theater? Because she really looks like an actress when she goes on TV. She emotes more than any normal person you've ever met. She puts on quite a show. So she's good at that, good at putting on a show, and obviously good at retaining power and maybe even really good for the teachers. I don't know. Maybe she's doing a good job for teachers, but it's not doing a good job for her students. That's not her job. Her job is not to make the students happy. It's to make the teachers happy and to make the Democrats happy.

But she's really mad, really mad. She's spitting mad, she says, about the Department of Education being wound down or decreased. Now, let me do a quick survey. Since there have already been some changes there, is anybody, does anybody have children that are getting dumber because the Department of Education is under attack? Anybody? Is there anybody who had children who used to be able to spell and do math but suddenly they can't? Is there anybody whose children benefited in any way from the Department of Education as far as you can tell? Is there anybody besides the people directly fired who, in all of the different government DOGE-related activities, is there anybody whose life has gotten worse because of anything that DOGE has done so far? I haven't felt the impact.

Now, obviously it's a big impact to the people losing jobs, but is it an impact to the rest of the country? Because unfortunately we do have a system where if things don't work, you lose your job even if you were doing a good job. So it's not an ideal system. You know, capitalism is a brutal system, and competition is brutal, and evolution is brutal, but it does get you to a better place in the larger picture, not in the micro picture.

Anyway, so yeah, Randy Weingarten, she's really mad about that Department of Education, which some say is just another tool of the Democrats and not really something that was helping anybody get a better education. That's what the critics would say.

Well, let's talk about climate change. Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That is writing about a New York Post story. So New York Post wrote a story about the sea level changes around our big cities. So apparently the sea level is relatively higher in New York City and San Francisco and Los Angeles and other cities. And it's based on two things. One, the sea level seems to be getting higher, but it's also because there's, what's the word they use, subsidence. Subsidence. And what it means is that if you put a big city next to the water, there's a real good chance that it will just start sinking over time.

Now, part of it is because of excessive groundwater extraction. So as the groundwater is reduced under the city, there's just less there holding it up, so it sinks. Some of it is infrastructure issues. I don't know what that means. Sediment compaction and tectonic shifts. But climate is not part of that story. So with or without climate change, a city that just happens to be a city could naturally sink, and we know exactly why, and not because of climate change.

But the story got sort of conflated with the climate change predictions to make it look like, sure enough, climate change predicted exactly this. But there's no evidence that climate change did anything. And indeed the change i