October 2025

HOLD THE SABOTS!:

AI Pessimism Fades as Reality Takes Hold (Brent Orrell, 10/30/25, AEIdeas)

In a large-scale Harvard Business School survey of 2,357 adults evaluating AI usage in 940 occupations, they found that reactions depend on how AI’s role is described. When AI was presented as a tool that augments rather than replaces human labor, a majority of Americans supported its use in 94 percent of occupations. Even when AI was described as fully automating core job tasks, respondents favored its use in 58 percent of occupations if it could outperform humans at a lower cost.

The key is specificity. When AI’s potential benefits are explained concretely—faster diagnoses, fewer repetitive tasks and injuries, better scheduling—attitudes shift from fear to interest. In the abstract, AI feels threatening; in context, it often looks like a gift.

THE UNIVERSA:ISM THAT MAGA FINDS INTOLERABLE:

The Fabric of America… ‘Liberty and Justice for All’: America’s Pledge of Allegiance is a far weightier philosophical proposition than is likely recognized by those who recite it routinely. (F. Andrew Wolf Jr., October 27, 2025, American Spectator)

What is so compelling about Bellamy’s words is their affirmation of universal principles. They arrive late in the piece, but they pack a powerful philosophical punch.

Two principles are given voice: liberty and justice, but it’s the ending to the pledge — “liberty and justice for all” — that transforms abstract concepts into concrete obligations which the state has a responsibility to affect for all Americans.

When we recite the pledge we are exclaiming to the world this is who we are as Americans and what we stand for: we are both promising to be loyal to “the Republic for which it [the flag] stands” and our government is charged with the responsibility to provide us “with liberty and justice for all,” in whatever form that obligation might take.

Through the pledge, liberty and justice become tangible responsibilities which our government, bound by constitutional restraint through the Bill of Rights, is charged to honor and respect.

OUR TEACHERS WERE GASLIGHTING US:

When Baseball Threw Physics a Curve (Brad Bolman, 10.22.25, Pioneer Works)


In October 1877, the Cincinnati Enquirer hosted a debate between two physics professors in Ohio over a broiling national controversy: Was there such a thing as a curveball?

Pitchers claimed they were throwing them, batters claimed they were missing them, and fans claimed they were seeing them, but a chorus of doubters argued that the “curved ball” was a physical and scientific impossibility. On one side of the Enquirer debate was Orange Nash Stoddard, a distinguished science professor at Wooster University, lovingly nicknamed the “Little Wizard” by students. On the other was Robert White McFarland, a mathematician and civil engineer at Ohio Agricultural, which we now know as Ohio State. Stoddard’s position: “There is no such thing.” McFarland’s: “There is a curve.”

At the end of the nineteenth century, baseball was rapidly professionalizing and growing in popularity. For many, its geometric diamond arrangement and the spectacular physics of bat and ball made it a truly scientific sport. In turn, fans, players, commentators, and even natural scientists used baseball to test theories about the natural world. How far could a hit ball travel? Could a thrown ball really curve? Although debates over the curve are known to fans and sports historians alike, they are usually understood in a narrative of progress: an old misperception of physics that inevitably gave way to scientific truth. But the curveball debate was more than that. It was an argument about the contours of our shared reality. Could baseballs really bend along their path, or was it all a collective delusion?

CAN’T HELP BUT BE MORE ENTERTAINING THAN FOOTBALL:

‘Horsepower, Gravity and Grit’: Why We’re Obsessed With the Wild Winter Sport of Skijoring: This once-niche cowboy ski-racing sport is going big this winter with its first pro tour across the Wes (Madison Dapcevich, October 28, 2025, Outside)


Cowboy boots and ski pants go together about as well as Gore-Tex bibs with a fur coat. It’s an unlikely combo—that is, unless you plan to go skijoring. (And trust me, you’re going to want to ride this trend.)

Skijoring is a high-adrenaline, low-temperature sport that involves a horse and its rider pulling a skier through a snow-packed obstacle course at full speed. For most Rocky Mountain towns, skijoring is a familiar winter activity typically accompanied by hot apple cider, slushy walkways, and crisp breaths. But in a post-Beyoncé cowboy core world, it should come as no surprise that wild western winter sport has joined the mainstream crowds.

IT’LL NEVER FLY, ORVILLE:

Q&A: How speciality retailers are winning the holiday season with agility and AI (yDr. Tim Sandle, October 28, 2025, Digital Journal)

Stern: Independent retailers plan for the holidays with precision, not prediction. They don’t have the purchasing power or storage space typically needed to pre-purchase on a large scale before the holidays. Their budgets are tighter, which forces smarter buying: every order has to earn its place on the shelf, and business owners have to be flexible to find the right product at the right price.

What’s changed in the past few years is how technology makes that kind of precision possible. AI tools can now surface insights that used to take hours of manual tracking: showing which products are trending, how pricing shifts might affect demand, or when to reorder based on sell-through velocity. For a specialty retailer, that kind of intelligence helps them compete with enterprise retailers that have dedicated analytics teams. This technology gives small retailers the same visibility into market trends and customer behavior that big chains have, but with the speed and context that fits how they actually operate.

WHY ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR MY FAILURE WHEN I CAN BLAME A “THEM”?:

The New Medievals: The bones of our conspiracies haven’t changed, though their details are different. (Claire Lehmann, 10/27/25, The Dispatch))

We crave narratives that make the world legible, particularly in times of instability or flux. In psychological experiments conducted by Adam Galinsky and Jennifer Whitson in 2008, it was found that people who were made to feel powerless began to see patterns that were not there. Participants were asked to recall a moment in their lives when they felt powerless; afterward, they were shown random visual “static” images or sequences of stock data and asked to identify patterns. Those who had been primed to feel powerless were far more likely to report seeing shapes, trends, or connections that didn’t exist. “Participants who lacked control were more likely to perceive a variety of illusory patterns, including seeing images in noise, forming illusory correlations in stock market information, perceiving conspiracies, and developing superstitions,” the authors wrote. Another 2020 study found that a sense of a lack of agency also predicted belief in Jewish conspiracy.

The conspiracist’s worldview transforms chaos into drama and tragedy into design. It restores meaning to a confusing world by insisting that every disaster, every death, every downturn must have a reason.

THIS IS EARLY STAGE CAPITALISM:

Four Ways You’re Living Better Than Ever: From your life expectancy to your home to your grocery cart, living standards have soared. But continued growth isn’t guaranteed. (Donald J. Boudreaux, October 23, 2025, Daily Economy)

One could go on, of course. Almost needless to say – but I’ll say it nevertheless – in 1975 almost no one owned a personal computer, and absolutely no one owned a smartphone. There was no Internet for ordinary people. Commercial air travel (which was still heavily regulated) was a luxury. Automobiles had no backup cameras, navigation screens, or keyless features. There was no streaming music. Most Americans had a choice of a whopping four broadcast television channels – and all television was low-def. Coffee quality was poor and the selection of beer was minuscule. There was no LASIK surgery. And luggage was true to its name: unable to roll, it had to be lugged. This list could be greatly extended.

There is simply no truth to the countless claims that Americans have been economically impoverished over the past few decades by freer trade and globalization.

FINALLY HAD ENOUGH PERONISM?:

Argentina’s Voters Hand Javier Milei a Crucial Victory in Midterm Election (Emma Bubola, Oct. 26, 2025, NY Times)

His party received over 40 percent of the vote, showing that despite pain inflicted by his austerity measures, many Argentines are still willing to back his libertarian experiment.

“Today we passed a turning point,” Mr. Milei told supporters on Sunday night, after coming onstage and singing a campaign song.

“Today begins the building of a great Argentina,” he said.

The victory gives Mr. Milei enough support in Congress to prevent his vetoes from being overridden, putting him in a strong position to further his ambitious agenda.

THE REVOLUTION WAS A MISTKE:

David Starkey’s Crowned Republic (Clifford Angell Bates Jr., 10/23/25, Law & Liberty)

He presents the English constitutional order as a living organism—shaped not by abstract theory but by centuries of pragmatic adaptation, legal precedent, and civic habit.

The English Constitution, often praised for its continuity and resilience, represents for Starkey a historical evolution rather than a philosophical creation. He offers a trenchant critique of rights-based and universalist narratives of liberty, arguing that England’s constitutional character and its profound influence on the American founding emerged from tradition rather than theory. The liberties embodied in representative assemblies, trial by jury, and the balance of powers, he contends, were not Enlightenment inventions but refinements of England’s deep-rooted constitutional inheritance. For American readers, Starkey’s work serves as a reminder that the republic they built, though revolutionary in form, was grounded in the slow, empirical wisdom of the English political tradition.

For Starkey, the liberties embedded within English law and political practice did not emerge from revolutionary theory but from centuries of habitual negotiation, practical governance, and the incremental development of institutions. To understand this perspective, one must trace the evolution of the English Constitution, examine Starkey’s critique of Hobbesian and Lockean abstractions, and situate the American Founders’ adoption of English republican practices alongside the selective influence of Montesquieu.

David Starkey argues that the English republican tradition originally arose from a monarchial one, where a “crowned republic” blended regal symbolism with republican limits. This view of this blended monarchial tradition arises from three medieval pillars: John of Salisbury’s Policraticus (1159), Sir John Fortescue’s De Laudibus Legum Angliae (c. 1470), and Magna Carta (1215). Salisbury’s “body politic” metaphor portrays the king as the head accountable to law and realm, thereby distinguishing England’s dominium politicum et regale, a hybrid rule under custom and counsel, from France’s absolute dominium regale. Fortescue elaborates on this in praising England’s co-created laws and parliamentary consent, which bars tyranny through shared sovereignty. Magna Carta enacts these ideals, enforcing due process and prohibiting taxation without consent, thereby transforming the feudal pact into a constitutional restraint. Together, Starkey contends, they forge a kingship conditional on the common good, evolving through communal oversight to ensure monarchical stability.

Starkey situates the origins of English liberty in lived historical experience.

George should have just granted us our own parliament so we could enjoy our rights as Englishmen.

hISTORY eNDS EVERYWHERE:

Resistance Is Not Futile: The moment when democracy bloomed in Mongolia. (Elbegdorj Tsakhia October 6, 2025, Freedom Frequency)

I am the son of a herder, one of eight brothers. I witnessed firsthand how ordinary people carried this transition on their shoulders. Later, I was fortunate to help draft our democratic constitution and even serve in government. I became prime minister at thirty-five, a title so unfamiliar that when I told my mother, she asked: “What is a prime minister?” She had only known Politburo members and general secretaries. Her advice was simple: “Be grateful to the people. Work hard.”

Many transitions in the late twentieth century faltered. Ours succeeded because the people themselves owned it. For us, democracy not only was about political choice, but it was the path to true independence. Mongolia was the second communist country after Russia, and the ideology of the 1920s consumed it. For decades, we endured purges, executions, and suppression of national identity. And yet we resisted.


Mongolia’s border stretches over 5,100 miles and is shared with only two neighbors: Russia and China. Few countries live in such a difficult neighborhood. These giants scrutinize every choice we make. Still, Mongolians have preserved self-rule. It comes at a price, but it proves that freedom is not a Western luxury but a universal calling.