We already can’t economically build ships for the navy because we’ve so dramatically hollowed out our steel refining and commercial ship-building industries. We’re looking at a future where the US military is primarily a client of the international arms industry for everything but guns.

Says the ‘man’ who just tried to buy an election in Wisconsin.

Eugh, daylight.

When the base is mad enough to throw them out if they don’t. The Florida special elections didn’t flip any seats, but they showed a 15-point swing away from the GOP in deep red parts of the state. That’s gonna make them sweat. Unless they can sufficiently rig the midterms or sway Trump off his current “crash the economy for lulz” trajectory, it may well be a bloodbath, and that’s the sort of math that starts peeling sycophants away from Trump.

Back in my day us hermit types just did our grocery shopping after 9PM, this is a whole other level.

Libertarianism also was my first stop out of my childhood religious right upbringing. I still tend to see issues from a libertarian framing – i.e., if it’s not hurting anybody why should the government care? – but most US libertarians seem weirdly fixated on ideas like “why can’t I dump 5,000 gallons of hydrofluoric acid into a hole in the ground if the hole is on my own property?” or “why shouldn’t I be allowed to enter into a contract with somebody that allows me to hunt them for sport?” or especially “why can’t I have sex with a minor if they say it’s OK?”, where there’s really obvious personal and societal harms involved and the only way that you can think otherwise is if you’ve engaged in some serious motivated reasoning.

Whereas my thinking these days is more like, “who does it hurt if somebody decides to change their outward appearance to match how they feel inside?” and the like – i.e., the right to personal autonomy and free expression, rather than the right to do whatever I want to others as long as I can somehow coerce them into agreeing to it. I don’t have much patience for the anarchist side of left-libertarianism – in my experience you need robust systems in place to keep bad actors from running amok, and a state without a monopoly on violence is simply ceding that monopoly to whoever wants to take it up for their own ends – but that starting point of libertarian thought, that people sold be free in their choices until those choices run up against somebody else’s freedoms – is still fundamentally valid.

In anything like a competitive district, a progressive Independent challenger is more likely to split the vote for a milquetoast Democratic incumbent and hand the seat to the Republican challenger. Working within the Democratic primary system has its challenges, but also clears the field so that there’s one clear choice for left-leaning voters rather than two.

First past the post sucks ass, but it’s what we’ve got to live with until we’ve got enough power to change it.

everyone else gets the Superdome treatment.

Which is perfect, because that’s what all the Gulf states are gonna use their devolved FEMA funds to build!

I’d argue the internet was moving things left, while the bar for entry was at least nominal. When the bar for sharing your ideas was at least as high as “learn to code HTML and find a place to put your site up” the Time Cube cranks were few and far between, and most people participating on the web could be assumed to have some modicum of intelligence. However, the defining factor of the Internet as it stands, dominated by social media platforms, is that it’s frictionless by design. And yes, the platforms are pushing right-wing content, but to a certain extent that’s accidental, or at least was when engagement algorithms first became a part of the experience. Left wing content, reality-based as it tends to be, is generally full of nuance, equivocation, and explanation that takes time and (critically) doesn’t reach down into the basal structures of the brain and squeeze the amygdala quite like a right-wing fearmonger shouting “TRANS PEOPLE ARE SNEAKING INTO YOUR DAUGHTER’S SCHOOL RESTROOM TO ASSAULT HER BE AFRAID!”

Could social media be designed to put the brakes on reactionary content and boost thoughtful, well-researched opinions? Yeah, probably. But that requires expensive and time-consuming human intervention in the form of fact-checking, and doesn’t boost engagement like content that just pushes all the fight-or-flight buttons way down in the lizard brain. Making the Internet easy and frictionless only turbocharged Terry Pratchett’s idea that “A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on,” because technology makes the lie spread faster than ever, but the process of getting to the truth never got easier at quite the same rate.

Yes, and I was one of that generation who believed broad adoption of the Internet would cut out the gatekeepers and lead to a better-informed electorate that would give more radical ideas a shot. And I guess it did, but the problem is that it’s primarily allowed the worst of bad actors direct, unfiltered access to a vast swathe of the most credulous, easily-manipulated idiots in the world. Arguably it’s massively tilted the field towards authoritarianism because before the Internet, left-wing activists were better-educated, and more capable of organizing and communicating. Now, though, it takes no special knowledge or effort for a right-wing conspiracy theorist or authoritarian demagogue to jump on X or Facebook or whatever other platform you like and immediately blast their message out to vast numbers of their followers – who are largely passive consumers of this stuff, waiting to given their party line and marching orders. Before the Internet, they had mostly-mainstream ideas because that was what the filter of the mainstream media gave them. Now they’re getting sucked into the far right because social media is biased for shareable outrage-bait propaganda and against validated facts and nuanced discussion.

What I will say about them publicly is that if we are afforded another shot at democracy after all this, they and their fellow travelers cannot be permitted to have a voice in the political process. Just about any system of government can work if everybody involved is commited to making it work, but if 1/3+ of voters hold pluralistic, representative democracy in active disdain there is no system that can protect itself against those people engaging with the system in bad faith. This was the fundamental failing of reconstruction, and it’s shaping up to be the undoing of freedom in the US now.

I’m increasingly coming to the conclusion that just letting the “marketplace of ideas” play out is tantamount to throwing the gates open to any demagogue with a big enough megaphone. Participation in the political process must be restricted to good-faith actors in some fashion, be that at the “supply side” of media and content creation or at the voting booth. Anything else is akin to a basketball team kicking, biting, and throwing punches on the court and the referees shrugging and insisting they have to be allowed to play anyway.

Have you seen who’s writing code these days? Everything is computer, computer is transgender, ergo everything is transgender.

But you repeat yourself…

I won’t lie, the fact that Americans got a taste of this and then voted to go back for another bite of the apple (not to mention the global rightward shift that’s been happening along with it) has soured me a bit on representative democracy. Democratic modes of government seem to be fundamentally incapable of defending themselves against demagoguery, and too large a percentage of the population prefer to be told what to do and who to hate rather than put in the work of engaging seriously with the civic duties required to make a democracy work. I’m at a loss as to what a viable alternative might look like – various forms of autocracy are what we’re trying to avoid, and I’ve never seen any anarchist ideas that seem like they could work at scale, but clearly democracy falls apart when too many of the people participating in it refuse to participate in good faith.

Worse than that… The commercial weather services aren’t doing much more than repackaging or (questionably) refining NWS forecast data, which is derived from a global weather simulation that runs on a supercomputer cluster four times a day, incorporating data from NWS radars, government weather satellites, ground stations, etc. Musk and company want to blow this up because providing all that sophisticated data free of charge undercuts the ability of commercial services to charge for the same thing, but there’s no private infrastructure capable of generating the data underlying the base NWS forecast. Unless they plan to simply privatize all of that (a distinct possibility) destroying the NWS just means that there will be no high quality national forecasting at all, and even if they do privatize the infrastructure the expertise to make it all work won’t necessarily follow.

He should really aim higher.

Personally, I’d like to suspend the 8th Amendment for law enforcement and senior executive branch personnel. Fuckers need to feel the Sword of Damocles actively tickling their scalp at all times.

Mona Lisa’s eyebrows may have faded with time, but his appear to have migrated down onto his eyelids, somehow.

UHC denied coverage after the fact for my wife’s gall bladder removal surgery because they claimed she was insured with a other carrier through her previous employer. That got straightened out with a couple phone calls, but it was still ridiculous.

Even more ridiculous, though, was the time that they convinced a former insurer of mine to retroactively deny already-paid claims, on the (false) basis that they had been my primary insurer in that time period, only to then deny those same claims when the doctor resubmitted them on the (correct) basis that I had no active policy with them at the time! I suspect that it was a case of a faulty automated system rather than active malice, but the net result was a massive headache for three unrelated parties and a mind boggling amount of paperwork on my part, because they couldn’t be bothered to write software that could properly handle the same person having two different policies with a gap between them.