A Bumper Crop of New York Times Headlines Questions

They proliferate---and I answer them all.

So very very much.

But no. I’m not taking a fiber quiz.

At a store. But really, he should just wear big dog shirts. They come in all sizes.

It’s not healthy at all for the chicken.

No. It doesn’t work. The Times wouldn’t be asking this question if the answer were that it works as well as the goopy stuff you have to rub on. Can you imagine how boring that article would be?

Let’s pause over this one for a moment—and break it down. The question answers itself. It is framed in terms of your needs, not your dog’s needs. So the answer boils down to whether you need for your dog to have optimally healthy oral hygiene. Of course you don’t. First of all, you don’t really need to have a dog at all. Second, you don’t need for that dog to have healthy teeth for its entire life. Third, you don’t need for that dog to have decent smelling dog breath. These are highly optional goods for you. They are also optional for the dog, by the way. Dogs have evolved over long periods of time and evolution didn’t see fit to build in a toothbrush. Clearly, they don’t need it.

Oh, yes. Never do it. Everything is bad for you—especially going to the bathroom just in case. So many people have died this way.

I love this question very dearly. Exactly nobody is asking it. But let’s gin up fears on the subject.

It’s really not fun. General tip: When given the choice between a disease and the vaccine to prevent it, always choose the vaccine.

Just enjoy the pain.

Well, you can. The question is whether you want to.

WITAOD!!!!

You can get a WITAOD hat here.

Doubt it but maybe.

Again, imprecision in questions is a disease we can cure. Is the question here about the health of the mangoes? If so, I am unaware of any general mango blight but note that mango health has to be assessed on an individual basis. Some mangoes are doing better than others.

If, conversely, the question is about how healthful mangoes are for humans to eat, I will just note the rule that all things are bad for you. Yeah, yeah, they’re loaded with potassium and can help lower your blood pressure. But they’re also loaded with sugar. The mangoes are coming for you.

---

Yesterday on #DogShirtTV, the estimable Eve Gaumond and I welcomed a newcomer: the estimable James Hanks. James wrote to me to let me know that he’d managed to get ChatGPT to have a long discussion with him about the practical details of using tungsten rods dropped from a missile to destroy the Kerch Bridge, so naturally I invited him on the show to tell me all about it.

Yesterday On Lawfare

Compiled by the estimable Caroline Cornett

The Governor’s Role in Federalizing the National Guard under 10 U.S.C. 12406

Chris Mirasola explains why Section 12406 may not necessarily require the governor to personally review and issue orders to call members of the National Guard into federal service, as California argued in a lawsuit against the Trump administration on Monday. However, Mirasola notes the strength of California’s other claims, including that the president’s justification for relying upon Section 12406 did not meet the prerequisites of the statute.

California is correct that there must be some role for the state in issuing federal orders under Section 12406. And it is certainly correct that, on Saturday when the authority was invoked, there was not plausibly a rebellion in Los Angeles, under any reasonable interpretation of the term. But the state likely overstates the governor’s legally required role in this process. And it remains unclear whether courts will have the appetite to adjudicate the substantive meaning of “rebellion” under the act.

Killing for Nothing: The Bizarre Logic of the Palm Springs Bomber

Luke Baumgartner discusses the bombing of a fertility clinic in Palm Springs as part of a disturbing trend of extremism fueled by nihilistic ideologies. Baumgartner highlights the significant challenges law enforcement and policymakers face in responding to the violence emerging from fringe online communities that lack a clear political agenda.

Since at least 2021, the rise of online communities that merge a deep-seated admiration for school shooters, serial killers, and the sexual exploitation of minors—such as the shadowy transnational network known as 764, or “the Com”—has created a fertile environment for radicalization rooted in existential contempt. Court documents from one of the FBI’s most recent publicized cases describe 764 as “a network of NVEs … that work in concert with one another towards a common purpose of destroying civilized society through the corruption and exploitation of vulnerable populations, including minors.” David Scott, head of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, recently confirmed that each of its 55 field offices is currently investigating more than 250 cases related to 764, which the Department of Justice is referring to as NVE.

Podcasts

On Lawfare Daily, Renee DiResta sits down with Daphne Keller, Dean Jackson, and Joan Barata to discuss the transition of European Union’s Disinformation Code of Practice into a legally binding obligation under the Digital Services Act and the far right’s criticisms that the change marks an end to free speech.

---

Today’s #BeastOfTheDay is once again the baby fox, seen here communing with the dead:

Video Source

In honor of today’s Beast, take your kids to play in the local graveyard.

---

Tell Me Something Interesting

I—EJ Wittes—had never heard of dropping tungsten rods from 50 km above ground as a weapon before the show yesterday morning. I am unabashedly bad at physics and will not even pretend to be able to assess the actual feasibility of the proposed weapons system. However, some research over the course of the day reveals a deep problem with this hypothetical weapon which I do feel qualified to comment on: its marketing.

I spent the day reading about a number of iterations of this proposed weapon, dating from the 1950s to the present day. These variants differ in all details but one: they all have the stupidest possible names.

Here are some names people (mostly the US government) have really given this weapons system over the years:

1. Thor: The likely originator of the idea, Jerry Pournelle (a Boeing researcher turned sci-fi author) called the system “Thor” or “Project Thor” in the 1950s. That’s silly enough, but only in the run-of-the-mill, grandiose sort of way that lots of weapons systems get named. The part that made me cackle is that he apparently referred to the tungsten rods themselves as “orbital telephone poles.” (Source)

2. Smart Rocks: This version of the idea originates in either the 1960s or the early 1980s, depending on how you count. As part of Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, some dreamers supported by the Heritage Foundation proposed a missile defense system consisting of battle stations in low Earth orbit which could fire the proposed metal projectiles at ICBMs to intercept them. These battle stations were referred to as “Smart Rocks.” (Source)

3. Brilliant Pebbles: Because the Smart Rocks idea wasn’t stupid enough on its own, the first Bush administration expanded it into a new project called “Brilliant Pebbles.” Now, instead of battle stations launching metal projectiles, there would just be four thousand of the projectiles themselves in orbit, each with an individual guidance system, waiting to intercept incoming missiles. (Source)

4. Hypervelocity Rod Bundles: Because we live in the era of woke, everything needs a euphemism. In 2003, the Pentagon settled on “hypervelocity rod bundles” as the substitute for something mean and nasty like “dropping heavy metal from orbit.” I do love the image of weapons coming in bundles. It sounds so nice and comfortable. (Source)

5. Ortillery: It may not be fair to include this final example, since it is fictional rather than an actual weapons project, but it’s so stupid that I couldn’t resist. Apparently, the tabletop roleplaying game Traveler refers to this type of weaponry as “ortillery,” a portmanteau of “orbital artillery.” (Source) I propose that this name be adopted forthwith by all actual military programs studying the idea. It’s at least better than “Smart Rocks.”

I did notice an oddity in the course of this deeply unimportant research. No one seems to know where exactly the term “rods from god” came from. I saw several articles credit the witticism to Jerry Pournelle, but he himself says he didn’t come up with it and doesn’t know who did. The term is too obscure for a Google Ngrams search, so finding its earliest use in print is not simple. If anyone has any ideas about where the term came from, I’d love to know.