Orrin Judd

WE DID:

‘Ya Gotta Believe,’ Revisited: From the depths of despair to the height of elation and back, the 1973 Mets took the “Flushing Faithful” on the kind of roller-coaster ride that is looking all too familiar. (Charlie Vascellaro, June 11, 2023, Village Voice)

In the formative years of my baseball fandom, I spent a lot of time listening to Mets games on a transistor radio tucked under my pillow. Extending my bedtimes were the voices of the Mets’ mighty broadcasting triumvirate of Bob Murphy, Ralph Kiner, and Lindsey Nelson. It was music to my ears. And now, in the gift shop, I could barely believe my eyes. There in front of me was an album cover bearing big yellow letters reading “Ya Gotta Believe.” Underneath, smaller type promised “all the exciting play-by-play action highlights and interviews of the amazin’ Mets 1973 end of season play-offs and World Series Championship Games.”

I had struck gold. “Ya Gotta Believe” was the battle cry of the 1973 Mets. The memories of that season were still fresh in my head — what an opportunity to relive the favorite year of my so-far brief life. If I could have traveled back to any year back then, or even now, it would have to be 1973, the defining season of my life as a Mets fan.

GET RHYTHM:

Charlie Parker: The Man and His Music (Gary Giddins, September 8, 1975, Village Voice)

The music Parker innovated in conjunc­tion with Dizzy Gillespie, Thelonious Monk, Bud Powell, Max Roach, and others is still known by the onomatopoeia bebop. But bop was not created in a vacuum. Such epochal Parker-Gillespie masterpieces as “Shaw Nuff,” “Salt Peanuts,” and “Koko” define a very different tableau from that imagined by Lester Young or Roy Eldridge, yet the styles of the younger players were originally mod­eled after their idols. Bop became a tradition unto itself when a new wave of players came along drawing exclusively on the achieve­ment of Parker’s generation. The originators of bop, however, were intimately involved with the playing of Young, Eldridge, Art Tatum, Jo Jones, Sid Catlett, Charlie Chris­tian, Bobby Hackett, Jimmy Blanton, Teddy Wilson, and other masters of the swing period. They must certainly have recognized the falsity of some of the claims made on behalf of bop.


It is easy enough to recognize bop as a style of music different from, say, swing or avante-garde, but attempts to isolate the distinguishing characteristics of bop can be treacherous. We hear a great deal about the complexity of bop, for example, yet nothing in its fabric was foreign to Ellington. Much has been made of the intensity and speed demanded by most bop compositions, but speed was also endemic to Eldridge, Tatum, and Armstrong. Bop musicians have been credited with first superimposing their own compositions on familiar chord progres­sions; but earlier examples of this practice include Benny Moten’s “Moten’s Swing” (based on “You’re Driving Me Crazy”), Sidney Bechet’s “Shag” (”I Got Rhythm”), and Ellington’s “In a Mellotone” (“Rose Room”). Most dramatically, bop musicians are said to have been the first to improvise on chords, rather than simply embellishing the given melody. Almost any handful of classic jazz recordings from the ’30s will refute this.

Another area of confusion concerns the relationship of bop to the big bands. The instrumentation of the Charlie Parker Quin­tet — sax. trumpet, piano, bass, drums — became the standard instrumentation for jazz until the ’60s, but it wasn’t the nature of the beast that required a small-group context nor did the musicians reject big bands entirely for musical reasons. The key figures in bop were actually trained in big bands: Parker with Jay McShann, Gillespie with Cab Calloway, Dexter Gordon with Armstrong, Max Roach with Benny Carter. Economic considerations have played a de­cisive role in every phase of jazz. The shoestring labels that recorded bop were hardly able to offer a musician the freedom to hire 15 men for a record date. But bop, like most schools of jazz, aspired to larger en­sembles. Gillespie formed a big band as soon as he could get the backing, Woody Her­man’s second herd was a bop band, and Tadd Dameron, the preeminent composer-ar­ranger of the movement, wrote for orches­tras whenever possible. Parker himself toured with a string ensemble of his own vo­lition.


The distinguishing characteristics of bop are immediately recognizable. The absence of vibrato and tonal coloration is necessitat­ed by the blazing tempos and the many-noted character of the solos. The techniques with which a bop solo is constructed might be discussed in jargon like flattened fifths, the higher intervals of chords, diminished scales, and chromaticism, but while the musician has to understand these terms, the listener doesn’t. In order to hear the melo­dies of a bop improvisation, one simply has to become familiar enough with the idiom to hear the component phrases of a solo. There is no greater melodist in jazz than Parker.

The central innovation in Parker’s music was rhythmic.

BEWARE FAILED DADS (profanity alert):

The True Story Behind the “El Cap Kindergartener” Ascent: On May 22, a 7-year-old reached the summit of El Capitan. Why are so many climbers upset about it? (Sam MacIlwaine, June 4, 2026, Climbing)

Typically, when climbing records are broken, Climbing reporters like me are quick to celebrate and share the details. But this one felt different. From my view in Yosemite, where I’m based for the season, most of the climbers I know regard the ascent—and specifically the dad in the equation—with dismissal or disdain.

Soon I heard the rumors: “It’s all for publicity.” “It’s such a junk show.” “The kids were crying the whole time.” “The dad’s got this weird, conservative agenda.” Climbers accused Joe Evermore of various crimes: hiring illegal and unqualified guides, getting in the way of a search and rescue operation, dragging up children who didn’t want to be there. Over breakfast tables and birthday dinners, I watched my friends and former colleagues debate whether the seven-year-old deserved to say he’d “climbed” El Cap: After all, neither he nor his dad led or even cleaned any of the pitches. Yet while many members of the climbing community condemned the Evermores, the world of non-climbers could not stop celebrating.

To suss out some truth from these clashing versions of the story, I spoke with Joe Evermore himself, one of his hired guides (who agreed to be interviewed in exchange for anonymity), the director of the Yosemite Mountaineering School, and two Yosemite Search and Rescue (YOSAR) members who encountered the Evermores at the summit. What I found was a complicated picture of media, climbing achievement, and parenting—and a much bigger story than what’s been told.

DOES UBIQUITY DIMINISH INTEGRITY?:

Calvin and Hobbes and the Price of Integrity: How Bill Watterson Stuck to His Guns — and Vanished (Matthew Morgan, Jun 11, 2026, Republic of Letters)

1978, Kenyon College, sophomore year. Bill Watterson is lying on his dorm room bed, staring up at the ceiling. He hasn’t yet invented six-year-old Calvin and his tiger, Hobbes — though his studies have made him familiar with their philosophical namesakes — because the strip that will make Watterson’s name is almost a decade away. Right now, he’s thinking that his dorm room needs an amateur rendition of Michelangelo’s “Creation of Adam”.

There’s a number of problems up front. The first is that (as Watterson will tell you himself) he’s not a talented painter. Still, what the work will lack in “colour sense and technical flourish” it’ll make up for with comedy — specifically “the incongruity of having a High Renaissance masterpiece in a college dorm that had the unmistakeable odour of old beer cans and older laundry”. Besides, Michelangelo wasn’t Michelangelo until he’d painted and kept painting and became Michelangelo the painter. Watterson decides to go ahead and start painting.

The next problem is structural: how to reach the ceiling? He can stand on the bed, but that’ll mean hours with his head cocked all the way back, a young man developing an old man’s spine. He needs a way to paint the ceiling without permanently disfiguring his posture. His friends help him with a solution: they stand two chairs on Watterson’s bed, then lie a table across the chairs. By climbing up this tower and lying on the table, he comes two feet away from the ceiling. Watterson gets to work.

He’s sunk hours into hours of weeks upon weeks on his back when a third problem occurs to him. He should have thought of this and acted on it before the first brush stroke. He needs permission to paint his dorm room ceiling. But Watterson once admitted, “I never spent as much time or work on any authorised art project or any poli-sci paper as I spent on this one act of vandalism.” He isn’t giving up on it now.

The housing director is understandably suspicious of this kid wanting to paint some elaborate picture on his ceiling with only a few weeks left of the academic year. He realises that the idea is being proposed retroactively. Maybe that’s why he plays along and grants permission for something that’s obviously already underway. Watterson is allowed to complete the painting on the condition that he returns the ceiling to normal before he leaves in summer. Watterson goes back to his room, climbs up the makeshift scaffolding, and gets back to work.

A few weeks later, the project is finished. Watterson probably takes a moment to stand in the middle of the room and look up, contemplating the months of work, the tins of paint he went through, the things he learned about technique, about the joy of a job done for its own sake, about himself. Then he opens a tin of whitewash, climbs up the bed-chairs-table one last time, and paints over his work. He leaves the ceiling white, empty, fresh.

SEX DEGREES OF SEPARATION FROM THE TRUTH:

The Cruel Mercy of Truth (SEAN WALSH, 8/16/26, Country Squire)

The DEI machine has been running psychological operations against the public for decades now, using weaponry put together in the publicly funded but intellectually contaminated social science laboratories of our most respected universities. And we are not supposed to get to comment when the whole thing is shown to be fraudulent?

Addiction is much like this. It feeds off a need to recreate day-to-day fantasy vignettes, sometimes the more outlandish the better, because that way the agony that truth brings cannot prevail against it.

What happened to Arday was a kind of intervention. Those are brutal, harsh and painful and yet, when conducted in the right way and with love, purgative.

No one is more-ill-served by ideology than the adherents.

MORE:
Liberals and Conservatives Need a New Relationship with Minorities Like Jason Arday:
Both sides of the political spectrum have an unhealthy relationship with minorities. (Zaid Jilani, Aug 16, 2026, American Saga)

Conservatives obsessed with Arday’s case because they saw him as representative of negative trends in academia. Here was a black academic who specialized in racial theory who fudged his research. A story like that is crack-cocaine for the modern day British and American right. And where there’s demand, there’s coverage. There were hundreds of articles written in the British press about a singular academic and his misdeeds. While Arday’s behavior as an academic was clearly inappropriate, it’s hard to justify the disproportionate coverage of it. The man was being treated as if he was a supervillain. From his perspective, not only was his career finished but he was basically the Worst Man In the World.

But for conservatives, he was more than a man. He was a symbol of everything they’ve come to hate about Western culture. So he had to be made an example of. The fact he was clearly mentally unwell — we know, for instance, that he was on the autism spectrum — was not a consideration in the endless pile-on. Because for those who were crucifying Arday, the larger mission of winning the culture war was the ultimate goal.

(I don’t think it’s relevant to the accuracy of the charges against Arday, but an openly racist theorist, Nathan Cofnas, led the crusade against him.)

Yet we can’t let liberals off the hook here. Questions about the veracity of Arday’s work and his life story arose as early as 2023, shortly after his appointment to Cambridge as the university’s youngest black scholar ever. They were not taken seriously.

WHAT IF INEQUALITY IS EXACERBATED…:

Conservatives Don’t Like Sociology. Some Sociologists Don’t Either. (Vimal Patel, Aug. 14, 2026, NY Times)

A report released over the weekend about the state of scholarly standards in the field said it had been compromised by politics that influenced the discipline’s values and priorities.

The report was produced by a commission led by Vanderbilt University and Washington University in St. Louis, where leaders have argued that higher education is in need of reforms. The commission found that scholarship in the humanities and social sciences was sometimes in the service of political goals.

“Some topics cannot be studied or cannot be studied in an honest way,” said Jukka Savolainen, a Wayne State University criminologist and sociologist who is not part of the commission.

For scholars studying incarceration, he said, “the only research that’s rewarded and allowed and encouraged is to find the umpteenth way in which incarceration is harmful.” […]

Student interest in sociology has dramatically dropped in recent decades. One analysis found that since 2013, completions of undergraduate sociology degrees fell by 25 percent.

Sociologists cite factors like a broader societal shift toward degrees that are perceived as prioritizing trade skills. […]

The overall numbers mask that sociology is thriving in some liberal places, especially California. An analysis by Michel Estefan, a sociologist at the University of California, San Diego, found that two out of every five sociology bachelor’s degrees were earned in California.

The majority of them are students of color.

…by steering students of color towards useless degrees?

YOU LOST THEM AT MATURITY:

“Upon More Mature Reflection”: Hamilton’s About-Face on Removal in 1789 (Gary J. Schmitt, 6/08/26, The Constitutionalist)

During the First Congress’s debate in which James Madison and others defended the ideas that the president had the constitutional power to remove department heads “at pleasure,” one of Madison’s opponents noted that, in Federalist #77, Alexander Hamilton had written that the Senate’s consent would be necessary not only for an official’s appointment but also “to displace” them. Madison and Hamilton, the two most influential expositors of the newly adopted constitution were seemingly at odds over how the government would remove senior administration figures.

Hamilton, alerted to the fact that his statement in Federalist #77 had been used to challenge Madison’s argument sent a note (see William Smith letter to Edward Rutledge, June 21, 1789) to a Madison ally in the House to let its members know that “upon more mature reflection,” he now agreed with Madison. The power to remove was the president’s alone as a constitutionally implied power of the office.

LEFT/RIGHT ECONOMICS IS SELF-HARM:

America Suspended the Jones Act. Americans Were the Winners.: In under five months, waiving the protectionist law opened up whole trade routes and sent fuel to areas that needed it. Why go back? (Veronique de Rugy | 8.13.2026, reason)


Since March, America has been running an accidental experiment and glimpsing what the country might look like without one of its dumbest statutes. The results are in, and they embarrass a century’s worth of U.S. lawmakers and defenders. […]

The numbers speak for themselves. The Cato Institute’s Colin Grabow documented that in under five months, Puerto Rico took in more mainland fuel than in any full year since 2015. Shipments to the West Coast, Alaska, and Hawaii hit nearly 14 million barrels, about 170 percent of the recent annual average. Whole trade routes quickly appeared: Gulf Coast fuel to Hawaii, New Jersey jet fuel to California, propane to Puerto Rico.

America’s government-protected fleet seldom served these locales. Remove a prohibition and the market pours resources where they are needed. As Grabow noted, “That’s strong evidence for the longstanding critique that the Jones Act suppresses domestic commerce by preventing economically viable trade between Americans.”

DUDE, YOU’RE GETTING IN THE WAY OF MY SINOPHOBIA:

Why MAGA Is So Obsessed With Fauci: In the aftermath of pandemics, people either try to forget them or find others to blame for them. (Peter Wehner, 8/12/26, The Atlantic)

[T]he scientific evidence favors a natural origin. This includes epidemiological evidence showing that the first COVID-19 cases clustered around one corner of Wuhan’s Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, where wild animals were being butchered. Environmental samples taken from that same area of the market contain, in the same swab, the SARS-CoV-2 sequence and DNA from potential intermediate hosts such as the raccoon dog.

The accusation that Fauci lied to Congress rests on his denial, in a 2021 exchange with Paul, that NIH had ever funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab. The point of such research is to learn what a virus would need to jump into humans before it does, so that vaccines and treatments can be ready.

The trouble is the term gain of function. In biology, it means research that gives an organism a new capability—engineering a bacterium to digest an oil spill is gain-of-function research. In politics, it has come to mean something narrower and more alarming: deliberately making a dangerous virus more dangerous. Federal rules use a third definition, narrower still. The federal framework adopted in 2017, after years of public debate, covers work to enhance a pathogen that is “likely highly transmissible and likely capable of wide and uncontrollable spread in human populations” and “likely highly virulent and likely to cause significant morbidity and/or mortality in humans.” It also excludes viruses, however dangerous, as they exist in nature. (The policy was revised in 2024.)

The gap between those definitions is the whole dispute, and it is why the perjury charge fails twice over.