[David Attenborough voice]

Here, nestled along the misty coastal plains of southern Oregon, we find a truly remarkable gathering of creatures: camels, kangaroos, kinkajous, and—until recently—a deeply suspicious quantity of methamphetamine.

[Marlin Perkins voice]

That’s right, Dave. The West Coast Game Park Safari looked like your average American roadside animal attraction: goats, cougars, maybe a wallaby or two. But underneath the surface? A wildlife soap opera meets a low-budget episode of Breaking Bad.
[Cut to a grumpy capuchin monkey named Randy]

“Oh yeah, we knew something was off. You don’t see 44 firearms and a modified machine gun stashed under a pile of lemur chow without askin’ questions. I mean, one time I found a pistol in my hammock. Thought it was enrichment.”

[Attenborough, solemnly]

The dominant male of the enclosure, one Brian Tenney, age 52, has been removed from the habitat following an unexpected and highly unusual raid—led not by rival predators, but the Coos County Sheriff’s Department.

[Marlin Perkins]

They found 80 grams of meth, 8 grams of cocaine, and $1.6 million in cash. Folks, that’s not a safari. That’s a cartel with petting privileges.

It is a pitiful marker of the cultural IQ of a declining republic that the President of the United States—Donald J. Trump, a man for whom art has always been merely the wallpaper of ego—has decided to remove Kim Sajet from her position as Director of the National Portrait Gallery. Her crime, according to the president’s own blaring, characteristically illiterate dispatch on Truth Social, was that she was “highly partisan” and a “strong supporter of DEI,” which he pronounced, with the finality of a mall-court pharaoh, as “totally inappropriate” for her position.

Thus, Sajet—a scholar, a curator, an immigrant, and yes, a believer in the revolting notion that American culture might benefit from including more than just dead white men in powdered wigs—has been summarily fired by a man whose own official portrait, should it ever be permitted to hang in any institution not run by QVC, would properly be rendered in crayon, ketchup, and spray tan.

Let us be clear: Trump’s disdain for DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) is not rooted in philosophical disagreement. This is not Burke versus Rousseau. It is not even Nixon versus the NEA. It is the flailing tantrum of a man who sees any nod to pluralism as a threat to the soft, white dough of his self-image. “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” his executive order declares—as if “truth” had ever flowed from Mar-a-Lago except as a casualty.

Kim Sajet’s résumé would be impressive to any thinking person—which is to say, not the present administration. Born in Nigeria, raised in Australia, educated in Europe and the U.S., with a doctorate from Georgetown and executive training at Harvard, she represents precisely the sort of worldly intellect that Trump regards with uncomprehending suspicion, like a terrier eyeing a ceiling fan. That she curated not just the Obama portraits but presided over their five-city tour—bringing Americans face to face with the visages of a presidency Trump still broods over like a Shakespearean ghost—is surely the unforgivable sin here. She let the nation celebrate its cultural evolution, and for that she must be punished.

To call Trump’s act stupid is to underestimate the word. It is anti-intellectual, certainly, but it is also anti-civic. It is the cultural equivalent of urinating on a library, then blaming the librarian for the smell. Under Sajet, the Portrait Gallery did not become a “leftist den,” as the president’s unwashed footmen might shout on cable news; it simply became relevant. She ushered in exhibitions that asked real questions: Who gets remembered? Who gets seen? What does portraiture mean when the faces on the wall start to resemble the nation beyond the old elite?

Trump, of course, wants a Portrait Gallery where every wall is a mirror. A nation of one face, his, endlessly repeated like some capitalist Warhol nightmare: Trump in a cowboy hat. Trump in a flight suit. Trump next to Lincoln, Trump over Lincoln. That’s the limit of his aesthetic: narcissism cosplaying as patriotism.

His war on “wokeness” in museums—oh, what a depressing phrase, as if cultural institutions are now battlefields in the fetid imaginations of the aggrieved—is just another twitch in his long campaign against history that fails to flatter him. “Race-centered ideology,” he calls it, as if history itself were an act of aggression. In truth, what Trump cannot tolerate is ambiguity. The museum to him is either a loyalty test or a heresy.

Firing Sajet is part of a wider purge—he’s already sacked the Librarian of Congress, the Chair of the Joint Chiefs, and the Commandant of the Coast Guard. At this rate, the next head to roll will be the bronze statue of Frederick Douglass for being too verbose. The president is trimming the nation’s cultural branches with a blowtorch, leaving nothing behind but the smoke of grievance and cheap nostalgia.

The tragedy, of course, is not only that such a vandal holds power, but that so many cheer him on. In a healthy society, the dismissal of a museum director over “support” for inclusion would provoke outrage, not applause. But we are no longer a society invested in complexity or memory. We are a culture nursing its resentments like whiskey, grumbling at clouds and calling it populism.

Robert Hughes once said that the loss of critical thinking in American public life was “the slow death of the republic by boredom and bile.” This, then, is another knifewound in that body. Sajet’s removal is not a minor administrative change. It is a cultural obscenity, the replacement of merit with malice.

But let us not mourn too long. The galleries may be stripped. The plaques may be rewritten. But art, real art, will survive its saboteurs. And so will history.

Because the problem with purging the past, Mr. President, is that eventually it comes back—in portrait form.

And it remembers.

The TACO Doctrine: A Study in Presidential Evasion

In the grand theater of economic policy, it is often tempting to mistake the clamor of cymbals for the resonance of conviction. Nowhere has this confusion been more persistently dramatized than in the peculiar choreography of President Donald Trump’s trade strategy—a spectacle of bold beginnings followed, almost invariably, by a retreat into bathos. The term now catching currency among economists and even the more impish bond traders is “TACO,” an acronym both zesty and damning: Trump Always Chickens Out.

Let us be clear. Tariffs are not a novelty. They are, in fact, among the oldest tools in the nation-state’s kit of self-inflicted wounds. Yet they have, on occasion, served a purpose—usually ill-defined, sometimes unintentionally. What is remarkable in the Trumpian era is not the resort to tariffs but the theatricality of their announcement, the drama of their declaration, and the predictability of their subsequent dilution.

At the outset, we were promised a new age of economic nationalism. American steel and aluminum would rise again; the trade deficit would melt like morning frost; China would be brought to heel; Mexico would pay—presumably in both currency and humility. In short, we were to believe that the businessman-president, with his infinite swagger, would do for the American worker what decades of globalist ne’er-do-wells could not.

And yet, time and again, when the moment of maximal leverage arrived—when the game required resolve rather than rhetoric—the president, to use the economic term of art, folded. What was touted as a 25% tariff would become a 10% deferral, then a partial exemption, then, most ignobly, a handshake deal signed in gold Sharpie and undone by Tuesday.

The Chinese, whose sense of irony is only matched by their patience, mastered the dance. They endured insult, tariffs, and tweets, only to find themselves, six months later, at a negotiating table set with the same empty platitudes and a president who craved applause more than leverage. The so-called “Phase One Deal,” that pinnacle of Trumpian tradecraft, produced not transformation, but soybeans—modestly purchased, ambiguously promised, and mostly forgotten.

To invoke Galbraith himself, one is reminded of his observation that “the modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” The modern Trumpist is engaged in something similar, though more comical: the search for a superior branding strategy for economic cowardice.

It is here that the TACO doctrine finds its true utility—not merely as insult, but as diagnosis. It speaks to a governing style where belligerence is substituted for strategy, and capitulation is camouflaged by fanfare. Trump’s tariff regime was less a doctrine than a dopamine hit. Each announcement brought a surge of attention, a brief rise in approval among the aggrieved, and then, once the cameras turned away, the predictable slide into ambiguity, exemption, and surrender.

In the end, what we are left with is not a trade realignment but a parable. A lesson in how bluster, unmoored from discipline, leaves neither friend nor foe certain of intent. TACO, then, is not just an acronym. It is an epitaph for a strategy that mistook shouting for strength and compromise for conquest.

As Galbraith might have said, though perhaps with more grace than this humble interpreter: “In economics, as in politics, it is not enough to be loudly wrong. One must, at the very least, avoid being repeatedly ridiculous.”

The Quiet Below the Flag

On Power, Profit, and the Death of Shame in Washington

The man promised to drain the swamp. Instead, he paved it and built a hotel. He called it sacrifice. The numbers said otherwise.

Back in office and now a convicted felon, he stood atop a government stripped of watchdogs and filled with loyalists. He made sure the rules didn’t apply to him—and they didn’t. He said so, and no one stopped him.

The money came in. From Qatar. From crypto. From countries that once needed permission, now needing only proximity. His sons took meetings. They signed deals. They laughed at the idea of restraint. Why hold back when the crowd doesn’t boo anymore?

There were once hearings for this sort of thing. Now there are podcasts. A man called it corruption, but only “seemed like.” That was as far as outrage went—an implied shrug wrapped in audio. Nothing stuck long enough to matter. The country was too tired. Too wired. Too numb.

The president said he was too rich to need more money. But he took it anyway. Planes. Partnerships. A $1.2 billion jump in net worth. The figures were public. The silence was louder.

A judge called it the most brazen abuse of office in history. But history doesn’t press charges. The Justice Department had new management. Oversight was out to lunch. Ethics had a Do Not Disturb sign on the door.

Some protested. Some posted. The rest adjusted.

He had changed the rules, and then made it clear there were no rules. Not for him. Not anymore.

The swamp didn’t disappear. It became private property. Membership required influence. Entry was granted in Bitcoin or blood loyalty.

Above it all, the flag still waved. But beneath it, the silence had settled. Cold. Heavy. Permanent.

And no one moved to fix it.

A Nation Without Pennies: Progress or Pernicious Folly?

Progress or Pernicious Folly?

The United States government, in its infinite economic wisdom and spiritual smallness, has announced that it shall cease the production of pennies — that humble, copper-colored disc upon which generations of American children first learned the weight and worth of money.

At first glance, this might seem the act of a practical and forward-thinking Republic. After all, why should a nation that prides itself on efficiency waste nearly four cents to produce a coin worth but one? But let us not be so easily seduced by the arithmetic of accountants and the penny-pinching triumphalism of Treasury officials. This is no mere cost-saving measure. This is the quiet burial of thrift.

Let it be plainly stated: by eliminating the penny, the government is embedding inflation into the very arithmetic of daily life. Prices that once might have ended in .01 or .02 will now round up. Do not be fooled by the false comfort of symmetry — rounding is not neutral when it bends always toward the richer till. The burden of those extra cents will fall not upon stockbrokers or senators, but upon those who pay in cash — the young, the old, the poor, and those who cannot count on banking apps to do their bidding.

The government assures us that this change is merely a continuation of modernity — that Canada and New Zealand have already led the way. That is well. But is the metric for progress now measured solely by imitation? And shall we next abolish dimes, and quarters, until a dollar buys only what a quarter once did, and the value of money is as inflated as our egos?

Worse still, the demise of the penny is a quiet assault upon the moral education of children. We are told the coins end up in couch cushions and art projects — well! What better proof that they belong in the hands of children? For it is through the clinking of small coins in a piggy bank that a child learns patience, responsibility, and the rudiments of economics. To deprive them of that is to render saving itself quaint, a relic of a world where one waited, scrimped, and earned.

Let us also not forget the symbolism of the penny — humble, ubiquitous, and bearing the likeness of Abraham Lincoln, a man who rose from poverty by the sweat of thought and moral courage. To erase his coin is not only an economic gesture, but a cultural one — the slow erasure of modest beginnings in favor of lofty efficiencies.

The Treasury boasts a savings of $56 million by halting penny production — a mere pittance in a government that spends trillions with the looseness of a gambler. What is $56 million, next to the moral bankruptcy of teaching a child that one cent no longer matters?A Nation Without Pennies: Progress or Pernicious Folly?

Progress or Pernicious Folly?

The United States government, in its infinite economic wisdom and spiritual smallness, has announced that it shall cease the production of pennies — that humble, copper-colored disc upon which generations of American children first learned the weight and worth of money.

At first glance, this might seem the act of a practical and forward-thinking Republic. After all, why should a nation that prides itself on efficiency waste nearly four cents to produce a coin worth but one? But let us not be so easily seduced by the arithmetic of accountants and the penny-pinching triumphalism of Treasury officials. This is no mere cost-saving measure. This is the quiet burial of thrift.

Let it be plainly stated: by eliminating the penny, the government is embedding inflation into the very arithmetic of daily life. Prices that once might have ended in .01 or .02 will now round up. Do not be fooled by the false comfort of symmetry — rounding is not neutral when it bends always toward the richer till. The burden of those extra cents will fall not upon stockbrokers or senators, but upon those who pay in cash — the young, the old, the poor, and those who cannot count on banking apps to do their bidding.

The government assures us that this change is merely a continuation of modernity — that Canada and New Zealand have already led the way. That is well. But is the metric for progress now measured solely by imitation? And shall we next abolish dimes, and quarters, until a dollar buys only what a quarter once did, and the value of money is as inflated as our egos?

Worse still, the demise of the penny is a quiet assault upon the moral education of children. We are told the coins end up in couch cushions and art projects — well! What better proof that they belong in the hands of children? For it is through the clinking of small coins in a piggy bank that a child learns patience, responsibility, and the rudiments of economics. To deprive them of that is to render saving itself quaint, a relic of a world where one waited, scrimped, and earned.

Let us also not forget the symbolism of the penny — humble, ubiquitous, and bearing the likeness of Abraham Lincoln, a man who rose from poverty by the sweat of thought and moral courage. To erase his coin is not only an economic gesture, but a cultural one — the slow erasure of modest beginnings in favor of lofty efficiencies.

The Treasury boasts a savings of $56 million by halting penny production — a mere pittance in a government that spends trillions with the looseness of a gambler. What is $56 million, next to the moral bankruptcy of teaching a child that one cent no longer matters?A Nation Without Pennies: Progress or Pernicious Folly?

Progress or Pernicious Folly?

The United States government, in its infinite economic wisdom and spiritual smallness, has announced that it shall cease the production of pennies — that humble, copper-colored disc upon which generations of American children first learned the weight and worth of money.

At first glance, this might seem the act of a practical and forward-thinking Republic. After all, why should a nation that prides itself on efficiency waste nearly four cents to produce a coin worth but one? But let us not be so easily seduced by the arithmetic of accountants and the penny-pinching triumphalism of Treasury officials. This is no mere cost-saving measure. This is the quiet burial of thrift.

Let it be plainly stated: by eliminating the penny, the government is embedding inflation into the very arithmetic of daily life. Prices that once might have ended in .01 or .02 will now round up. Do not be fooled by the false comfort of symmetry — rounding is not neutral when it bends always toward the richer till. The burden of those extra cents will fall not upon stockbrokers or senators, but upon those who pay in cash — the young, the old, the poor, and those who cannot count on banking apps to do their bidding.

The government assures us that this change is merely a continuation of modernity — that Canada and New Zealand have already led the way. That is well. But is the metric for progress now measured solely by imitation? And shall we next abolish dimes, and quarters, until a dollar buys only what a quarter once did, and the value of money is as inflated as our egos?

Worse still, the demise of the penny is a quiet assault upon the moral education of children. We are told the coins end up in couch cushions and art projects — well! What better proof that they belong in the hands of children? For it is through the clinking of small coins in a piggy bank that a child learns patience, responsibility, and the rudiments of economics. To deprive them of that is to render saving itself quaint, a relic of a world where one waited, scrimped, and earned.

Let us also not forget the symbolism of the penny — humble, ubiquitous, and bearing the likeness of Abraham Lincoln, a man who rose from poverty by the sweat of thought and moral courage. To erase his coin is not only an economic gesture, but a cultural one — the slow erasure of modest beginnings in favor of lofty efficiencies.

The Treasury boasts a savings of $56 million by halting penny production — a mere pittance in a government that spends trillions with the looseness of a gambler. What is $56 million, next to the moral bankruptcy of teaching a child that one cent no longer matters?A Nation Without Pennies: Progress or Pernicious Folly?

Progress or Pernicious Folly?

The United States government, in its infinite economic wisdom and spiritual smallness, has announced that it shall cease the production of pennies — that humble, copper-colored disc upon which generations of American children first learned the weight and worth of money.

At first glance, this might seem the act of a practical and forward-thinking Republic. After all, why should a nation that prides itself on efficiency waste nearly four cents to produce a coin worth but one? But let us not be so easily seduced by the arithmetic of accountants and the penny-pinching triumphalism of Treasury officials. This is no mere cost-saving measure. This is the quiet burial of thrift.

Let it be plainly stated: by eliminating the penny, the government is embedding inflation into the very arithmetic of daily life. Prices that once might have ended in .01 or .02 will now round up. Do not be fooled by the false comfort of symmetry — rounding is not neutral when it bends always toward the richer till. The burden of those extra cents will fall not upon stockbrokers or senators, but upon those who pay in cash — the young, the old, the poor, and those who cannot count on banking apps to do their bidding.

The government assures us that this change is merely a continuation of modernity — that Canada and New Zealand have already led the way. That is well. But is the metric for progress now measured solely by imitation? And shall we next abolish dimes, and quarters, until a dollar buys only what a quarter once did, and the value of money is as inflated as our egos?

Worse still, the demise of the penny is a quiet assault upon the moral education of children. We are told the coins end up in couch cushions and art projects — well! What better proof that they belong in the hands of children? For it is through the clinking of small coins in a piggy bank that a child learns patience, responsibility, and the rudiments of economics. To deprive them of that is to render saving itself quaint, a relic of a world where one waited, scrimped, and earned.

Let us also not forget the symbolism of the penny — humble, ubiquitous, and bearing the likeness of Abraham Lincoln, a man who rose from poverty by the sweat of thought and moral courage. To erase his coin is not only an economic gesture, but a cultural one — the slow erasure of modest beginnings in favor of lofty efficiencies.

The Treasury boasts a savings of $56 million by halting penny production — a mere pittance in a government that spends trillions with the looseness of a gambler. What is $56 million, next to the moral bankruptcy of teaching a child that one cent no longer matters?A Nation Without Pennies: Progress or Pernicious Folly?

Progress or Pernicious Folly?

The United States government, in its infinite economic wisdom and spiritual smallness, has announced that it shall cease the production of pennies — that humble, copper-colored disc upon which generations of American children first learned the weight and worth of money.

At first glance, this might seem the act of a practical and forward-thinking Republic. After all, why should a nation that prides itself on efficiency waste nearly four cents to produce a coin worth but one? But let us not be so easily seduced by the arithmetic of accountants and the penny-pinching triumphalism of Treasury officials. This is no mere cost-saving measure. This is the quiet burial of thrift.

Let it be plainly stated: by eliminating the penny, the government is embedding inflation into the very arithmetic of daily life. Prices that once might have ended in .01 or .02 will now round up. Do not be fooled by the false comfort of symmetry — rounding is not neutral when it bends always toward the richer till. The burden of those extra cents will fall not upon stockbrokers or senators, but upon those who pay in cash — the young, the old, the poor, and those who cannot count on banking apps to do their bidding.

The government assures us that this change is merely a continuation of modernity — that Canada and New Zealand have already led the way. That is well. But is the metric for progress now measured solely by imitation? And shall we next abolish dimes, and quarters, until a dollar buys only what a quarter once did, and the value of money is as inflated as our egos?

Worse still, the demise of the penny is a quiet assault upon the moral education of children. We are told the coins end up in couch cushions and art projects — well! What better proof that they belong in the hands of children? For it is through the clinking of small coins in a piggy bank that a child learns patience, responsibility, and the rudiments of economics. To deprive them of that is to render saving itself quaint, a relic of a world where one waited, scrimped, and earned.

Let us also not forget the symbolism of the penny — humble, ubiquitous, and bearing the likeness of Abraham Lincoln, a man who rose from poverty by the sweat of thought and moral courage. To erase his coin is not only an economic gesture, but a cultural one — the slow erasure of modest beginnings in favor of lofty efficiencies.

The Treasury boasts a savings of $56 million by halting penny production — a mere pittance in a government that spends trillions with the looseness of a gambler. What is $56 million, next to the moral bankruptcy of teaching a child that one cent no longer matters?A Nation Without Pennies: Progress or Pernicious Folly?

Progress or Pernicious Folly?

The United States government, in its infinite economic wisdom and spiritual smallness, has announced that it shall cease the production of pennies — that humble, copper-colored disc upon which generations of American children first learned the weight and worth of money.

At first glance, this might seem the act of a practical and forward-thinking Republic. After all, why should a nation that prides itself on efficiency waste nearly four cents to produce a coin worth but one? But let us not be so easily seduced by the arithmetic of accountants and the penny-pinching triumphalism of Treasury officials. This is no mere cost-saving measure. This is the quiet burial of thrift.

Let it be plainly stated: by eliminating the penny, the government is embedding inflation into the very arithmetic of daily life. Prices that once might have ended in .01 or .02 will now round up. Do not be fooled by the false comfort of symmetry — rounding is not neutral when it bends always toward the richer till. The burden of those extra cents will fall not upon stockbrokers or senators, but upon those who pay in cash — the young, the old, the poor, and those who cannot count on banking apps to do their bidding.

The government assures us that this change is merely a continuation of modernity — that Canada and New Zealand have already led the way. That is well. But is the metric for progress now measured solely by imitation? And shall we next abolish dimes, and quarters, until a dollar buys only what a quarter once did, and the value of money is as inflated as our egos?

Worse still, the demise of the penny is a quiet assault upon the moral education of children. We are told the coins end up in couch cushions and art projects — well! What better proof that they belong in the hands of children? For it is through the clinking of small coins in a piggy bank that a child learns patience, responsibility, and the rudiments of economics. To deprive them of that is to render saving itself quaint, a relic of a world where one waited, scrimped, and earned

Let us also not forget the symbolism of the penny — humble, ubiquitous, and bearing the likeness of Abraham Lincoln, a man who rose from poverty by the sweat of thought and moral courage. To erase his coin is not only an economic gesture, but a cultural one — the slow erasure of modest beginnings in favor of lofty efficien

The Treasury boasts a savings of $56 million by halting penny production — a mere pittance in a government that spends trillions with the looseness of a gambler. What is $56 million, next to the moral bankruptcy of teaching a child that one cent no longer matters?A Nation Without Pennies: Progress or Pernicious Folly?

Progress or Pernicious Folly?

The United States government, in its infinite economic wisdom and spiritual smallness, has announced that it shall cease the production of pennies — that humble, copper-colored disc upon which generations of American children first learned the weight and worth of

At first glance, this might seem the act of a practical and forward-thinking Republic. After all, why should a nation that prides itself on efficiency waste nearly four cents to produce a coin worth but one? But let us not be so easily seduced by the arithmetic of accountants and the penny-pinching triumphalism of Treasury officials. This is no mere cost-saving measure. This is the quiet burial of thrift.

Let it be plainly stated: by eliminating the penny, the government is embedding inflation into the very arithmetic of daily life. Prices that once might have ended in .01 or .02 will now round up. Do not be fooled by the false comfort of symmetry — rounding is not neutral when it bends always toward the richer till. The burden of those extra cents will fall not upon stockbrokers or senators, but upon those who pay in cash — the young, the old, the poor, and those who cannot count on banking apps to do their bi

The government assures us that this change is merely a continuation of modernity — that Canada and New Zealand have already led the way. That is well. But is the metric for progress now measured solely by imitation? And shall we next abolish dimes, and quarters, until a dollar buys only what a quarter once did, and the value of money is as inflated as our

Worse still, the demise of the penny is a quiet assault upon the moral education of children. We are told the coins end up in couch cushions and art projects — well! What better proof that they belong in the hands of children? For it is through the clinking of small coins in a piggy bank that a child learns patience, responsibility, and the rudiments of economics. To deprive them of that is to render saving itself quaint, a relic of a world where one waited, scrimped, and earned.

Let us also not forget the symbolism of the penny — humble, ubiquitous, and bearing the likeness of Abraham Lincoln, a man who rose from poverty by the sweat of thought and moral courage. To erase his coin is not only an economic gesture, but a cultural one — the slow erasure of modest beginnings in favor of lofty efficiencies.

A Nation Without Pennies: Progress or Pernicious Folly?

Progress or Pernicious Folly?

The United States government, in its infinite economic wisdom and spiritual smallness, has announced that it shall cease the production of pennies — that humble, copper-colored disc upon which generations of American children first learned the weight and worth of money.

At first glance, this might seem the act of a practical and forward-thinking Republic. After all, why should a nation that prides itself on efficiency waste nearly four cents to produce a coin worth but one? But let us not be so easily seduced by the arithmetic of accountants and the penny-pinching triumphalism of Treasury officials. This is no mere cost-saving measure. This is the quiet burial of thrift.

Let it be plainly stated: by eliminating the penny, the government is embedding inflation into the very arithmetic of daily life. Prices that once might have ended in .01 or .02 will now round up. Do not be fooled by the false comfort of symmetry — rounding is not neutral when it bends always toward the richer till. The burden of those extra cents will fall not upon stockbrokers or senators, but upon those who pay in cash — the young, the old, the poor, and those who cannot count on banking apps to do their bidding.

The government assures us that this change is merely a continuation of modernity — that Canada and New Zealand have already led the way. That is well. But is the metric for progress now measured solely by imitation? And shall we next abolish dimes, and quarters, until a dollar buys only what a quarter once did, and the value of money is as inflated as our egos?

Worse still, the demise of the penny is a quiet assault upon the moral education of children. We are told the coins end up in couch cushions and art projects — well! What better proof that they belong in the hands of children? For it is through the clinking of small coins in a piggy bank that a child learns patience, responsibility, and the rudiments of economics. To deprive them of that is to render saving itself quaint, a relic of a world where one waited, scrimped, and earned.

Let us also not forget the symbolism of the penny — humble, ubiquitous, and bearing the likeness of Abraham Lincoln, a man who rose from poverty by the sweat of thought and moral courage. To erase his coin is not only an economic gesture, but a cultural one — the slow erasure of modest beginnings in favor of lofty efficiencies. The Treasury boasts a savings of $56 million by halting penny production — a mere pittance in a government that spends trillions with the looseness of a gambler. What is $56 million, next to the moral bankruptcy of teaching a child that one cent no longer matters?

The Treasury boasts a savings of $56 million by halting penny production — a mere pittance in a government that spends trillions with the looseness of a gambler. What is $56 million, next to the moral bankruptcy of teaching a child that one cent no longer matters?

Humpback whales are filter feeders that consume krill and small fish using lunge feeding.

They do not hunt large prey, and their throats are too small (about the size of a grapefruit) to swallow a human.

However, due to the sheer force of their feeding, a person could accidentally end up in their mouth.

Happy Valentine’s Day

The Frozen Chicken War was a trade dispute between the United States and Europe in the 1960s over tariffs on frozen chicken exports.

It ultimately led to unexpected consequences for the automobile industry, particularly the "Chicken Tax ”, which still affects American vehicle manufacturing today.

The Frozen Chicken Dispute (1960s)

After World War II, advances in U.S. poultry farming led to a massive increase in frozen chicken production.

By the late 1950s, American frozen chicken exports flooded European markets, particularly West Germany and France, where they were significantly cheaper than local poultry.

European farmers, unable to compete with U.S. prices, pressured their governments to take action.

In 1962, the European Economic Community (EEC) (the forerunner of the EU) imposed high tariffs on U.S. chicken imports, effectively blocking American poultry from European markets.

The U.S. Response: The "Chicken Tax" (1963)

In retaliation, President Lyndon B. Johnson imposed a 25% tariff on certain European imports, specifically:

Light trucks (including pickup trucks and vans) – targeting Volkswagen and other European automakers.

Potato starch – affecting Dutch producers.

Dextrin (a type of glue) is aimed at European chemical companies.

Brandy – targeting French producers.

The most significant and lasting effect of this retaliation was on light trucks, an industry where Volkswagen was gaining popularity in the U.S. market.

How It Affected the Automobile Industry

European automakers were hit hard, notably Volkswagen, which sold large numbers of VW Type 2 "Transporters" (early versions of vans and pickups).

After the 25% tariff, VW and other European companies largely abandoned the U.S. light truck market.

This gave American automakers (Ford, GM, Chrysler) a virtual monopoly on light trucks and pickups, a dominance that persists today.

As a result, pickup trucks became the most profitable segment of the U.S. auto industry.

Long-Term Effects of the Chicken Tax

Strengthened U.S. Pickup Truck Industry

Domestic manufacturers like Ford, GM, and Chrysler benefited from reduced foreign competition.

Pickups and SUVs became key profit drivers for American automakers.

Foreign Workarounds to Avoid the Tariff

Some foreign automakers found loopholes:

Ford imported vans as passenger vehicles (which had a lower tariff), then removed the rear seats after arrival.

Other companies shipped vehicles in parts and assembled them in the U.S. to avoid the tax.

The tariff limited consumer choices, making imported trucks far more expensive or unavailable.

This helped shape America’s preference for larger, U.S.-built trucks and SUVs over smaller European-style vehicles.

Lasting Trade Policy

The 25% tariff remains in effect today, long after the original chicken trade dispute ended.

While other retaliatory tariffs from the Chicken War were lifted, the light truck tariff stayed due to pressure from U.S. automakers.

This continues to shape the U.S. market, favoring domestic truck production.

In the 19th century, the United States used tariffs as a primary economic tool to encourage domestic industrial production and protect American manufacturers from foreign competition.

These tariffs played a crucial role in shaping the country's economic development, fostering its industrial revolution and reducing dependence on European imports.

Tariff of 1816 – The First Protective Tariff

The War of 1812 disrupted trade with Britain and Europe, revealing the weakness of the U.S. manufacturing sector.

In response, Congress passed the Tariff of 1816, which imposed duties of 20-25% on imported manufactured goods, particularly textiles, iron, and leather.

Goal: Protect young American industries from British competition after the war.

Impact: It encouraged investment in U.S. factories, particularly in the Northeast, which led to the expansion of the American textile industry.

Tariff of 1828 – The "Tariff of Abominations"

It was designed to protect Northern industries but was strongly opposed by the agrarian South.

Raised duties to 45-50% on imported textiles, iron, and other manufactured goods.

Impact: Encouraged growth in American ironworks, cotton mills, and metal industries, particularly in Pennsylvania and New England.

Southern states, which relied on imported European goods and exported cotton, saw it as unfair, leading to sectional tensions.

Tariff of 1832 & the Nullification Crisis

Attempted to reduce the high rates of the 1828 tariff but still maintained protection for Northern industries.

South Carolina, led by John C. Calhoun, declared the tariff null and void, nearly leading to secession.

The Compromise Tariff of 1833 gradually reduced tariff rates to ease tensions, but protectionism remained.

Tariff of 1842 – A Return to Protectionism

After the Panic of 1837, Congress sought to revive the economy by raising tariffs again.

Increased duties back to 30-40% on industrial goods.

Impact: Helped U.S. iron, coal, and textile industries grow as they faced less competition from British manufacturers.

Morrill Tariff (1861) – High Tariffs and Industrial Expansion

Passed on the eve of the Civil War, it significantly increased tariff rates (to around 38%) to fund the war and encourage industry.

Impact:

Helped northern factories produce weapons, railroad materials, and textiles for the Union Army.

Southern states, which opposed tariffs, saw this as another example of Northern economic dominance, contributing to the secession movement.

Post-Civil War Tariffs (1865–1890) – The Era of High Protection

Tariffs remained high throughout the late 19th century, particularly under Republican administrations.

The McKinley Tariff (1890) raised rates to nearly 50%, protecting industries like steel, textiles, and machinery.

Helped the rise of industrial giants like Carnegie Steel and Rockefeller’s Standard Oil.

Encouraged domestic production of railroads, farm equipment, and consumer goods.

This angered farmers and consumers, who had to pay higher prices for goods.

Over the past year, egg prices in the United States have significantly increased. In January 2024, the average retail price for a dozen Grade A large eggs was $2.52. By January 2025, this price had nearly doubled to $4.95 per dozen.

This represents an approximate 96% increase in egg prices over the 12 months. The surge is primarily attributed to a severe avian influenza (bird flu) outbreak, which has led to the culling of millions of egg-laying hens, thereby reducing supply. Additionally, rising costs for feed, fuel, and labor have further contributed to the escalating prices. 

Key Factors Contributing to Rising Egg Prices:

1. Avian Influenza (Bird Flu) Outbreak:

   • A severe outbreak of avian influenza has led to the culling of millions of egg-laying hens to prevent the spread of the virus, significantly reducing the egg supply. 

   • Increased Production Costs:

   • Higher costs for feed, fuel, and labor have contributed to the rising prices of eggs. 

   • Market Dynamics:

   • Some major egg producers have been accused of deliberately limiting supply to inflate prices and increase profits. 

   • Impact on Consumers and Businesses:

• Retailers and Restaurants:

  • Some retailers have implemented purchase limits on eggs to manage shortages, and restaurants have added surcharges to egg-based dishes to cope with increased costs. 

  • Consumer Behavior:

  • Consumers are experiencing higher prices and occasional shortages, leading to adjustments in purchasing habits. Outlook:

Experts predict that egg prices may continue to rise. The USDA forecasts a potential increase of up to 20.3% in 2025.

During the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant (1869–1877), several scandals and instances of corruption tarnished his administration. Some of the most notable examples include:
The Belknap Impeachment Scandal (1876)

William W. Belknap, Grant's Secretary of War, was involved in a scandal that led to his impeachment.

Belknap was accused of taking bribes from Indian trading post operators in exchange for granting them lucrative contracts to trade with Native American reservations.

When the scandal broke, Belknap resigned in disgrace in 1876, but the House of Representatives still impeached him. The Senate acquitted him despite the strong evidence of corruption.

During Andrew Jackson’s presidency (1829–1837), corruption and cronyism were significant concerns, though they often stemmed from his patronage system rather than outright financial fraud. Here are some of the most notable examples:

The "Indian Removal" and Land Speculation

The Indian Removal Act (1830), one of Jackson’s most controversial policies, forced Native American tribes to cede their lands and relocate westward. While Jackson justified this as a means to open land for white settlers, it benefited land speculators, including some of Jackson’s closest allies.

Certain government officials, land companies, and private investors took advantage of the forced removal by acquiring valuable lands at low prices before selling them at inflated rates. 

Porsche has announced plans to continue producing vehicles with internal combustion engines (ICEs). In a recent strategic shift, the company is investing approximately €800 million into developing new combustion engines and plug-in hybrid models. This decision comes amid a decline in demand for fully electric vehicles, leading Porsche to adjust its product lineup to include more ICE and hybrid options.

EVs are generally heavier than traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles due to their batteries. This added weight, combined with higher torque, leads to faster tire wear, resulting in approximately 20% more particulate pollution from tires compared to ICE vehicles.

Producing a new tire emits about 31 kg of CO₂, while retreading a tire produces approximately 22 kg of CO₂. The higher weight and performance demands of EVs may necessitate more frequent tire replacements, thereby increasing overall emissions from tire production.

Impact on Infrastructure

Road and Bridge Wear: EVs' additional weight can contribute to increased wear on roads and bridges. For instance, a 2,000-pound increase in axle weight can cause 50% more damage to pavement. 

The Federal Reserve System (the Fed) was created on December 23, 1913, when President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law.

Why Was the Federal Reserve Created?

Before the Fed’s creation, the U.S. financial system was unstable, experiencing frequent banking panics and economic recessions. The Panic of 1907, a severe financial crisis that led to bank runs and market collapses, highlighted the need for a central banking system to regulate the money supply and stabilize the economy.

Key Figures Involved in Its Creation:

• President Woodrow Wilson – Signed the Federal Reserve Act into law in 1913.

• Senator Nelson Aldrich – Led the National Monetary Commission, which studied banking reforms.

• Congressman Carter Glass – Helped draft the Federal Reserve Act.

• Paul Warburg – A banker and early advocate of central banking reform.

Structure of the Federal Reserve

The Federal Reserve was designed to be an independent central bank with both public and private elements:

1. Board of Governors – Oversees the Fed’s policies, appointed by the President.

2. 12 Regional Federal Reserve Banks – Each serving different districts across the U.S.

3. Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) – Sets monetary policy, including interest rates.

Purpose of the Federal Reserve

The Fed was created to:

• Regulate banks and prevent financial crises.

• Stabilize the economy by adjusting interest rates and controlling the money supply.

• Act as a lender of last resort during banking panics.

History of the Vince Lombardi Trophy

The Vince Lombardi Trophy is awarded annually to the winner of the Super Bowl, the championship game of the National Football League (NFL). It is one of the most recognizable trophies in American sports. Here’s a look at its history:

Origins (1966)

• In 1966, the NFL and AFL agreed to merge, creating the Super Bowl.

• The trophy was originally designed by Oscar Riedener, an executive at Tiffany & Co., who sketched it on a napkin during a meeting with then-NFL commissioner Pete Rozelle.

• Tiffany & Co. was chosen to craft the trophy, a partnership that continues today.

First Presentation (1967)

• The first Super Bowl was played on January 15, 1967, between the Green Bay Packers and the Kansas City Chiefs.

• The Packers won, and coach Vince Lombardi received the inaugural trophy.

• Initially, it was called the "World Professional Football Championship Trophy."

Renaming in Honor of Vince Lombardi (1970)

• In 1970, legendary Packers coach Vince Lombardi passed away from cancer at age 57.

• As a tribute to his coaching legacy (including leading the Packers to victories in the first two Super Bowls), the trophy was renamed the "Vince Lombardi Trophy."

• The Baltimore Colts were the first team to receive the renamed trophy after Super Bowl V (1971).

• Design and Construction

• Material: The trophy is made of sterling silver.

• Design: It features a football in a kicking position atop a triangular stand.

• Height & Weight: Approximately 22 inches tall and weighs around 7 pounds.

• Production: Each trophy is handcrafted by Tiffany & Co. and takes about 4 months to create.

• Cost: Estimated value is $50,000+.

Notable Moments

• Permanence: Unlike other major sports trophies (like the Stanley Cup), a new Vince Lombardi Trophy is made each year for the winning team to keep.

• Unusual Incidents:

  In 2019, Rob Gronkowski (Patriots) famously dented the trophy while using it as a bat during a playful baseball moment at a Red Sox game.

  The Tampa Bay Buccaneers (2021) almost lost the trophy when Tom Brady threw it across a boat during a parade.

• Legacy

• The Vince Lombardi Trophy symbolizes excellence and triumph in the NFL.

• Winning teams keep their trophy permanently, often displayed in team headquarters or Hall of Fame exhibits.

• The Green Bay Packers and Pittsburgh Steelers hold the most Lombardi Trophies, each winning 4+ times.

Paper straws require ~2.5 to 5 times more energy per kilogram than plastic straws.

Plastic straws are lighter (about 1 g per straw) than paper straws (~2 g per straw), so per-unit energy usage is closer, but paper still consumes more.

Paper manufacturing is energy-intensive, especially for virgin pulp.

Plastic manufacturing is more energy-efficient, but plastic waste persists in the environment for centuries.

As of early 2025, the diamond market is experiencing significant challenges characterized by declining prices, shifting consumer preferences, and industry restructuring.

Declining Prices and Demand

Natural diamond prices have decreased by approximately 26% since their peak in 2022. This decline is attributed to several factors, including reduced demand in key markets such as China and the United States, economic uncertainties, and decreased marriage rates. Additionally, the rapid advancement and increased production of lab-grown diamonds have intensified competition, leading to a 74% price drop since 2020.

Industry Impact and Restructuring

Major industry players are responding to these challenges through strategic adjustments. Anglo-American, for instance, is expected to write down the value of its De Beers diamond business for the second time within a year due to poor market conditions. The company is considering options such as selling or publicly listing De Beers as part of a broader restructuring plan. 

Shifting Consumer Preferences

Lab-grown diamonds are gaining popularity, especially among younger consumers who value their affordability and perceived ethical advantages. In the U.S., sales of lab-grown diamond jewellery increased by 12.5%, while natural diamond jewellery sales declined by 0.7%. This trend is prompting traditional jewellers to reconsider their product offerings and marketing strategies to highlight the unique value of natural diamonds. 

The name Gaza has ancient origins and has been used for thousands of years to refer to the city and region in what is now the Gaza Strip. The name’s meaning and history trace back to various languages and civilizations.

Origins of the Name "Gaza"

Ancient Semitic Roots—The name Gaza comes from ancient Semitic languages, likely related to the Hebrew and Canaanite word ʿAzzā (עַזָּה), which means “strong” or “fortified.”

Egyptian Influence – The Egyptians called the city “Ghazzat”, an important strategic city along trade routes.

Greek and Roman Period – The Greeks and Romans called it Gaza, a name that persisted over time.

Arabic Name – In Arabic, the city is called غزة (Ghazza), which retains the ancient Semitic root.

Strategic Location – Gaza has historically been a fortified city, controlling important trade routes between Egypt, the Levant, and Mesopotamia.

Cultural and Military Importance – It was a key city for many empires, from the Philistines and Ancient Egyptians to the Ottomans and British.

The history of billiards in New York City is rich and deeply tied to the city's social and recreational culture. From the 19th century onward, New York played a crucial role in shaping billiards in America, hosting famous players, prestigious tournaments, and legendary pool halls. Here’s an overview:

Early History (18th - 19th Century)

• Billiards was introduced to America by European immigrants in the late 1700s.

• By the early 1800s, New York City had become a major hub for the game, with many upscale billiard rooms in hotels and private clubs.

• In 1850, Michael Phelan, known as the "Father of American Billiards," helped popularize the sport in NYC. He wrote the first rule book and developed standardized tables.

• Phelan opened Phelan's Billiard Saloon, one of the first premier billiard halls in the city.

Golden Age of Billiards (Late 19th - Early 20th Century)

• Billiards became a fashionable pastime among New York’s elite, played in luxury clubs and social halls.

• Brunswick Corporation, a major billiard table manufacturer, established its dominance, setting the standard for American pool halls.

• The game was widely played in working-class bars and pool halls, making it a common pastime for people of all backgrounds.

20th Century – The Rise of Competitive Pool

• Straight Pool (14.1 Continuous), the dominant game at the time, saw fierce competition in NYC.

• The city hosted many national and world championship matches, often at renowned venues like McGirr’s Billiard Room and Carom Café.

• Players like Willie Mosconi, Ralph Greenleaf, and Irving Crane gained fame through their matches in NYC.

Decline and Resurgence (Mid-to-Late 20th Century)

• By the 1950s and 1960s, billiards declined due to the rise of television, bowling, and other leisure activities.

• The 1961 film “The Hustler” (starring Paul Newman and Jackie Gleason) brought renewed interest in pool, with scenes shot in NYC-style pool halls.

• The 1990s and early 2000s saw a resurgence with upscale billiard lounges like Amsterdam Billiards opening in Manhattan.

Modern Era (21st Century)

• NYC remains an important billiards city, with high-end lounges and historic halls like Society Billiards & Bar and Steinway Billiards.

• The city hosts major tournaments, including professional and amateur competitions.

• Billiards is still a staple of NYC nightlife, blending history with modern entertainment.

A Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF) is a state-owned investment fund that a government creates to manage national wealth. These funds are typically built using surplus revenues, such as earnings from natural resources, trade surpluses, or foreign exchange reserves. Governments invest these funds in stocks, bonds, real estate, infrastructure, and other assets to generate long-term wealth and financial stability.

How Does a Sovereign Wealth Fund Work?

A government saves money (often from excess revenue or resource sales).

The money is invested in a diversified portfolio, including:

Stocks & Bonds (global and domestic)

Real Estate & Infrastructure

Private Equity & Venture Capital

Other Alternative Investments

The goal is to generate returns over time to support public programs, economic development, or stabilize government finances.

Why Do Countries Create Sovereign Wealth Funds?

Governments establish SWFs for several reasons:

Stabilization – To protect the economy from market shocks (e.g., oil price fluctuations).

Savings for the Future – To save wealth for future generations, especially in resource-rich countries.

Foreign Exchange Management – To manage currency reserves and avoid excessive inflation.

Economic Development – To fund infrastructure, innovation, and growth projects.

Pension & Social Welfare Funding – Some SWFs support public pensions or healthcare systems.

The Year of the Snake in the Chinese Zodiac: Meaning and Significance

The Year of the Snake is one of the twelve animal signs in the Chinese zodiac, occurring every twelve years. The Snake is associated with wisdom, intuition, mystery, and transformation.

Recent and Upcoming Years of the Snake

People born in these years are considered “Snakes” in the Chinese zodiac:

1929, 1941, 1953, 1965, 1977, 1989, 2001, 2013, 2025 (next Year of the Snake)

The zodiac year runs according to the Chinese lunar calendar, so the exact start and end dates may vary.

Personality Traits of People Born in the Year of the Snake

People born under the Snake sign are believed to be: ✔ Wise & Intelligent – Often deep thinkers, problem solvers, and good strategists.
✔ Charming & Mysterious – Have an enigmatic aura, making them intriguing to others.
✔ Intuitive & Insightful – Able to read people and situations well, often making sharp decisions.
✔ Determined & Ambitious – Once they set their sights on a goal, they persist until they succeed.
✔ Elegant & Diplomatic – Have a refined sense of style and a calm, composed demeanor.

However, Snakes can also be: ✘ Secretive & Mistrustful – They often guard their thoughts and emotions, making them hard to read.
✘ Jealous & Possessive – Can become controlling in relationships or overly competitive.
✘ Cautious & Overthinking – May be prone to anxiety and indecision due to overanalyzing situations.

The Year of the Snake in 2025: What to Expect?

The next Year of the Snake will be 2025, from January 29 to February 16, 2026.

2025 is a Wood Snake year emphasising growth, intelligence, adaptability, and diplomacy.

It may bring a time of strategic decision-making, creativity, and transformation.

It’s expected to be a year of patience, steady progress, and careful planning.

Compatibility and Relationships

Snakes are considered most compatible with: ❤️ Ox & Rooster – Strong partnerships with trust and shared ambition.
❤️ Dragon – A powerful and dynamic relationship with mutual understanding.

Snakes may struggle with: 💔 Tiger & Pig – These signs have conflicting personalities, leading to tension and misunderstandings.

Career and Work

Best Careers for Snakes: Researchers, strategists, diplomats, psychologists, entrepreneurs, and financial analysts.

Work Style: Snakes are independent, prefer working behind the scenes, and excel in problem-solving and analysis.

Trade between the United States, Mexico, and Canada is extensive and encompasses a variety of goods and services. The top five categories of trade among these countries include:

Automotive Products:

The automotive industry is highly integrated across the three countries, with significant trade in passenger vehicles, trucks, and auto parts. Canada and Mexico are both major sources of U.S. imports and destinations for U.S. exports in this sector. Machinery and Equipment:

Industrial Machinery: This category includes machinery for various industries, such as manufacturing and agriculture. The U.S. exports substantial amounts of machinery to both Canada and Mexico.Electrical and Electronic Equipment:

Electronics: Trade in electronics, including computers, smartphones, and other devices, is significant between these nations.The U.S. imports various electronic products from Mexico and exports electrical equipment to Canada.

Mineral Fuels and Oils:

Energy Products: Crude oil and refined petroleum products are major components of trade, especially between the U.S. and Canada. Canada is a leading supplier of crude oil to the U.S., and there is also notable trade in natural gas and other energy products. 

Agricultural Products:

Food and Beverages: Agricultural trade includes grains, meats, fruits, vegetables, and beverages. The U.S. exports grains and meats to Mexico, while importing fruits, vegetables, and beverages like beer and tequila. Similarly, there is significant agricultural trade between the U.S. and Canada.