Riley on news · June 17th

ENGLISH CHANNEL — The Russian Defense Ministry stated that the frigate Admiral Grigorovich fired small-arms warning shots into the water ahead of the UK-registered yacht Bright Future on June 16 after the yacht approached on a course that created collision risk in foggy conditions. The British Defense Ministry confirmed it is investigating the incident, no injuries or damage are reported as a result of the incident.

In an article about Hayek, Mill, and the liberal idea of traditions, writes, John Stuart Mill, also a defining liberal, can be seen a great critic of traditionalism. The Subjection of Women is a sustained attack on a tradition that he saw as an exercise of power, and not as the wisdom of crowds. On Liberty can be seen as a form of constructivism in Hayek’s sense: It offers a principle (the Harm Principle), discovered and defended by reason, that cuts like a knife through traditions. I wonder if Mill has a more nuanced view of tradition—or at least of history. In the Subjection, he is careful to say that the custom does not have a right of prescription “in this case”, rather than rejecting the idea of custom per se: The preceding considerations are amply sufficient to show that custom, however universal it may be, affords in this case no presumption… Mill’s view of history is important because he believes that it can be used to promote whatever argument you wish to promote, but also that it does have real uses in showing “the extraordinary susceptibility of human nature to external influences, and the extreme variableness of those of its manifestations which are supposed to be most universal and uniform.” This is not an argument against tradition, but rather a way of seeing how tradition evolves in progressive societies. In his address at St. Andrews, he spoke of “the course of history, considered as a progressive evolution.” And, of course, he wrote in the Subjection, that When the support of the family depends, not on property, but on earnings, the common arrangement, by which the man earns the income and the wife superintends the domestic expenditure, seems to me in general the most suitable division of labour between the two persons. We might see the phrase “common arrangement” as meaning something very close to “custom”. He also wrote to Harriet Taylor that women would continue to “beautify life”. Though he may be taken to have softened that view in the Subjection, his argument about the blacksmith suggests that he is open to the idea that the “common arrangements” between men and women might continue somewhat unaltered, or that what free enterprise, experiments in living, and competition would lead to was not a rational equality, but to a society in which women’s innate qualities lead them to different sorts of lives than men. He writes that “the utmost latitude ought to exist for the adaptation of general rules to individual suitabilities.” Is that anti-traditional or rational? In the Chapters on Socialism, Mill prefers the “utopian” socialism of Owen and Fourier to the radical socialism of the Continentals, and he says his preference is based on the fact that the first sort of socialism “need not, and in the natural order of things would not, become an engine of subversion until it had shown itself capable of being also a means of reconstruction.” This is not exactly pro-tradition, but it is not exactly rationalist anti-traditionalism either. He also says in the Chapters, Sudden effects in history are generally superficial. Causes which go deep down into the roots of future events produce the most serious parts of their effect only slowly, and have, therefore, time to become a part of the familiar order of things before general attention is called to the changes they are producing; since, when the changes do become evident, they are often not seen, by cursory observers, to be in any peculiar manner connected with the cause. The remoter consequences of a new political fact are seldom understood when they occur, except when they have been appreciated beforehand. This seems to be a vision of history in which things change slowly and (to us) unknowably, through the operations of “familiar orders”, which, to me at least, sounds Hayekian. In Auguste Comte and Positivism, he writes of “the peculiar phaenomena of English development” and “its exceptional character in relation to the general European movement.” If I were speculating, I would almost venture to say that Hayek recognized some of his own ideas in Mill and felt “belated”, as a literary critic might say about one poet reacting to a previous poet. Think of Book V of Mill’s Political Economy, surely either an important influence upon Hayek or a book that made him realize that Mill had anticipated some of his insights, albeit not fully. If Hayek felt the pressure of Mill’s influence, and had to deal with what Walter Jackson Bate called “the burden of the past”, the spur of his surprising and (dare I say) irrational dislike of Mill might be due to this feeling of belatedness…

So you can customize your Narratively Academy subscription to get only the emails you want. You can choose from a few different sections, like Open Book, which has recordings of live video interviews with authors and editors, or StoryCraft, which has articles about writing and publishing. There's also Classes, which announces new and upcoming classes, and Pitches + Prompts, which has monthly essay contests and calls for pitches.

You can also opt in or out of New chat threads, which includes the Weekly Win every Friday, and Wednesday Writers' Room, which is a guided writing session. The Writers' Room happens twice on Wednesdays, at 8am ET and 11am ET, or 8am PT, and you can write alongside other writers, share your work, and get inspiration.

If you want, you can also get text messages or calendar reminders when the Writers' Room is about to start. It's pretty easy to customize your settings and get only the updates that are relevant to you.

Is Kash Patel handing wads of taxpayer dollars to an inner circle of loyal FBI cronies? Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) is demanding answers. FBI Director Kash Patel seems to find himself engulfed in a new mess every week. The scandal du jour involves fresh claims that the beer-chugging director may be tapping a “personal slush fund,” drawn from the FBI budget, to hand out bonus payments to a select group of top bureau insiders, according to Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD). “According to information received by the House Committee on the Judiciary, your office has issued more than $1 million in awards to special agents serving on your ‘Director’s Advisory Team,’” Raskin wrote in a letter to Patel, describing the recipients as a clique of “loyalist MAGA henchmen” willing to carry out Patel’s personal orders, along with agents on Patel’s personal security detail. Patel appears to be choosing “his favored employees, who he bestows extra money on as a routine practice,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the top Democrat on the committee, told What A Day in a phone call this afternoon. Raskin’s team is digging for more info. His letter to the FBI, first reported by MS NOW, demands a full accounting of all FBI bonuses and related communications. Why would Patel make such payments? Only the director knows how his mind works, Raskin said. But the congressman has a few thoughts of his own, which center on loyalty to Patel and humiliating reports about his fondness for a drink (which Patel has denied). “It could be an effort to maintain the loyalty of people who witness conduct that would be embarrassing to the director if it became public,” Raskin said. “These extra payments create a thicker wall of silence around the director.” The FBI and DOJ didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment from What A Day. So is this just the summer of MAGA slush funds, or what? President Donald Trump’s team has been laser-focused on finding ways to reward its allies for loyalty. His administration faced harsh backlash from both parties when the Department of Justice announced a $1.8 billion fund to pay victims of Biden-era “weaponization.” A judge put the brakes on that idea, and Trump’s DOJ said it wouldn’t move forward with the plan. But Trump officials are quietly looking for other ways to pay the president’s supporters, according to multiple reports. Trump doesn’t like that Democrats like Raskin are out to foil his plans — and maybe, if they win the House this November, impeach him a third time. The president took his frustration out on Raskin last week via social media post, describing the congressman as “a Loser in Life” who would “be in jail right now” if he hadn’t been pardoned by former President Joe Biden. “I don’t know exactly what set him off. He’s obviously having some kind of impeachment nightmare flashback,” said Raskin, who served as the House impeachment manager during Trump’s second trial. “I just want to tell the president that there’s an easy way to avoid impeachment, which is to stop engaging in high crimes and misdemeanors against the republic.” Raskin added: “I’m going to do my job, and I am not going to be deterred by his social media missives.” Dad jokes are good for you, according to science. So here goes nothing. I asked the What a Day family to send me your finest dad jokes, and you didn’t disappoint. Out of more than two dozen responses, here are a few that made me snort: When our yoga teacher quit, it left me in a very difficult position. Do you know how to identify a dogwood? By its bark, of course. How do you know if a joke is a dad joke? It’s apparent. What do you call a honeymoon salad? Lettuce alone with no dressing! What does a nosy pepper do? It gets jalapeño business. Donald Trump’s White House ballroom is now estimated to cost $600 million — with taxpayers footing half of the bill, according to contractor records obtained by the Washington Post. Trump had claimed that he wouldn’t use any taxpayer money to fund the project. “Congress never authorized the so-called Golden Ballroom project, and Congress has not appropriated any money for it,” Raskin told me. “So, the taxpayers are not on the hook for anything … the entire operation is lawless.” Trump admitted that solving the Russia-Ukraine war isn’t a high priority for him, despite repeatedly pledging to bring the conflict to an end within 24 hours of taking office. “We have nothing to do with it, we sell weapons to [Ukraine],” Trump told reporters today. “It has no impact on us, other than we sell weapons. We’re thousands of miles away.” Federal officials charged a 19-year-old man after he allegedly plotted attacks on the UFC cage fight on the White House South Lawn. He was part of an online group chat of Christian-based, ex-military members who “expressed ultra-religious and antigovernment sentiments,” according to a criminal complaint.

Kyle Tharp, who runs the Chaotic Era newsletter, says the rise of paid political influencers on TikTok is reshaping campaign tactics, and he’s seeing Democrats still scrambling to get a handle on the platform. He points out that some creators are getting money to promote candidates without clear disclosures, which blurs the line between genuine endorsement and advertising. Tharp and host Jon discuss whether the left’s digital strategy is finally catching up or just reacting to a new, fast‑moving media landscape. The conversation suggests that while the party is more aware of the influencer economy, figuring out consistent rules and transparency remains a work in progress.

Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed the Israeli public at a Press conference last night, following the announcement of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) reached between the United States and Iran. Many expected him to discuss the MOU and its implications for Israel. Netanyahu did not mention the agreement even once during his remarks. What he did stress, multiple times, was his belief that without his actions over the years, Israel would already have been destroyed by an Iranian nuclear weapon. According to Netanyahu, who has dominated Israeli politics for much of the past twenty years, Israel owes its survival to the decisions he made. Netanyahu, argued that a series of decisions made under his leadership, culminating in Israel’s two most recent operations against Iran, had prevented a potentially existential threat to the country. I will not attempt to address all the reasons why that argument is difficult to sustain. It became even harder to accept today when President Trump offered a remarkably similar claim of his own. According to Trump, Israel exists today only because of the actions he took. The threat of a nuclear-armed Iran has never been something Israelis dismissed lightly. Israel has spent roughly three decades preparing for precisely that scenario. It built sophisticated missile-defense systems and maintains a second-strike capability designed to deter any nuclear attack. The message is straightforward: anyone contemplating the use of a nuclear weapon against Israel must assume that the response would be overwhelming and catastrophic. One can certainly argue that the religious extremists who govern Iran might be willing to accept extraordinary risks in pursuit of their ideological objectives that include the destruction of Israel. Yet that argument often overlooks the extent of Israel’s defensive capabilities. No defense is perfect, and no responsible person would claim otherwise. Even so, the odds of a successful strike are overwhelmingly low. I believe we would have advance warning if a nuclear-armed missile were launched toward Israel. Any incoming missile would face the country’s full array of defensive systems, including every available Arrow interceptor. While no outcome can ever be guaranteed, I believe the chances of a successful strike are low siles were launched. The idea that they would launch a nuclear weapon that failed to reach Israel and instead detonated over the Jordanian desert would represent one of the worst possible outcomes for the Iranian regime. Israel would have no choice but to respond. I would not want to be the person responsible for deciding where that response would fall, or how many tens of thousands of lives might be lost as a result. But deterrence in a nuclear age rests on a simple principle: if a country launches a nuclear weapon against you- you must launch a counterstrike against them. After saying that Israel owed its survival to his leadership, President Trump had much more to say about Israel during his various appearances at the G7 summit. In several press conferences, many of them held alongside Arab leaders, Trump repeatedly addressed Israel’s role in the region and the agreement with Iran. Among the more noteworthy comments attributed to Trump was a message reportedly directed at Netanyahu: “It’s time to leave.” The meaning was left ambiguous. Was Trump urging Israel to leave Lebanon, or hinting that Netanyahu himself should leave the political stage? Trump has repeatedly expressed the view that leaders who guide nations through wars are not always the leaders best suited for what comes afterward. What is clear is that Trump is eager to bring this war to a close. Trump also delivered unusually sharp criticism of Israel’s campaign in Lebanon. He argued that Israel had been operating there for too long and that too many people had been killed. Referring to targeted strikes, Trump remarked that one does not need to bring down an entire building to eliminate a single individual. He even suggested that Syrian forces should be brought in, asserting that they would be less likely than Israel to cause significant civilian casualties. When criticism of civilian casualties comes from President Trump—hardly a figure known for excessive empathy and humanitarian concern—it should give us pause. His remarks should at least prompt a moment of reflection. Since October 7, many Israelis have understandably become focused above all else on their own trauma, security, and survival. The scale of the atrocities committed that day, followed by years of war, has left deep scars. Israel’s actions since October 7 can be debated and criticized, but they do not constitute genocide, despite the accusations frequently leveled against it.

Folks, Do you ever get the feeling that everything in Alabama happens behind closed doors? A company swoops in and starts building a massive data center before anyone knows what the hell is going on. State legislators hold secret committee meetings to redraw our maps or decide on which legislation to pass or kill. Our governor decides to nullify our primary elections without any real explanation. Then they come out from behind closed doors and hold their public hearings, but they don’t listen. They’ve already made up their minds. You can see exactly what I am talking about in what just happened in the Republican Party. During the primary, some Republicans got together and challenged Tommy Tuberville’s Alabama residency. Under Alabama’s Constitution, a governor is supposed to have lived in Alabama for seven years. But that has been a big question about Tuberville for a long time since from all indications he spends his time living in a multi-million dollar beach house in Florida. So how does the Republican Party handle such a constitutional challenge? Well, just a few days ago, they held a secret committee meeting, allegedly heard some evidence, and declared Tommy Tuberville is still eligible to run. Now, you’d think that was because they reviewed the evidence and decided that he satisfied the requirements. But instead, they threw evidence away and rushed through the meeting behind closed doors. Ken McFeeters, the Republican who brought the challenge to Tuberville’s residency, was supposed to get to depose five witnesses for up to two hours. Instead, he only got to interview Tuberville for 45 minutes. They knew what they were doing, so they kicked out members of the media so they couldn’t hear anything. In McFeeters’ own words, the hearing was “a farce.” This is what happens when you have a state government ruled by one party for more than twenty years. Politicians get arrogant. They stop caring about the rules. They stop caring about accountability. They stop caring whether the people of Alabama get to see the evidence, hear the debate, or know what is being done in their name, because they do not believe anyone will seriously challenge them. We’re going to change that. I am running for Governor to bring Alabama’s government out from behind closed doors and restore transparency to the way it operates. Transparency restores people’s faith in government by assuring them that their voices will be heard. As Governor, I will take every step to make sure our government actually answers to the people of Alabama. But I need your help. Thank you, Doug

Long before the Declaration of Independence, America faced a basic strategic problem: How do thirteen separate colonies become one people? The answer, in many ways, began on June 15, 1775. That was the day George Washington was unanimously appointed commander-in-chief of the Continental Army. At the time, the colonies were not yet independent. Many still hoped reconciliation with Britain remained possible. Regional loyalties remained far stronger than national identity. Massachusetts saw itself differently than Virginia. Virginia saw itself differently than Pennsylvania. America existed more as an argument than a nation. Washington helped change that. His appointment mattered for military reasons, obviously. But its political significance may have been even greater. Congress, with John Adams strongly advocating for it, intentionally selected a Virginian to command New England troops. That was not accidental. The founders understood that if the Revolution became perceived as merely a regional rebellion centered in Massachusetts, it would fail. Washington’s appointment transformed resistance into a continental cause. And Washington himself understood the symbolic weight of the moment. He arrived at Cambridge not as a dictator or strongman, but as a citizen-soldier accepting temporary authority on behalf of self-government. That distinction mattered enormously. Throughout history, military leaders frequently convert wartime power into permanent political dominance. Washington repeatedly refused to do so. That restraint became one of the defining features of the American founding. The Continental Army itself became an instrument of nationhood. Men from different colonies fought together. Suffered together. Endured together. A shared identity slowly emerged. Not perfect unity. Not uniformity. But something stronger than local isolation. The significance of Washington’s command reaches beyond battlefield history. The American Revolution succeeded partly because Washington embodied a radically different model of leadership than the European norm. He exercised power reluctantly. Temporarily. Under civilian authority. That sounds normal to modern Americans precisely because Washington normalized it. But in the eighteenth century, it was extraordinary. The appointment of Washington helped create not merely an army, but the foundations of republican civil-military order. And without that, American independence may not have survived victory.

This week the House of Commons will wrap up its work for the summer. It’ll be late September before they reconvene. There’ll already be a lot happening when MPs see one another again. It’ll be only days before a bunch of referendums in Alberta. Quebec will be in the middle of a volatile provincial election campaign. We’ll be on the other side of an apparently near-meaningless July 1 deadline for CUSMA renewal. And it will be only six weeks before US congressional midterm elections. Two pieces of reading might help us think about the next half-year in our politics. One comes from today’s New York Times. There’s peace, of a sort and dearly bought, in Iran, but don’t expect a return to the status quo, the analysis by Patricia Cohen says. “The war has set in motion changes that will be hard to reverse.” “The profound vulnerability of countries throughout Asia, Europe and elsewhere that depend on imported energy is supercharging the hunt for alternatives. In some places, like South Korea and Japan, that has led to an increased use of dirtier fuels like coal. “But over the longer term, this energy shock — the second in just four years — is likely to accelerate a transition to renewables like solar and wind as well as nuclear power.” Wind and solar generated more energy worldwide than gas in April for the first time, according to UK energy think tank Ember. But that doesn’t mean fossil fuels are off the table. The Hormuz bottleneck, which will probably continue even in “peace” and could return any time, means there’s also a scramble to find new suppliers. “Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia, Argentina and Guyana are building their oil production capacity as the world looks for alternative suppliers,” the Times says. There’s a country missing from that list, at least potentially. During an Ottawa visit last month, International Energy Agency head Fatih Birol said Canada’s quaint cultural insistence on enforceable contract law should lure investors willing to pay a premium for (always relative!) stability. Birol made those remarks while sharing a stage with Tim Hodgson, Mark Carney’s energy minister. People in Ottawa pay close attention to what Hodgson, a political rookie with outsized clout, says. Which brings me to your second piece of assigned reading today: an op-ed that Hodgson published in the Financial Post on Monday. It’s a national-unity pitch, in the runup to the Alberta referendum I promised not to write about for a while. Oh well. “In this time of global uncertainty, the countries that succeed will not be the ones that fight amongst themselves,” Hodgson writes. “They will be the ones that build.” So Canada should “build,” he writes. “Let’s build major projects… partnerships between provinces and territories and with Indigenous Peoples…. And let’s build institutions strong enough to carry us forward, while others backslide.” All of that is the very definition of “easier said than done.” Including the bit about “strong institutions.” Institutions predate governments and operate without particular regard to whether a given government is in a hurry. So there’s often a tension between governments and institutions. Which makes Althia Raj’s recent string of Toronto Star columns reminding the Carney government of those necessary institutions such fascinating reading. Meanwhile, look at what Hodgson wants to build and sell. The centrepiece of his argument, and of his recent effort, is of course the Alberta-Canada Memorandum of Understanding on oil-sands exports and electricity grid expansion. “The MOU sends a signal to Canadians, to investors, and to our allies that Canada can act like the federation it was designed to be,” Hodgson writes. Perhaps by now some people in Ottawa are starting to realize the whole project is not a tactical feint but something Hodgson and Carney actually want to deliver. But Hodgson is talking about more than Alberta oil and gas. He mentions “vast energy resources in our western and Atlantic provinces… some of the world’s best hydro projects… nuclear assets [in] Ontario and New Brunswick,” and “mining opportunities” in the territories. “So, let’s argue less and build more.” A couple of broad observations about this. First, Hodgson is calling for a kind of full-meal deal on energy and resources. Fossil fuels and renewables. The fossil part is a change from the Trudeau Liberals. But recognition of the growing place of renewables, if it ever came, would be a change from the Poilievre Conservatives. And it’s not as though there aren’t significant trends near the Conservative leader’s current riding. From Statistics Canada: To a great extent, if you’re dismissing wind, solar and batteries because of something you heard a decade ago, you might want to refresh your information. The second thing I notice in Hodgson’s speech is how he starts with national unity. (He even announces that he sees himself as a national-unity minister.

The Justice Department filed a civil‑rights inquiry into Governor Gavin Newsom on Tuesday, noting concerns about the state’s handling of pandemic orders. The filing, which appears in the public docket, marks the first federal probe of the governor’s COVID response.

The article I read frames that move as part of former President Trump’s personal use of the DOJ, suggesting he’s targeting Newsom as revenge and that a broader “hit list” is emerging. It argues the episode shows how