Conservative socialism

Sometimes I wonder whether people realize what they’re writing.

This is from a Los Angeles Times article last week: “They believe that giving every newborn $1,000 will help combat the rising popularity of socialism …”

Nothing like a government giveaway to demonstrate how bad government giveaways are.

Hmm. Then again, maybe that is the point. Under the program, U.S. citizen babies born during Donald Trump’s second term get all of $1,000 stuck into an account they can’t touch until they’re 18. If their parents can’t afford to contribute to the account, the lucky child is estimated to get about $3,570 when they’re 18.

And the money can only be used for things like starting a business, paying tuition or buying a house. I’m thinking we’ll start seeing a lot of government-financed lemonade stands in about 18 years.

This is socialism we can all hate.

While I’m being nitpicky about this program, I’m going to point out one more thing: A private company (or companies) gets paid to manage these funds.

Now there’s socialism at least someone can get behind.

Existential question of the week: How can you be disappointed if you find what you’re looking for?

It seems to me that someone who can be described as a “serial slack fill litigant” ought to be delighted to come upon a product that’s slack-filled.

If you’re not familiar with this concept, slack filling means that a package or bottle is only partially full. The too-large container is meant to fool consumers into thinking there’s more in there than there really is.

I bring this up because a federal judge in California last week issued a ruling that included this: “Plaintiff, a serial slack fill litigant and self-described consumer rights tester, was ‘disappointed’ to discover the volume of shampoo was not commensurate with the size of the bottle, and she alleges ‘she would not have purchased the product, or would hot have paid a price premium for the product, had she known that the size of the bottle was false and misleading.”

But if she doesn’t buy the product, how can she indulge in her slack litigation hobby? There’s no way this could have been disappointing (unless she needs to wash a whole lot of hair).

In case you’re wondering, the judge dismissed the complaint because “’no reasonable consumer’ of shampoo retailing at a big-box store for $6.99 ‘expects the weight or overall size of the packaging to reflect directly the quantity of product contained.’”

It’s hard to be ripped off if you just don’t care.

The takeaway from this is that there are interesting jobs out there for those of you who need side gigs or maybe even front gigs. If the Slack Fill Litigant field is full, there’s always Dangerous Intersection Testing or Natural Ingredient Taster. The possibilities are endless.

And you’ll never be disappointed.

Wrong move. As you may have heard, the Center for Biological Diversity sued the government over a decision to put Donald Trump’s face next to George Washington’s face on the 2026 National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass.

I can understand the sentiment behind the complaint, but this is a waste of legal resources. I say this not because there are more important things to sue over (although, yes, there are). No, the problem is this new pass is a fantastic opportunity.

Instead of suing over the Trump photo on park passes, we should be embracing the photos as an opportunity for expression.

You can draw a moustache on Trump, or a set of horns. You could put a line through “Beautiful” and write “Meh.” You could put a halo over George and a pitchfork over Donald.

And then you can flash the cards at National Parks workers.

I do realize that drawing on the passes could invalidate them but the battle against propaganda is worth it. It’s a lot cheaper than litigation.