Trump will go with whatever end game in Ukraine allows his family to continue to service Trump Organization debts that are held by Russian entities. Without that, the family fortunes all go to shit.
The same is probably true for Saudi Arabia and Trump at this point.
It's not just about making money, it's also about whose money is actually backing all of those big splashy projects that they put the family name on.
The parts of this article that really had me shaking my head at these hubristic tech muppets were the reports of how much they were spending to build tech centers and how gormless the private equity pinheads are being in their rush to invest money in them.
And then we have this:
The tech firm makes an investment in the data center, outside investors put up most of the cash, then the special purpose vehicle borrows money to buy the chips that are inside the data centers. The tech company gets the benefit of the increased computing capacity but it doesn't weigh down the company's balance sheet with debt.
The return of the "special purpose vehicle" for financing. So very bubble.
I'd say we are better off investing in tulip bulbs, but at the rate those data centers will swallow up water and warm the planet, you'd never get those tulips to grow, and the Netherlands will be entirely underwater - just like all those mortgages were the last time we let the promise of easy money gull us.
Also, not quite a punk band, but The Great Heathen Army is an Amon Amarth album (and song) title - not punk, but rather viking themed melodic death metal.
CharlesWT - The UK’s foreign-born population was 4.2% in 1951, 8.3% in 2001, and 16% in 2021.
I'm not taking issue with you here, CharlesWT, but I am going to note, for the sake of information literacy, that the Wiki entry you cite has some problems with the data that bear scrutiny.
The 1951 and 2001 data come from one data source and the 2021 data from another. The first set counts "foreign born" population, and the last one counts "migrants." Those two things are defined in the sources that are being cited, but a closer look at those shows that "foreign born" and "migrant" are not at all the same things, and the way that the Wiki article is written, they never foreground any difference.
If you chase the source for the earlier dates, you will find that, for example, in 1971 about a third of the "foreign born" population came from families where one or both parents were born in the UK.
That would mean that for the purposes of the data from 1971, Boris Johnson would count as "foreign born," but had he been born in 2017, he would not have counted for the table because he would not be considered a "migrant," since his parents were only abroad in the US temporarily while his father was attending university there.
I suspect that there are a lot of incongruities and methodological problems in that article, but I don't expect that the average reader - even one with an undergraduate degree - would have the habits of mind to check for, or reflect on, the impacts of such problems on the conclusions being drawn from them.
This is why teaching information literacy is so challenging, and why people get impatient with academics. To paraphrase The Who, the simple things we see are all complicated, and most of us just want to get our washing done.
Substitute your lies for fact I can see right through your plastic mac I look all white, but my dad was black My fine looking suit is really made out of sack
CharlesWT - There was a ten-year period during the Blair government England had more immigration than during the previous thousand years.
We ain't seen nothing yet. Climate inaction is going to redraw a whole lot of boundaries. And people are either going to be allowed to immigrate or we are going to have an unfathomable loss of life in many places.
I don't even want to think about the effect on other creatures and on flora.
I have in the past dealt with AI hallucinated sources, and with AI suggested secondary sources that were either inappropriate to the paper at hand, or that were misrepresented by the AI synopsis...
This week, however, marks the first time I have had a student submit a paper where the AI has hallucinated quotations for the primary source and made up a new plot for the story. And this is also the first time the student turning in an AI generated paper has not recognized that AI has made up shit about a story that they had supposedly annotated, and that we had discussed at length in class.
Meanwhile, several of the students are writing projects that worry over the effects of AI on the fields that they are currently studying to become a part of, fearing that their future jobs may be transformed into something unsustainable by the time they get out of college despite it seeming like a good choice when they started.
College is a much bigger investment and a much bigger risk for them than it was for us. The cost has exploded, and the state governments are happy to allow that to happen so long as they can pass that expense on to students in the form of loans.
It's impossible for them to make an informed decision. People like Mr. Pichai are telling them that in order to prepare for the future they will need to learn how to use AI, but they are also worried that using AI will prevent them from learning the skills they will need to be able to adapt in a changing world. Not an easy bind to resolve for a brain in its early twenties. They lack the experience needed to make good judgments about these things.
In comments echoing those made by US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan in 1996, warning of "irrational exuberance" in the market well ahead of the dotcom crash, Mr Pichai said the industry can "overshoot" in investment cycles like this.
"We can look back at the internet right now. There was clearly a lot of excess investment, but none of us would question whether the internet was profound," he said.
In the middle part of the interview he muses about the huge energy costs of AI, only to conclude that new energy sources are going to be necessary to avoid constraining the economy. The environmental cost seems already to have been written off as a concern there. No doubt that will be taken care of automagically by the power of The Singularity.
As for the jobs thing:
AI will also affect work as we know it, Mr Pichai said, calling it "the most profound technology" humankind had worked on.
"We will have to work through societal disruptions," he said, adding that it would also "create new opportunities".
"It will evolve and transition certain jobs, and people will need to adapt," he said. Those who do adapt to AI "will do better".
So if it works it's going to suck up tons of energy and put people out of jobs, and the irrationality surrounding its growing pains will crash economies and ruin small investors and a lot of the less secure AI firms.
And once the survivors finally get AI off the ground we can look forward to them enshitifying it as thoroughly as they have the internet, which was probably at its best in the brief moment just before every idiot with an MBA and an in with a venture capitalist kicked off the boom with a fuzzy business plan and a dream of early retirement.
Klein and Newsom are a match made in Democratic donor class heaven, and I agree that that is a recipe for being seen as elitist and out of touch by most of the places that the Dems should be on an atonement tour for having neglected for at least two decades. And hearing Shapiro's name dropped so often in these sorts of conversations, I fear that he too may be trying to astroturf his way to a populist image.
Dems - no more skipping leg day. You have to get out there and meet with people, and actually listen to them as people you are there to serve, not just as focus groups you can use to craft your marketing campaign.
While in isolation, he finished a piece that had been commissioned. I suggested to him (via Facebook IM, it was a no-visitors situation and talking on the phone was too tiring) that he might want to take his condition as an opportunity to rest for a bit, but apparently he wasn’t having it.
This seems fitting for someone whose inspiration was Brahms' Requiem. That was, after all, a piece written in the midst of Brahms' own struggle with depression following the loss of his mother and his musical mentor, Robert Schumann. I suspect that Brahms' composing of the Requiem mirrors his own process of mourning for his lost ones. It is, after all, a requiem for the bereaved, and not for the souls of the departed.
Brahms' Requiem is a powerful piece. I used to get goosebumps while practicing it with the college choir - especially "Denn alles Fleisch, est ist wie Gras," which starts out super heavy before the later part becomes really fun to sing with a lot of challenging intervals.
Never did get a chance to perform it with the choir. Had to drop the extracurricular and get a job to pay rent, but it was still a great experience to be able to learn the piece from the inside.
To cleek's point about age, take a look at the webpages of the four biggest Democratic names amongst the current US congressional delegation from NY (Schumer, Gillibrand, Jeffries, and AOC). Schumer's website looks like crap. The photos are undynamic and low res, and there is little to draw anyone in or to reach out. It's very passive. Gillibrand's site is better, but it again looks dated, and the pics all seem aimed at an older constituency. Jeffries site is more current looking, but is a bit formal and generic. AOC's site is the most current and dynamic, with lots of pics of her actively helping out her constituents, opportunities to get involved, and ways to get help with basic needs that are presented by name.
If Schumer were to retire in the near future, then which of these sites seems like the sort that would project an image of a dynamic and people focused party that listens and cares, and that understands the needs of young voters?
And when I say "young voters," I note alarmingly that for a lot of the political discussions I read online, that translates to Millennials, and Gen Z. We have a problem when the upper end of "young voter" is in their 40s.
We are rapidly approaching a tipping point in Democratic politics. It would be best to guide that transition and start it now rather than letting it be an abrupt and seismic shift.
lj - nous, is it out of the realm of possibility to imagine Elizabeth Warren? I was looking at seniority and Patty Murray is actually the most senior, I’d like to think that a woman would send a message, though youth is also good.
I don't think Warren is out of the realm of possibility. If we look at current Democratic leadership, and we eliminate Schumer and Durbin (retiring), then we have Klobuchar (MI), Booker (NJ), Warren (MA), Warner (VA), Sanders (VT), Baldwin (WI), Cortez Masto (NV), Schatz (HI), and Murphy (CT).
If you want to elevate a woman, then I'd eliminate Cortez Masto right off the bat over the shutdown votes. Think what you will of the practicality of it, her decision is not going to help change the impression of the Dems or inspire anyone who is disillusioned. Warren is great, but her media presence reinforces the liberal wonk image. She also reinforces the elitist image a bit by virtue of her still sounding like a professor. That leaves Baldwin and Klobuchar. If Klobuchar still plans to run for President, then Baldwin would be the best choice IMO. She's a bit more vulnerable on the electoral front (WI is very purple and their GOP is deeply awful), but that also positions her as someone who has overcome a lot of prejudices and still succeeded in a rural state in the middle of the country.
Murray has served a long time, but despite this she isn't in party leadership. That makes me wonder if she would be a good choice.
Otherwise, looking at the existing leadership, I think Booker, Schatz, or Murphy. Warner isn't as reliable a D vote. Sanders is great, but older and seen as a socialist. Schatz is less well known, but is seen as a future leader. Murphy is solidly in the middle of the party and is usually supporting the party in his votes.
I saw a thread over on Bsky arguing that the job of the Dem Senate leader is not to be a popular leader, but to be the one who can talk to everyone and hold together the largest possible number of senators for a coalition. Their claim was that Schumer was the one best suited to that task and that to change now was to make someone else learn the hardest job in government on the fly. Who, they asked, would be able to replace him and do as well?
I don't know. But I also don't think that is the right question or the right way to think about this situation. It's not just about maintaining a coalition, it's about communication and leadership and moral presence as well. Schumer has never been half of what Pelosi was in the House.
I think Klobuchar could probably do at least as good a job, and has enough experience that she would not be learning from scratch. She's about the center of the Democratic spectrum. She could still hold presidential ambitions, but they aren't going to go much of anywhere. This would be her peak.
I'd prefer Booker. He'd give the Dems a younger presence with more charisma, but he's also probably a bit farther left than some of his colleagues might prefer, and he may want to take a shot at running for president himself. Still, he's been effective at working with others and has a lot of leadership experience for someone with fewer than ten years in the Senate, and I think he'd be more inspirational than either Schumer or Klobuchar.
Whatever the case, I think the Dems are about to hit a tipping point where the leadership starts to age out, and the prominent younger members are going to be trending more progressive and more willing to fight. Best to start reflecting that a bit more with the public face of the party in the Senate.
russell - if I was, say, 30 or 40 years old I’d be seriously pissed right about now.
And they are.
And it gets more dire the younger you go. My 17-25 year-olds in my class are even more cynical and pissed than I was as a young punk in the 1980s, but with more of a sense of powerlessness because they are watching all of the progress we had get taken away.
We have to give them some reason to hope or else we are ceding the most angry and nihilistic of them straight to the alt-right.
wj - I’m arguing that sometimes you have to settle for imperfect in order to get anything at all. And while there’s certainly no obligation to embrace someone like Manchin, it is a bad idea to get loudly worked up about his shortcomings. If you have a real chance to replace him with someone better, fine. But when you don’t, save your invective for the other side. Screaming “treason!” is counterproductive.
...would that the grumpy moderates and reactionary centrists could take this to heart with the progressives and social democrats in their own caucus as well, especially when those progressives and social democrats have shown more solidarity with their colleagues than the centrist border reivers.
Yup, vilified simply for being a moderate. Manchin never did anything to offend anyone who wasn't a horrible activist lost to their political delusions.
Here is an antidote to the weak rhetorical sauce being offered up by Shaheen and her turtling pals. Rep. Adelita Grijalva speaks at her swearing in today, and dances all over the GOP's buttons with every one of her minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EhEeqOu8Ts
Granddaughter of a Bracero - check.
Speaks Spanish with no translation - check.
Smacks the Speaker over his partisan delays - check.
Chides congress for abandoning its oversight role - check.
Brings Epstein survivors to her swearing in - check.
Signs discharge petition as her first official act - check.
wj - I would argue that it did work. The alternatives were never, ever, Manchin vs a more reliably more liberal Democrat. The alternative to Manchin was a very conservative Republican. Like the one now holding that seat.
From the perspective of WV electoral politics, you are correct. But there are wider ripples that are harder to measure that need to be considered. Manchin and Sinema voted against the Build Back Better deal, spiking major legislation that would have helped fight climate change. They (and Shaheen, and King, and Hassan - sound familiar?) spiked the minimum wage bill in 2021.
Now all the stories are about how Biden can't get his signature legislation passed.
It happened again going out the door with these two preventing Biden from appointing someone to the NLRB, handing Trump control of the federal arm that deals with labor bargaining.
I know that a lot of people have written about how Harris had a problem with turnout due to Israel/Palestine issues, but I also firmly believe that had Biden and Harris managed to pass Build Back Better and the increase in minimum wage, that we would not have seen turnout quite so reduced for Harris, and might have seen a few fewer votes for Trump amongst young men disillusioned with federal politics and claiming that both sides were essentially the same.
Dems need to convince younger voters that they can actually achieve something to help with climate, stagnant wages, and the possibility of ever owning a home. Manchin and Sinema did more damage to this belief than did anyone else.
It's not just about vote percentages and issues mentioned in exit polling. There's the unseen effects of turnout and the issues that fuel cynicism and disillusionment.
Guess who showed up for the most recent Blue Wave?
The GOP probably thinks that their demand for abortion restrictions in return for extending the subsidies is a clever move - making it so that they can say the Dems were the ones to sink the ACA because of their refusal (and they had best refuse). I think, however, that this ploy is going to backfire. The abortion stuff will play well to their base, but there is no reason to tie these two things together other than to poison pill it for the Dems, so I don't know how this lets the GOP off the hook when people's health insurance suddenly becomes unaffordable. It just demonstrates their lack of good faith.
Let's hope the Democratic leadership have enough sense to hit back hard on this and make voters see that the GOP is treating this like a game and not taking people's healthcare access seriously. It's simple messaging, or at least it would be for anyone not allergic to confrontation and sharp elbows.
wj - I understand what you are saying about not interrupting the enemy when they are in the midst of making a mistake. What I do not understand is why you think Kaine saying something like what wonkie outlines would in any way tip off the GOP that they were being set up.
And, assuming that they did recognize the mousetrap, I really don't see how the GOP could ever avoid that trap. Even if they see it sitting there, The Ancient Orange One Who Slumbers will not let them back down from tearing down a big shiny thing with Obama's name on it.
So where is the downside for Kaine blasting the GOP?
And I really don't believe that this is all Schumer calculus, and that the drama between caucuses has been scripted. If I had to pick anyone out of that group who was doing it for cover, I'd say it was Durbin giving cover to Gillibrand, but I don't think that was engineered by Schumer.
And I think Schumer should lose his leadership spot because he is such a soft target for people like Stewart, and even his attempts at sounding feisty look and sound squishy to anyone not starting to worry about retirement. The Dems need a scrappy wartime leader, not someone who talks about the sympathetic conversations that they have with their colleagues across the aisle while working out at the Senate gym.
Pull him from his leadership position and put someone else in front of those cameras who knows how to talk a good fight.
Note that Pritzker was speaking in front of a union crowd there (my compatriots in the IFT). This is what I've been saying for well over an election cycle - there are a whole lot of reachable voters who would respond to union-style messaging: "When we fight, we win." And in the face of a (temporary) loss, shift the message to one of building strength and solidarity for the longer campaign, and get out and organize.
And when I say "organize," I don't mean "fundraise." The idea is to mobilize as many people as you can - get them coming out and doing things, and meeting others who are doing the same. Fundraising doesn't build community. Direct messaging doesn't build community. Email lists don't build community. Shared struggle builds community.
Also, I don't know how many of the people who complain about the progressives woeful messaging have taken the time to watch one of the videos that AOC puts out on her various social media platforms. She's really good, especially at speaking to voters under 45. And if you look at the demographics of the Blue Wave, those were the voters that carried the show.
I think it is a mistake to treat the defection of the eight and the decision to end the shutdown as only a matter of cost/benefit analysis for the possible outcomes. My earlier quotation addresses that:
Please don’t be so “revolutionary” that you think electoral politics never matter and please don’t be so “moderate” that you think electoral politics are all that matter. – Abiola Agoro
As I have said before of union bargaining strategies, sometimes it's important to fight a losing battle in order to establish the narrative for the next battle and make your opponent think about the cost of that next victory. It's the reason why so many older brothers say that you have to hit the bully as hard as you can even if they are going to beat the crap out of you. It also sends an important message to allies and bystanders that the bully can be resisted and hurt.
So for me the questions "are we going to win?" and "are people going to get hurt if we resis?t" are not the only important questions. It's also important to ask how accepting that loss at this moment is going to affect the public narrative and the results of the next such confrontation. If holding out for another week gives the GOP another full week of having to deal with Blue Wave stories without significantly adding to the suffering of at-risk people, then I think you have to try to stretch it for one more week, and your caucus puts energy into helping take the sting out of the need with food drives and informational campaigns and partnerships with progressive faith groups. You still give in, but you give in on your terms, when you have a more opportune moment to control the narrative.
I think this is what Agoro is getting at when she says not to be so moderate that you think electoral politics are all that matter.
I'll also say here that I think Kaine, being the Senator for Virginia, was probably under a lot of pressure from a constituency that is heavy with fired federal workers who were asking him to find a way to get them their jobs back. I think his decision made sense, and while I don't think he should be let off the hook, I do think that any punishment he get from the caucus should be less than what the others receive.
The others should be out in the cold for any political favors for a long time, and I would not be sad if they were challenged in their next primaries.
First Circuit Appeals Court has upheld the SNAP ruling, and Justice Jackson has given the administration until 11am to decide whether they want to continue with the appeal.
Should have waited for this to hit before caving on cloture.
Cortez Masto (NV), Fetterman (PA), Durbin (IL), Hassan (NH), Kaine (VA), Rosen (NV), Shaheen (NH), King (Ind. ME).
The Nevada contingent aren't much of a surprise. Fetterman is Manchin in a hoodie. Shaheen and Durbin are retiring and probably decided to throw themselves on the cloture grenade to end the shutdown because there were other Dems that were wavering and wanted cover.
I really wish that they would have held out at least until the First Circuit handed down their decision on SNAP. If they had affirmed that SNAP needed covering, then the cloture could have come right after The Ancient Orange One went on record *yet again* to deny aid to hungry children and seniors. The Dems could have been the compassionate ones in that moment. Had the First Circuit sided with The Ancient Orange One, the Dems could play it just the same and be the ones coming to the rescue of the needy.
This just looks like a loss of courage in the wake of a Blue Wave, and it kills any sense of momentum or hope.
A lot of Reactionary Centrists have been arguing that this was inevitable, and that the people who wanted to continue the shutdown were all callously ignoring the plight of the needy from positions of privilege. They consistently fail to see beyond electoral politics.
Please don’t be so “revolutionary” that you think electoral politics never matter and please don’t be so “moderate” that you think electoral politics are all that matter. - Abiola Agoro
wj - ...actors can play parts, with authentic appearing emotions, even about experiences they have never personally had — all it takes is having seen someone else experiencing it.
Agreed, but look at what I said: What you do need, however, is some life experience to connect it with. Note that I did not say that they need to have that precise experience, just enough to act as a bridge between their own experience and others'. As russell says, it takes empathy, or as they used to say "fellow feelings." An AI has no experiences, and isn't a person, so can have no personal perspective and cannot reflect. It has to be trained to extrapolate within very narrow ranges and cannot imagine or improvise or project. Even a sociopath has a better perspective for understanding. At least the sociopath is embodied and sensate and conscious. An AI is a database with a good costuming department.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “An openish thread featuring the comedy stylings of Steve Witkoff”
Trump will go with whatever end game in Ukraine allows his family to continue to service Trump Organization debts that are held by Russian entities. Without that, the family fortunes all go to shit.
The same is probably true for Saudi Arabia and Trump at this point.
It's not just about making money, it's also about whose money is actually backing all of those big splashy projects that they put the family name on.
On “Pop!”
Here's another piece that I ran across on NPR:
https://www.npr.org/2025/11/23/nx-s1-5615410/ai-bubble-nvidia-openai-revenue-bust-data-centers
The parts of this article that really had me shaking my head at these hubristic tech muppets were the reports of how much they were spending to build tech centers and how gormless the private equity pinheads are being in their rush to invest money in them.
And then we have this:
The return of the "special purpose vehicle" for financing. So very bubble.
I'd say we are better off investing in tulip bulbs, but at the rate those data centers will swallow up water and warm the planet, you'd never get those tulips to grow, and the Netherlands will be entirely underwater - just like all those mortgages were the last time we let the promise of easy money gull us.
On “Shabana burns the cakes”
Also, not quite a punk band, but The Great Heathen Army is an Amon Amarth album (and song) title - not punk, but rather viking themed melodic death metal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK4MbGyCSXU
"
CharlesWT - The UK’s foreign-born population was 4.2% in 1951, 8.3% in 2001, and 16% in 2021.
I'm not taking issue with you here, CharlesWT, but I am going to note, for the sake of information literacy, that the Wiki entry you cite has some problems with the data that bear scrutiny.
The 1951 and 2001 data come from one data source and the 2021 data from another. The first set counts "foreign born" population, and the last one counts "migrants." Those two things are defined in the sources that are being cited, but a closer look at those shows that "foreign born" and "migrant" are not at all the same things, and the way that the Wiki article is written, they never foreground any difference.
If you chase the source for the earlier dates, you will find that, for example, in 1971 about a third of the "foreign born" population came from families where one or both parents were born in the UK.
That would mean that for the purposes of the data from 1971, Boris Johnson would count as "foreign born," but had he been born in 2017, he would not have counted for the table because he would not be considered a "migrant," since his parents were only abroad in the US temporarily while his father was attending university there.
I suspect that there are a lot of incongruities and methodological problems in that article, but I don't expect that the average reader - even one with an undergraduate degree - would have the habits of mind to check for, or reflect on, the impacts of such problems on the conclusions being drawn from them.
This is why teaching information literacy is so challenging, and why people get impatient with academics. To paraphrase The Who, the simple things we see are all complicated, and most of us just want to get our washing done.
Substitute your lies for fact
I can see right through your plastic mac
I look all white, but my dad was black
My fine looking suit is really made out of sack
"
CharlesWT - There was a ten-year period during the Blair government England had more immigration than during the previous thousand years.
We ain't seen nothing yet. Climate inaction is going to redraw a whole lot of boundaries. And people are either going to be allowed to immigrate or we are going to have an unfathomable loss of life in many places.
I don't even want to think about the effect on other creatures and on flora.
On “Pop!”
Side note from the AI front lines...:
I have in the past dealt with AI hallucinated sources, and with AI suggested secondary sources that were either inappropriate to the paper at hand, or that were misrepresented by the AI synopsis...
This week, however, marks the first time I have had a student submit a paper where the AI has hallucinated quotations for the primary source and made up a new plot for the story. And this is also the first time the student turning in an AI generated paper has not recognized that AI has made up shit about a story that they had supposedly annotated, and that we had discussed at length in class.
Meanwhile, several of the students are writing projects that worry over the effects of AI on the fields that they are currently studying to become a part of, fearing that their future jobs may be transformed into something unsustainable by the time they get out of college despite it seeming like a good choice when they started.
College is a much bigger investment and a much bigger risk for them than it was for us. The cost has exploded, and the state governments are happy to allow that to happen so long as they can pass that expense on to students in the form of loans.
It's impossible for them to make an informed decision. People like Mr. Pichai are telling them that in order to prepare for the future they will need to learn how to use AI, but they are also worried that using AI will prevent them from learning the skills they will need to be able to adapt in a changing world. Not an easy bind to resolve for a brain in its early twenties. They lack the experience needed to make good judgments about these things.
"
From the BBC: Google boss says trillion-dollar AI investment boom has 'elements of irrationality'
In the middle part of the interview he muses about the huge energy costs of AI, only to conclude that new energy sources are going to be necessary to avoid constraining the economy. The environmental cost seems already to have been written off as a concern there. No doubt that will be taken care of automagically by the power of The Singularity.
As for the jobs thing:
So if it works it's going to suck up tons of energy and put people out of jobs, and the irrationality surrounding its growing pains will crash economies and ruin small investors and a lot of the less secure AI firms.
And once the survivors finally get AI off the ground we can look forward to them enshitifying it as thoroughly as they have the internet, which was probably at its best in the brief moment just before every idiot with an MBA and an in with a venture capitalist kicked off the boom with a fuzzy business plan and a dream of early retirement.
Lovely.
On “Spelunking for fun and profit”
Klein and Newsom are a match made in Democratic donor class heaven, and I agree that that is a recipe for being seen as elitist and out of touch by most of the places that the Dems should be on an atonement tour for having neglected for at least two decades. And hearing Shapiro's name dropped so often in these sorts of conversations, I fear that he too may be trying to astroturf his way to a populist image.
Dems - no more skipping leg day. You have to get out there and meet with people, and actually listen to them as people you are there to serve, not just as focus groups you can use to craft your marketing campaign.
On “Weekend Music Thread #06 Kile Smith”
I really enjoyed "The Waking Sun."
While in isolation, he finished a piece that had been commissioned. I suggested to him (via Facebook IM, it was a no-visitors situation and talking on the phone was too tiring) that he might want to take his condition as an opportunity to rest for a bit, but apparently he wasn’t having it.
This seems fitting for someone whose inspiration was Brahms' Requiem. That was, after all, a piece written in the midst of Brahms' own struggle with depression following the loss of his mother and his musical mentor, Robert Schumann. I suspect that Brahms' composing of the Requiem mirrors his own process of mourning for his lost ones. It is, after all, a requiem for the bereaved, and not for the souls of the departed.
Brahms' Requiem is a powerful piece. I used to get goosebumps while practicing it with the college choir - especially "Denn alles Fleisch, est ist wie Gras," which starts out super heavy before the later part becomes really fun to sing with a lot of challenging intervals.
Never did get a chance to perform it with the choir. Had to drop the extracurricular and get a job to pay rent, but it was still a great experience to be able to learn the piece from the inside.
On “Spelunking for fun and profit”
To cleek's point about age, take a look at the webpages of the four biggest Democratic names amongst the current US congressional delegation from NY (Schumer, Gillibrand, Jeffries, and AOC). Schumer's website looks like crap. The photos are undynamic and low res, and there is little to draw anyone in or to reach out. It's very passive. Gillibrand's site is better, but it again looks dated, and the pics all seem aimed at an older constituency. Jeffries site is more current looking, but is a bit formal and generic. AOC's site is the most current and dynamic, with lots of pics of her actively helping out her constituents, opportunities to get involved, and ways to get help with basic needs that are presented by name.
If Schumer were to retire in the near future, then which of these sites seems like the sort that would project an image of a dynamic and people focused party that listens and cares, and that understands the needs of young voters?
And when I say "young voters," I note alarmingly that for a lot of the political discussions I read online, that translates to Millennials, and Gen Z. We have a problem when the upper end of "young voter" is in their 40s.
We are rapidly approaching a tipping point in Democratic politics. It would be best to guide that transition and start it now rather than letting it be an abrupt and seismic shift.
"
lj - nous, is it out of the realm of possibility to imagine Elizabeth Warren? I was looking at seniority and Patty Murray is actually the most senior, I’d like to think that a woman would send a message, though youth is also good.
I don't think Warren is out of the realm of possibility. If we look at current Democratic leadership, and we eliminate Schumer and Durbin (retiring), then we have Klobuchar (MI), Booker (NJ), Warren (MA), Warner (VA), Sanders (VT), Baldwin (WI), Cortez Masto (NV), Schatz (HI), and Murphy (CT).
If you want to elevate a woman, then I'd eliminate Cortez Masto right off the bat over the shutdown votes. Think what you will of the practicality of it, her decision is not going to help change the impression of the Dems or inspire anyone who is disillusioned. Warren is great, but her media presence reinforces the liberal wonk image. She also reinforces the elitist image a bit by virtue of her still sounding like a professor. That leaves Baldwin and Klobuchar. If Klobuchar still plans to run for President, then Baldwin would be the best choice IMO. She's a bit more vulnerable on the electoral front (WI is very purple and their GOP is deeply awful), but that also positions her as someone who has overcome a lot of prejudices and still succeeded in a rural state in the middle of the country.
Murray has served a long time, but despite this she isn't in party leadership. That makes me wonder if she would be a good choice.
Otherwise, looking at the existing leadership, I think Booker, Schatz, or Murphy. Warner isn't as reliable a D vote. Sanders is great, but older and seen as a socialist. Schatz is less well known, but is seen as a future leader. Murphy is solidly in the middle of the party and is usually supporting the party in his votes.
"
I saw a thread over on Bsky arguing that the job of the Dem Senate leader is not to be a popular leader, but to be the one who can talk to everyone and hold together the largest possible number of senators for a coalition. Their claim was that Schumer was the one best suited to that task and that to change now was to make someone else learn the hardest job in government on the fly. Who, they asked, would be able to replace him and do as well?
I don't know. But I also don't think that is the right question or the right way to think about this situation. It's not just about maintaining a coalition, it's about communication and leadership and moral presence as well. Schumer has never been half of what Pelosi was in the House.
I think Klobuchar could probably do at least as good a job, and has enough experience that she would not be learning from scratch. She's about the center of the Democratic spectrum. She could still hold presidential ambitions, but they aren't going to go much of anywhere. This would be her peak.
I'd prefer Booker. He'd give the Dems a younger presence with more charisma, but he's also probably a bit farther left than some of his colleagues might prefer, and he may want to take a shot at running for president himself. Still, he's been effective at working with others and has a lot of leadership experience for someone with fewer than ten years in the Senate, and I think he'd be more inspirational than either Schumer or Klobuchar.
Whatever the case, I think the Dems are about to hit a tipping point where the leadership starts to age out, and the prominent younger members are going to be trending more progressive and more willing to fight. Best to start reflecting that a bit more with the public face of the party in the Senate.
"
russell - if I was, say, 30 or 40 years old I’d be seriously pissed right about now.
And they are.
And it gets more dire the younger you go. My 17-25 year-olds in my class are even more cynical and pissed than I was as a young punk in the 1980s, but with more of a sense of powerlessness because they are watching all of the progress we had get taken away.
We have to give them some reason to hope or else we are ceding the most angry and nihilistic of them straight to the alt-right.
"
wj - I’m arguing that sometimes you have to settle for imperfect in order to get anything at all. And while there’s certainly no obligation to embrace someone like Manchin, it is a bad idea to get loudly worked up about his shortcomings. If you have a real chance to replace him with someone better, fine. But when you don’t, save your invective for the other side. Screaming “treason!” is counterproductive.
...would that the grumpy moderates and reactionary centrists could take this to heart with the progressives and social democrats in their own caucus as well, especially when those progressives and social democrats have shown more solidarity with their colleagues than the centrist border reivers.
"
Yup, vilified simply for being a moderate. Manchin never did anything to offend anyone who wasn't a horrible activist lost to their political delusions.
@#$%ing activists. So unfair.
"
Here is an antidote to the weak rhetorical sauce being offered up by Shaheen and her turtling pals. Rep. Adelita Grijalva speaks at her swearing in today, and dances all over the GOP's buttons with every one of her minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EhEeqOu8Ts
Granddaughter of a Bracero - check.
Speaks Spanish with no translation - check.
Smacks the Speaker over his partisan delays - check.
Chides congress for abandoning its oversight role - check.
Brings Epstein survivors to her swearing in - check.
Signs discharge petition as her first official act - check.
This is how it should be done.
"
wj - I would argue that it did work. The alternatives were never, ever, Manchin vs a more reliably more liberal Democrat. The alternative to Manchin was a very conservative Republican. Like the one now holding that seat.
From the perspective of WV electoral politics, you are correct. But there are wider ripples that are harder to measure that need to be considered. Manchin and Sinema voted against the Build Back Better deal, spiking major legislation that would have helped fight climate change. They (and Shaheen, and King, and Hassan - sound familiar?) spiked the minimum wage bill in 2021.
Now all the stories are about how Biden can't get his signature legislation passed.
It happened again going out the door with these two preventing Biden from appointing someone to the NLRB, handing Trump control of the federal arm that deals with labor bargaining.
I know that a lot of people have written about how Harris had a problem with turnout due to Israel/Palestine issues, but I also firmly believe that had Biden and Harris managed to pass Build Back Better and the increase in minimum wage, that we would not have seen turnout quite so reduced for Harris, and might have seen a few fewer votes for Trump amongst young men disillusioned with federal politics and claiming that both sides were essentially the same.
Dems need to convince younger voters that they can actually achieve something to help with climate, stagnant wages, and the possibility of ever owning a home. Manchin and Sinema did more damage to this belief than did anyone else.
It's not just about vote percentages and issues mentioned in exit polling. There's the unseen effects of turnout and the issues that fuel cynicism and disillusionment.
Guess who showed up for the most recent Blue Wave?
"
The Epstein Files have never been a GOP hobby horse (and we have always been at war with Eastasia).
Someone needs to update their Two Minutes of Hate.
"
The GOP probably thinks that their demand for abortion restrictions in return for extending the subsidies is a clever move - making it so that they can say the Dems were the ones to sink the ACA because of their refusal (and they had best refuse). I think, however, that this ploy is going to backfire. The abortion stuff will play well to their base, but there is no reason to tie these two things together other than to poison pill it for the Dems, so I don't know how this lets the GOP off the hook when people's health insurance suddenly becomes unaffordable. It just demonstrates their lack of good faith.
Let's hope the Democratic leadership have enough sense to hit back hard on this and make voters see that the GOP is treating this like a game and not taking people's healthcare access seriously. It's simple messaging, or at least it would be for anyone not allergic to confrontation and sharp elbows.
"
wj - I understand what you are saying about not interrupting the enemy when they are in the midst of making a mistake. What I do not understand is why you think Kaine saying something like what wonkie outlines would in any way tip off the GOP that they were being set up.
And, assuming that they did recognize the mousetrap, I really don't see how the GOP could ever avoid that trap. Even if they see it sitting there, The Ancient Orange One Who Slumbers will not let them back down from tearing down a big shiny thing with Obama's name on it.
So where is the downside for Kaine blasting the GOP?
And I really don't believe that this is all Schumer calculus, and that the drama between caucuses has been scripted. If I had to pick anyone out of that group who was doing it for cover, I'd say it was Durbin giving cover to Gillibrand, but I don't think that was engineered by Schumer.
And I think Schumer should lose his leadership spot because he is such a soft target for people like Stewart, and even his attempts at sounding feisty look and sound squishy to anyone not starting to worry about retirement. The Dems need a scrappy wartime leader, not someone who talks about the sympathetic conversations that they have with their colleagues across the aisle while working out at the Senate gym.
Pull him from his leadership position and put someone else in front of those cameras who knows how to talk a good fight.
"
Note that Pritzker was speaking in front of a union crowd there (my compatriots in the IFT). This is what I've been saying for well over an election cycle - there are a whole lot of reachable voters who would respond to union-style messaging: "When we fight, we win." And in the face of a (temporary) loss, shift the message to one of building strength and solidarity for the longer campaign, and get out and organize.
And when I say "organize," I don't mean "fundraise." The idea is to mobilize as many people as you can - get them coming out and doing things, and meeting others who are doing the same. Fundraising doesn't build community. Direct messaging doesn't build community. Email lists don't build community. Shared struggle builds community.
Also, I don't know how many of the people who complain about the progressives woeful messaging have taken the time to watch one of the videos that AOC puts out on her various social media platforms. She's really good, especially at speaking to voters under 45. And if you look at the demographics of the Blue Wave, those were the voters that carried the show.
On “When virtues become vices”
I think it is a mistake to treat the defection of the eight and the decision to end the shutdown as only a matter of cost/benefit analysis for the possible outcomes. My earlier quotation addresses that:
Please don’t be so “revolutionary” that you think electoral politics never matter and please don’t be so “moderate” that you think electoral politics are all that matter. – Abiola Agoro
As I have said before of union bargaining strategies, sometimes it's important to fight a losing battle in order to establish the narrative for the next battle and make your opponent think about the cost of that next victory. It's the reason why so many older brothers say that you have to hit the bully as hard as you can even if they are going to beat the crap out of you. It also sends an important message to allies and bystanders that the bully can be resisted and hurt.
So for me the questions "are we going to win?" and "are people going to get hurt if we resis?t" are not the only important questions. It's also important to ask how accepting that loss at this moment is going to affect the public narrative and the results of the next such confrontation. If holding out for another week gives the GOP another full week of having to deal with Blue Wave stories without significantly adding to the suffering of at-risk people, then I think you have to try to stretch it for one more week, and your caucus puts energy into helping take the sting out of the need with food drives and informational campaigns and partnerships with progressive faith groups. You still give in, but you give in on your terms, when you have a more opportune moment to control the narrative.
I think this is what Agoro is getting at when she says not to be so moderate that you think electoral politics are all that matter.
I'll also say here that I think Kaine, being the Senator for Virginia, was probably under a lot of pressure from a constituency that is heavy with fired federal workers who were asking him to find a way to get them their jobs back. I think his decision made sense, and while I don't think he should be let off the hook, I do think that any punishment he get from the caucus should be less than what the others receive.
The others should be out in the cold for any political favors for a long time, and I would not be sad if they were challenged in their next primaries.
"
First Circuit Appeals Court has upheld the SNAP ruling, and Justice Jackson has given the administration until 11am to decide whether they want to continue with the appeal.
Should have waited for this to hit before caving on cloture.
"
Done deal:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/11/09/democrat-senators-who-voted-end-shutdown/87190180007/
Cortez Masto (NV), Fetterman (PA), Durbin (IL), Hassan (NH), Kaine (VA), Rosen (NV), Shaheen (NH), King (Ind. ME).
The Nevada contingent aren't much of a surprise. Fetterman is Manchin in a hoodie. Shaheen and Durbin are retiring and probably decided to throw themselves on the cloture grenade to end the shutdown because there were other Dems that were wavering and wanted cover.
I really wish that they would have held out at least until the First Circuit handed down their decision on SNAP. If they had affirmed that SNAP needed covering, then the cloture could have come right after The Ancient Orange One went on record *yet again* to deny aid to hungry children and seniors. The Dems could have been the compassionate ones in that moment. Had the First Circuit sided with The Ancient Orange One, the Dems could play it just the same and be the ones coming to the rescue of the needy.
This just looks like a loss of courage in the wake of a Blue Wave, and it kills any sense of momentum or hope.
A lot of Reactionary Centrists have been arguing that this was inevitable, and that the people who wanted to continue the shutdown were all callously ignoring the plight of the needy from positions of privilege. They consistently fail to see beyond electoral politics.
This feels premature.
On “Weekend Music Thread #04 John Mackey”
wj - ...actors can play parts, with authentic appearing emotions, even about experiences they have never personally had — all it takes is having seen someone else experiencing it.
Agreed, but look at what I said: What you do need, however, is some life experience to connect it with. Note that I did not say that they need to have that precise experience, just enough to act as a bridge between their own experience and others'. As russell says, it takes empathy, or as they used to say "fellow feelings." An AI has no experiences, and isn't a person, so can have no personal perspective and cannot reflect. It has to be trained to extrapolate within very narrow ranges and cannot imagine or improvise or project. Even a sociopath has a better perspective for understanding. At least the sociopath is embodied and sensate and conscious. An AI is a database with a good costuming department.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.