IF WE COULD ONLY DO THAT GOVERNMENTWIDE: Success: EPA set to cut nearly 50% of staff in Trump’s first term.

NARRATOR: IT WASN’T AT ALL CURIOUS. A Curious Thing Happened When Ontario Hiked Minimum Wages By Over 20%.

Employees at the Tim Hortons locations owned by the children of the co-founders of the franchise say they have reduced employee benefits and cut back paid breaks to help offset Ontario’s $2.40 jump in hourly minimum wage.

Jeri Horton-Joyce and Ron Joyce Jr. wrote a letter to employees at their two Tim Hortons restaurants in Cobourg, Ont., that those who want to continue receiving dental and health benefits will have to pay a portion of the plan’s costs themselves. Those working at the restaurant for more than five years will have to pay half, while those working from more than six months to five years will pay 75 per cent.

Employee breaks will also no longer be compensated, the letter dated December 2017 read. For example, those working nine-hour shifts will be paid for eight hours and 20 minutes, while those on three-hour blocks will be paid for two hours and 45 minutes.

“We apologize for these changes,” the letter, widely circulated on social media, read. “Once the costs of the future are better known we may bring back some or all of the benefits we have had to remove.”

At least they didn’t lose their jobs to robots — yet.

HUGE NEWS IN ANTI-VOTER-FRAUD: A federal judge on Monday ended the longstanding consent decree against the RNC for “ballot security” activities.

WITH BOMBAST AND TO THE SOUND OF HEADS EXPLODING? How Trump Can Cut Aid to a Horrible U.N. Program.

GOING GARBANZO FOR PEACE: Israeli and Palestinian Comedians Think Hummus Can Help Bring Peace to the Middle East.

TAXPROF: The IRS Scandal, Day 1706: Lois Lerner, Liberty, And Bureaucracy.

BRACE YOURSELVES: What to Expect from the Pentagon’s First-Ever Audit.

Hopefully its findings will also expose some of the waste, fraud, and abuse that Congress cites as problematic. The Department of Defense is a government agency and bureaucracy—a highly respected and exalted institution—but prone to the same inefficiencies that plague the EPA and Department of Interior, for example. Until now, the DOD successfully evaded opening its books, with critics citing concerns that such scrutiny could expose national-security secrets. Others warn that an audit could undermine our troops by compelling them to divert attention away from core missions.

The first argument—that an audit could expose sensitive material—is weak. Congress already publicly debates the defense budget down to the line item level on a near-constant basis. Those of us outside of the bureaucracy are also invited to critique and contribute to that debate. What none of us currently know, however, is the other half of the equation. When taxpayer dollars are appropriated for a particular program, how are those dollars actually spent, and what is our return on investment? These answers should help policymakers increase national security, not compromise it.

The second argument assumes that soldiers and civil servants shouldn’t bear the burden of fiscal responsibility because they’re too busy safeguarding our liberties. Granted, most people working in government don’t think they should be exempted from oversight in that way—they try to go about their jobs in the most efficient way possible. It is telling that Comptroller Norquist is treating the audit as an opportunity to show that, by and large, the billions the DOD spends every year is spent wisely. The only way you get that assurance is with a comprehensive audit of the accounts.

The military does an amazing job, but we don’t get nearly as much defense as we pay for.

LESS MCCOY, MORE SPOCK: An Emotional America.

Americans on average have been paying more attention to emotions as a guide for their judgments, and the result has been to make the national discourse even more fraught with complexity. Admittedly, at one level, to speak of an excess of emotionality might seem like a no-brainer, as we note the easily derided emotional sensitivities of the “snowflakes” on the Left or the intriguing mixture of fear and anger in Trumpland. But the issue deserves more careful attention. We need to sort out the trends with greater precision, and to note some revealing selectivity in the emotions most commonly indulged.5

My overall contention here is this: that growing individualism, with its increasing focus on self-expression, is facilitating the expression of a widening array of emotions, creating a sense that emotional construction is becoming a genuine reality in its own right; and that this impulse is affecting both sides of the political spectrum. Other developments have shaped this trend as well—from increasingly emotional newscasts to a growing acceptance of the language of therapy in everyday discourse.

Hence Oprah talking about “your truth” rather than, you know, the truth.

FASTER? PLEASE! Panasonic promises 20 times faster airplane Wi-Fi.

Panasonic announced that its third generation of satellite-based airborne connectivity will be 20 times faster than previous versions of bringing you Internet connectivity in the sky.

Panasonic North America CEO Tom Gebhardt made the announcement at the Japanese electronics company’s press event at CES 2018, the big tech trade show this week in Las Vegas.

“Our third-generation communication network is a step function change,” Gebhardt said.

The airlines Southwest and United will start installing the new system this quarter.

“It will greatly improve connectivity, and open the possibility of video streaming in the sky,” Gebhardt said.

Inflight Wifi is a great option, but sometimes it’s better to leave your laptop/tablet/phone in your bag and pull out the Kindle instead.

PRETTY DAMNING STUFF: Here’s James Damore’s complaint in his suit against Google.

In light of the allegations here, I think the Justice Department should probably investigate.

THEY TOLD ME IF TRUMP WERE ELECTED, OPEN RACISM WOULD RUN WILD. AND THEY WERE RIGHT! Report confirms Native American prof harassed white student.

AT AMAZON, Hot New Releases, Updated Hourly.

Plus, new Kindle Daily Deals.

And, today’s Digital Deals.

EMBRACE THE SUCK ALERT: Yes, the second edition is in print. And there’s a Kindle version.

LIZ SHELD’S MORNING BRIEF: President OPRAH! Fusion GPS Continuing Trump Work and Much, Much More.

TIME: How Oprah Could Beat Donald Trump at His Own Game in 2020.

Based on the response to Winfrey’s speech on Sunday, she could easily command entire news cycles with a mix of TV appearances and public events, as Trump did in 2016, earning what MediaQuant estimated was $4.6 billion in free air time.

She would be entering a crowded Democratic field that will likely include a mix of former politicians, up-and-comers who aren’t well known nationally yet and third-tier contenders, as Trump did in 2016, winning as his opponents failed to coalesce behind a single rival.

She would have no prior record in elected office and only sporadic comments on various issues in the past, allowing her to run an aspirational campaign without releasing any detailed plans, as Trump did in 2016.

If she wanted to — and there’s no reason to believe she actually does — Winfrey could easily come from nowhere to dominate the Democratic field and upend the plans of countless strategists, Beltway insiders and party officials. Even if she didn’t win the nomination, she would exert a gravitational pull on the entire field.

The way the playing field is shaping up for 2020, a Democrat must win everything Clinton won in 2016*, plus claw back Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. That might not seem too difficult, unless one considers that if Trump continues to deliver jobs and wage increases to the white working class, then PA, MI, and WI — plus Minnesota and maybe Colorado and Nevada — will all be trending Red, not Blue.

I’m not sure that Oprah — whose natural constituency doesn’t lie far outside Hillary’s, if at all — is the candidate Hollywood thinks she is.

*Although not necessarily the popular vote, for our progressive friends who think that means something.

THE QUESTION IS, WILL THESE PROSECUTORS FACE DISCIPLINE? WILL ANY BE FIRED? Judge Dismisses Bundy Case With Prejudice After Finding of Extensive Unethical Conduct By Federal Prosecutors.

Another major case has been thrown out due to prosecutorial abuse by the United States Department of Justice. We have previously discussed cases where federal prosecutors have withheld evidence and filed false or misleading statements to the court. Now, U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro has issued a dismissal with prejudice against the Justice Department in the case against Cliven Bundy and his sons due to what Navarro describes as flagrant and knowing violations of professional ethics and federal law by the Justice Department. In past cases, the Justice Department has shown little commitment to discipline, let alone terminate, anyone for the violations (or the waste of millions of dollars). In this case, however, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has called for a review of the case.

Once again, the Justice Department has been accused of violating the Brady Rule, the foundational evidentiary rule that requires prosecutors to discussed potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense. The Justice Department has been a serial violator of Brady for decades.

While many judges seem to struggle to avoid findings of misconduct against federal prosecutors, Navarro remained firm in upholding the basic tenets of judicial independence and integrity. By dismissing with prejudice, she barred the Justice Department from trying the defendants again in light of the misconduct of the federal prosecutors.

This was a disgrace, and I hope that Sessions’ review produces more than the whitewash or wrist-slap that I expect.

WELL, IT’S AN EXAMPLE OF WHY, ANYWAY: Michael Wolff’s ‘Fire and Fury’ is why Americans don’t trust the media.

Wolff’s account of the White House is, however, literally unbelievable. His account implies that President Trump did not know who John Boehner was at a time when Boehner and Trump were frequent golfing buddies. Multiple members of the White House have disputed what he quoted them saying, while the way that Wolff’s account is written makes it impossible for readers to discern if Wolff was actually there or is recreating conversations based on interviews with unnamed sources. Wolff recreates situations that some subjects have disputed ever occurred.

The White House has not disputed everything written in the book, nor disputed that Wolff did indeed have a kind of access to the White House for a period of time that was unprecedented among members of the media. But the way that Wolff has apparently played fast and loose with quotes, facts, and more in his work of nonfiction is a reason that can be used to dismiss his entire account.

Personally, I’m more and more inclined to judge Trump by what he actually does in office, not by what he allegedly says behind the scenes. And that’s looking pretty good.

THIS STILL STINKS: FBI agents’ text messages spur congressional probe into possible news leaks. “In one exchange, FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and bureau lawyer Lisa Page engaged in a series of texts shortly before Election Day 2016 suggesting they knew in advance about an article in The Wall Street Journal and would need to feign stumbling onto the story so it could be shared with colleagues.”

SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP: Cameron’s ‘bromance’ with Obama a myth, claims ex-adviser Steve Hilton. “Ex-PM thought Obama was narcissistic, says Steve Hilton while lambasting Fire and Fury book’s claims about Trump.”

Do tell:

Steve Hilton, one of Cameron’s closest advisers before the pair fell out over immigration and Brexit last year, made the comments during the latest instalment of his show, The Next Revolution, on Fox News.

Discussing Michael Wolff’s new book, Fire and Fury, Hilton said any claims by elitists and the establishment that Donald Trump was mentally unfit for the presidency came second to Trump’s promotion of a pro-worker, populist agenda on immigration, infrastructure, trade and the fight against China.

He went on to emphasise the shortcomings of Trump’s predecessors, adding: “My old boss, former British prime minister David Cameron, thought Obama was one of the most narcissistic, self-absorbed people he’d ever dealt with.

“Obama never listened to anyone, always thought he was smarter than every expert in the room, and treated every meeting as an opportunity to lecture everyone else. This led to real-world disasters, like Syria and the rise of Isis.”

But the real world did not matter to the elites, Hilton said. “For them, it’s all about style and tone, not substance and results. Donald Trump offends the elites aesthetically, like a piece of art that’s not to their taste.

When you allow taste to trump policy — and I’m addressing Bill Kristol directly here — you’ve elevated mere snobbery to a governing philosophy.

And you should expect the deplorables to respond accordingly.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: Is Trump Really Crazy?

Of course, any president lax enough to let a Wolff through the door inevitably would be embarrassed by the results, given that all administrations can be petty, even gross.

Lyndon Johnson had a repulsive habit of referring openly to his sexual organ as “Jumbo”—and occasionally displaying it to startled staffers—a felony in our present culture. Worse still, he often gave dictation while defecating on the toilet.

John Kennedy crudely seduced dozens of his own female staffers. One, Mimi Alford, who came to work a 19-year-old virgin, wrote an entire memoir of her mechanical trysts inside the White House with JFK, including his inaugural seduction, which, by any contemporary definition, would now qualify as sexual assault. She lamented that he once had pawned her off to fellate one of his aides. A perverted rapist as our beloved commander-in-chief? No need to imagine a Wolff version of the Clinton White House.

I could an imagine a Wolff in FDR’s White House circa early 1945 having a field day: jazzing up the clandestine nocturnal trysts between the wheelchair-bound president and his mistress Lucy Mercer. His daughter Anna would be exposed as the go-between, the upstart young proto-Ivanka who had moved into the White House and became virtually a ceremonial First Lady.

All the while the Roosevelt team would struggle to lie to the press about the president’s sky-high blood pressure, chain-smoking, martini drinking, and growing feebleness. In place of Steve Bannon’s shoot-from-the-hip notions of geopolitics, a Harry Hopkins or freelancing and estranged Eleanor Roosevelt could offer mini-interviews on the administration’s successful politicking with good old Uncle Joe at Yalta. The difference is that FDR had the press in his pocket and even was too crafty to trust any of his “friends” with unfettered access. . . .

Wolff’s ogre purportedly sloppily eats Big Macs in bed, golfs more than Obama did, has no hair at all on the top of his head, and at 71 is supposedly functionally illiterate. OK, perhaps someone the last half-century read out loud to Trump the thousands of contracts he signed. But what we wish to know from Wolff is how did his trollish Trump figure out that half the country—the half with the more important Electoral College voice—was concerned about signature issues that either were unknown to or scorned by his far more experienced and better-funded rivals?

Why did not a well-read Marco Rubio or later Yale Law graduate Hillary Clinton focus on unfair trade and declining manufacturing, illegal immigration, unnecessary and optional overseas interventions, and the excesses of the deep administrative “swamp” state?

Who discovered these issues or knew how to develop them? Was it really the feisty Corey Lewandowski? The genius Paul Manafort? How, then, could Wolff’s idiot grasp that these concerns were the keys to flipping purple swing-states that had previously been written off as reliably Democratically patronized clinger/irredeemable/deplorable territory by far better informed and more tech-savvy campaign operatives?

Once Trump was in power, how does Wolff explain the near phenomenal economic turnaround in the latter part of 2017? Does he not see that the stupider you make Trump in his successful first year, by inference the even stupider you make the supposedly smarter actors in their many failed years?

Yeah if Trump’s really that much of a dolt, how much worse is Hillary for losing to him — and Barack for failing to govern as well?

FALLEN ANGELS: Canada’s Carbon Taxes, Other Boondoggles Add Pain to Record Cold Winter.

MOLLIE HEMINGWAY: Treat ‘Mental Health’ Talk Against Trump Like The Coup Attempt It Is.

Trump is unlike any previous president of the United States. Voters knew this when they chose him over Hillary Clinton. And there is nothing about Trump now that suggests his mental state is any different or worse or dangerous than when voters elected him, or when they first encountered him on gossip pages and in reality television decades ago.

To suggest otherwise is to undermine the democratic election of presidents, and to do so would be far more damaging to the country than anything Trump’s actually done. It is particularly noteworthy that members of an elite are calling for his ouster when Trump’s election was partly in response to anger at mismanagement by members of the media and political establishment.

Talk of mental health and a 25th Amendment removal, “by force if necessary,” is talk of a coup, just as it was in the TV show “24.”

This and all the Oprah talk is all you need to know about the depth and breadth of the Democratic bench.