Uncategorized

…AND CHEAPER…:

Easy-to-use solar panels are coming, but utilities are trying to delay them (Jeff Brady, 3/12/26, NPR)


Easy-to-install solar panels that plug into a regular outlet are getting attention just as Americans are worried about rising energy costs. That’s because these plug-in or balcony solar panels start shaving off part of a homeowner’s or renter’s utility bill right away.

“A year ago, nobody was talking about this,” says Cora Stryker, co-founder of Bright Saver, a California nonprofit group that advocates for plug-in solar. The panels are already popular in Germany, where more than 1.2 million of the small plug-in systems are registered with the German government.

For the panels to become more widely available in the U.S., state lawmakers are proposing bills that eliminate complicated utility connection agreements, which are required for larger rooftop solar installations and, most utilities say, should apply to plug-in solar too. Those agreements, along with permitting and other installation costs, can double the price of solar panels.

THE RESENTMENT OF THE iDENTITARIANS:

Anger or Hatred?: The dark passions that threaten liberal democracy (Joshua L. Cherniss, February 23, 2026, Commonweal)

Galston’s latest book opens with a concise definition of the politics he defends: “Liberal democracy is limited democracy.” Privacy, legal rights, and constitutional procedures protect individuals from the will of the majority. Power is limited and divided. Authority is chastened: governments are the servants of those they rule, and their power is open to questioning and revocation. Following thinkers from John Stuart Mill to Isaiah Berlin, Galston links liberalism’s protection of individual conscience and pluralism to the conviction that no one side in a dispute possesses a monopoly on truth or virtue. Indeed plural, sometimes conflicting values lie at the heart of liberalism itself: it prizes both liberty and equality, while recognizing that each must be moderated to preserve the other.

Because it involves tension and balance and imposes limits on political actions that slow down, qualify, or block the achievement of desirable goals, liberal democracy is frequently frustrating. Galston has long stressed that liberalism neither expects nor aspires to produce a nation of saints but depends on citizens exhibiting certain virtues. Indeed, liberal democracy, “more than any other form of government, requires restraint and mutual forbearance,” and “comity”—a mutual respect that prevents us from seeking to completely defeat, dominate, humiliate, and exact vengeance against our opponents. Sustaining liberal democracy also calls for a “rigorous realism,” a sober sense of responsibility, and the fortitude to sustain political action despite awareness of the impossibility of complete, lasting victory over human evil. […]

The heart of Galston’s book is composed of chapters on each of the titular “dark passions.” The first two, anger and fear, are inescapable, evident in human beings from infancy onward; rare is the individual so saintly, or insensate, as to be free from them. They are also politically powerful. Galston supposes that “antipathy may…be the dominant political sentiment.” He revealingly catalogues anger’s triggers: injury, deprivation of something good, humiliation. The last is often the most enraging: loss of face can provoke more unappeasable fury than loss of property. In this regard, liberal democracy may make anger more likely. It creates expectations of being treated as equals, in contrast to earlier ages’ acceptance of “natural” hierarchies.

At the same time, the liberal tendency to view people as individuals runs up against the human proclivity for “sympathetic identification” with collectives. National injury provokes especially intense, widespread, and organized rage. Anger, furthermore, can live on as simmering resentment, which may be stirred up at any moment. Galston notes that while resentment may be justified, it also tends to exceed reasonable demands for just rectification, spawning unlimited hunger for revenge. He does not quite articulate an additional source of danger: it feels good to regard oneself as wronged, lending an element of righteousness and providing a dramatic script in which one exchanges impotent spluttering for the role of avenging hero. Furthermore, while anger is a negative emotion, for many it is preferable to grief, the other natural response to being wronged.

THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS QUALITY:

In Blind Test, Audiophiles Unable to Tell Difference Between Sound Signal Run Through an Expensive Cable and a Banana (Victor Tangermann, Feb 22, 2026, Futurism)

Pano ran high-quality audio through a number of different mediums, including pro audio copper wire, an unripe banana, old microphone cable soldered to pennies, and wet mud. He then challenged his fellow forum members to listen to the resulting clips, which were musical recordings from official CD releases run through the different “cables.”

The results confirmed what most hobbyist audiophiles had already suspected: it was practically impossible to tell the difference.

LA-LA LANDINGS:

The Rapture of Listening to a Fake Baseball Game: Nine innings of made-up balls, strikes, and ads is enough to put you to sleep—or bring you to life. ( Katy Waldman, July 14, 2022, The New Yorker)

Even though I know that there’s no cure for insomnia, the same part of my brain that believes the polar bears might be O.K. in the end keeps me trawling the Web for miracles. Recently, bleary-eyed, I stumbled across “Northwoods Baseball Sleep Radio,” a podcast from the mysteriously monikered “Mr. King,” a humorist in Chicago. (On Spotify, Philip T. Hunter, Corrbette Pasko, and Beth King are listed as the show’s co-producers.) Episodes, which run around two hours, are full-length fake baseball games. The players have names like Lefty Thorn and Hiroki Nomo, and the fictitious sports commentator Wally McCarthy narrates their progress through a gently interminable, pleasingly varied dance of strikes, balls, and hits. It’s minor-league elevator music, honeyed with a small-town nostalgia. Pauses are filled by the crowd’s muted cheers, and, every few minutes, a man with the voice of a relaxed, grandfatherly robot reads ad spots for made-up businesses—Ted’s Fishing World, Big Tom’s Shoe Repair—over the faded brightness of Muzak.

I had come to the podcast as an insomniac, but I was intrigued as a consumer of weird texts.

Learned the trick decades ago of falling asleep by playing your favorite golf course in your head or pitching to your favorite team.

But the website for this cheat code is at Sleep Baseball

You can also find classic radio broadcasts of baseball games at the Internet Archive.

IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO OVERSTATE DEFLATIONARY PRESSURES:

Robots fast-track antibiotic discovery by building hundreds of metal compounds in days (Neetika Walter, Dec 23, 2025, Interesting Engineering)


Robots are now doing what once took chemists months, building potential antibiotics in days as drug resistance tightens its grip on the world.

In a striking demonstration of automated chemistry, researchers have used a robotic synthesis platform to rapidly generate and test hundreds of metal-based compounds, uncovering a promising new antibiotic candidate in the process.

The approach could reshape how scientists search for urgently needed drugs to combat antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

IT’S A PURITAN NATION:

Calvin Coolidge’s “Hebraic Mortar”: Henry Ford sought to mainstream anti-Jewish sentiment in the United States. In a 1925 address, Coolidge decisively broke with Ford’s movement. (Devorah Goldman, 12/22/25, Public Discourse)

But he argues that the colonial character was nonetheless marked by a common religious liberalism: “From its beginnings, the new continent had seemed destined to be the home of religious tolerance.” This, he suggests, is because of the Bible, “the work of literature that was common to all of them.” Scripture was everywhere in the colonies. Citing “the historian Lecky”—presumably the nineteenth-century Irishman William Lecky—Coolidge contends that “Hebraic mortar cemented the foundations of American democracy.”

For the “sturdy old divines of those days,” the Bible served as a patriotic rallying cry:

They knew the Book. They were profoundly familiar with it, and eminently capable in the exposition of all its justifications for rebellion. To them, the record of the exodus from Egypt was indeed an inspired precedent. They knew what arguments from holy writ would most powerfully influence their people. It required no great stretch of logical processes to demonstrate that the children of Israel, making bricks without straw in Egypt, had their modern counterpart in the people of the colonies, enduring the imposition of taxation without representation!

The idea of America as a kind of Israel, an “almost chosen nation,” in Abraham Lincoln’s words some generations earlier, was not new. William Bradford, founder of the Plymouth colony in 1620, compared his personal study of Hebrew to Moses seeing the Promised Land, yet not being permitted to enter. John Davenport and Theophilus Eaton, founders of the New Haven colony in 1637, were expert Hebrew scholars; around half of the dozens of statutes in the New Haven code of 1655 contained references to Hebrew scripture. Davenport ensured that the first public school in New Haven included Hebrew in the core curriculum and encouraged broad engagement with, as Coolidge puts it, the “great figures of Hebrew history, with Joshua, Samuel, Moses, Joseph, David, Solomon, Gideon, Elisha.” The United States is peppered with place names sourced from the Bible: Salem, Sharon, Jericho, Bethlehem, Goshen, Shiloh, and Hebron are just a few examples.

George Washington famously sent warm greetings to Jewish congregations, most notably to a synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island, where he offered a blessing inspired by Hebrew prophets: “May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants—while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

This biblical rootedness, Coolidge suggests, remains vital to maintaining a cohesive polity. A shared attachment to the Bible bolstered the patriot cause, drawing together scattered sympathies and interests and “divergencies of religious faith.” It is no wonder, he notes, that Jews—who first arrived on America’s shores in the 1650s—formed an integral part of the Revolutionary War effort, giving ample blood and treasure.

PRACTICING TO DECEIVE LEAVES A STENCH:

Gregory Bovino is exactly who E.B. White — author of ‘Charlotte’s Web’ — warned us about: DHS named its North Carolina anti-immigrant effort “Operation Charlotte’s Web.” In 1940, White wrote of the “smell” that “rises” from those who “adjust to fascism” over freedom. (Chris Geidner, Nov 16, 2025, Law Dork)

Eighty-five years ago, before the United States had entered World War II, White was looking across the ocean — and, closer to home, the way people in America were reacting to the rise of Nazism.

In Harper’s Magazine, he wrote an essay titled simply “Freedom” in July 1940 (essay reprinted here):

I feel sick when I find anyone adjusting his mind to the new tyranny which is succeeding abroad. Because of its fundamental strictures, fascism does not seem to me to admit of any compromise or any rationalization, and I resent the patronizing air of persons who find in my plain belief in freedom a sign of immaturity. If it is boyish to believe that a human being should live free, then I’ll gladly arrest my development and let the rest of the world grow up.

He saw what was happening clearly, but what he saw from others was alarming. “Where I expected to find indignation, I found paralysis, or a sort of dim acquiescence, as in a child who is duly swallowing a distasteful pill,” he continued.

What then, was the answer, in the mind of the man who brought us Charlotte’s Web?

The least a man can do at such a time is to declare himself and tell where he stands. I believe in freedom with the same burning delight, the same faith, the same intense abandon which attended its birth on this continent more than a century and a half ago. … I am in love with freedom and that it is an affair of long standing and that it is a fine state to be in, and that I am deeply suspicious of people who are beginning to adjust to fascism and dictators merely because they are succeeding in war. From such adaptable natures a smell rises. I pinch my nose.

It is clear, then, where White would stand today.

NO MORE ROAD APPLES:

Gone in 2.5 pitches: The fleeting life of a baseball in modern MLB (Tyler Kepner, Sept. 18, 2025, The Athletic)

If Lugo gets a ball with a mark on it, he said, he’ll try to use it as long as he can. But the baseball gods almost never bestow such a gift anymore. As soon as a ball touches dirt, it’s tossed out of play before the next pitch.

It’s got to be a rule, right? To root out the trickery that crafty pitchers once mastered?

“No, no, it’s not automatic,” said Marvin Hudson, an MLB umpire since 1998. “If it hits the dirt, catchers will throw it out quicker than I would. If they hand it back to me, I look at it, and if it’s not scuffed, I’ll wipe it off and keep it in my ball bag. But players are a lot different than they were back when I first came in, as far as what type of ball they want. It’s kind of comical, to be honest with you.”

Watch a ballgame today — really watch it — and you’ll be amazed at how often the pitchers, catchers and umpires change the ball. Just how many does it take to get through a game? It’s like trying to guess how many jelly beans are in a jar. You can’t tell on TV, because the ball isn’t always on the screen. And you can’t tell in person unless you commit to looking solely at the ball the entire time.

So that’s what I did. Twice this summer — on July 22 in Philadelphia and August 11 in the Bronx — I tracked the fate of every baseball used in the game.

The first lasted only one pitch…

REPUBLICAN LIBERTY AT THE PLATE:

The Disenchantment of Baseball: Rule changes pull the veil from the sport’s high mysteries (Nick Burns, 10/01/25, Hedgehog Review)

But this easy inference rests on unexamined assumptions about the ontology of the strike zone—no, seriously—which, at as it currently exists, is a far more political concept than it appears at first blush. […]

Announcers know the way that the game really works—they will often note, sometimes with an eyebrow slightly raised, that tonight, such-and-such umpire’s strike zone has “a lot of room on the outside,” meaning he is calling pitches on the outside of the plate as strikes. If you take a strictly rationalistic, objective approach to the strike zone, you would say that such an umpire is simply biased. But that would be wrong. The truth is that the strike zone has always been a subjectively constructed thing: it is where the umpire says it is.

Still, there are ground rules. If the umpire gives one team extra “room” on the outside of the zone, he must do the same for the other. If he does, then there’s no problem. It’s only if he gives one team the outside call, and denies the other the same, that players really get mad. The strike zone, therefore, is a political thing that ties the umpire to both teams, a zone measured more by a sense of fairness than by the distance from the top of the shoulders to the hollow beneath the kneecaps.

It’s also something to which pitchers respond. They take note of where the umpire is and isn’t giving them calls. If he’s giving them the call on the outside corner, that’s where he’ll try to throw. If they’re not getting the call, they’ll stop trying. And if a pitcher gets one call on the outside, he might try to push his luck by trying to coax the umpire to give him calls further and further off the plate.

The catcher plays a role, too, “framing” balls just outside the zone by moving his glove into the zone as he catches the ball, in an effort to deceive the umpire. And the catcher is more closely tied to the umpire, more able to influence him, than the pitcher: catcher and umpire, after all, share a common situation, squatting side by side for hours, staring down 100-mile-an-hour fastballs that sometimes ricochet into one or the other of them with painful consequences.

It’s a delicate relational game: the umpire responds to the pitcher and catcher, the batter responds to the umpire—and it can all go wrong, batters and managers howling and swearing and throwing their gear around at a bad call that, in the last instance, may be nothing more than the result of an umpire carried along by the little maneuvers of a pitcher or a catcher who knows how to manipulate.

There’s more politics here: veteran pitchers are believed to sometimes “get” borderline calls from umpires that rookies don’t.

It’s even more political than that, A New Study Shows Umpire Discrimination Against Non-White Players
(Robert Arthur, August 13, 2021, Baseball Prospectus)

WHERE’S GERALD FORD WHEN WE NEED HIM:

The American Revolutions of 1776 (Vincent Phillip Muñoz, Summer 2025, National Affairs)

As America’s 250th anniversary approaches, not everyone is eager to celebrate the Declaration of Independence and the political revolution it sparked. The left has long been skeptical of 1776. Their critique is familiar: “[A]ll men are created equal” did not really mean all individuals because the Constitution did not include African Americans or women, and the founders’ alleged commitment to the rights of man was really a cover to advance their own economic interests.

While most, if not all, of these arguments have been addressed, a different criticism has emerged in recent years from the “post-liberal” right. Liberalism has failed, political theorist Patrick Deneen alleges, because liberalism has succeeded. On natural rights, the late philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre wrote: “The truth is plain: there are no such rights, and belief in them is one with belief in witches and in unicorns.” The political philosophy of the American founding, some on the right now claim, was untrue, and it has eroded traditional morality and undermined sound religious belief.

There is, however, an alternative interpretation of the Declaration — one that rejects the arguments of both the progressive left and the post-liberal right. The American founding was indeed animated by a revolution in political thinking, but it was hostile to neither human equality nor religion. Moreover, the American founding’s political philosophy of natural rights placed limits on political authority in recognition of, and out of deference to, legitimate religious authority.

America’s separation from Great Britain in 1776 set in motion three interrelated revolutions. In the Declaration and their writings on religious liberty, the founding fathers instituted a new understanding of the foundations of political authority, advanced a new conception of government’s purpose, and recognized the existence of religious truth and the legitimacy of religious authority. America’s founding was animated by both the spirit of liberty and the spirit of religion — a philosophical and practical achievement worth understanding and attempting to recover today.

It’s a shame that the Oval will be occupied by a man who doesn’t believe in the Founding whenm we celebrate the 250th.