Once upon a time, the Academy of Arts and Picture Sciences vowed to make the interminably long Oscar ceremony shorter by any means necessary.

The Academy also tried to reign in the night’s incessant lecturing, with some modest success.

Now, as the film industry faces the very worst head winds in ages, including A.I. to audience indifference, both efforts got tossed in the scrap heap.

That meant Sunday’s Oscars gala was insanely long and chockablock with hard-Left messages. Free Palestine! Anti-Trump again and again. You name it, a presenter or award winner said it.

Big stars. Lesser-known talents. A united front in The Resistance, Part Deux. Hollywood does love its sequels.

None captured the night more than Javier Bardem, who hasn’t spared a syllable about the thousands slaughtered in Iran or the Israelis massacred on Oct. 7. The “F1” star barked “free Palestine and no war in Iran” the second he stepped before the microphone later in the show.

It didn’t begin that way.

Second-time host Conan O’Brien kicked off the night in good spirits, impersonating Aunt Gladys from “Weapons” for a wonderfully silly opening sketch. His monologue started strong, too.

“I’m proud to be the last human host of the academy awards,” he cracked, acknowledging the AI elephant in the room. He quickly made the night’s Resistance branding official.

“Last year, Los Angeles was on fire … this year, everything’s going great,” he said before doing the obligatory nod to ChalametGate.

This … could be worse.

Then, O’Brien channeled his inner Jimmy Kimmel.

“Tonight could get political,” he warned, but he offered a faux solution. “There’s an alternative Oscars hosted by Kid Rock at the Dave and Busters down the street.”

Dear right-leaning America. You may tune out now. And, likely, many who initially trusted O’Brien to stick to his apolitical brand did just that.

They were the lucky ones.

O’Brien cited the lack of British stars in the major acting categories, noting the response from an anonymous British official about that state of affairs.

“At least we arrest our pedophiles,” O’Brian said, a possible attempt to tie President Donald Trump to the Epstein Files, without evidence. The flawed premise was even more flawed than many thought.

Try Googling “British grooming gang scandal.” We’ll wait.

O’Brien dropped the comedy in the last part of the monologue, referencing, “chaotic, frightening times” and a plea for optimism.

Good luck with this crowd.

O’Brien cemented the activist mood with this hacky line.

“We’re coming to you live from the Has a Small Penis Theater. Let’s see him put his name in front of that,” O’Brien said.

No one actually uttered Trump’s name. They didn’t have to. He lives in their minds, forever influencing their actions and lectures.

From there, it was a blur of boredom, Identity Politics and anti-Trump slams.

O’Brien delivered a few pre-planned bits throughout the night, from the effective (a company making classic films fit your iPhone screen) to the lethargic (O’Brien acting like royalty while “winning” an Oscar).

A few highlights? Kumail Nanjiani suggesting more films should be shrunken to fit the “Live Short” format. Get more comedians on stage, and stat.

Sean Penn, as promised, was a no-show so Kieran Culkin accepted his Best Supporting Actor award for “One Battle After Another.”

He couldn’t be here, or didn’t want to,” the “Succession” alum muttered.

Here’s guessing that third Oscar will be Penn’s last, but could any actor truly hunger for more than that?

The standard In Memorium segment got super-sized for tragic reasons.

The Rob Reiner tribute, gracefully assembled by Billy Crystal and a gaggle of former Reiner cast members, hit all the right notes. Barbra Streisand gave a heartfelt tribute to the late,great Robert Redford that was more about her than him.

The industry did lose some giants in 2025, although highlighting Reiner, Keaton and Redford but not Robert Duvall came off as just plain wrong.

He’s as big a film icon as his peers. Maybe bigger.

RELATED: ‘REAGAN’ NOT DIVERSE ENOUGH FOR THE OSCARS

It’s hard to catalog the night’s virtue signal tally.

• I feel seen!
• This was a majority women crew!
• Our movie was “weird and queer!”

Even that In Memorium segment singled out late female artists for special consideration.

Except Rachel McAdams and co. couldn’t honor the late Brigitte Bardot, who appeared in more than 40 films. Maybe she said the wrong thing about the Culture Wars.

You couldn’t pen a better Oscars parody, from start to finish.

The night belonged to, what else, “One Battle After Another.”

The film won for Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Director and Best Picture, letting director Paul Thomas Anderson to give away the game in his speeches.

“I wrote this movie for my kids .. to say sorry for the housekeeping mess we left for the world we’re handing off to them,” Anderson said.

The rest of the night included a stilted “Bridesmaids” reunion that, like the gala, went on too long. Once again, major movie stars took the stage and fumbled their canned lines or said lines simply let them down.

The mini-“Avengers” reunion with Robert Downey, Jr. and Chris Evans proved a prime example. We can’t write better banter for these two pros?

For those happy to be spared a fifth Jimmy Kimmel hosting gig, that euphoria was short-lived. The late-night propagandist gave out the documentary awards and did what he always did.

Reveal his TDS may lap everyone not named Robert De Niro.

“We hear a lot about courage on shows like this,” Kimmel began, noting “some countries have leaders who don’t support free speech … I’m not at liberty to discuss them.”

Get it? Get it?

He then cited North Korea and CBS, the latter targeted for not wanting to lose $40 million a year for the honor of employing Stephen Colbert.

Kimmel wasn’t done. He then took not one but two swipes at “Melania,” a 2026 documentary that made more money than the vast, vast majority of nonfiction films.

It’s a movie about “walking around the White House trying on shoes,” Kimmel quipped. “Oh man, is he gonna be mad that his wife wasn’t nominated for this,” Kimmel added later, ignoring the fact that “Melania” wasn’t eligible for 2025’s Oscar competition.

Imagine a whole night of that wit? Bullet, dodged.

Michael B. Jordan gave a strong acceptance speech for his Best Actor award on behalf of “Sinners,” but he, too, played the Identity Politics card as if he were the first, second, third or 10th black actor to win a major award.

He even praised Will Smith, yeah, that Will Smith, in his speech. Hmmm.

And then it was over, more than three and a half hours later. Those who predicted “One Battle After Another” would rule the night being were proven correct.

Now, the assembled stars can think long and hard about their industry’s sketchy future and the wisdom of telling half the country to pound sand.

The post Oscars 2026 Review: Resist, They Must appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Is the state necessary? In this week’s Friday Philosophy, Dr. David Gordon follows Aeon J. Skoble’s argument that we can do without the state and finds there is much to like in Skoble’s logic.

"77 percent of [Republicans] support the war, on average. But that’s exactly what we’d expect for almost any Trump policy."

When someone argues in favor of state control of economic processes, they are, by definition, presenting an argument based upon the ad baculum fallacy, the “appeal to force.”

Big infrastructure projects in the developing world for things like water and electricity are under-pressure. Chinese and US funding is down and these projects often fall apart due to corruption and political incentives to build but not maintain. It is possible to break old institutions and establish new ones, but “there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.” Connor Tabarrok gives a great example. Ek Son Chan in Cambodia:

In 1993, the Phnom Penh Water Supply Authority was a catastrophe. The city was emerging from decades of war and genocide. Only 20 percent of the city had connections at all, and water flowed for just 10 hours a day. 72 percent of the water was non revenue water. It was lost to leaks or stolen through illegal connections.

Into this mess walked Ek Son Chan, a young Cambodian engineer appointed as Director General. Over the next two decades he executed an incredible institutional turnaround.

Chan replaced corrupt managers with qualified engineers. He got rid of unmetered taps. Every single connection received a meter and was billed. The old system of manual billing was replaced with a computerized system, which cut down on low level employees giving out free water and receiving kickbacks. Bill collection rates went from 48 percent to 99.9 percent. These changes were intensely unpopular, and Chan faced fierce resistance from rent seekers, from freeloading customers to his own employees. He established an incentive system based on bonuses among the workers, introduced an internal discipline system with a penalty for violators, and set up a discipline commission for all levels of the organization to deal with corruption

He divided the distribution network into pressure zones with flow monitoring. A 24 hour leak detection team walked the streets at night with listening bars to identify underground leaks.

The institutional change dwarfed the infrastructural change, but was absolutely necessary to make the infrastructure investment worthwhile….

This commitment would not be untested. When Chan tried to enforce bill payment on Cambodia’s elite, and sent his team out to install a water meter on the property of a high ranking general who had been freeloading. The general refused the installation of a meter, so the team attempted to disconnect the water. The general and his bodyguards ran them off the property. When Chan heard of this, he decided not to back down, and mobilized his own team to dig up the pipe and install the meter. Always a leader from the front, Chan jumped in the hole to take a shift at digging. When he looked up, his team had fled, and he was facing down the general himself, pointing a gun at his head. In Cambodia in the 90s, consequences for such a high ranking official were unlikely. CHan didn’t give up. He mobilized the local armed police and returned with 20 men to standoff against the general, disconnected him from service and left him out to dry. Chan said this about the dispute:

”He had no water. My office was on the second floor and the general came in with his ten bodyguards to look for me. I said, “ No. You can come here alone, but with an appointment”. He couldn’t do anything. He had to return. He said, “Okay”! At that time we had a telephone, a very big Motorola. He came in to make an appointment for tomorrow. I said, “ Okay, tomorrow you come alone”. So he comes alone, we talk. “Okay. I’ll reconnect on two conditions. The first condition is that you have to sign a commitment saying that you will respect the Water Supply Authority and second, you need to pay a penalty for your bad behavior and you must allow us to broadcast the situation to the public, or no way, no water in your house”. So he agreed. “

….By 2010, coverage in the city went from 25 percent to over 90 percent with 24 hour service. The utility became financially self sustaining and turned a profit. It was listed on the Cambodia Securities Exchange in 2012. Chan won the Ramon Magsaysay Award in 2006.

By separating the utility company from the low-capacity local government, Ek and PPWSA proved that:

• Functional infrastructure relies on institutional quality and mechanism design.
• State capacity need not exist within the state

Subscribe for more.

The post A New Order of Things appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

There is a peculiar irony in modern American consumer culture: we celebrate abundance, low prices, and convenience—until we decide to sue the businesses that make those things possible.

Somewhere along the way, buyer beware—a principle as old as markets themselves—has been replaced with the belief that disappointment equates with legal injury. Disputes over marketing messages and lawsuits about the labeling of menu items shows that some patrons are eager to become plaintiffs. Recent skirmishes over chicken are a case in point.

Issues Over Additives

Costco is facing litigation over its famously affordable $4.99 rotisserie chicken. Plaintiffs argue that the marketing language, describing the product as “preservative free,” is misleading because the ingredient list includes sodium phosphate and carrageenan. Both of these ingredients are common food additives, and, when used together, they enhance texture and aid in moisture retention. Sodium phosphate and carrageenan are FDA-approved and widely used in products ranging from deli meats to donuts, but it seems for some that these additives are clearly a cause for concern.

Costco’s rotisserie chickens are noticeably larger and juicier compared to what is available at other grocery stores, and the additives are likely part of the reason. It is also worth noting that at $4.99, Costco’s chicken is cheaper per pound than other rotisserie offerings, which also likely have sodium phosphate and carrageenan included as ingredients.

Due to its affordability and quality, Costco’s chicken has achieved a cult following, and just last year, Costco sold 157 million rotisserie chickens. That is a massive number, but these chickens aren’t a money maker—they are a loss leader, much like Costco’s $1.50 hot dog combo deal. The chicken is priced low to get people in the door, and clearly it works. If customers felt misled, they would stop buying. Yet sales remain strong, demonstrating that revealed preferences should matter more than retrospective offense. Most Costco shoppers understand that the rotisserie chicken’s pricing is part of a broader strategy to deliver value at scale.

Lawsuits Over Semantics

In Costco’s case, the plaintiffs feel as though they have been duped, but in reality, they are just being dumb. And the same can be said of the plaintiff in the recently dismissed case against Buffalo Wild Wings.

A lawsuit was issued against Buffalo Wild Wings (BWW) back in March 2023. The charge: misrepresentation in calling a popular menu item “boneless wings,” when in fact the product is made from chicken breast rather than literal wing cuts. BWW responded to the lawsuit by tweeting: “It’s true. Our boneless wings are all white meat chicken. Our hamburgers contain no ham. Our buffalo wings are 0% buffalo.”

Everyone knows that boneless wings are glorified chicken nuggets and that the sauce they are typically tossed with has no connection to buffalos. The sauce’s name is derived from the location it was created, in a bar in Buffalo, New York, and boneless wings were a more modern invention to respond to the rising costs of the bone-in variety. In fact, traditional wings have a humble history and weren’t even considered worthy of being on a menu until the 1960s. But as more bars and restaurants realized customers were fans of the previously neglected cut of meat, flavors and sales took off.

Fast-forward to present day, and the case has finally been dismissed. For the plaintiff, the semantics were lawsuit-worthy, but for the court judge, the case was about common sense. “Boneless wings” can remain on the menu labeled as such, and BWW is not required to pay the plaintiff what was sought after—up to $10 million in damages.

Market Signals and Environmental Shifts

Economically, wings illustrate consumer-driven value creation. Tastes shifted, and branding amplified demand, leading to wing nights, wing eating contests, and March Madness wing orders. Wings are now an inseparable part of American sports culture. Last month, the National Chicken Council’s annual Chicken Wing Report projected Americans would consume 1.48 billion chicken wings during Superbowl LX.

Demand levels and price signals reshaped production for the chicken industry, and chains like Buffalo Wild Wings built entire business models around it. The social and affordable aspect of chicken, however, shifted during the pandemic, and the aftereffects of the COVID lockdowns led to a spike in pricing.

Processing slowed, supply chains stalled, labor shortages occurred, and inventory was depleted. So, when demand rebounded as restaurants, sports bars, and event gatherings began to reemerge, wings were in high demand but short supply. In some markets, wholesale pricing exceeded $3.00 per pound, and bars and restaurants couldn’t shoulder the costs, nor were customers willing to pay such a high price.

Wings are biologically limited—only two per chicken—and since you cannot produce more wings without producing more chickens, many restaurants responded rationally by promoting “boneless wings” instead. Boneless wings offered predictable portioning, lower waste, and stronger margin control given that breast meat is more abundant, scalable, and price stable. When input prices rise, smart firms will reallocate their marketing efforts toward higher-margin alternatives that hopefully satisfy the needs and price points of consumers. Boneless wings are a textbook example of this, and it’s a shame the plaintiff couldn’t appreciate it.

Sales That Serve Communities

In neither of the above cases were the companies acting in a manner to harm customers; actually, quite the opposite. BWW has updated its wings over time to ensure customer satisfaction, and due to the strong connection wings have with sports, the Buffalo Wild Wings Foundation was established to support youth sport culture. Since 2013, the foundation has donated over $28 million to improve access to youth sports, and, in partnership with Boys & Girls Clubs of America, BWW has “provided more than 2 million children the chance to participate in organized sports.”

As for Costco, many families value the rotisserie chicken’s convenience and benefit from its low price. And Costco has also played a proud part in supporting America’s youth by raising $54 million in 2025 for Children’s Miracle Network. Costco has also awarded over 2,700 scholarships and donated 186 million meals to families in need. Even its chickens get donated, and this past year Costco contributed over 140 million pounds of food and other products to Feeding America.

The Consequences of Courtroom Consumerism

What is truly troubling about these cases is not the ingredient list or the menu terminology—it is the transformation of post-purchase dissatisfaction into legal injury. That shift carries consequences given that it redirects company resources toward litigations rather than value creation.

Consumer-facing class actions are costly regardless of outcome. Even weak claims impose real financial and opportunity costs simply by proceeding through the courts. Litigation consumes executive attention, diverts operational focus, and reallocates marketing budgets toward reputational defense rather than innovation and customer service. Companies cannot fully invest in better products and services when they are forced to defend existing ones against speculative or semantic claims.

Affordable food, abundant choice, and everyday convenience do not materialize by accident. They emerge from experimentation, logistical coordination, and by responding to competitive pressures—that is when firms are able to focus on business matters instead of depositions.

The Price Tag of Paternalism: Litigation vs. Learning

When lawsuits hinge on wordplay or personal disappointment, firms respond rationally: they hedge risk, simplify offerings, and avoid creative branding. Consumers ultimately absorb those costs, and the market process becomes one that is determined by lawyers rather than entrepreneurs. To be sure, there is a broader cultural lesson at stake. A society that defaults to litigation signals that responsibility should be assumed as external and outcomes should always be guaranteed. But this is not the way that markets work. Markets do not function on guarantees—they function on feedback, as rightly portrayed by Ludwig von Mises:

In the capitalist system of society’s economic organization the entrepreneurs determine the course of production. In the performance of this function they are unconditionally and totally subject to the sovereignty of the buying public, the consumers. If they fail to produce in the cheapest and best possible way those commodities which the consumers are asking for most urgently, they suffer losses and are finally eliminated from their entrepreneurial position. Other men who know better how to serve the consumers replace them.

No court hearings needed. The market process is made up of fallible individuals—producers and buyers alike—who learn through exchange and determine that which is of value to them. And given that value is subjective, formed in the minds of individuals engaging in interactions, then disappointment is also subjective and cannot alone constitute evidence of wrongdoing.

Markets work because they assume capable participants pursuing their own interests, not perpetual victims leveraging lawsuits.