Oval Misdirection

A short story

The Oval Office

Early March, after the inauguration...

POTUS:  Welcome to the White House, Jim.  May I call you Jim?

Jim:  Absolutely Mr. President.  Thanks for having me.

POTUS:  Have you been here before?

Jim:  I have been to the White House many times, but only once before to the Oval Office.  Almost exactly four years ago.

POTUS:  Yes that's right; you came to see my predecessor, shortly after he took office.

Jim:  Yes, he let me have a look through that box on the coffee table there.

POTUS:  I'm sorry?

Jim:  Well, Mr. President, as best I can tell, that's the very same box he showed me.

POTUS:  Oh I see.  Yes, it's a fascinating historical archive.  A bit risqué for my taste.

Jim said nothing.

POTUS:  Yet, he never found a use for it.  I wonder why?

Jim:  I'm surprised to see it.  I thought he would have taken it with him.

POTUS:  Well we all know he was losing it at the end of his term.  I found the box in my private study with the classified files only accessible to the sitting president.  He probably just forgot it.  But I do wonder why he did not turn it over to the Department of Justice earlier?

Jim:  Yeah, well, I paid him to make it go away.

POTUS:  You should have paid him to give you the box.

Jim:  I did try Mr. President.

POTUS:  Bribing a president, can you imagine?  How much did you pay him?

Jim:  I'd rather not say.

POTUS:  Well you know Jim, before he lost his marbles, he did add the financial records of that transaction to the box.  It's all in there.

Jim:  So you know what I paid him.

POTUS:  Yes Jim, I do.  You got off cheap.

Jim:  Well you know, if you've never had real money, it's hard to know what real money is.

POTUS:  Yeah, I can see that.

They were both quiet for a moment.

POTUS:  Jim, you know that I know what real money is.

Again Jim said nothing.

POTUS:  Let's come back to that.  I have another question.

Jim:  Okay.

POTUS:  How did you two get the people who filled the box with its contents to keep quiet about it?  Oh, and other people in his administration who knew about it?

Jim:  Yeah, that was my idea.  Your predecessor and I agreed that he would just tell everyone in his administration that it was a long term top secret intelligence operation.  He would keep it vague, but shut down any further investigation, or even discussion.  I mean government types...no one wants to lose their precious security clearance.

The President nodded slowly.

Jim:  He also leaked this possibility to a number of internet conspiracy types, as sort of a back door explanation for dropping the matter.  These were not leaks exactly, more like breadcrumbs that they could stumble upon.

POTUS:  Very clever.  And of course, he never mentioned exactly what agency was running this operation.  It may have been one of ours or it may have been foreign.

Jim:  Yes, that may have been the most ingenious part of the subterfuge.

POTUS:  What about your friend, the principal player who died in prison.

Jim:  He was never my friend Mr. President.  He recorded me...betrayed me.

POTUS:  Okay, your associate.  You should have listened to your ex-wife about that guy.

Jim:  Indeed.

POTUS:  And?

Jim:  Well intelligence assets sometimes die.  It is not unexpected.  So that worked out okay.

POTUS:  And his lady friend, also in prison?

Jim:  Are you kidding, she was the very first person to find out he was dead.  She does not want to suffer a similar fate.

POTUS:  The box says you had him killed.

Jim:  Well he also knew what real money is.  And besides, he proved himself to be...untrustworthy.  Something had to be done.

They looked at each other.  A minute passed.

Jim:  Are you going to let me have the box?

POTUS:  Yes Jim, I don't see why not.

Jim:  What is it going to cost me?

POTUS:  Fifty billion dollars.

Jim:  That is about a third of everything I have.

POTUS:  Yes Jim, but this time, you get the box.  Besides, you'll still be one of the richest men in the world.  Good to keep up appearances and all.  No one will be the wiser.

Jim:  And you'll keep the misdirection in place?

POTUS:  My predecessor did all the work.  I don't have to do anything except keep quiet about it.

Jim:  And your people?  Your attorney general seems to be a bit of a loose cannon.

POTUS:  Well, she likes to see herself on television.  But you know, without intending to, she's been great at obfuscating this whole thing.

Jim:  And the others?

POTUS:  So long as I keep quiet about it, my people will react just like my predecessor's people.  It's all need to know.  And what they don't know, what they cannot even imagine, is that no one knows.  It's the perfect secret...one that does not actually exist.

They both let that sink in.

Jim:  Undoubtedly you have other boxes belonging to other men...

POTUS:  I will not confirm or deny, but I needed to start with you.

They sat there.

POTUS:  Do we have a deal?

Jim:  Yes Mr. President.

POTUS:  The transfer details are there in the envelope beside the box.

Jim:  It will take time for me to get that much cash together.

POTUS:  No doubt; you have until the end of the month.

Jim:  May I come back to collect the box myself?  I don't really trust anyone with it.

POTUS:  Sure Jim.  Let's schedule a dinner for the first.  I have lots of dinners with lots of people.  I'll invite the vice president.  It will be a robust, but cordial exchange of ideas.  Again, no one will be the wiser.

Jim:  Thank you Mr. President.

𓐵

Ghetto Fatigue

Black people talk common sense about ghetto culture

Zarria Simmons

Amala Ekpunobi

Anton Daniels

Brandon Tatum

Jason Whitlock

Kevin & Keith Hodge

Amir Odom

Rogan Smith

Carmen Jaycee

Youtube will not allow me to embed her videos (too on the mark?), but they are definitely worth watching.  I have tried embedding several; let me try one more that is somewhat more reserved.

𓐵

Email in 2025?

Is email hate justified?

Everyone seems to hate email for different reasons.  It may be 2025, but it seems like email hate has always been with us.

Here is a 2017 interview with perhaps the most famous email hater, Paul Jones.

And I really do not have any qualms with his arguments, then or now.  But my question is and has always been:  But what is better?

Is there a way to communicate universally without having to set up a Facebook page, or some type of group chat, or coordinate the various communications apps that various people and organizations use?

The answer for the last thirty years, and still today, is yes.  Email.  Only email.

The closest thing to the ease of email is SMS text messaging.  And I don't know about you, but if it is anything even slightly complex, text messaging is just more trouble than it is worth.

Even email does not lend itself to extremely complex issues.  I tell people, if it is that complex, expect a phone call.  Yes, you read that correctly.  And of course, the most complex issues still, in 2025, require...wait for it...a meeting.

My younger clients often pushed back on this, especially the phone calls.  But I would say to them:  I am not going to discuss something as complicated and nuanced as a real estate transaction via text message.  I mean the contract alone is twenty pages long.  Take my calls, or hire someone else.  And always, by the end of it, they had seen the light.

So let's take these universal communication methods in order, for dealing with complexity, from most complex to least complex.

1. Meeting
2. Phone call (here, perhaps we can add videoconferencing)
3. Email
4. SMS text

Yes, I am leaving out postal letters; also a perfectly acceptable universal communication method.  But I am assuming some element of modern urgency.  If that does not exist, letter-writing should be added to the above.  And while we are on truly outdated methods, when I started my career, one wrote memoranda.  Yes, on paper.  Does anyone still do that?  I always loved a good memo.  Maybe that explains my extended attachment to email.

But why are other apps not included?  Because they are not universal and perhaps never will be.  The closest app that might work is Signal, and that is only because most security-minded people already use it.  But if your company uses Slack, and your customer does not, what are you going to do?  Even the videoconferencing, which I have included, requires coordination on what system we will be using and what time we will be using it.  And, the associated learning curb.

In fact, there is a learning curb for all apps.  And I suppose there is a learning curb for the above four, but most of us absorb these pretty early on.

It is the universality of email that is so valuable.  And the email haters don't seem to grasp this.

There is a second feature of email that I also believe to be valuable.  An email does not have to conform to any particular app's structure and parameters.  An email is like starting with a blank sheet of paper.

When we have an app that I can use to reach anyone with any message, we can then add a number five.  It may be 2025, but I still do not see that alternative.

Are there things we can do to make email more palatable and efficient?  Let's break it down.

• To alleviate the spam problem, use white & black lists.  As a still current email user, I will say that this works like a charm.  But it does require an initial time investment to set it up.  The upside is that I get maybe one spam email in my inbox per week.
• Treat email like a fast letter, rather than a slow phone call.  Send emails at any time, but only check your emails and/or respond when it suits you.  I think if we applied this rule to all forms of communication, we'd all be quite a bit happier.
• Only communicate with people who know how to write.  My question would be:  Do you really want to do business with someone who does not know how to write?  They will have other issues as well.
• Be prepared to mix and match communication methods.  For instance:  Yep got your text, but I'll have to respond in an email/phone call, etc.  Sure there is utility in keeping a chain of communication together.  But I would say efficiency is probably more important.  It is easy to ask a question via text; the answer may require a two-page response, not to mention any follow-up questions.  Text-only fans ignore this issue.
• In fact, it seems to me that the people most unhappy with email view it like a phone call, with lots of back and forth.  And it can be that.  But if we are trying to be efficient, would not an actual phone call be better?
• I have absolutely nothing against texts or chat apps.  But these suffer from a right now factor.  Once you accept that this is not necessary for email, its utility goes through the roof.  Respond in an hour, respond when you get back to your desk, respond after a trip to the basement archives, respond tomorrow, you get the idea.  Remember, fast letter, not slow phone call.
• If you want to text me about where we are meeting for lunch, great.  But if you seriously expect to discuss something more complicated via text, it only means that you are not serious.  Any yes, many people, perhaps most people, are not serious about anything.
• If others expect you to respond to their emails as you would to a phone call or a chat, just don't.  And see what happens.  If it is truly that urgent, you will get a call or a text.  If your boss expects immediate responses from his emails, likely he has other unreasonable expectations as well.  It is not about email.
• The overall point is that in the ecosystem of communications, email remains a useful tool.  And those who abandon it lose the use of that tool.
• We still have letters and phone calls.  And while we may have new tools in our tool belt, we still have access to these.  Why?  Because they continue to be useful.  I bet even Paul Jones takes the occasional phone call.

Many of the problems that we associate with email are not actually about email.  They are rather about unreasonable expectations and inconsiderate users.  If other users abuse the tool, that does not mean that you must.  And it does not mean that you somehow must tolerate their abuse.  Just don't.

𓐵

The First Education Mayor

Why would younger voters elect Zohran Mamdani?

And more broadly, why have younger voters moved so far to the left?  Far enough to elect a socialist.

Here is Mamdani's platform.  He is not using the term socialist just to appeal to the young.  No, no, he is a flat out socialist.  Good for him.

My question is why would anyone vote for that?

Well, to support someone this far left, one has to be completely unable to think critically.  And critical thinking is a skill that is no longer taught to young people.  At least not in public schools.  And certainly not at the university level.  It is not the K-12 teachers fault; they, too, never learned to think critically.  So we have a generation of non-thinking educators teaching young people.  If the students don't get critical thought at home, they will just never get it at all.

This has been going on for generations now.  Each new generation one step further removed from the ability to think.  To the point where we are now:  No one can think at all.

So if you have a mayoral candidate who says all the emotionally appealing things, then obviously he the best guy for the job.  I mean, of course, rents should be frozen; anyone against that is selfish.  Of course, the city should open city-owned grocery stores; anyone against that does not care about poor families.  Right?  You get the idea.

Mamdani owes his win of the Democratic nomination to the education establishment, primarily to university schools of education.  He is the first real Education Mayoral Candidate.

And I do not think this is limited to New York City.  I suspect this is the primary reason for the Democratic Party's drift to the far left, nationwide.  This has been, and continues to be, a generational project among leftists:  Staff schools of education with ideological leftists, produce unthinking teachers, who produce even more unthinking young people, who then graduate into unthinking voters.

These schools are not really schools of education.  I do not think they actually give a hoot about education.  No, they are Schools of Youth Indoctrination.  And they have been wildly successful.

We saw proof of this last year with nearly half the country voting for the completely incompetent and inarticulate Kamala Harris.  No Harris may not be a socialist, but only the fully indoctrinated could vote for such a gibbering dimwit.  Sooner or later we will see a socialist elected to high office.  With Mamdani, we are watching this in real time.

Subjugated Capitalism

Is it possible to fight back?  Yes and no.  No, if you live in New York City, be prepared for the type of socialist utopia we have seen repeatedly over the last one hundred years.  The way these governments hang on, from Scandinavia to France to South America, is that they subjugate the capitalists to pay for the socialism that the majority of voters think they want.  Often times, as in Scandinavia, the capitalists are willing participants.

What happens in stable socialist societies is that the socialists reach an accommodation with the capitalists.  The socialists consume nearly all of the wealth that the capitalists produce, and with their bureaucratic leviathan and endless regulations, they ensure that the capitalists face little to no competition.  The entrenched capitalists acquiesce, and purr like well-feed kitty cats.  This produces a stagnant society, with little entrepreneurship or innovation, but one in which the socialists and the capitalists can coexist.

It becomes a sort of voluntary servitude:  The capitalists produce the wealth, and the socialists consume it.  What's more, you have to be willing to accept all the inefficiencies and outright graft that inevitably comes with socialist control.

So-called democratic socialism cannot produce the wealth required to fund itself and continue bribing the electorate.  Short of natural resources, socialism cannot produce any wealth long term.  So it is imperative for the socialists to retain the services of the capitalists.  It is the only way they can maintain power, which is their only real goal.

If you doubt this thesis, just look at China.  Where did the nation's current wealth come from?  It sure wasn't communism that provided it.  Yet the communists have been able to retain power and get rich themselves...by allowing some degree of capitalism and keeping the capitalists enslaved.  This subjugated capitalism is the party trick that the Soviet Union never learned, and that is why they ultimately failed.

What should you do?

Mamdani's nomination is the leper's bell of the approaching looters.  If you are unwilling to accept such an arrangement, what should you do?

Leave.  Take your taxes, your family, your business and any jobs it creates, your vote, and even your mere presence and go somewhere, anywhere, where you are appreciated and supported.

Leave before the income tax doubles.  Leave before the wealth taxes.  Leave before an intersectional tax code.  Leave before the reparations.  Leave before the inevitable exit taxes, already proposed in California, and I predict soon coming to New York City.

If Mamdani successfully opens city-owned grocery stores, of course with no sales tax, how long will it be until he triples the sales tax at privately owned grocery stores?  Supposedly to fund the people's stores.

Certainly he will implement congestion pricing.  But I predict it will not only apply to entering vehicles, but to mileage.  In the confines of Manhattan, would a dollar a mile be unexpected?  Two dollars?  I mean the space is quite limited and the planet is suffocating as we speak.  Naturally, he and his minions will be exempt because they are carrying out the important work of serving the public.  Quietly, ex-mayors will also be exempt, for their service.

On top of taxes, his fees and regulations will become impossibly burdensome.  So let's allow New York City voters to fully enjoy the government they elect.  But without our productivity.

Just leave.

They'll be fine.

𓐵

The Leftists of Bluesky

He's not talking about Xi:

Came across this person.  She seems nice.


𓐵

The Leftists of Bluesky

The Dirty Dozen

Most social media is inundated with cat photos and videos.  Bluesky?  There are rats.  Lots of rats.  No seriously.

Photos and links after the jump:  Click Read more below.  I just could not leave a bunch of rat photos on this page.

Cute huh?

Well that is a baker's dozen and I have to stop.

It is worth noting that I did not go looking for these posts.  No, no, these came up organically the very first time I browsed the Bluesky Discover feed.  Now some on the left will surely argue:  But that is because there are so many science-types on Bluesky.  But these do not really look like lab rats.  And before Bluesky, I never saw this on Twitter.  I think more probably it is because, on Bluesky, the leftists feel more at home to be themselves.  And I'm not saying that is all bad; it can be rather educational.

There are lots of cats as well.  Since we find no viewpoint diversity on Bluesky, is it any surprise that they do offer extreme pet photo diversity?  Hey, the left will take its diversity where they can find it.  I am waiting to see someone post their pet cockroaches.

Be assured that if someone tells you about their pet rat, and offers cute photos for your pleasure, there is something seriously wrong with that person.

China is a Scam

Winston describes Chinese EV cars, and the entire Chinese automotive industry, as a scam.  And while this is clearly true, the important point, which he infers but does not come out with directly, is that this is how everything in China works.  It is not an exaggeration to say that everything in China is some sort of scam.

Here in the Philippines, we are seeing an ever increasing number of Chinese branded cars on the road.  I have no doubt that the Philippines is one of the countries where, as Winston mentions, China is dumping cars.

As an aside, recently I saw a new GWM (Great Wall Motor – a Chinese manufacturer that Winston mentions in the video), diesel pickup in a shopping mall.  The list price was almost 40 percent less than the very similar Toyota Hilux.  Sure this will vary by product and features.  But of course, Filipinos are flocking to these brands.

I will add one other thing about the GWM display in the mall.  The cars were lavishly decorated with the most beautiful women, er...product specialists.  When the feminists chased Don Draper out of New York, he fled to China.  And as Don likes to say:  When you place a beautiful woman next to any product, people tend to forget the most important questions.

Because electricity is so expensive here, most of these vehicles are not electric.  But we do see some.  To the best of our ability, we never park near one of these.

No, you cannot avoid all Chinese products.  But we have a strict rule regarding Chinese products.  We do not buy anything made in China that has the potential to kill you.  So, no food, no cars, no lithium batteries, etc.  But yes, the fly swatter I bought last week was made in China.

We will make an exception to this rule if the product is an American brand.  For example, Apple is not going to damage its reputation because of Chinese shenanigans.  So sure, much of their stuff is made in China; but under closely supervised quality control.  I am less sure of some American firms manufacturing in China.  Are Chinese-manufactured Doritos safe?  I would assume so, but why take the chance.

Now if you think this perspective is a bit harsh, here is a Shawn Ryan clip, about six months old.  Really, the whole country is just a great big scam, and often dangerous.  I have written about this before.  So how should we handle China?  We should isolate them like any other pariah state.  Maybe this cannot be done diplomatically, but we can certainly isolate them economically.

The Chinese cannot do anything on their own.  They need to steal, and scam, and cheat.  This is deeply ingrained within their culture.  If we do not allow it, they will flounder.  All we have to do is:  Nothing.  Just stay out of China and stop buying Chinese goods.  The world will be a better place.

𓐵

Proposal: Gold Bank

The benefits of cryptocurrency without all the nonsense

Here's what we do.  Let's start a bank where all deposits and withdrawals are made in gold bullion.  Each depositor's balance will be listed as gold weight on deposit.  And let us place our depository someplace safe, like Switzerland.

Before we start pondering the logistical nightmare of such an arrangement, what with delivery, assaying (verification), acceptance, etc., let us consider one other simple possibility.  How about this?  Deposits can be made in any major currency, and that currency will, immediately on deposit, be used to purchase gold at the then current market price.  So for example, if you deposit one thousand dollars, your account will then reflect not the one thousand dollars, but rather that amount in gold bullion.

The bank will issue each account holder checkbooks and debit cards, which will allow customers to spend their funds as with any bank.  Spend ten dollars at Walmart, and your account will reflect a ten-dollar reduction in your deposited gold weight.  Need cash to pay your babysitter?  Debit cards will work in the ATM.

The bank will purchase and sell gold daily on the open market to facilitate deposits and withdrawals.  Since the bank is buying and selling based on the collective needs of all depositors, the bank would receive the best possible commissions and spreads on these transactions.  Then of course, these expenses would be shared among deposit holders based on their respective transactions.  It is worth noting that to the extent that deposits and withdrawals match, the only cost to the bank would be the bookkeeping charge of moving funds from one account to another.

The bank will maintain a high percentage of gold in its depository.  Maybe 85%.  The remaining gold deposits would be holdings of various gold instruments like ETFs.  This is to insure quick and inexpensive purchases and sales.

The benefit of such an arrangement is that funds are maintained in bullion and not dollars or any other currency.  These deposits are therefore immune to the irresponsibility of modern governments and the fragility of their respective currencies.

Start your own gold bank

Individuals can limit their exposure to the dollar in a similar fashion.  Invest in gold ETFs and move investment income into these ETFs, and keep funds there, rather than in dollars.  It is the same if you get a paycheck; roll your dollars into gold ETFs.

First Bank of Blockchain

This model is deposit/withdraw/spend in dollars (or any government-sponsored currency) and store in gold.  But clearly, and perhaps more easily, this could also be done with cryptocurrency.  Why has no one has thought to do this?  If the crypto folks want to be taken seriously, they need to get rid of the Sam Bankman-Fried type grifters, and bring in some serious players.

One certain takeaway from the Trump-Musk split and the Big Beautiful Bill is that relative to the US dollar, gold is the safer store of long term value.  Sure there may be some minor fluctuations here and there.  But for now this is a political certainty:  There is zero will among US politicians to control dollar-denominated US government debt.  At this point I think it is safe to say:  The US national debt will never be paid off.  Never.  Even if, magically, the politicians develop the will, at this point they lack the ability.

What does this mean?  Three possibilities.  One, the politicians will devalue the dollar.  Think one new dollar for ten old dollars.  Two, the politicians will attempt to monetize the debt by a long term policy of increasing and sustaining inflation.  Basically it is devaluing the dollar in slow motion.  Three, at some point the bond and currency markets will force a dollar devaluation.  Since the politicians are not going to address the debt in any meaningful way, one of these three, or some combination, is inevitable.

One thing US politicians will not abide is default.  At least not in name.  But devaluation, however it comes, is a form of default.  So yes, sooner or later, the US government will default on its obligations.

Individuals can prepare for this by:  Not owning debt.  Especially not government debt, but I would add, do not own any dollar-denominated debt.  If you own dollar-denominated bonds, get rid of them.  If the state of New York owes you one thousand dollars, in the form of a bond, they will be delighted to pay you back in devalued dollars.  And this is true for any and every bond issuer.

So no bonds and no dollars.  Do own real estate, gold, common stocks.  Although I would avoid equities of businesses that own a lot of debt, that is banks and other lenders.  If you are not a believer in gold, fine.  But keep your rents and dividends in gold short term until you are able to reinvest.  In terms of which common stocks to own, I would focus on companies with an economic franchise as defined by Warren Buffett.

Speaking of Mr. Buffett, he is sitting on all this cash ($350 billion) and is, famously, no fan of gold.  Surely you are not disagreeing with the oracle of Omaha?

But how much better is cash than gold?  Cash suffers the same basic problem as gold:  A store of value without income.  Gold provides no income and cash only offers slightly more than none.  The reason Buffett maintains cash is in order to move quickly into the market at a time of his choosing.  Also this:  One might remember that the only reason cash offers any income at all is the fact that almost all cash is stored in, invested in, some form of debt.

Mr. Buffett was born in 1930.  His life has spanned the length of US hegemony.  And surely that affects how he sees the world.  Buffett may be old, but the man is not stupid.  My guess is that he will attempt to relieve himself of all that cash (into some hard, income-producing assets) before the coming monetary collapse (whether fast or slow).  He is betting that the stock market will collapse before the dollar.  The history of American hegemony tells him this is a good bet.

I am not so sure.

Current US national debt is $273,500 per household.  Household net worth is around $176,500.  A figure which of course does not include national debt.  You can do your own math.

Here's Grok:

As of December 2024, the U.S. national debt as a percentage of GDP is approximately 124%.  This is based on data indicating the national debt reached $36.22 trillion, with a nominal GDP of around $29.2 trillion.  At the end of World War II in 1946, the debt-to-GDP ratio was about 106%, with a public debt of $241.86 billion against a smaller GDP.

The current ratio of 124% is notably higher than the post-WWII peak of 106%.  The increase reflects significant government spending during recent events like the COVID-19 pandemic, which drove debt levels up, compared to the post-WWII period where economic growth, primary budget surpluses, and inflation helped reduce the ratio over time.

In other words, we have the highest government debt level in modern history, no political will to reduce it, and actually no will to reduce its continued growth.  For all the left-wing hate of Donald Trump, one might note that he is not, and has never been, a fiscal conservative.

Maybe Mr. Buffett is correct.  But if the stock market does collapse with this level of national debt, what are the odds that the dollar will collapse along with the stock market?

𓐵

High Caste Lecture

I like to play this game. Every time an Indian origin kid in the West signals their progressive virtue in woke-speak -- from 'yoga is cultural appropriation' to anti-colonialism takes -- I google their last name for caste origins. 10 times out of 10 it is South Indian Brahmin.… https://t.co/DDntpmGaLi

— Zubin (@ZMadon) May 31, 2025

Of course, you Untouchables Deplorables who voted for Trump should listen to your betters.

via Instapundit

𓐵

Minimum Table Manners

When I was growing up, my parents and grandparents were tyrannical about table manners.

But is there a minimum level that will suffice?  Let's make a list.  Obviously this is not a list for very informal dining in one's own kitchen.  But if you have guests, are attending a dinner party, or any group, or are dining out, these rules apply.

I have written about this before, but let me just again state that this list applies regardless of culture.

• General principle:  Respect and observe the sanctity of the table.  Maintain decorum, which includes the below rules, and perhaps others as required.  Manners are not for yourself, but for the others at the table.  People who cannot abide by these rules deserve to eat alone.
• Eat/chew with your mouth closed.
• Always use utensils (knives, forks, spoons).
• As a host, you may well provide chopsticks for the comfort of your guests, but never use them yourself.
• Do not put anything into your mouth that has not first been cut into a size that will fit in your mouth.  Actually, quite a bit smaller.  Good manners start with small bites.
• Do not speak with anything in your mouth.
• Smartphones should always be silent, and in fact largely kept away from the table.  Calls should not be made or taken while at the table.  If absolutely necessary, quietly excuse yourself, and take calls away from the table and/or outside of the restaurant.  If other guests abuse this rule, and they will, do not yourself add to the disruption.
• One should always remember that eating together is not about eating.  You can do that alone in the kitchen.  Rather it is about socializing with the others at the table.
• Do not begin eating until everyone at the table has been served.
• It is perfectly acceptable to be the first or last to finish, but try to be roughly in sync with everyone else at the table.  Adjust accordingly as the meal progresses.  If it is a multi-course affair, this rule applies to each course.
• Do not reach.  If you can reach something on the table without standing and without reaching over someone and/or their plate, really without reaching through the airspace of their entire place setting, then fine, help yourself.  Otherwise, politely ask someone to pass the item or dish to you.
• Supply and use napkins.  If you are the host, supply more napkins than needed.
• Babies do not belong at the table.  Children can be brought to the table only once they have mastered these basics.  Never arrive with uninvited children.
• Only eat and drink or not eat and drink what is provided.  Never make special requests.  As a host, in order to insure maximum comfort for your guests, you may well ask about dietary restrictions or preferences.  But if this is not initiated by the host, let that be the end of it.  If you cannot abide by this rule, you should decline all dining invitations, and only yourself host.  Other people are not responsible for your idiosyncrasies.
• However, if you are hosting a vegan dinner party or some other such misadventure, make sure that your guests know in advance this is what you are doing.  Being the host also does not make other people responsible for your idiosyncrasies.
• In a restaurant, it should be extremely rare (maybe once in a lifetime) to send anything back to the kitchen.  The reason for this rule is that some people use this tactic, and often that is exactly what it is, to assert their dominance.  It is a low class move.  If the food is not up to your expectations, the way to deal with this is to not return.
• Similarly:  Rarely, if ever, complain about anything.  Simply keep a stiff upper lip and do not return.  No, not even a quiet word to the manager on the way out; no, not even after you have paid the bill.  No matter how discreet you are about it, the restaurant is going to believe you are looking for something for free.  This is not really about restaurant assumptions; it is about how in fact other people behave.

Are there more?  Of course; people write books on this stuff.  The more esoteric rules are full of nuance and context and require more study and practice than a simple list can provide.  But here I have tried to distill the basics.  Because as I look around me, even the basics seem to be lost.

𓐵