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
I think the tendency of Congressional Democrats to try to find compromise and "solutions" is a positive that functions as a negative. I am so completely disgusted by the stupidity of the Senate Dems of the Cowardly Cave In Caucus.
if you felt like giving an idea of the discussions, that would be very interesting indeed
so, not really an idea of the discussion, but just some thoughts.
Some of this is, I think, generational. Charlie was born in 1935, and was the youngest of my mom's siblings. The family had come through the Depression, somehow, and were basically, not blue collar exactly, but working class Queens folks. Not desparately poor, but... of limited means.
Folks like that can basically see serious poverty in the rear view mirror. And too far back, either. It's tangible to them in ways that it is not to people like, for instance, me. People who are more solidly and securely middle class.
For my grandparents especially, and for my mom and her siblings, there was serious shame around being "on relief". Around receiving welfare of any kind. It meant that you had failed to maintain your toehold in the respectable world.
There is also a sort of patriotic dimension to it. We had overcome the Depression, we were to go on to prevail in WWII. We would follow that up with the Marshall Plan, and then later with the international aid and "soft power" politics of the Eisenhower and Kennedy years.
All of which covers my uncle's youth and young manhood.
My grandparents and mom's siblings really did think of the US as the greatest country on earth, maybe (probably) in history. Because it arguably was, mostly, for a minute.
So there is that.
And there is a cultural dimension.
My uncle was a NY City fireman, retiring as a lieutanant. In NYC, first responders - cops, firemen - tend to be conservative. Uncle was probably more so than most - not that many FDNY folks are Birch Society chapter heads - but that was likely the common direction - the prevailing winds, if you will - of his social context.
He was also a founder and elder in a relatively conservative church. Which was a chosen social context, of course, but also one that would be likely to reinforce his own conservative instincts.
And I would add, perhaps somewhat oddly, Charlie was a New Yorker. New Yorkers tend to be chauvinistic - tend to think in "we are the best" terms.
I don't know if or what to extent this fits in this thread, but rather than starting yet another one I am linking here a gift article in today's Atlantic by a Reagan appointed judge about the reasons for his resignation: tl;dr Trump's lawlessness:
Well, the SCOTUS precedent is clear: Aryans are welcome - provided they are NOT Indian (even if they out-racist most Nazis).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_Thind
At heart, MAGA's problem is one of definition: who counts as Amurikans? Ramaswamy obviously feels that he qualifies. (No clue what his personal definition is. Maybe "anyone Trump supports is in"?) Others, using different definitions, differ. And not just about him.
The thing is, there are lots of definitions. And a movement based on exclusion is in trouble without a single, unified, definition. A charismatic figurehead can, with work, paper over the differences, at least for a while. But MAGAworld looks to be losing their unifying leader, so the fractures over definition are appearing. Put another way, the knives are coming out.
Didn't mean to denigrate Uncle Charlie or the others. Its just that a hallmark of American conservatism in my life has been the ability to build a wall between people they care about and ones they don't. Its how you get compassionate and caring people who see no problem with ICE wearing masks and shooting a priest in the face with pepper balls. I don't believe one negates the other, but one doesn't excuse the other either. Its complicated, like people do.
Sure, a bad imitation is distinguishable. But a good one?
A really good simulacrum of a highly formulaic or stylistically mannered performance could be convincing. Because the "real thing" is already sort of artificial.
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.
What is required is empathy. Which machines do not have. They can imitate. They cannot empathize. Those are different things.
Certainly they are different. The question is, are they distinguishable? I'm not sure that they necessarily are? Sure, a bad imitation is distinguishable. But a good one?
Put another way, is real empathy required? Or can it be simulated convincingly?
What you do need, however, is some life experience to connect it with.
I’m not so sure about that. Certainly it can help. But actors can play parts, with authentic appearing emotions, even about experiences they have never personally had
What is required is empathy. Which machines do not have.
They can imitate. They cannot empathize. Those are different things.
And I don’t think that one has to have written a song in order to understand and serve the emotions of the song. What you do need, however, is some life experience to connect it with.
I'm not so sure about that. Certainly it can help. But 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. Or showing how it looked when a third party did. Great actors do it most convincingly, but even journeyman level actors can do a pretty convincing job.
Are singers any different from actors in that regard? I'm willing to be convinced, but it may take some doing.
And I don’t think that one has to have written a song in order to understand and serve the emotions of the song. What you do need, however, is some life experience to connect it with.
Perfect example: Johnny Cash singing Hurt. The video's pretty amazing too.
And I don't think that one has to have written a song in order to understand and serve the emotions of the song. What you do need, however, is some life experience to connect it with.
And I'm not talking about a CGI/animated puppet for real performers (a la Gorillaz or Dethklok). That's just human musicians cosplaying something else. What Spotify, Sony, Warner, etc. are after is on-trend content generated by trained expert systems in response to prompts or to the other content listened to by users of their services.
lj - ...and I would be surprised if this week’s is on anyone else’s.
Incorrect, sir.
The Hu - Yuve Yuve Yu (Mongolian Folk Metal)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4xZUr0BEfE
Heilung - In Maidjan (Danish Shamanistic Neofolk)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmWTZ3KfnXE
Both of which have, with other songs from these bands, had some heavy rotation in my playlists. Both bands are pretty awesome, and have dedicated fanbases. I find that Heilung live video astounding and powerful every damn time I watch it.
"Throat singing" is also practiced in Alaskan native societies. Got a CD of it, somewhere.
Takes some getting used to, but I always thought that it would be a musical style that could fit into a rap/hip-hop work, if someone was sufficiently motivated to try.
Shorter me - show me the AI music generator that will come up with a line like "Looks a lot like Che Guevara / he drove a diesel van".
It's simultaneously tongue-in-cheek hip and hilarious and ironic and allusive in about 10 different directions. Totally obvious and common place chord changes, but the snarkiest lyric ever.
I don't think AI is capable of that. In fact, I'm curious to know if AI can make a good joke, at all.
the Monkees were a made-for-TV group but the songs were written by some of the best pop song writers of the day, and the music was performed by real live A list studio cats.
plus, at least one of the guys (Mike Nesmith) was actually a competent musician and songwriter.
net/net, not at all like AI generated music.
A lot of musical styles, especially commercial pop styles, are highly formulaic, so it wouldn't be that hard to have AI crank it out.
And what you would get would be highly formulaic pop music. Which a lot of people really like, and would be a perfectly fine commodity and lifestyle accessory. It may sound like I'm being dismissive when I say that, but I'm not - that is what a lot of music is made for, and how a lot of music is used.
It's like the art prints at your doctor's office waiting room. They aren't Rembrandt, or even Andy Warhol. But they are pleasant to look at, and don't clash with the color scheme.
Again, not being dismissive. It's nice to have pleasant, undemanding stuff to look at (and even ignore) when you're waiting for an appointment.
What you will not get from AI is a Leonard Cohen, or a Tom Waits, or a David Bowie, or a Paul Simon. To cite some better-known examples. You might get a Beatles of the quality of "I Want To Hold Your Hand", but not an "Eleanor Rigby".
If you fed an AI music generator a diet of any or all of those guys, you might get a simulacrum of their work. But it will be missing the special ingredient that actually makes you sit up and take notice when you hear their stuff - the human insight, the unusual chord change, the frisson that comes from the unexpected use of language in the lyric.
AI is inherently derivative. Derivative work can be useful, and has its place, but it isn't going to tell you anything you don't already know.
What makes the folks I named here artists, rather than simply entertainers, is the way in which they subvert the stylistic formulas they work in to discover meaning beneath the surface of the style.
Maybe someday some kind of AGI gizmo will be capable of that. If so, it probably will not be in a direction that resonates with humans.
But I am skeptical that AGI will ever actually be a thing.
My next thought was that lots (most?) pop stars are performers, and their songs are generally written by someone else.
Linda Ronstadt always maintained that she had no talent as a songwriter. Lots of very good songwriters wrote material with her specifically in mind, though.
On “When virtues become vices”
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.
"
wonkie, that's an excellent observation, especially if the dems do fold on the shutdown as has been reported.
"
I think the tendency of Congressional Democrats to try to find compromise and "solutions" is a positive that functions as a negative. I am so completely disgusted by the stupidity of the Senate Dems of the Cowardly Cave In Caucus.
On “People and poliltics”
if you felt like giving an idea of the discussions, that would be very interesting indeed
so, not really an idea of the discussion, but just some thoughts.
Some of this is, I think, generational. Charlie was born in 1935, and was the youngest of my mom's siblings. The family had come through the Depression, somehow, and were basically, not blue collar exactly, but working class Queens folks. Not desparately poor, but... of limited means.
Folks like that can basically see serious poverty in the rear view mirror. And too far back, either. It's tangible to them in ways that it is not to people like, for instance, me. People who are more solidly and securely middle class.
For my grandparents especially, and for my mom and her siblings, there was serious shame around being "on relief". Around receiving welfare of any kind. It meant that you had failed to maintain your toehold in the respectable world.
There is also a sort of patriotic dimension to it. We had overcome the Depression, we were to go on to prevail in WWII. We would follow that up with the Marshall Plan, and then later with the international aid and "soft power" politics of the Eisenhower and Kennedy years.
All of which covers my uncle's youth and young manhood.
My grandparents and mom's siblings really did think of the US as the greatest country on earth, maybe (probably) in history. Because it arguably was, mostly, for a minute.
So there is that.
And there is a cultural dimension.
My uncle was a NY City fireman, retiring as a lieutanant. In NYC, first responders - cops, firemen - tend to be conservative. Uncle was probably more so than most - not that many FDNY folks are Birch Society chapter heads - but that was likely the common direction - the prevailing winds, if you will - of his social context.
He was also a founder and elder in a relatively conservative church. Which was a chosen social context, of course, but also one that would be likely to reinforce his own conservative instincts.
And I would add, perhaps somewhat oddly, Charlie was a New Yorker. New Yorkers tend to be chauvinistic - tend to think in "we are the best" terms.
That's all I got. Make of it what you will.
On “When virtues become vices”
If or to what extent....
"
I don't know if or what to extent this fits in this thread, but rather than starting yet another one I am linking here a gift article in today's Atlantic by a Reagan appointed judge about the reasons for his resignation: tl;dr Trump's lawlessness:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2025/11/federal-judge-resignation-trump/684845/?gift=cx0iluuWx4Cg7JjlT8ugCRF_CkCtm_1560slsmw2zv8&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
"
Well, the SCOTUS precedent is clear: Aryans are welcome - provided they are NOT Indian (even if they out-racist most Nazis).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_Thind
"
At heart, MAGA's problem is one of definition: who counts as Amurikans? Ramaswamy obviously feels that he qualifies. (No clue what his personal definition is. Maybe "anyone Trump supports is in"?) Others, using different definitions, differ. And not just about him.
The thing is, there are lots of definitions. And a movement based on exclusion is in trouble without a single, unified, definition. A charismatic figurehead can, with work, paper over the differences, at least for a while. But MAGAworld looks to be losing their unifying leader, so the fractures over definition are appearing. Put another way, the knives are coming out.
On “People and poliltics”
Perhaps it's A Conflict of Visions.
"
Didn't mean to denigrate Uncle Charlie or the others. Its just that a hallmark of American conservatism in my life has been the ability to build a wall between people they care about and ones they don't. Its how you get compassionate and caring people who see no problem with ICE wearing masks and shooting a priest in the face with pepper balls. I don't believe one negates the other, but one doesn't excuse the other either. Its complicated, like people do.
On “Weekend Music Thread #04 John Mackey”
Sure, a bad imitation is distinguishable. But a good one?
A really good simulacrum of a highly formulaic or stylistically mannered performance could be convincing. Because the "real thing" is already sort of artificial.
Beyond that, I don't think so.
"
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.
"
What is required is empathy. Which machines do not have.
They can imitate. They cannot empathize. Those are different things.
Certainly they are different. The question is, are they distinguishable? I'm not sure that they necessarily are? Sure, a bad imitation is distinguishable. But a good one?
Put another way, is real empathy required? Or can it be simulated convincingly?
"
What you do need, however, is some life experience to connect it with.
I’m not so sure about that. Certainly it can help. But actors can play parts, with authentic appearing emotions, even about experiences they have never personally had
What is required is empathy. Which machines do not have.
They can imitate. They cannot empathize. Those are different things.
"
And I don’t think that one has to have written a song in order to understand and serve the emotions of the song. What you do need, however, is some life experience to connect it with.
I'm not so sure about that. Certainly it can help. But 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. Or showing how it looked when a third party did. Great actors do it most convincingly, but even journeyman level actors can do a pretty convincing job.
Are singers any different from actors in that regard? I'm willing to be convinced, but it may take some doing.
On “Weekend music thread #05 Tuvan throat singing”
nous, I should have known...
On “Weekend Music Thread #04 John Mackey”
And I don’t think that one has to have written a song in order to understand and serve the emotions of the song. What you do need, however, is some life experience to connect it with.
Perfect example: Johnny Cash singing Hurt. The video's pretty amazing too.
"
russell is well on his way with this prompt.
And I don't think that one has to have written a song in order to understand and serve the emotions of the song. What you do need, however, is some life experience to connect it with.
And I'm not talking about a CGI/animated puppet for real performers (a la Gorillaz or Dethklok). That's just human musicians cosplaying something else. What Spotify, Sony, Warner, etc. are after is on-trend content generated by trained expert systems in response to prompts or to the other content listened to by users of their services.
On “Weekend music thread #05 Tuvan throat singing”
lj - ...and I would be surprised if this week’s is on anyone else’s.
Incorrect, sir.
The Hu - Yuve Yuve Yu (Mongolian Folk Metal)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4xZUr0BEfE
Heilung - In Maidjan (Danish Shamanistic Neofolk)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmWTZ3KfnXE
Both of which have, with other songs from these bands, had some heavy rotation in my playlists. Both bands are pretty awesome, and have dedicated fanbases. I find that Heilung live video astounding and powerful every damn time I watch it.
"
"Throat singing" is also practiced in Alaskan native societies. Got a CD of it, somewhere.
Takes some getting used to, but I always thought that it would be a musical style that could fit into a rap/hip-hop work, if someone was sufficiently motivated to try.
On “Weekend Music Thread #04 John Mackey”
Shorter me - show me the AI music generator that will come up with a line like "Looks a lot like Che Guevara / he drove a diesel van".
It's simultaneously tongue-in-cheek hip and hilarious and ironic and allusive in about 10 different directions. Totally obvious and common place chord changes, but the snarkiest lyric ever.
I don't think AI is capable of that. In fact, I'm curious to know if AI can make a good joke, at all.
"
the Monkeys
the Monkees were a made-for-TV group but the songs were written by some of the best pop song writers of the day, and the music was performed by real live A list studio cats.
plus, at least one of the guys (Mike Nesmith) was actually a competent musician and songwriter.
net/net, not at all like AI generated music.
A lot of musical styles, especially commercial pop styles, are highly formulaic, so it wouldn't be that hard to have AI crank it out.
And what you would get would be highly formulaic pop music. Which a lot of people really like, and would be a perfectly fine commodity and lifestyle accessory. It may sound like I'm being dismissive when I say that, but I'm not - that is what a lot of music is made for, and how a lot of music is used.
It's like the art prints at your doctor's office waiting room. They aren't Rembrandt, or even Andy Warhol. But they are pleasant to look at, and don't clash with the color scheme.
Again, not being dismissive. It's nice to have pleasant, undemanding stuff to look at (and even ignore) when you're waiting for an appointment.
What you will not get from AI is a Leonard Cohen, or a Tom Waits, or a David Bowie, or a Paul Simon. To cite some better-known examples. You might get a Beatles of the quality of "I Want To Hold Your Hand", but not an "Eleanor Rigby".
If you fed an AI music generator a diet of any or all of those guys, you might get a simulacrum of their work. But it will be missing the special ingredient that actually makes you sit up and take notice when you hear their stuff - the human insight, the unusual chord change, the frisson that comes from the unexpected use of language in the lyric.
AI is inherently derivative. Derivative work can be useful, and has its place, but it isn't going to tell you anything you don't already know.
What makes the folks I named here artists, rather than simply entertainers, is the way in which they subvert the stylistic formulas they work in to discover meaning beneath the surface of the style.
Maybe someday some kind of AGI gizmo will be capable of that. If so, it probably will not be in a direction that resonates with humans.
But I am skeptical that AGI will ever actually be a thing.
"
If either of you want to brainstorm a thesis, I've got office hours on Zoom.
"
My next thought was that lots (most?) pop stars are performers, and their songs are generally written by someone else.
Linda Ronstadt always maintained that she had no talent as a songwriter. Lots of very good songwriters wrote material with her specifically in mind, though.
On “Still I Rise”
Slight exaggeration, last GA Democrat state office winner was 2006 election.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.