LOL - yes and yes. Casper, Sheridan, Gillette, Weston, Lusk, Riverton, Chugwater, Rawlins, Lander, Rock Springs, Saratoga...
All the happening places.
So much wind. Especially fun when it's snowing, you are driving a full 14-passenger van, and you have been awake for 36 hours straight. The drifts blowing across the road start looking surreal.
I've written here before about the one day while working an inventory job across CO, NE, SD, WY, MT that I drove from Fort Morgan to Fort Collins and drove through sunny weather into fog, hail, sun, rain, fog, light snow, and sun again over about 35 miles of empty state highways.
Colorado: sunny weather punctuated by acts of god.
Pro Bono - There are people in the UK well to the left of me whom I respect. They ought to have a party to represent their views. But Your Party seems to me to represent almost no one apart from its activists.
I recognize this impulse from the perspective of someone who has been (somewhat reluctantly) involved in union leadership for a few years now. And I think, given what I have seen from the Project 2025 wing of my family, that it also holds true of the far/religious right.
Your Party, as a populist socialist movement, wants to be radically democratic and represent all its members, but there is tremendous asymmetry in how involved members in these types of movements are, and how involved they want to be, in the day to day. Consensus building is tedious, time consuming and exhausting. Only a small fraction of the membership in any of these groups has the time, interest, or characteristics to actually do this sort of work long term. What you end up with is a mixture of scrappy, fearless pragmatists, and people for whom the institution takes the place of a sort of political church in their lives. They love to hear the testimony of others and have people affirm their faith in the institution. In my union, I think of myself as part of the former group and find the latter to be utterly exhausting to deal with.
I suspect that what Pro Bono is seeing is a result of this sort of dynamic. The scrappy pragmatists mostly stay on the edges and pick their battles, fighting activist burnout the entire time as the High Church idealists sap momentum with committees and leadership retreats and another round of membership questionnaires because the last round didn't get the number of responses that would give them the confidence to move forward on any major issue. But since the majority of those involved at the leadership level are the ideological activists, they do all manage to unite around a few small ginger faction sorts of issues that they start to mistake for a consensus, so the leadership communications all come out sounding a bit too strident.
All of which makes the rank-and-file less likely to want to get involved because of the culture clash.
lj - I think that Kim Stanley Robinson had the Indian government doing the sulfur geoengineering (rather than a private entity) is because India started doing it after it was clear that the world had already overshot the climate boundaries. It was part of a hodgepodge approach to solutions that was necessitated by our collective inability to make collective change.
The reasons for private entities to do this are more complicated, and get at wj's thoughts about the profit motive. The tech startups that are working the geoengineering angle are doing so partly for public minded reasons, but that is also mixed with the conviction that whatever we do collectively must not interfere with the economy or their own business interests. They are trying to delay the moment of accountability in order to stretch the bubble for their own fortunes.
It's an informative comparison, and it highlights the difference in priorities between the global north and south.
Just chased one of the Newsweek links from the anti-weather militia article to see what MTG had to say about her anti-weather-tampering bill.
She is an idiot - I am not suggesting otherwise - but at the same time, I don't think that it's a bad idea to pass laws forbidding unauthorized geoengineering because we are already seeing startups that are attempting to kick start this sort of environmental hacking in the name of combatting climate change:
"Heritage American" is a bit like "Originalism" in that the term is infinitely Humpty-Dumpty-able. Once you establish that the Founding Fathers were Christian Nationalists (the subject of so many books and church basement visits by "noted Bible-believing historians") then the heritage in question becomes a spiritual heritage, and any American born Christian Nationalist regardless of ethnicity can be provisionally adopted into the family of Heritage Americans.
Of course that heritage is instantly revocable as well, even for actual Heritage Americans. I have ancestors on my father's side of the family going back at least to 1700, and possibly to Jamestown. I'm pretty sure that my status as a Heritage American was revoked the moment that it became clear to everyone that I was an exvangelical, a feminist, and in favor of LGBTQ+ rights. When my mother passed, the only people who spoke to my wife and I at her funeral were blood relatives or the two Taiwanese converts who were treated as adopted family. The pastor of the church was literally the only other member of my parents' church who spoke to us, and he only did so enough to try to suggest that I read CS Lewis (as if I hadn't already done that during my evangelical days).
Since we are on the subject of philosophy here, and the philosophical justifications for one's totalitarian tendencies, I ran across this piece at The Guardian, which highlights the cachet that Carl Schmitt has on the Christian Nationalist right:
Other Schmitt-positive applicants include a Heritage employee who has since landed in the administration. Max Matheu is now an attorney adviser at the State Department, according to his LinkedIn page.
[...]
In his Project 2025 application, in response to a question about which books have influenced him, Matheu nominated The Concept of the Political by Carl Schmitt, adding that “The friend/enemy distinction is the cardinal concept that undergirds all politics. The Left has been making the distinction since Gramsci and other cultural marxists captured the media and academic institutions to subvert Heritage Americans and the shared ideals this country once held."
Note here the use of the phrase "Heritage Americans" as a way of othering anyone that does not fit the alt-right mold. It's really interesting that Matheu is accusing "The Left" of being Schmittians. It's particularly ironic because Schmitt was using the friend/enemy distinction to argue why liberalism was doomed to fail because it insisted on universal rights and the humanity of all subjects in the realm of the political - pretty much the opposite of what they accuse "The Left" of doing. Not a surprise, really, when most of these Heritage hangers-on seem unable to hold onto the distinction between liberals and leftists, and treat them as interchangeable.
Since I have mentioned Schmitt so many times before, I should probably quote him here to show the central reason for his popularity in the Christian Nationalist right:
The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy…the distinction of friend and enemy denotes the utmost degree of intensity of a union or separation, an association or dissociation. It can exist theoretically and practically, without having simultaneously to draw upon all those moral, aesthetic, economic, or other distinctions. The political enemy need not be morally evil or aesthetically ugly; he need not appear as an economic competitor, and it may even be advantageous to engage with him in business transactions. But he is, nevertheless, the other, the stranger; and it is sufficient for his nature that he is, in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflict with him are possible. - The Concept of the Political I.2
So the Christian Nationalist project functions institutionally upon this one basic premise - that the only way to have a unified state is to refine it into a homogenous, elemental society that is not vulnerable to any sort of othering. Any attempt to try to base that essence in a universal humanity is, to their eyes, doomed to lose in the realm of politics.
This is what we are up against. Anyone not actively working for their Christian Nationalist agenda is not a Heritage American, and therefore can be excluded from political existence. Their attempts at gerrymandering are merely the least bloody and turbulent means to make their enemies cease to exist. Failing that, there are other means.
I'm not sure that Rubio (or his people) is the source of the leak. Given the leak of the second call between Ditriev and Ushakov, I wonder if this hasn't been leaked to Bloomberg from one or more of the European intelligence services. I'm sure that they would rather be dealing with Rubio than with Witkoff and Vance, and they have been a lot more public in their profile since The Ancient Orange One threatened to withhold US intelligence from other NATO members.
In terms of internal climate migration, I think it is important to realize that the US does not have one form of nationalism. My guess is that we have at least three competing forms of nationalism, and the White Christian Nationalist side of things is going to find itself on the move moreso than the others. For reference, we have the maps here at the Public Religion Research Institute: https://prri.org/research/support-for-christian-nationalism-in-all-50-states/
Note that support for Christian Nationalism is strongest in the Southeast, Northern Plains, and the Great Plains states that connect those regions.
Compare this with the map of climate winners and losers at Pro Publica: https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration/
My guess is that we will see some migration along the diagonal between these areas as people leave the Southeast and look for something like the "American Redoubt" for their idea of a nationalist utopia, and we are going to start seeing some stark regional divides between WA/ID and MN/SD. Think Ruby Ridge. There's more of that on tap, but the right is now much more aligned with their fringe, so that's going to be more difficult to deal with.
It's one of the things that would make me think harder about settling in places like Spokane, Eugene, or Fargo. Those could become the epicenters for violence fueled by dueling nationalisms in the region.
That is one of the current double standards on the US right at the moment. Russian expansionism is less alarming to many because Russia is a white Christian nation, and the far right in America is smitten with the Orthodox church, its muscular Christianity and patriarchy, and its staunch opposition to LGBTQ+ rights.
China, in the eyes of the US right, are godless asian communists, and thus enemies of Western Civilization.
So the Department of Defense (which Pete Dawg wants to be called the Department of War because the packing penis wasn't fooling anyone) has now declared that they are investigating Sen. Mark Kelly because Kelly had the temerity to remind US military service people, past and present, that they have a duty to uphold the Constitution which supersedes their duty to follow any order that would violate the Constitution.
You, know, keeping that oath that they swore when they joined the service.
And on social media the Ancient Orange One is calling Kelly et al's statement a "clear act of sedition."
This from the same merry band of miscreants who commuted Stuart Rhodes' federal sentence for having committed Seditious Conspiracy during the January 6 insurrection - while leading a group that called themselves the Oath Keepers.
So Kelly is being investigated for warning service people that if they violate the law and the constitution, they will end up a convicted felon like Rhodes.
They are going to keep pushing until there is a confrontation. And then they will push some more.
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.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Open Thread”
Did you go through Casper? Was the wind blowing?
LOL - yes and yes. Casper, Sheridan, Gillette, Weston, Lusk, Riverton, Chugwater, Rawlins, Lander, Rock Springs, Saratoga...
All the happening places.
So much wind. Especially fun when it's snowing, you are driving a full 14-passenger van, and you have been awake for 36 hours straight. The drifts blowing across the road start looking surreal.
I don't miss it.
"
I've written here before about the one day while working an inventory job across CO, NE, SD, WY, MT that I drove from Fort Morgan to Fort Collins and drove through sunny weather into fog, hail, sun, rain, fog, light snow, and sun again over about 35 miles of empty state highways.
Colorado: sunny weather punctuated by acts of god.
On “It’s Your Party, you can cry if…”
Pro Bono - There are people in the UK well to the left of me whom I respect. They ought to have a party to represent their views. But Your Party seems to me to represent almost no one apart from its activists.
I recognize this impulse from the perspective of someone who has been (somewhat reluctantly) involved in union leadership for a few years now. And I think, given what I have seen from the Project 2025 wing of my family, that it also holds true of the far/religious right.
Your Party, as a populist socialist movement, wants to be radically democratic and represent all its members, but there is tremendous asymmetry in how involved members in these types of movements are, and how involved they want to be, in the day to day. Consensus building is tedious, time consuming and exhausting. Only a small fraction of the membership in any of these groups has the time, interest, or characteristics to actually do this sort of work long term. What you end up with is a mixture of scrappy, fearless pragmatists, and people for whom the institution takes the place of a sort of political church in their lives. They love to hear the testimony of others and have people affirm their faith in the institution. In my union, I think of myself as part of the former group and find the latter to be utterly exhausting to deal with.
I suspect that what Pro Bono is seeing is a result of this sort of dynamic. The scrappy pragmatists mostly stay on the edges and pick their battles, fighting activist burnout the entire time as the High Church idealists sap momentum with committees and leadership retreats and another round of membership questionnaires because the last round didn't get the number of responses that would give them the confidence to move forward on any major issue. But since the majority of those involved at the leadership level are the ideological activists, they do all manage to unite around a few small ginger faction sorts of issues that they start to mistake for a consensus, so the leadership communications all come out sounding a bit too strident.
All of which makes the rank-and-file less likely to want to get involved because of the culture clash.
Solidarity is hard.
On “The surprising philosophy behind Palantir”
lj - I think that Kim Stanley Robinson had the Indian government doing the sulfur geoengineering (rather than a private entity) is because India started doing it after it was clear that the world had already overshot the climate boundaries. It was part of a hodgepodge approach to solutions that was necessitated by our collective inability to make collective change.
The reasons for private entities to do this are more complicated, and get at wj's thoughts about the profit motive. The tech startups that are working the geoengineering angle are doing so partly for public minded reasons, but that is also mixed with the conviction that whatever we do collectively must not interfere with the economy or their own business interests. They are trying to delay the moment of accountability in order to stretch the bubble for their own fortunes.
It's an informative comparison, and it highlights the difference in priorities between the global north and south.
"
Just chased one of the Newsweek links from the anti-weather militia article to see what MTG had to say about her anti-weather-tampering bill.
She is an idiot - I am not suggesting otherwise - but at the same time, I don't think that it's a bad idea to pass laws forbidding unauthorized geoengineering because we are already seeing startups that are attempting to kick start this sort of environmental hacking in the name of combatting climate change:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/12/24/1066041/a-startup-says-its-begun-releasing-particles-into-the-atmosphere-in-an-effort-to-tweak-the-climate/
MTG is not the only idiot around, and in this case I'll support one idiot in order to stop other idiots.
"
"Heritage American" is a bit like "Originalism" in that the term is infinitely Humpty-Dumpty-able. Once you establish that the Founding Fathers were Christian Nationalists (the subject of so many books and church basement visits by "noted Bible-believing historians") then the heritage in question becomes a spiritual heritage, and any American born Christian Nationalist regardless of ethnicity can be provisionally adopted into the family of Heritage Americans.
Of course that heritage is instantly revocable as well, even for actual Heritage Americans. I have ancestors on my father's side of the family going back at least to 1700, and possibly to Jamestown. I'm pretty sure that my status as a Heritage American was revoked the moment that it became clear to everyone that I was an exvangelical, a feminist, and in favor of LGBTQ+ rights. When my mother passed, the only people who spoke to my wife and I at her funeral were blood relatives or the two Taiwanese converts who were treated as adopted family. The pastor of the church was literally the only other member of my parents' church who spoke to us, and he only did so enough to try to suggest that I read CS Lewis (as if I hadn't already done that during my evangelical days).
"
Since we are on the subject of philosophy here, and the philosophical justifications for one's totalitarian tendencies, I ran across this piece at The Guardian, which highlights the cachet that Carl Schmitt has on the Christian Nationalist right:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/28/project-2025-heritage-foundation-hack
Note here the use of the phrase "Heritage Americans" as a way of othering anyone that does not fit the alt-right mold. It's really interesting that Matheu is accusing "The Left" of being Schmittians. It's particularly ironic because Schmitt was using the friend/enemy distinction to argue why liberalism was doomed to fail because it insisted on universal rights and the humanity of all subjects in the realm of the political - pretty much the opposite of what they accuse "The Left" of doing. Not a surprise, really, when most of these Heritage hangers-on seem unable to hold onto the distinction between liberals and leftists, and treat them as interchangeable.
Since I have mentioned Schmitt so many times before, I should probably quote him here to show the central reason for his popularity in the Christian Nationalist right:
So the Christian Nationalist project functions institutionally upon this one basic premise - that the only way to have a unified state is to refine it into a homogenous, elemental society that is not vulnerable to any sort of othering. Any attempt to try to base that essence in a universal humanity is, to their eyes, doomed to lose in the realm of politics.
This is what we are up against. Anyone not actively working for their Christian Nationalist agenda is not a Heritage American, and therefore can be excluded from political existence. Their attempts at gerrymandering are merely the least bloody and turbulent means to make their enemies cease to exist. Failing that, there are other means.
On “An openish thread featuring the comedy stylings of Steve Witkoff”
I'm not sure that Rubio (or his people) is the source of the leak. Given the leak of the second call between Ditriev and Ushakov, I wonder if this hasn't been leaked to Bloomberg from one or more of the European intelligence services. I'm sure that they would rather be dealing with Rubio than with Witkoff and Vance, and they have been a lot more public in their profile since The Ancient Orange One threatened to withhold US intelligence from other NATO members.
I'd trust the Euro's competence over Rubio's.
On “Shabana burns the cakes”
In terms of internal climate migration, I think it is important to realize that the US does not have one form of nationalism. My guess is that we have at least three competing forms of nationalism, and the White Christian Nationalist side of things is going to find itself on the move moreso than the others. For reference, we have the maps here at the Public Religion Research Institute: https://prri.org/research/support-for-christian-nationalism-in-all-50-states/
Note that support for Christian Nationalism is strongest in the Southeast, Northern Plains, and the Great Plains states that connect those regions.
Compare this with the map of climate winners and losers at Pro Publica: https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration/
My guess is that we will see some migration along the diagonal between these areas as people leave the Southeast and look for something like the "American Redoubt" for their idea of a nationalist utopia, and we are going to start seeing some stark regional divides between WA/ID and MN/SD. Think Ruby Ridge. There's more of that on tap, but the right is now much more aligned with their fringe, so that's going to be more difficult to deal with.
It's one of the things that would make me think harder about settling in places like Spokane, Eugene, or Fargo. Those could become the epicenters for violence fueled by dueling nationalisms in the region.
On “An openish thread featuring the comedy stylings of Steve Witkoff”
That is one of the current double standards on the US right at the moment. Russian expansionism is less alarming to many because Russia is a white Christian nation, and the far right in America is smitten with the Orthodox church, its muscular Christianity and patriarchy, and its staunch opposition to LGBTQ+ rights.
China, in the eyes of the US right, are godless asian communists, and thus enemies of Western Civilization.
"
You seem to think that Trump wouldn’t just walk away from his debts, in spite of all past evidence.
Those other debts weren't being enforced by the Russian Mafia.
"
So the Department of Defense (which Pete Dawg wants to be called the Department of War because the packing penis wasn't fooling anyone) has now declared that they are investigating Sen. Mark Kelly because Kelly had the temerity to remind US military service people, past and present, that they have a duty to uphold the Constitution which supersedes their duty to follow any order that would violate the Constitution.
https://www.npr.org/2025/11/24/nx-s1-5619314/pentagon-mark-kelly-trump-hegseth-military
You, know, keeping that oath that they swore when they joined the service.
And on social media the Ancient Orange One is calling Kelly et al's statement a "clear act of sedition."
This from the same merry band of miscreants who commuted Stuart Rhodes' federal sentence for having committed Seditious Conspiracy during the January 6 insurrection - while leading a group that called themselves the Oath Keepers.
So Kelly is being investigated for warning service people that if they violate the law and the constitution, they will end up a convicted felon like Rhodes.
They are going to keep pushing until there is a confrontation. And then they will push some more.
Do not yield.
"
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.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.