The Collected Works of Milton Friedman website contains more than 1,500 digital items by and about economist, Nobel Prize winner, and Hoover fellow Milton Friedman. The site features hundreds of Friedman's articles, speeches, lectures, television appearances, and more.

The dress was a 2015 online viral phenomenon centred on a photograph of a dress. Viewers disagreed on whether the dress was blue and black, or white and gold. The phenomenon revealed differences in human colour perception and became the subject of scientific investigations into neuroscience and vision science.

The phenomenon originated in a photograph of a dress posted on the social networking platform Facebook. The dress was black and blue, but the conditions of the photograph caused many to perceive it as white and gold, creating debate. Within a week, more than ten million tweets had mentioned the dress. The retailer of the dress, Roman Originals, reported a surge in sales and produced a one-off version in white and gold sold for charity.

This comic shows two drawings of a woman wearing the same dress, but with different background (and body) colors. The two drawings are split with a narrow vertical portion of an image from the web.

The comic strip refers to a dress whose image went viral on Tumblr only hours before the strip was posted and soon showed up also on Reddit, Twitter, Wired and on The New York Times.

Due to the dress's particular color scheme and the exposure of the photo, it forms an optical illusion causing viewers to disagree on what color the dress actually seems to be. The xkcd strip sandwiches a cropped segment of the photographed dress between two drawings which use the colors from the image against different backgrounds, leading the eye to interpret the white balance differently, demonstrating how the dress can appear different colors depending on context and the viewer's previous experiences.

Both dresses have exactly the same colors actually: //

To the uninitiated, the color of the dress seems immediately obvious; when others cannot see it their way, it can be a surreal (even uncomfortable) experience.

As an aside, the retailer Roman Originals would later confirm the dress was blue with black lace, and that a white dress with gold lace was not offered among the clothing line.

We've learned a lot from the viral image.

The viral image holds a lesson in why people disagree—and how we can learn to better understand each other.

It was not a tranquil time. People argued with their friends about the very basics of reality. Spouses vehemently disagreed. Each and every person was on one side or the other side. It could be hard to imagine how anyone in their right mind could hold an opinion different from your own.

I’m talking, of course, about “the dress,” which went viral on Feb. 26, 2015. To recap: A cellphone picture of a wedding guest’s dress, uploaded to the internet, sharply divided people into those who saw it as white and gold and those who saw it in black and blue—even if they were viewing it together, on the very same computer or phone screen.

The notorious dress, under natural lighting conditions, is unambiguously black and blue, for (almost) everyone who saw it in person, or in other photographs. It was just the one image, snapped by a mother of a bride and uploaded to Tumblr by one of her daughter’s friends, that caused so much disagreement. How can it be that there is such strong consensus about the colors of the actual dress, but such striking disagreements about its colors in this particular image? This is not a debate about people seeing different shades of gray: blue and gold are categorically different colors, not even in the same neighborhood on the color wheel.

A better explanation is that DOGE is functioning as a stress test of the federal bureaucracy.

Stress tests are not designed to produce immediate, permanent fixes. They are designed to apply pressure and observe outcomes: where systems bend, where they break, where they resist, and where supposed constraints turn out to be optional once incentives change. It is a drive to gather data, not repair issues.

Under this model, efficiency gains are not the primary goal. They are signal, evidence of latent capacity revealed under load. Resistance, delay, panic, and narrative hostility are also signal. They show where authority actually resides and which processes exist because they are necessary, versus merely habitual.

The Social Security Administration results fit this model precisely. When pressure was applied, performance improved quickly and measurably. That does not prove the system is now permanently fixed. It shows something more revealing: The capacity was there all along. //

This interpretation aligns closely with how Elon Musk has repeatedly operated across very different domains.

Musk does not treat institutions as abstract ideals. Thinking like an engineer, he treats them as systems that must be tested under real conditions. His approach favors empirical stress over theoretical reassurance and exposure over simulation.

One of the clearest expressions of this philosophy is SpaceX’s use of the acronym RUD, “rapid unscheduled disassembly,” referred to by most people as a big old explosion. Rockets are pushed until they fail. Failure is not an embarrassment, but rather a valuable data collection moment. Each breakdown reveals load-bearing assumptions that no white paper can surface.

The goal is not to avoid failure at all costs. The goal is to fail fast enough, visibly enough, to learn where the system’s true limits are, and to learn it quickly.

Viewed through this lens, DOGE’s behavior becomes coherent. //

From a stress-test perspective, controversy is not proof of failure. It is proof that pressure reached something structural.

Emily Katz Anhalt’s latest book, Ancient Wisdom for Polarized Times, makes a powerful case for relearning the lessons of Herodotus.

Though ancient Greek historian Thucydides is arguably the father of political science, he was preceded on the scene by the father of history, Herodotus. Though some have called him the father of lies because of the tall tales he tells in his Histories, Herodotus’ account of the war between Greece and Persia marks the first attempt in the West to analyze battles, cultures, and political leaders in such a way as to construct a meaningful narrative that sheds light on the forces that propel history. //

In today’s volatile political environment, reality is under siege. Influential voices at all extremes of the political kaleidoscope—some cynical opportunists, some blinded by ideological certainties—craft narratives and interpretations drawn not from fact but from fantasy. Purveyors of falsehoods prey on human gullibility.  … Extremists gain powerful support from anyone uninterested in learning facts or unwilling to moderate an opinion based on evidence and logic. Some argue that we are each entitled to our own reality, or that objective facts are inherently prejudicial, or that factual evidence is fake news. Captivated by misleading and demonstrably false narratives, we forfeit our capacity for compassionate, humane interactions and we imperil human survival itself.

What Herodotus offers to moderns trapped in such an environment is a method for assessing the past and the present that is grounded in evidence and the proper interpretation of that evidence. “Herodotus introduced the concept of objective truth, derived not from personal preference or authoritative pronouncement (whether by a political or divine authority) but from factual investigation and empirical deduction and analysis,” Anhalt notes. Though it is true that Herodotus includes fanciful stories and bizarre legends in his Histories, he also provides the necessary criteria for evaluating their veracity.

Whereas Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey and Hesiod’s Theogony and Works and Days begin with invocations of the muse, Herodotus writes on his own authority; indeed, the first word of his book is his name! Like Homer, he recounts memorable deeds, but he does so in a way that excludes the actions and interventions of the gods. Instead, he “concentrates on human conduct, beliefs, and choices and their consequences. Not divine but human behavior emerges as a potent force for change in human events.” //

“For Herodotus, the human capacity for self-deception constitutes an unseen but determinative force in human life. Three powerful autocrats—Croesus, Astyages, Cyrus—deceive themselves into thinking that supernatural signs validate their desires and confer control over future events. … Nothing compels Croesus to attack Persia, Astyages to try to kill his grandson, or Cyrus to attack the Massegetai. They just want to,” she writes. “Lust for greater territory and power, like a king’s lust for his own wife [Candaules] or sailors’ greed for a passenger’s money, needs no further explanation. But self-deception feeds human appetites and makes supernatural signs worse than useless.”

The human propensity for self-deception is often highlighted in the Histories, a fatal flaw that can only be overcome by “self-reflection and self-restraint,” the very things that Herodotus’ barbarian autocrats lack. And yet, the Athenians are not above a little self-deception of their own. //

Why then, if the Greeks are as susceptible to deception as the barbarians, were they able to defeat the Persians? Because their sense of history and of the repeated patterns of cause and effect that connect one generation to the next empowered them to learn from the past. (Anhalt intriguingly argues that the Greek word for truth, aletheia, means “not forgetting.”)

Persian autocrats like Darius and Xerxes, on the other hand, refused to study, consider, or be instructed by past errors. “While discussion enables the Greeks to absorb facts and recognize wise counsel, the Persians ignore factual evidence and fail to learn from previous experience,” she notes. In his preparation for the decisive naval battle of Salamis, she further observes, “Persian king [Xerxes] makes unilateral decisions. He lacks discernment and access to dissenting opinions. He draws incorrect inferences from misleading external appearances. In contrast, Greeks benefit from constructive debate.”

Another way of saying this that most readers will recognize from their schooldays is that Xerxes falls prey to the consequences of hubris. However, whereas most of us were taught that hubris means overweening pride, Anhalt argues that “hubris in Greek meant excessive, unrestrained desire, ambition, and overconfidence. It frequently involved impulsive, short-sighted violence, specifically violence redounding to the harm of the perpetrator. … In Greek, the opposite of hubris is not ‘humility’ or ‘modesty’ but sōphrosunē, meaning ‘wisdom,’ ‘prudence,’ ‘self-restraint,’ ‘moderation,’ even ‘chastity.’ … [Hubris is that which] liberates the ruler’s most violent impulses and frees him to wreak havoc.” It makes him believe that he can, like the gods, fulfill his sexual lusts without consequences. So fall the tyrants of the earth.

Despite his proclivity for sparking controversy, Kirk’s real interest lies in changing his followers’ behavior. //

Kirk said he hopes his calls for young adults to lead a more meaningful life will actually result in them spending less time on social media. He has cautioned his young fans against becoming enamored by “deep-internet theories” taking the form of white supremacy, misogyny and antisemitism.

In recent Q&As Kirk has condemned those who “want to point and blame Jews for all their problems,” which he characterized as “hyper-online brain rot” that is becoming increasingly common, especially among “young white men.”

Kirk’s antidote is to channel young people’s frustration “toward the transcendent” instead of “tearing everything down.” More often than not transgressive conspiracies directly contradict scripture, according to Kirk.

In the face of “women-hating,” for example, Kirk reminds listeners that the New Testament teaches men to love their wife like Christ loved the church. Kirk is confident that much of the internet’s fringe rightwing commentary “can be easily debunked or dismissed.” But he feels a personal responsibility to provide a positive alternative.

“My job every single day is actively trying to stop a revolution,” Kirk said. “This is where you have to try to point them toward ultimate purposes and toward getting back to the church, getting back to faith, getting married, having children. That is the type of conservatism that I represent, and I’m trying to paint a picture of virtue, of lifting people up, not just staying angry.” //

However, Kirk has given his opponents plenty to react to, from calling Martin Luther King Jr. an awful person, to arguing that while ending segregation was good the Civil Rights Act was a mistake, to telling young women to prioritize starting a family over their careers and questioning whether certain Muslim elected officials are real Americans. //

Increasingly Kirk, who identifies as an evangelical Christian, has described his project in spiritual terms — using technology and talking-points to trigger a cultural Great Awakening. But the next American revival won’t happen on TikTok, and it won’t be spurred by political triumphs alone, Kirk says. It will show up in rising church attendance, marriage rates and childbirths.

RedState reported Saturday that Turning Point USA had seen an unbelievable 18,000 new requests for chapters following the heinous assassination of TPUSA co-founder and CEO Charlie Kirk on Wednesday.

They’ve awoken a sleeping giant: //

But if you think that’s the end of the story, no—it's just the beginning. That already humongous number has now soared to over 32,000 as of this writing. //

"To put that in perspective, TPUSA currently has 900 official college chapters and around 1,200 high school chapters... //

"Charlie's vision to have a Club America chapter (our high school brand) in every high school in America (around 23,000) will come true much, much faster than he could have ever possibly imagined," Kolvet added, calling the response to expand Kirk's mission "truly incredible."

In a separate post, Kolvet wrote, "This is the Turning Point."

Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she feels “cheated” after she won a concession in the recently passed tax and spending law to protect wind and solar projects, only to see the president and his administration issue recent orders that she said seem designed to quickly quash such projects.

“I feel cheated,” she said in an interview Friday. “I feel like we made a deal and then hours later, a deal was made to somebody else.” //

bk
5 hours ago
“I feel cheated.” --Sounds like what Alaskans say about having elected a purported Republican.

Pride among Democrats tumbles, while independents also hit new low, more than offsetting increase among Republicans //

A record-low 58% of U.S. adults say they are “extremely” (41%) or “very” (17%) proud to be an American, down nine percentage points from last year and five points below the prior low from 2020. The 41% who are “extremely proud” is not statistically different from prior lows of 38% in 2022 and 39% in 2023, indicating most of the change this year is attributable to a decline in the percentage who are “very proud.” //

In January 2001, when Gallup first asked Americans how proud they were, 87% said they were extremely or very proud. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the figure increased to 90%, and it held at that level or higher between 2002 and 2004.

The percentage who were extremely or very proud dropped to 83% in 2005, but it did not vary significantly from that mark for the next 11 years. In 2017, a new low of 75% said they were proud, and national pride has deteriorated further since then.

This supposed falling out may be making a mountain out of a molehill. In 1931, the American chewing gum model William Wrigley Jr., speaking to "The American Magazine," said:

Business is built by men who care—care enough to disagree, fight it out to a finish, get facts. When two men always agree, one of them is unnecessary.

All indications are that the Democrat Party is in big trouble.

Let’s look back at American political history. This country has had a tradition of having two broad and ideologically fluid coalition parties that contest with each other across the nation. Over our history, two of these American parties have disappeared from existence – the Federalists and the Whigs.

How and why did this happen?

The length's the Democrats went to in order to cover up Biden's various ailments is wild, but their willingness to believe their own lies is, in my opinion, even wilder.

But this is what the tribe requires. You cannot give the truth any quarter, even if it's standing there in broad daylight. You must embrace the lie, even at the cost of your own integrity and reputation. This is the tribal law of the left.

Embrace the lie until it becomes truth, no matter how long it takes for that transformation to happen.

This is one of the reasons the legacy media is in such dire straits. Thanks to various internet websites like X, Rumble, and even YouTube, the truth is far more visible than it's been in the past. The shelf-life of the lie is much smaller than it used to be, yet the tribal law of the left doesn't allow for this to be recognized. They'll stare you straight in the face and tell you the sky is green as you sit under a baby-blue, cloudless day, and when you tell them to look up, they'll look at you like you're stupid in hopes you'll start feeling that way.

But fewer and fewer people are starting to feel the pressure they once were capable of exerting.

This column really has two audiences. The first is moderate Republicans who are getting in the way of major fiscal reforms necessary to correct decades of financial irresponsibility. The second is Republican leadership who, in all honesty, are in a tough position trying to herd a bunch of unruly cats with personality disorders ranging from extreme anxiety to a desire to fight everything that moves.

Throughout this entire chaotic budget fight over the One Big Beautiful Bill, a dangerous delusion has begun creeping back into the Republican Party, especially among the moderate class and some in GOP leadership. It’s this belief they are getting once again that they won’t be able to win and stay in power if they don’t moderate on some of their positions. //

Trump didn’t win the presidency by compromising on his positions. Republicans didn’t retake the Senate by tacking to the center. The House didn’t hold together by hedging on tough issues. Conservative ideas won because voters rejected the Democrats’ failures and backed the vision Republicans offered. Republicans, in a moment of rare competence, had plans. The Democrats had fear.

Moderates want you to believe otherwise. They’re pushing to water down conservative reforms, cut deals on spending, avoid social issues, and retreat from the cultural battles that defined the campaign. Why? Because they think it’ll save their seats in the 2026 midterms. They’re even now still floating the idea that Roe v. Wade being overturned was bad and that Planned Parenthood funding is an issue we should let slide.

Medicaid reform? Don’t touch it. Budget cuts? Political suicide, they claim.

But if 2022 taught us anything, it’s that poor candidates, not conservative ideas, hurt the GOP’s momentum. And while the GOP should have won in Georgia, Arizona, and Pennsylvania, they didn’t because the candidates were terrible and were awful messengers of the alternative Republicans promised.

And in 2024, conservative messaging delivered wins across the board. There is zero evidence that elected Republicans trimming conservative principles from their governing style helps them win. None. The voters who turned out for Trump didn’t do so because they wanted moderation. They did it because they wanted action on the multiple issues that came with Democratic governance under the Biden administration. //

I’ll be blunt: Moderate politicians didn’t get us Republican governance. Conservatives did. And moderate voters looked between the progressive and conservative politicians and decided that the conservative ones had the best ideas for getting us out of the mess we were (and still are) in. //

Here’s what’s really happening: the moderates are scared. They’re afraid of being unpopular for five minutes on MSNBC and CNN. They’re afraid of upsetting entrenched interests. They’re afraid of standing firm on conservative values because they might get uncomfortable headlines.

But guess what? The voters who elected you don’t care about your cable news appearances. They care about results.

They care about whether you meant it when you said you’d cut the size of government. They care about whether you’ll hold the line on spending. They care about whether you’ll stand up for their values, not compromise them away to keep a seat warm.

The American people are tired of promises. They’re tired of Republicans winning elections only to govern like Democrats. I won’t go so far as to say they want bold, unapologetic leadership instead of political triangulation, but I will point out that they did elect Donald Trump twice. //

This isn’t about ideology for ideology’s sake. It’s about governing with integrity. Voters gave conservatives a mandate—so act like it. That means keeping our promises. That means following through. That means stop being afraid of doing what’s right just because it’s not easy.

You weren’t elected to be safe. You were elected to be bold. So grow a spine, get back in the fight, and give the voters the leadership they were promised. //

bocmatt
6 hours ago
I believe most of the "Moderates" are not moderates, they are Democrats who can't win in red areas so they run as Republicans. They MAY be moderate Dems at their core, but still are not reliable. Andrew Wikow calls them "the republican wing of the democratic party". Sounds about right.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

I can't help but hear Lewis say that in my head whenever I hear about the left's approval of violence, or even lately, assassination. //

According to a Rutgers Social Perception Lab-Network Contagion Research Institute brief, 55.2% of Americans on the left “reported that if someone murdered Donald Trump, they would be at least somewhat justified.” Overall, 38.5% hold the same belief. //

I see a lot of people who talk about the left's violent tendencies and wonder how people can think that this kind of evil should be permissible.

Easy. They don't see it as evil. //

They don't see that what they're advocating for is inherently evil because they've been told repeatedly that evil is what they're standing against. //

There’s nothing Christian about Never Trumpers’ smear tactics against faithful believers. //

This year’s award for best use of shame-and-smear tactics, however, goes to French. Since the election, he has taken off the gloves. The Trump presidency is the result not of many constituencies that used to vote Democrat stitched together. No, this presidency and what French terms “chaos and cruelty” are the gifts of the white evangelical church, whom he calls to “repentance.”

What makes French’s arguments inflammatory is that he willfully ignores the failings of Democrats. French chastises the current administration for pardoning “their own thugs” but will not mention Biden pardoning his influence-peddling son or many others, apparently by autopen. America has failed to live up to its ideals, but when searching for an example, French retreats to Jim Crow and slavery. What about the left’s recent and glaring failures to live up to ideals, like selling the body parts of babies or saddling children’s futures with unnecessary school closings? The last four years hold a plethora of possibilities for failed American ideals.

When asked if he could find anything notable in Trump’s policies, French reluctantly cited a more controlled border. Nothing else good to see here. He lays the failures of this administration squarely at the feet of conservative Christians. But he takes no responsibility for the sins of the radical Democrat leaders he supported. French wraps his finger-pointing in compassion and Jesus language.

As a marriage therapist and a Christian, this sort of shaming, where one party must always be “the bad one,” is a bright red flag. This is the kiss of death in relationships, and it’s a deep disservice to the church.

It is also especially odd coming from Christians. Our theology insists all human nature is flawed and thus no one has a corner on goodness or truth. We see through a glass darkly until Jesus returns. It might be a good idea to cut each other some slack, clean up our own backyard, and work harder to “preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” Since we are sitting in the same pews, and all that.

Are there any real and credible statistics supporting a menacing movement by Christians seeking to theocratize America with neo-Naziism? //

What fills the dark vacuum remaining when Christian culture is chased away? Look around you and see the bombardment of Western civilization once founded upon God’s Word and Christ’s church. God is the sovereign Lord of all human institutions and history, and faith in God’s providence has never justified a retreat from vocational obligations in the public sphere and the gifts of God of which we are called to be godly stewards.

Furthermore, Christians who criticize and discourage active Christian political participation indirectly embrace a national anti-Christian religion that unabashedly pursues the demise of the Kingdom of God and the gospel on earth. Which is a greater threat to church and society: the rhetorical phantom of Christian nationalism, or the real phenomenon of Christian apathy?

*A longer version of this article first appeared in the theology journal Gottesdienst.

Indiana’s state treasurer repeatedly stood against big banks canceling accounts and releasing customer data of Christians and conservatives for viewpoint discrimination. A pending must-pass bill in Indiana’s Republican-run legislature would strip some of Treasurer Daniel Elliott’s powers and could give them to those same banks.

A measure currently part of state budget negotiations due to conclude April 29 would demote Elliott from manager of a $3 billion local government investment fund to one of a five-member board managing that fund. Three other members of the board would be banking executives. The fifth would be the director of Indiana’s Department of Financial Institutions, the state’s bank regulator.

The arrangement would create a financial conflict of interest because any bank stands to benefit from where these government funds are invested. The measure currently inside must-pass House Bill 1001 is being pushed by the Indiana Bankers’ Association

In Winston Churchill: The Roaming Lion, a six-hour course, Dr. Larry Arnn examines Winston Churchill's life, philosophy, and political legacy through a comprehensive analysis of his military experiences, leadership principles, and views on governance. The lectures explore Churchill's evolution from a soldier-writer to a statesman, highlighting his perspectives on warfare, democracy, and individual liberty, while examining how Britain's geography and history shaped his strategic thinking. The course delves into Churchill's complex political philosophy, including his approach to just war, constitutional government, and the balance between social welfare and individual freedom.

“I consider Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez to be the leader of the Democratic Party," Kennedy declared.

He then just killed the room and sent them all off into gales of laughter, “She's entitled to her opinion. I'm entitled to mine. As I've said before, I think she’s the reason there are directions on a shampoo bottle. Our plan for dealing with her is Operation Let Her Speak.”. //

anon-ia42
31 minutes ago
She also the reason for the warning on hair dryers.......do not use this appliance.....in the shower.