing an accelerating race for the exits. This kind of spiraling withdrawal is sometimes thought to be an unavoidable consequence of financial distress. But if law firms were not owned by their partners, spiraling withdrawals would not happen. Indeed, the only large law firm in the history of the common law world that has ever survived a prolonged insolvency (the British and Australian law firm Slater and Gordon) is also one of the only large law firms that has ever been owned by investors. These insights have extensive implications for how we understand law firms and corporate organization more generally.
…By undermining the formal bonds of money and creating powerful financial incentives to withdraw in times of decline, partner ownership forces firms to rely on informal forces like friendship and loyalty to hold themselves together. Partner ownership cuts the metal nails of contract and replaces them with leather cords of loyalty. Law firms are thus uniquely reliant on informal forms of bonding capital in place of more formal forms of financial capital. The trouble is that if the leather cords of friendship and loyalty cease to bind—if all partners care about is money—then partner ownership has a hard time creating financial incentives that can hold a law firm together.
…In the same way that the fear of bank runs—which are also uncommon—shapes every aspect of the banking industry, the fear of partner runs may very well shape many aspects of large law firm management.
…It is often said that law firms collapse because their assets go down the elevator every night. But this does not tell us why the assets fail to come back up. The explanation is not obvious because there are few analogues in regular industry. The employees of ordinary industrial companies can also leave at any time, yet they almost never leave with the speed and finality of law firm partners.
…The partners’ status as residual risk-bearers is important because it intensifies the partners’ sensitivity to declines in profits and thus to other partners’ departures.

Posted in Law | Comments Off