Announcing my first book, with my style of longform narrative journalism and philosophy @wwnorton. It's about the clash between governing by top-down rules versus discretionary decision-making, in law, in sports, in the household. Pre-order now.

Seen in the wild, Barnes and Noble in Montclair.

@freganmitts Okay in that case there are these things you buy at the store, kind of like cheerios, where they pretty much break down in their mouth without the need for a lot of chewing, but satisfies that need. I basically just did Cheerios for a long time.

@freganmitts When mine was around that age, until basically about 18months, I would just cook down iron-rich foods with brown rice or oats and puree them. I think the iron was the important part, the chewing will come naturally when they grow enough teeth.

The 80s had not one but two top-rated shows involving men wiring booby traps using a swiss army knife, rope, welding torches, and whatever found in barns and old factories. And we're wondering why there is a crisis of masculinity in young men today. They lack the guidance of a Macgyver or A-team.

I'm wondering what incentives do Democrats have to cooperate on any spending bill if Trump and Musk are going to selectively spend and close down whatever they wish, regardless of congressional procurement?

@davewiner @ElieNYC @thenation This isn't true Elie, the US marshals are one branch of law enforcement that is obliged to carry out court orders, if the court so orders. We're only in constitutional crisis territory if Trump orders federal law enforcement to block the marshals.

Very interesting documetary by @_jackboswell_ on anti-natalism. I did not know just how many messiahs there were of this movement.

Maggie, hoping to lobby you and your editors not to write that Trump or Musk "fired" this or that federal worker or "cut funds" to this or that agency when a lot of these are illegal or subject to judicial review. Its more accurate to say "is trying to fire" or "trying to cut..." until the dust settles. Using these terms when all previous presidents lacked the authority to make the same moves, or when authority is completely unclear, makes things sound more authoritative or final than they are.

Hi Glenn, have you and your editors discussed a policy on when to say Trump or Musk "fired" this or that federal worker or "cut funds" to this or that agency? When a lot of these are illegal or subject to judicial review, its more accurate to say "is trying to fire" or "trying to cut..." until the dust settles. Using these terms when all previous presidents lacked the authority to make the same moves, or when authority is completely unclear, makes things sound more authoritative or final than they are.

"Firing" is a success term. If your firing is illegal or backed by authority that is overruled, you are not fired. The media and federal employees should just say "Trump/Musk is trying to fire..." or "Trump/Musk is trying to shut down...".

The harm here is to future lives. State-funded research covers very theoretical or high-risk, unprofitable research that fails frequently, precisely the kind of R&D that bankrupts companies in the private sector so they don’t invest in it. But the rare research that succeeds from state money gets handed over to industry for monetization and scaling.

@jason_pontin I’m going to wait anxiously to see what survives judicial review and congressional budget-making, as well as what survives in the federal workforce. Even if 90% gets reinstated, Trump wins the PR victory because the news cycle will have moved on .

Issues I long thought we were way past due for a reasonable discussion was taxing of excessive endowment dollars, university overhead on research grants, and yes, bureaucratic rules and discretionary power. But trying to have them now is like debating your child’s phone privileges when she’s just been kidnapped. Bad for me. I wish there was an audience for these issues before the hostage demands came.

Someone needs to drink a nice tall glass of shut up juice.

Musk doing blatantly illegal things, Trump issuing illegal EOs. But the executive branch is responsible for enforcing federal law, and they have discretionary authority which for the most part complies with orders from the top, i.e., Trump. So no civil servant can call federal agents and expect them to stop the Musk team. The only law enforcement org that doesn't answer to Trump is the US Marshals, who enforce court orders. They're the only ones who can stop this, but they need judicial review.

Musk doing blatantly illegal things, Trump issuing illegal EOs. But the executive branch is responsible for enforcing federal law, and they have discretionary authority which for the most part complies with orders from the top, i.e., Trump. So no civil servant can call federal agents and expect them to stop the Musk team. The only law enforcement org that doesn't answer to Trump is the US Marshals, who enforce court orders. They're the only ones who can stop this, but they need judicial review.

Musk doing blatantly illegal things, Trump issuing illegal EOs. But the executive branch is responsible for enforcing federal law, and they have discretionary authority which for the most part complies with orders from the top, i.e., Trump. So no civil servant can call federal agents and expect them to stop the Musk team. The only law enforcement org that doesn't answer to Trump is the US Marshals, who enforce court orders. They're the only ones who can stop this, but they need judicial review.

Musk doing blatantly illegal things, Trump issuing illegal EOs. But the executive branch is responsible for enforcing federal law, and they have discretionary authority which for the most part complies with orders from the top, i.e., Trump. So no civil servant can call federal agents and expect them to stop the Musk team. The only law enforcement org that doesn't answer to Trump is the US Marshals, who enforce court orders. They're the only ones who can stop this, but they need judicial review.