Mossy Character writes: Non-analogous parallels to certain other regimes left as an exercise for the reader.

Heebie's take: Archive link here.

Rubio's four official jobs titles are not just burdensome -- they are incongruent with one another.

For starters, the role of national security adviser is akin to being an air traffic controller; this person is tasked with ensuring that all national security interests and perspectives are fairly represented for presidential decision-making. It's hard to fathom how Rubio can reconcile his responsibilities at the State Department and the NSC, as leading both essentially requires him to act as player and referee at the same time.

There is also no telling what to expect from his role at USAID, where there is a desperate need for expert leadership to redress the carnage from the agency's likely unlawful destruction. And, saving the strangest for last, running the National Archives plainly has no connection whatsoever to Rubio's overwhelming foreign policy duties.

I have mixed feelings about this style of sober editorial that tries to honestly wrestle with how the monkey is smearing feces all over its cage. "Look, he's got it in his hair! HIS HAIR! And I'm starting to suspect he does not intend to clean it up."

I still don't understand why the stock market is doing so great. Or why the remaining tariffs haven't affected much yet. How much can businesses have hoarded? Are people insensitive to certain kinds of inflation, if it's not just like the stupid eggs or gas?

I know, a better blogger would've etc etc.

This popped up on my substack suggested feed: When Couples Therapy Turns Cruel.

Here's the basic premise:

I first broached the concept of the destructiveness of couples therapy in a conversation with Kate Hamilton about her book Mad Wife. She, in an interview with Gemma Hartley, said couples therapy can be abusive because it is designed to preserve the relationship, not the people inside of it. And wow did that statement ring true.

First, a disclaimer: in a personal narrative about someone's divorce, you can never know the reliability of the narrator, and so let's not get too hung up on litigating things that are impossible to know.

It feels like a good couple's therapist shouldn't be so hung up on the preservation of the union that it displaces the well-being of the individuals? Maybe it's the chemistry of the clients and therapists together that sometimes produces tunnel-vision on the goal of staying together?

Anyway, it's still an interesting notion to me, almost like the personhood of a corporation. I can imagine a conversation taking shape in such a way that everyone is focused on saving the institution, at the expense of the employees.