The legal profession is under attack.

Paul, Weiss was I think the first major law firm to knuckle under to the Trump regime's threats. Click here for an article at The New York Times entitled "Rivals Pounce on Paul Weiss, a Top Law Firm, After Trump’s Order," subtitled "Fears that competitors could take its top rainmaking talent added to the law firm’s worries about a Trump executive order that targeted it."

It says: "President Trump’s executive order attacking Paul Weiss and severely restricting that law firm’s ability to represent its clients was widely seen by lawyers as a dangerous affront to the nation’s legal system."

The executive order "restricted the firm’s lawyers from dealing with the government, including entering federal buildings. The order also said companies doing business with Paul Weiss, which has deep ties to the Democratic Party and its causes, could lose their government contracts." 

Click here for another article at The Times with more detail on the deal, entitled "How a Major Democratic Law Firm Ended Up Bowing to Trump."

And click here for the text of the email, in an article at Business Insider entitled "Read the email Paul Weiss Chairman Brad Karp sent to staff after striking a deal with Trump: 'Clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata.'" Karp "has faced a barrage of public condemnation for making the deal, and many critics said it would only embolden the president to seek retribution against more law firms. Some of the criticism came from a group of roughly 140 Paul Weiss alumni who signed a letter to Mr. Karp, calling the decision to settle 'cowardly.'”

“It is a permanent stain on the face of a great firm that sought to gain a profit by forfeiting its soul,” the lawyers wrote in the letter, which was released publicly by Common Cause, a nonpartisan government watchdog.

Rival law firms, such as Sullivan & Cromwell and Kirkland & Ellis, "pounced" on Paul, Weiss, trying to entice its lawyers (with their lucrative client lists) to jump ship. How big is Paul, Weiss? "Top performers at big firms can take home more than $20 million a year. At Paul Weiss, which operates around the world and employs more than 2,000 people, the corporate practice is now the main source of revenue. The firm took in about $2.6 billion in total revenue in 2024, up from about $2 billion the year before."

Skadden, Arps is the latest giant law firm to cave to Trump's threats. Click here for an article at Business Insider entitled "Skadden made a deal with Trump. Associates on the inside say they're worried it's the beginning of the end for the firm."

Here's the resignation letter of Skadden, Arps attorney Brenna Trout Frey:

"Today the executive partner of my former firm sent us all an 'update' that attempted to convince some of the best minds in the legal profession that he did us a solid by capitulating to the Trump administration's demands for fealty and protection money. Fellow Skadden attorneys: If you agree with Jeremy London's position that the firm should not engage in 'illegal DEI discrimination,' should devote prestigious Skadden Fellows to the Trump administration's pet projects, and should help 'politically disenfranchised groups who have not historically received legal representation from major national firms,' (taking into account the robust pro bono work that major national law firms already do), then by all means continue working there. But if that email struck you as a craven attempt to sacrifice the rule of law for self-preservation, I hope you do some soul-searching over the weekend and join me in sending a message that this is unacceptable (in whatever way you can). As one of my more eloquent former colleagues put it: 'Do not pretend that what is happening is normal or excusable. It isn't.'

There is only one acceptable response from attorneys to the Trump administration's demands: The rule of law matters.

The rule of law matters. As an attorney, if my employer cannot stand up for the rule of law, then I cannot ethically continue to work for them."

Trump has recently issued yet another order, this time targeting Jenner & Block. "In a statement announcing the order, the White House said, “President Trump is delivering on his promise to end the weaponization of government.” 

Ending the weaponization of government! Wonderful, right?

Right?

Milly has two jobs.

I have two jobs.
1. Calm my human when she is stressed.
2. Stress my human when she is calm. pic.twitter.com/WYcCPqNh43

— MillyCat 🌈 and RovyCat 🇦🇺 (@millyfromoz) March 27, 2025

Three world records, one jump

Project 2025 Summarized by ChatGPT

I asked ChatGPT: In a few paragraphs, summarize project 2025. Here's the response (this entire article contains links you can click on for further information):

Project 2025 is a policy initiative led by the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, aiming to shape the U.S. federal government under a potential Republican administration in 2025. It serves as a roadmap for conservative governance, focusing on reducing federal bureaucracy, increasing executive power, and implementing right-leaning policies across various agencies.

The project includes a comprehensive policy agenda, covering areas such as the economy, immigration, education, healthcare, and social issues. It promotes deregulation, tax cuts, stricter immigration policies, and a rollback of progressive policies on climate change, LGBTQ+ rights, and diversity initiatives. It also emphasizes restructuring federal agencies to align with conservative priorities, limiting the influence of career bureaucrats, and increasing presidential control over government functions.

Additionally, Project 2025 includes a "Presidential Personnel Database" to help a future Republican administration quickly fill government positions with ideologically aligned individuals. The initiative is seen by supporters as a necessary effort to counter what they view as entrenched liberal influence in government, while critics argue it represents an attempt to centralize power and undermine democratic institutions.

I then asked: In a few paragraphs, summarize Section 1 of Project 2025, Taking the Reins of Government. Here's the response:

Section 1 of Project 2025, titled "Taking the Reins of Government," outlines a strategic framework for conservative leadership to assert comprehensive control over the executive branch. This section emphasizes the necessity for a conservative president to appoint individuals who are steadfastly committed to upholding the Constitution and advancing conservative values. It underscores the importance of aligning the federal workforce with the administration's ideological stance to effectively implement its agenda. ​YouTube

A key aspect of this strategy involves restructuring the White House's internal councils, specifically the National Security Council (NSC), the National Economic Council (NEC), and the Domestic Policy Council (DPC). By analyzing and potentially reorganizing these bodies, the administration aims to ensure that policy decisions across national security, economic, and domestic domains are closely coordinated and reflect the president's objectives. ​YouTubeProject 2025

Furthermore, the section advocates for a decisive approach to dismantling what it describes as the "administrative state." This involves reducing the influence of entrenched bureaucratic structures perceived as obstacles to conservative policy implementation. The objective is to streamline federal operations, enhance efficiency, and reinforce presidential authority over the executive branch. ​The Stennett Report

In summary, Section 1 of Project 2025 provides a blueprint for a conservative administration to assert control over the executive branch by appointing ideologically aligned personnel, restructuring key policy councils for cohesive decision-making, and reducing bureaucratic impediments to enforce its policy agenda effectively.​

For a more in-depth understanding, you might find this video helpful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv_e8T3XCR0

(I don't find it helpful at all. It's extreme MAGA propaganda about how they're striving to achieve wonderful goals while being careful to stay within the strictures of the Constitution -- yeah, right.)

More below.

Ukrainian Marta Kostyuk defeats Russian opponent

Click here to watch a trick serve for a game-winning ace, then Kostyuk waves off the handshake -- nice!

Caitlin Ruins Christmas.

This is Sooo good. Caitlin is funny AF! My Next Guest with David Letterman! APRIL 8 on Netflix! pic.twitter.com/w1bKlm92Fs

— Ken Swift (@kenswift) March 24, 2025

The Strange Evolution of Scott Adams

These are answers to a question posed at Quora: What's going on with Dilbert creator Scott Adams? Adams had a long and successful run with Dilbert, but then he started posting his point of view on political issues, which became increasingly bizarre. Eventually his readership of Dilbert turned against him. Here are a couple of paragraphs from his Wikipedia entry:

"In February 2023, Dilbert was dropped by numerous newspapers and its distributor, Andrews McMeel Syndication, after Adams published a video in which he referred to black people as a "hate group" and advised white people to "get the hell away from black people." Adams later said this was a use of hyperbole.

On June 28, 2020, Adams said on Twitter that the Dilbert TV show was cancelled because he was white and UPN had decided to focus on an African-American audience, and that he had been "discriminated against".

Adams then relaunched the strip as a webcomic on his locals.com website." Adams has compared women asking for equal pay to children demanding candy. After a 2022 mass shooting, Adams tweeted that society leaves parents of troubled teenage boys with only two options: to either watch people die, or murder their own son. He said his comments were inspired by his own stepson, who became addicted to drugs at the age of 14 and later died of a fentanyl overdose.

Here are a couple of responses to the question, the first by Scott Tow:

That’s a long story I probably wasted too much time following in detail, but maybe if I explain it, I can recover some value for that time spent. I was formerly a happy follower of Dilbert and Adams’s books, several of which I thought genuinely wise. Early in Trump’s campaign in 2015/2016, I’d concluded that Trump was a useless demagogue who wanted power only to benefit himself and his ego, a “leader” who would happily screw over most his followers, since the economic interests of most of us run very counter to the economic interests of the very rich, and the main, real power the president has is to choose which of those interests to favor. It appeared to me that Trump was good at conning his followers into thinking he was on their side, though. 

More below.

Another Trump outrage: FTC commissioner fired.

I am a commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission. The president just illegally fired me. This is corruption plain and simple. My full statement: pic.twitter.com/12HPZsbLTP

— Alvaro Bedoya (@BedoyaFTC) March 18, 2025

S&P Graph, Trump's first 50 days

🧵STAT(S) Of the Week:
Never Interrupt Your Enemy When They Are Making a Mistake

I think, and I believe many of you must agree, it is best to live and strategize in the world we actually live in and not the one we wished we lived in. pic.twitter.com/OEkYykuyMw

— Rachel Bitecofer 🗽🦆 (@RachelBitecofer) March 16, 2025

Grok: critical path analysis

I asked Grok to explain, in a few paragraphs, critical path analysis. They discuss CPA in quite a few of the depositions I do, and I have a sketchy understanding of what it is, but I thought it would be helpful if I understood it better.

Critical Path Analysis (CPA), also known as the Critical Path Method (CPM), is a project management technique used to identify the sequence of tasks that determines the minimum time required to complete a project. It’s particularly useful for complex projects with multiple interdependent activities, helping managers plan, schedule, and allocate resources effectively. The core idea is to map out all the tasks involved, their durations, and their dependencies, then determine the longest path through the project—the "critical path"—which dictates the shortest possible completion time. Any delay in tasks along this path will directly delay the entire project, making it a focal point for oversight.

To perform CPA, you start by listing all the tasks required to complete the project, along with their estimated durations and dependencies (i.e., which tasks must be finished before others can begin). These are then represented in a network diagram, where tasks are nodes or arrows, and lines show the relationships between them. Each path through the diagram is calculated by adding up the durations of its tasks, and the longest path becomes the critical path. Tasks on this path have zero "float" or slack, meaning there’s no room for delay without impacting the project timeline. Non-critical tasks, however, have float, allowing some flexibility in scheduling.

The benefits of CPA go beyond just identifying the critical path. It helps prioritize tasks, optimize resource use, and spot potential bottlenecks early. For example, if a critical task is at risk of delay, managers can reallocate resources or adjust schedules to keep things on track. It’s widely used in industries like construction, software development, and manufacturing, where timing is often tight and coordination is key. While it assumes task durations are fixed and known, real-world uncertainties can complicate things, so it’s often paired with risk analysis or software tools to refine accuracy. In essence, CPA turns a tangled web of tasks into a clear roadmap for getting the job done on time.

Ask Grok!

 Since 1989, which party has created more jobs?

Since 1989, the Democratic Party has been associated with significantly more job creation in the United States compared to the Republican Party. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, approximately 51.5 million net new jobs have been added to the U.S. economy from January 1989 through early 2025. Of these, around 50 million jobs—roughly 97%—were created during Democratic presidential administrations, while approximately 1.5 million jobs were created under Republican administrations.

 

This period spans the presidencies of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden. Democratic presidents (Clinton, Obama, and Biden) oversaw substantial job growth: Clinton with 23.2 million jobs, Obama with 10.5 million, and Biden with notable gains following the COVID-19 recovery (exact figures vary by end date but exceed 15 million through 2024). In contrast, Republican presidents (George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Trump) saw much lower net job growth: George H.W. Bush with 2.6 million, George W. Bush with 2.1 million, and Trump with a net loss of about 2.8 million due to the pandemic, though pre-COVID gains were positive.

 

While these numbers are accurate in terms of raw job creation during each administration, attributing job growth solely to the party in power oversimplifies the issue. Economic conditions, global events (like the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic), and congressional control also play significant roles. For instance, Republican-led recessions (1990–1991, 2007–2009, and 2020) often began or peaked during their terms, impacting net job figures, while Democratic administrations frequently benefited from recovery periods. Nonetheless, based purely on the data since 1989, the Democratic Party has presided over far more job creation than the Republican Party.