{"id":206293,"date":"2025-10-07T05:18:07","date_gmt":"2025-10-07T05:18:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/206293\/"},"modified":"2025-10-07T05:18:07","modified_gmt":"2025-10-07T05:18:07","slug":"desirable-things-and-their-limits","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/206293\/","title":{"rendered":"Desirable Things and Their Limits"},"content":{"rendered":"

Moderation is a virtue that is easy to mock, and you don\u2019t have to be Barry Goldwater<\/a>\u2014\u201cI would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!\u201d\u2014to find faults with its misapplication. Should a husband vow to be moderately faithful to his wife? Should a soldier show moderate courage and discipline?<\/p>\n

But moderation is a classical political virtue, from the Roman republic to ours, one that is rooted not in half-heartedness but in humility: Moderation is the virtue that you practice out of mindfulness that you and your friends could be wrong about something, that the other guys might have a point, that the best-intentioned policies may have unintended consequences, etc. You could not guess it from the rhetoric and behavior of the right-wing revolutionists who dishonestly call themselves conservatives in our time, but moderation is a hallmark conservative virtue. T.S. Eliot understood the moderating impulse, the necessity of not getting carried away with oneself and one\u2019s passions\u2014and he also understood that the underlying virtue was never going to be popular:<\/p>\n

How unpleasant to meet Mr. Eliot!<\/p>\n

With his features of clerical cut,<\/p>\n

And his brow so grim<\/p>\n

And his mouth so prim<\/p>\n

And his conversation, so nicely
Restricted to What Precisely<\/p>\n

And If and Perhaps and But.<\/p>\n

(Readers who are unfamiliar with the conservative intellectual movement, which used to be a thing, might be surprised to learn that Russell Kirk\u2019s famous book is titled The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot. There was, incredible as it may seem, a time when conservatives cared what the poets and the literary critics were saying. The right learned from Andrew Breitbart the maxim that \u201cpolitics is downstream from culture,\u201d and then decided that \u201cculture\u201d could mean only Kid Rock, Ted Nugent, and the collected works of Pat Sajak and Rob Schneider.)<\/p>\n

Moderation is the little voice in your head asking: \u201cStrictly speaking, is it necessary to have ICE agents rappelling out of helicopters into Chicago apartment buildings?<\/a>\u201d That would be a good question for someone to be asking himself. Perhaps if someone pushed a Hefty SteelSak full of $100 bills into Tom Homan\u2019s sweaty little hands<\/a>, that would get his attention.<\/p>\n

Civility, on the other hand, is good in and of itself. When Union soldiers under the command of Gen. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain saluted<\/a> Gen. Robert E. Lee after the Confederate surrender, it could not have been easy for many of them\u2014for most of them\u2014who had lost friends, brothers, fathers, or sons in that awful war. Happily, they did not have a President Trump there to advise them that the proper thing was to forsake their Christianity and obdure their hearts to persist in hating their enemies<\/a>. Gen. Chamberlain did not order that salute because Gen. Lee himself was a good man or because he fought in a good cause\u2014he was a rebel, and his cause was rebellion. But the civilized man understands that there are good men and courage and valor on both sides of the fight\u2014and criminals and cowards and profiteers on both sides, too\u2014and so Gen. Chamberlain ordered that Gen. Lee and his men be treated with martial courtesy, reflecting both the best aspirations behind the war the Union had fought and the best hopes for the peace that was to follow.\u00a0<\/p>\n

If Abraham Lincoln et al. had held to the more ancient way of doing things, then Gen. Chamberlain\u2019s orders would have been to gut Lee on the spot before hunting down Jefferson Davis for the same treatment. But it was the Confederacy that held to the more ancient way of doing things\u2014slavery was a part of the ancient world and had no proper place in the new one Americans were building. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman had unleashed practically biblical terrors in the project of building that new world, and he seems to have understood that there was no place for him in the political life of the peace that followed, famously rejecting attempts to recruit him as a presidential candidate: \u201cI will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected.\u201d<\/p>\n

Civility is not only a character trait\u2014it is a project, something individuals and groups do. The Wall Street Journal reported this weekend on civility movements<\/a> that have emerged at the state level. Minnesota, for example, has a civility caucus that puts on events for the benefit of state legislators and, one assumes, for the edification of their constituents.<\/p>\n

While some officeholders worry bipartisan cooperation will anger base voters, evidence actually suggests political upsides, said Stanford University professor Robb Willer, who runs the university\u2019s Politics and Social Change Lab. A study he co-led tested responses to ads featuring governors from both parties touting cordial disagreement. The research, not yet published, found even partisan voters responded favorably.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen people see it, they see it as the leadership that it reflects, and it reflects a moral clarity that\u2019s sort of hard to deny,\u201d Willer said.<\/p>\n

The study examined the Disagree Better campaign, launched in 2023 by the National Governors Association, then co-chaired by GOP Utah Gov. Spencer Cox. The project arose from Cox\u2019s viral 2019 ad with his Democratic opponent, calling for constructive dialogue.<\/p>\n

Last month, Cox again called for toned-down rhetoric after the assassination of Charlie Kirk in Utah.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Conservative commentator Steve Bannon dubbed Cox a \u201cgutless Republican.\u201d President Trump rails against \u201cradical left lunatics.\u201d Some on the left label Trump fascist and authoritarian.<\/p>\n

And there, I suppose, is the problem: The mandate for civility may at times be in tension with the superseding mandate to tell the truth. Spencer Cox is not a \u201cgutless Republican,\u201d but Ted Cruz is. Bernie Sanders is a \u201cradical left lunatic,\u201d no doubt, but John Hickenlooper isn\u2019t. And there are versions of lunacy to which leftiness is only incidental<\/a>.\u00a0\u201cSome on the left label Trump fascist and authoritarian,\u201d the Journal reported in the value-neutral voice of the news page. True enough, and so do some on the right\u2014because it is true.<\/p>\n

(If Trump is some degree short of formal fascism, it is only because his political thinking is too disorganized and incoherent to associate with a particular school, even one as vaguely defined as fascism. But<\/a>: authoritarianism, nationalism, contempt for the constitutionalism and the rule of law, contempt for procedure, the aestheticization of politics, the weaponization of the state in general and the military in particular against domestic political opponents, masked agents bundling people into trucks to ship them off to detention camps\u2014you can put an asterisk after fascism, if you like, but even such a persnickety editor as your favorite correspondent will concede that fascism gets the job done, as a word.)<\/p>\n

It surely is the case that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez\u2019s dopiest ideas and sometimes-shocking ignorance do not need to be brought up in every conversation about (or with) her, but these are relevant from time to time. We can be polite and even generous to such figures without pretending that we do not know what we know about them. Trump\u2019s authoritarianism\u2014which as always must be understood in light of the fact that he attempted to stage a coup d\u2019\u00e9tat at the end of his first administration\u2014is the most important fact in American political life today. There are civil and uncivil ways of approaching that problem, it is true, but there is no getting around the tautology: It is what it is.<\/p>\n

I wish the nice people in Minnesota the very best with their civility efforts, and I will do my best to do my own small part in a similar spirit.<\/p>\n

Of course, it is possible to weaponize the notion of civility: I hear from Trump apologists every day who complain that I mistreat the poor dear by criticizing him in such terms as I do. Procedure, norms, convention\u2014all of these things can be misused. But so can their opposite: the sense that we are in special circumstances, in some sort of state of emergency in which the usual rules of etiquette\u2014or even legal procedure\u2014cannot apply. There are times when that is true, but usually it is simply an excuse to write oneself a moral permission slip to treat one\u2019s enemies contemptuously or violently, usually while insisting on the protections of convention and civility for oneself. Trump is, of course, the most prominent practitioner of that double standard, threatening legal action against journalists who have<\/a> \u201chate in their hearts\u201d while celebrating his own heart\u2019s hatred<\/a> at a supposedly Christian memorial service. The ground underneath our feet is uneven and tricky, and so we have to be on guard against everything that would mislead us\u2014including our own hearts.<\/p>\n

\nLong on Lethality\n<\/p>\n

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth went on and on<\/a> last week (I would write droned, but, you never know these days!) about the need for the U.S. military to emphasize lethality. Saying that a military should be lethal is like saying that chocolate-chip cookies should have chocolate chips in them. It is an impossible point to argue.<\/p>\n

As if that were the problem.<\/p>\n

Somebody apparently needs to explain to Secretary Pete that the lethality of U.S. forces is the one thing the American military does not really need to worry about. Running out of money? Sure. Being unable to get the job done when the metric is lethality? Not a problem. Not even close.<\/p>\n

U.S. forces have ably demonstrated, time and time again, that they can do pretty much anything they are asked to do. If you told a Marine expeditionary force to invade Bavaria for the purpose of building a giant waterslide and told them you wanted it open in six weeks, you\u2019d be eating K\u00e4sesp\u00e4tzle and drinking Weihenstephaner and slip-sliding down that giant waterslide in Munich in about a month and a half. Not to go all Professor Terguson<\/a> on you, but the ability of U.S. troops to kill people and break things is not in doubt and has not been in doubt for a very, very long time: The limitation is the politicians\u2014and, ultimately, the people\u2014who ask the military to begin long, complex projects (say, nation-building in Iraq) that American voters do not have the stomach or attention span to finish. I have seen the enemy, and it is the collective prefrontal cortex of the American electorate.<\/p>\n

The practical superiority of U.S. forces is remarkable. Do you know when the last time U.S. ground forces were killed by manned enemy aircraft was? 1953. They were killed by North Koreans, of all people, flying fabric-covered biplanes, of all things, Soviet-made Polikarpov \u201cKukuruznik\u201d Po-2s. During our 20 years in Afghanistan, fewer than 2,000 U.S. troops<\/a> were killed in action\u2014there were more than five times as many deaths from homicides in Chicago during those same years.<\/p>\n

U.S. forces are so impossible to beat in battle that they have created, through no fault of their own, a kind of serious geopolitical problem: Nuclear proliferation, development of weapons of mass destruction, and terrorism are all driven in no small part by the fact that there isn\u2019t a conventional force on this Earth that can face the American military on a battlefield without being turned into compost in great numbers. Lethality, indeed, is the military\u2019s calling card\u2014but over at the State Department, the White House, and the Capitol, they play with a different deck of cards entirely, a deck with way too many jokers in it.<\/p>\n

\nEconomics for English Majors\n<\/p>\n

One of the ways in which government policy can cause economic distortions is by \u201cpulling forward\u201d consumption. Tesla, for example, just enjoyed a record-breaking quarter for deliveries. Why? Because the car-buying public suddenly has a lot of extra money to spend and has decided that Elon Musk isn\u2019t such a ridiculous creep after all? No\u2014because EV tax incentives are about to expire, and so people who might have been planning to lease an EV in the near future decided to act now in order to take advantage of that $7,500 federal subsidy. Most analysts expect that this quarter\u2019s record numbers will turn into a slump in the next quarter.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m skeptical that this will be sustainable and I think we could see a soft couple of quarters,\u201d said Elliot Johnson, chief investment officer at Evolve ETFs, which manages investments in Tesla.<\/p>\n

The sales surge reflected pulled-forward demand, possibly to lock in incentives, rather than growing consumer interest, Johnson said, adding it would not be irrational for investors to \u201csell the news\u201d and buy again next year.<\/p>\n

Tesla shares were down 3.4% in afternoon trading. The stock has rallied recently\u2014up nearly 14% this year as of Wednesday\u2019s close\u2014after the company\u2019s board proposed a mega pay package for Musk, who has also bought more shares.<\/p>\n

Tesla, like its rivals, received the credits from the government and used them to offer attractive leases. Following the expiry, Tesla has raised lease prices for its vehicles. The prices of Tesla vehicles, excluding the credit, remained unchanged.<\/p>\n

On a related note: Much has been made of Elon Musk\u2019s gargantuan potential payday<\/a>, but a look at the performance goals the company has to hit for Musk to fully realize that compensation\u2014raising the firm\u2019s market capitalization eightfold, 20 million vehicle deliveries, 1 million robotaxis in operation, and much more\u2014makes the offer look proportionate. Would you pay a guy $1 trillion to make you $7.5 trillion? Of course you would. Tesla\u2019s shareholders and board are not, in the main, fools.<\/p>\n

And, in other business news \u2026<\/p>\n

\nGo Fast, Sew Things\n<\/p>\n

It does strike me as a little odd that Ferrari, the storied automaker, has decided to become a fashion house. But the results are \u2026 pretty good<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\nWell, He Probably Doesn\u2019t Run Very Fast\n<\/p>\n

\u201cMcDonald\u2019s is chasing the bargain eater<\/a>,\u201d reports Salon.<\/p>\n

\n\u00a0I Think I Will\n<\/p>\n

\u201cThink twice before a parasite cleanse<\/a>,\u201d Salon advises, possibly with the bargain eater in mind. Oh, well. Only 393 days until the next election.<\/p>\n

\n(Lots of) Words About Words\n<\/p>\n

Several items are on my language agenda this week. So, here we go:<\/p>\n

\nI Wonder How That Works?\n<\/p>\n

A press release for a product that is somehow simultaneously \u201cwaterless\u201d and \u201cultra-hydrating.\u201d<\/p>\n

I\u2019m excited to share that AROVE, the clean haircare brand founded by celebrity hairstylist Michael Due\u00f1as, has just launched ILLUMINOUS, the first-of-its-kind concentrated waterless Ultra-Hydrating Hair Oil + Leave-In Conditioner TODAY. A revolutionary two-in-one product that redefines shine, nourishment, and haircare efficiency.<\/p>\n

Hydrate literally means putting water into something\u2014from the Greek word for water.<\/p>\n

I particularly hate the word \u201crevolutionary\u201d in marketing copy. I once received an email from a real-estate agent boasting of his \u201crevolutionary\u201d approach to selling houses. So I asked: \u201cWhat\u2019s different? Are you not selling houses and then taking a commission?\u201d Oh, no, came the response, the revolutionary bit was that he intended to put customers first. \u201cAhead of your commission?\u201d And thus the conversation ended.<\/p>\n

\nShocking Usage\n<\/p>\n

Even if all your outlets are structurally sound, you may have a few that could use updating. It\u2019s a good idea, for example, to replace any older outlet near a sink or tub a with modern GFCI, or ground-fault circuit interrupter, outlet. They cut the power in milliseconds if an electrical device gets wet, lessening the risk of electrocution.<\/p>\n

Electrocution is a portmanteau of the words electric and execution, used to describe the intentional infliction of death on a person via electricity, first used to describe the process of killing criminals via electric chair. It is a legend that the term was cooked up by Thomas Edison to cast discredit on the alternating-current technology being developed by George Westinghouse and Nikola Tesla. Edison did work to connect AC to electrocution and published pamphlets claiming that it was dangerous, but he does not seem to have coined the word. From Wikipedia<\/a>:<\/p>\n

[Electrocution] was not the only choice of word people were considering. The New York Times editorial column noted words such as \u201cWestinghoused\u201d (after the Westinghouse Electric alternating current equipment that was to be used), \u201cGerrycide\u201d (after Elbridge Thomas Gerry, who headed the New York death penalty commission that suggested adopting the electric chair), and \u201cBrowned\u201d (after anti-AC activist Harold P. Brown). Thomas Edison preferred the words dynamort, ampermort and electromort. The New York Times hated the word electrocution, describing it as being pushed forward by \u201cpretentious ignoramuses.\u201d<\/p>\n

Over time, the word came to be applied indiscriminately both to intentional and accidental deaths via electricity, and then to non-lethal electric shocks as well. I wish they had gone with Gerrycide, with Elbridge Thomas Gerry joining his grandfather, Vice President Elbridge Gerry of \u201cgerrymander\u201d infamy, in the ranks of great eponyms.<\/p>\n

I\u2019d prefer that electrocute be restricted to its original capital-punishment sense on my usual grounds: We should have different words for different things.<\/p>\n

\nRepresent!\n<\/p>\n

I receive email from \u201cthe Office of Congresswoman Elise Stefanik.\u201d Congresswoman is a clunky usage. I think there\u2019s a pretty good argument to be made for congressman as a sex-inclusive word, like chairman or mankind. But, in this case, we have the wonderful alternative of using the correct word: representative.<\/p>\n

Elise Stefanik is, for her sins and the nation\u2019s, a member of the House of Representatives, one of the two houses of Congress. We do not use congressman to describe senators, but they are men and women of Congress as much as members of the House are. Representative may add a few syllables, but it also adds accuracy and a reminder that there is a difference between what members of the House are there to do and what senators are there to do. Oh, I\u2019m still with Edmund Burke<\/a>, don\u2019t get me wrong:<\/p>\n

Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.<\/p>\n

My worthy colleague says, his will ought to be subservient to yours. If that be all, the thing is innocent. If government were a matter of will upon any side, yours, without question, ought to be superior. But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments?<\/p>\n

To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience,–these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.<\/p>\n

That said, the House of Representatives is expected\u2014and designed\u2014to be more reflective of public opinion than the Senate is: That is why there are more House members, why they (generally) represent smaller populations than senators, and why they are elected much more frequently.<\/p>\n

Perhaps Elise Stefanik is representative of the views of her constituents. There is much else of which she is representative, including Republicans\u2019 supine servility toward Donald Trump and Congress\u2019 general abandonment of its duties.<\/p>\n

\nAuto-Reply\n<\/p>\n

Last week, I mentioned<\/a> that dope Rep. Derrick Van Orden, a former Navy SEAL who once served as a Navy SEAL during the period in which he was a Navy SEAL (I am summarizing his press literature), which was before he, a former Navy SEAL, portrayed a Navy SEAL in a low-budget movie about Navy SEALs. I referred to the fact that Van Orden, a former Navy SEAL, once got into trouble for trying to carry<\/a> a 9mm handgun through airport security. \u201cTut-tut,\u201d came the predictable replies, \u201cyou mean semiautomatic.\u201d<\/p>\n

Careful readers would know better than to try to out gun-nut me.<\/p>\n

It is true that the pistol in question was a semiautomatic 9mm and not a fully automatic one. But fully automatic handguns are not called automatics\u2014they are called machinepistols or submachine guns, depending on the configuration. The convention of using automatic to distinguish a semiautomatic handgun from a revolver is well more than a century old, which is why common cartridges used in semiautomatic pistols have names such as 10mm Auto (as opposed to \u201c10mm Semiauto\u201d) or .45 ACP (and not .45 SCP). On those rare occasions when one must specify something exotic\u2014say, a Glock 9mm that has been converted to fully automatic fire\u2014it is best to spell the thing out, accurately and completely. Unhappily, one rarely sees that in American journalism when it comes to questions involving firearms.<\/p>\n

\nA Very Fine Book Review\n<\/p>\n

When Gen. Sherman left the military, he published a memoir, one of the first Civil War figures to do so. His account of Gen. Ulysses S. Grant was frank, to such an extent that Grant\u2019s minions ran to him like little tattletales to point out how critical Sherman had been. But Grant did not see things that way. \u201cWhen I finished the book,\u201d he wrote, \u201cI found I approved every word; that … it was a true book, an honorable book, creditable to Sherman, just to his companions\u2014to myself particularly so\u2014just such a book as I expected Sherman would write.\u201d<\/p>\n

Grant himself was one of the finest writers\u2014and surely the finest memoirist\u2014among the presidents. Perhaps Sherman was buoyed a little in the final years of a hard life as a hard man who spent his best years doing hard things.<\/p>\n

\nI Know How This Makes Jonah Feel\n<\/p>\n

If you are feeling nausea, you are nauseated<\/a>; if you cause nausea, you are nauseous.<\/p>\n

And, now, we can move on \u2026<\/p>\n

\nElsewhere\n<\/p>\n

You can buy my most recent book, Big White Ghetto, here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

You can buy my other books here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Please subscribe to The Dispatch if you haven\u2019t<\/a>.<\/p>\n

You can check out \u201cHow the World Works,\u201d a series of interviews on work I\u2019m doing for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Hear me on The Dispatch Podcast here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\nIn Closing\n<\/p>\n

On the weaponization of convention and etiquette, consult The Portrait of a Lady<\/a> by Henry James. One scene finds the innocent young Isabel Archer implicitly chiding the villainous Gilbert Osmond for being conventional. Osmond advises her:<\/p>\n

\u201cDo everything that\u2019s proper; I go in for that. Excuse my being so patronising. You say you don\u2019t know me, but when you do you\u2019ll discover what a worship I have for propriety.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cYou\u2019re not conventional?\u201d Isabel gravely asked.<\/p>\n

\u201cI like the way you utter that word! No, I\u2019m not conventional: I\u2019m convention itself. You don\u2019t understand that?\u201d And he paused a moment, smiling. \u201cI should like to explain it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Convention itself. There is real power in that, and all such power is liable to be abused.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Moderation is a virtue that is easy to mock, and you don\u2019t have to be Barry Goldwater\u2014\u201cI would…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":206294,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[32],"tags":[118438,21283,12,118439,118440,1767,1572,25249,79,644,18846],"class_list":{"0":"post-206293","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-science","8":"tag-civil-war","9":"tag-conservatism","10":"tag-donald-trump","11":"tag-nationalism","12":"tag-new-right","13":"tag-opinion","14":"tag-pete-hegseth","15":"tag-republican-party","16":"tag-science","17":"tag-trump-administration","18":"tag-u-s-military"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/206293","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=206293"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/206293\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/206294"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=206293"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=206293"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=206293"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}