February 14, 2026

CLEAVERS:

The Hawthornes In Paradise: Nathaniel was poor and sunk in his solitude; Sophia seemed a hopeless invalid, but a late-flower love gave them at last “a perfect Eden.” (Malcolm Cowley, December 1958, American Heritage)

Sophia Amelia Peabody, five years younger than Hawthorne, never suffered from self-absorption or an icy heart, but she had a serious trouble of lier own. A pretty rather than a beautiful woman, with innocent gray eyes set wide apart, a tiptilted nose, and a mischievous smile, she had beaux attending her whenever she appeared in society; the trouble was that she could seldom appear. When Sophia was fifteen, she had begun to suffer from violent headaches. Her possessive mother explained to her that suffering was woman’s peculiar lot, having something to do with the sin of Eve. Her ineffectual father had her treated by half the doctors in Boston, who prescribed, among other remedies, laudanum, mercury, arsenic, hyoscyamus, homeopathy, and hypnotism, but still the headaches continued. Once as a desperate expedient she was sent to Cuba, where she spent two happy years on a plantation while her quiet sister Mary tutored the planter’s children. Now, back in Salem with the family—where her headaches were always worse—she was spending half of each day in bed. Like all the Peabody women, she had a New England conscience and a firm belief in the True, the Beautiful, and the Transcendental. She also had a limited but genuine talent for painting. When she was strong enough, she worked hard at copying pictures—and the copies sold- or at painting romantic landscapes of her own.


Sophia had been cast by her family in a role from which it seemed unlikely that she would ever escape. Just as Elizabeth Peabody was the intellectual sister, already famous as an educational reformer, and Mary was the quiet sister who did most of the household chores, Sophia was the invalid sister, petted like a child and kept in an upstairs room. There were also three brothers, one of them married, but the Peabodys were a matriarchy and a sorority; nobody paid much attention to the Peabody men. It was written that when the mother died, Sophia would become the invalid aunt of her brother’s children; she would support herself by painting lampshades and firescreens, while enduring her headaches with a brave smile. As for Hawthorne, his fate was written too; he would become the cranky New England bachelor, living in solitude and writing more and more nebulous stories about other lonely souls. But they saved each other, those two unhappy children. Each was the other’s refuge, and they groped their way into each other’s arms, where both found strength to face the world.

FATHER:

The Man Who Would Not Be King (David Boaz, 2/20/26, Cato)

What values did Washington’s character express? He was a farmer, a businessman, an enthusiast for commerce. As a man of the Enlightenment, he was deeply interested in scientific farming. His letters on running Mount Vernon are longer than letters on running the government. (Of course, in 1795 more people worked at Mount Vernon than in the entire executive branch of the federal government.)

He was also a liberal and tolerant man. In a famous letter to the Jewish congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, he hailed the “liberal policy” of the United States on religious freedom as worthy of emulation by other countries. He explained, “It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens.”

And most notably, he held “republican” values – that is, he believed in a republic of free citizens, with a government based on consent and established to protect the rights of life, liberty, and property.

From his republican values Washington derived his abhorrence of kingship, even for himself. The writer Garry Wills called him “a virtuoso of resignations.” He gave up power not once but twice – at the end of the revolutionary war, when he resigned his military commission and returned to Mount Vernon, and again at the end of his second term as president, when he refused entreaties to seek a third term. In doing so, he set a standard for American presidents that lasted until the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose taste for power was stronger than the 150 years of precedent set by Washington.

LEVELING UP OPEN INTELLIGENCE:

Building the truth machine (Andy Hall and Elliot, Feb 13, 2026, Free Systems)

The central problem is that the political and policy markets—those arguably most core to the social value proposition of prediction markets—are mostly ghost towns today. […]


For the vast majority of political contracts, there’s almost no one on the other side of the trade. One way to see this: the gap between what buyers are willing to pay and what sellers are asking—a standard measure of how active a market is—typically exceeds 20% of the midpoint price, and is often much higher than that. That’s enormous. In a healthy, liquid market, that gap is no more than a few percentage points at most.

Interestingly, it’s not the case that less liquid markets are necessarily less accurate at predicting outcomes. Sometimes markets stay illiquid precisely because they’re already accurate, and there’s no incentive for new money to enter. Even quite small prediction markets have historically shown strong predictive performance—Wolfers and Zitzewitz documented accurate forecasts from markets with as few as 20 to 60 participants. More recently, Clinton and Huang’s analysis of over 2,500 political contracts from the 2024 election found that PredictIt—the most restricted platform, with position limits of just $850 per contract—correctly predicted 93% of outcomes, compared with 78% for Kalshi and 67% for Polymarket. Markets with more trading activity were not more accurate, controlling for the types of events being traded.

But thin markets are certainly cheaper to manipulate, as I have argued recently. When liquidity is low, a single motivated actor can move prices without anyone around to push back—and in a world where CNN and CNBC are now broadcasting these prices to millions of viewers, that vulnerability matters more than ever.