A powerful Arctic outbreak tied in part to the polar vortex is set to send temperatures by next week tumbling down to as cold as 25 to 35 degrees Fahrenheit below average for mid-January, forecasts show. The hazardous cold could endanger public health, stress electricity grids, damage crops and make for a frigid Inauguration Day.
Mother Nature’s refrigerator door looks to open, with cold air spilling southward out of northern Canada beginning Friday night and lasting for at least a week. Through Sunday, about 81 million people are predicted to see temperatures plunge to below-zero Fahrenheit, and the number affected will increase from there.
Read the full article. In 1985, Reagan’s inauguration parade was canceled and the ceremony was moved inside when wind chills were as low as -20 degrees.
Tuesday afternoon, Politico ran a very good story about media and political attacks against Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and her response to the ongoing wildfires. The piece, by reporter Melanie Mason, points out that much of the criticism has been unfair and often baldface lies. It also notes that Bass’s public persona as a detail-oriented consensus builder has in part led to the perception that she’s not an action-oriented take-charge leader in this crisis. It’s one of the better discussion of Bass and the wildfires we’ve read, in addition of course to our own, ahem.
“Nationally, there’s just a pile-on. […] If you look at her replies [on social media] now, she could be posting a video of her literally running into a burning building and taking a child out of there, and people would still be replying ‘resign!’”
Mason’s piece is a smart, thoughtful look at how an accomplished politician is being dragged in the media, and how her own political instincts and strengths aren’t proving to be much help in countering the overwhelmingly negative coverage. Kind of like having a municipal water system that’s perfectly capable of handling building fires, but not designed to contain a fire hurricane made far more catastrophic by climate change. By all means, you should read it!
But because we are doing a Doktor of Rhetoric post today, we’re only going to discuss Mason’s very good reporting and analysis in the context of how Politico distorted its own goddamn coverage for the sake of adding more cheap shots to the shitstorm of belligerent bellyaching with which Bass is contending.
Later yesterday afternoon, Politico’s “California PM Playbook” column took Mason’s thoughtful, nuanced reporting and ran it through a bullshit filter, resulting in a column that mentions the pile-on of disinformation that Bass has faced, but ultimately paints Bass as responsible for her own unfair coverage, darn her.
California Playbook editor Lindsay Holden quotes and paraphrases Mason liberally, but hypes up the negatives almost to the exclusion of all else, leaving the reader with the impression that Bass, as Holden’s headline puts it, “has lost the plot.”
Mason depicts Bass as a competent leader whose substance-over-style political instincts aren’t necessarily a great match for a crisis where cable news and rightwing social media are driving the narrative:
Bass has also been hampered by instincts she honed as a deal-making legislator and coalition-building community activist. Never someone to actively seek the spotlight, her unflashy demeanor now comes off as uninspiring for people seeking a leader projecting command.
An unnamed Democratic consultant says that right now, LA needs a media hero, “someone to stand up in the middle of the Pacific Palisades or the middle of Sylmar or the middle of Hollywood every day and say, ‘This is our community, and we will rebuild.’”
The consultant added, “I want her to show some emotion, that she’s tapping into the fear and anxiety that so many people feel, and not reflect this soft brand of optimism that she’s been known for.”
Soft optimism bad, Henry V filtered through Independence Day good. But Mason also notes that after the widespread devastation of the first horrible hours, when high winds kept water bombers grounded and blew the fires out of control,
firefighters have been remarkably successful in halting additional damage — despite new fires cropping up throughout the week.
“All of those could have been massive conflagrations had they expanded, and they didn’t,” said Doug Herman, a Democratic strategist who works with Bass.
That note doesn’t make it into Holden’s version, which instead seems to be cheering on style, and the hell with substance. After noting that Elon Musk’s attacks on Bass are “often half-baked or outright false,” Holden adds in an anecdote that wasn’t in Mason’s piece, bizarrely framing a dishonest video clip as somehow one more example of Bass’s “painfully poor messaging strategy” (a phrase Mason does not use):
The latest example came Tuesday afternoon, when CBS News sent out a misleading tweet suggesting its reporter asked Bass whether she “regrets” taking an overseas trip while the wildfires erupted. The accompanying video clip showed Bass answering “No.”
In fact, CBS’ Jonathan Vigliottiasked Bass whether, looking back, she still would’ve taken the diplomatic trip to Ghana.
CBS News subsequently revised the tweet to get the question right, and added a note to clarify that Bass was saying no, on reflection she wouldn’t have taken the trip. For all the good it did.
Here’s where we lost our patience with the Playbook piece: Holden went right ahead and insisted that Bass had fucked up:
The episode served as a mini illustration of Bass’ problems — specious information, followed by her own unwillingness to provide a fuller explanation, let alone a broader acknowledgement of her mistake. The narrative about her trip might have been put to bed last week, but Bass’ resistance to engage on it has allowed her enemies to continue painting her as an absent and ineffective leader.
Apparently, Bass should have anticipated that CBS would send a tweet distorting what she said, and she should have pre-debunked it, too. Shame on her! She really has lost the plot, all right.
Perhaps Mason should update her own piece with a close look at how her own outlet indulged in the kind of bullshit she was analyzing, but that might be a little too meta. And god knows Meta has enshittified itself plenty already.
In the fight against climate change, every small action counts. From renewable energy to forest conservation, many solutions are on the table, but one of the most unexpected contributors could be plankton poop. This tiny marine byproduct, aided by a unique natural process, could help the world combat rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
The concept hinges on the “biological carbon pump,” a natural process in the ocean where microscopic marine life absorbs carbon dioxide and stores it in the deep sea. However, much of this carbon is returned to the atmosphere before it can reach the ocean floor, where it could remain sequestered for centuries. But what if we could enhance this process?
Photo: Pexels
Plankton poop could significantly enhance carbon sequestration in the ocean.
The Role of Plankton in Carbon Sequestration
Phytoplankton, tiny organisms that float in the ocean, are responsible for capturing a significant portion of atmospheric carbon dioxide through photosynthesis. As NASA Earth Observatory points out, these organisms form the base of the marine food chain, feeding zooplankton, small fish, and other sea life. As phytoplankton die or are consumed, some of their carbon sinks into the ocean, but a large portion of it is recycled by marine bacteria, eventually returning as CO2. This cycle presents a challenge in efficiently storing carbon in the ocean’s depths.
However, researchers from Dartmouth College and other institutions are exploring how to enhance the efficiency of this biological pump. Their solution involves adding clay dust to the surface of the ocean. This seemingly simple intervention could significantly boost carbon sequestration by aiding the formation of dense particles that sink rapidly, carrying carbon along with them.
Photo: Pexels
Adding clay dust to ocean waters can help carbon-rich particles sink deeper.
Clay as a Catalyst for Faster Carbon Sequestration
The Dartmouth team’s experiments demonstrated that when clay minerals are added to the ocean’s surface, they bond with organic carbon, forming sticky balls known as “flocs.” These flocs are irresistible to zooplankton, which feed on them, The Debrief, reports. As zooplankton ingest the flocs, they excrete carbon-laden feces, which sink deeper into the ocean. This process not only prevents carbon from escaping back into the atmosphere but also speeds up the ocean’s natural carbon sequestration process.
This enhancement could have profound implications. By accelerating the process by which carbon is transported from the ocean surface to the depths, this method offers a new, scalable approach to mitigate climate change. The addition of clay to phytoplankton blooms could significantly boost the amount of carbon trapped in the ocean, as demonstrated by the increased concentration of sticky organic particles—up to ten times more than usual—following the clay treatment.
Photo: Pexels
The biological carbon pump is the ocean’s natural system for removing CO2.
How Plankton Poop Becomes a Climate Solution
Plankton poop might seem like an unlikely hero in the climate crisis, but its potential is undeniable. Zooplankton, the tiny creatures that feed on plankton, play a crucial role in the ocean’s carbon cycle. Normally, only a small fraction of the carbon captured by phytoplankton makes it into the deep ocean for long-term storage. However, by feeding on clay-enhanced carbon particulates, zooplankton can create fecal pellets that sink faster, ensuring that the carbon is stored more effectively in the ocean’s depths.
The use of clay dust to enhance this process could be a game-changer. According to Oceanographic Magazine, the addition of clay allowed carbon to be captured in feces and sequestered at depths where it can stay for millennia, potentially reducing atmospheric CO2 levels significantly.
Photo: Pexels
Zooplankton ingest carbon-laden particles, trapping CO2 in their feces.
The Promise of Clay in the Fight Against Climate Change
As scientists continue to explore this technique, there’s growing optimism about its potential. The use of clay is particularly promising because of its low cost and abundance. Unlike other carbon capture methods that rely on expensive technology, clay dust is a natural material that could be dispersed across ocean regions with phytoplankton blooms.
The team is currently focused on identifying the best regions for applying this method, particularly areas with high primary production, such as the California Current and the Mediterranean Sea.
Looking Ahead: A Sustainable Solution?
Though the technique is still in its early stages, it holds promise as a sustainable and scalable solution for reducing atmospheric CO2 levels. The process, which relies on the ocean’s natural mechanisms, could complement other climate mitigation strategies, such as reforestation and direct air capture. Moreover, by enhancing the biological carbon pump with a simple addition of clay dust, the oceans could play an even greater role in addressing the climate crisis.
The next steps involve testing the method in real-world ocean settings. If successful, this approach could become an essential tool in the global effort to combat climate change, one tiny poop at a time.
“But I don’t know. I can make all kinds of horrible theories up in my head, conspiracy theories and everything else, but it just seemed a little convenient that there was no water and that the wind conditions were right and that there are people ready and willing and able to start fires.
“And are they commissioned to do so or just acting on their own volition?” – Mel “Horse Paste Cures Cancer” Gibson, last night on Laura Ingraham’s show.
Lucky the above guy who destroyed expensive public property did not get caught buying weed or being a doctor saving a woman’s life by giving them a needed abortion. Hugs
New: Meta has deleted trans and nonbinary Messenger themes, as well as the blog posts announcing them. Happens the same week that it has changed its rules to allow users to say LGBTQ+ people are "mentally ill"www.404media.co/meta-deletes…
We live in a world where right-wing nationalism is on the rise and many governments, including the incoming Trump administration, are promising mass deportations. Trump in particular has discussed building camps as part of mass deportations. This question used to feel more hypothetical than it does today.
Faced with this reality, it’s worth asking: who would stand by you if this kind of authoritarianism took hold in your life?
You can break allyship down into several key areas of life:
Who in your personal life is an ally? (Your friends, acquaintances, and extended family.)
Who in your professional life is an ally? (People you work with, people in partner organizations, and your industry.)
Who in civic life is an ally? (Your representatives, government workers, individual members of law enforcement, healthcare workers, and so on.)
Which service providers are allies? (The people you depend on for goods and services — including stores, delivery services, and internet services.)
And in turn, can be broken down further:
Who will actively help you evade an authoritarian regime?
Who will refuse to collaborate with a regime’s demands?
These two things are different. There’s also a third option — non-collaboration but non-refusal — which I would argue does not constitute allyship at all. This might look like passively complying with authoritarian demands when legally compelled, without taking steps to resist or protect the vulnerable. While this might not seem overtly harmful, it leaves those at risk exposed. As Naomi Shulman points out, the most dangerous complicity often comes from those who quietly comply. Nice people made the best Nazis.
For the remainder of this post, I will focus on the roles of internet service vendors and protocol authors in shaping allyship and resisting authoritarianism.
For these groups, refusing to collaborate means that you’re not capitulating to active demands by an authoritarian regime, but you might not be actively considering how to help people who are vulnerable. The people who are actively helping, on the other hand, are actively considering how to prevent someone from being tracked, identified, and rounded up by a regime, and are putting preventative measures in place. (These might include implementing encryption at rest, minimizing data collection, and ensuring anonymity in user interactions.)
If we consider an employer, refusing to collaborate means that you won’t actively hand over someone’s details on request. Actively helping might mean aiding someone in hiding or escaping to another jurisdiction.
These questions of allyship apply not just to individuals and organizations, but also to the systems we design and the technologies we champion. Those of us who are involved in movements to liberate social software from centralized corporations need to consider our roles. Is decentralization enough? Should we be allies? What kind of allies?
This responsibility extends beyond individual actions to the frameworks we build and the partnerships we form within open ecosystems. While building an open protocol that makes all content public and allows indefinite tracking of user activity without consent may not amount to collusion, it is also far from allyship. Partnering with companies that collaborate with an authoritarian regime, for example by removing support for specific vulnerable communities and enabling the spread of hate speech, may also not constitute allyship. Even if it furthers your immediate stated technical and business goals to have that partner on board, it may undermine your stated social goals. Short-term compromises for technical or business gains may seem pragmatic but risk undermining the ethics that underpin open and decentralized systems.
Obviously, the point of an open protocol is that anyone can use it. But we should avoid enabling entities that collude with authoritarian regimes to become significant contributors to or influencers of open protocols and platforms. While open protocols can be used by anyone, we must distinguish between passive use and active collaboration. Enabling authoritarian-aligned entities to shape the direction or governance of these protocols undermines their potential for liberation.
In light of Mark Zuckerberg’s clear acquiescence to the incoming Trump administration (for example by rolling back DEI, allowing hate speech, and making a series of bizarre statements designed to placate Trump himself), I now believe Threads should not be allowed to be an active collaborator to open protocols unless it can attest that it will not collude, and that it will protect vulnerable groups using its platforms from harm. I also think Bluesky’s AT Protocol decision to make content and user blocks completely open and discoverable should be revisited. I also believe there should be an ethical bill of rights for users on open social media protocols that authors should sign, which includes the right to privacy, freedom from surveillance, safeguards against hate speech, and strong protections for vulnerable communities.
As builders, users, and advocates of open systems, we must demand transparency, accountability, and ethical commitments from all contributors to open protocols. Without these safeguards, we risk creating tools that enable oppression rather than resisting it. Allyship demands more than neutrality — it demands action.
The 119th Congress was officially sworn in Friday, meaning the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate will soon begin the process of confirming President-elect Donald Trump’s Cabinet nominees.
Article II of the U.S. Constitution enables the president to appoint officials to the Cabinet and other positions with the “advice and consent” of the Senate. Many of the committees, all of which have a majority of Republicans, will hold hearings on the nominees related to their area of expertise: the Senate Judiciary Committee, for example, holds hearings for the nominees for attorney general and other top posts at the Department of Justice. Those hearings will begin soon, with senators likely prioritizing confirming nominees to national security positions.
Republicans will control the Senate 53 to 47 seats once Senator-elect Jim Justice of West Virginia is sworn in later in January and Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine appoints a senator to fill Vice President-elect JD Vance’s seat.
Some nominees like Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, are expected to easily sail through the Senate, while others are likely to garner more opposition and scrutiny. Here’s how the process will work:
When do hearings start?
Sen. Roger Wicker, who leads the Senate Armed Services Committee, is set to hold Pete Hegseth’s confirmation hearing for secretary of defense starting January 14, even before Trump’s inauguration. The hearing for former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s nomination for director of national intelligence in the Senate Intelligence Committee is also set to take place that week, according to Punchbowl News. The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to prioritize confirming Pam Bondi, Trump’s nominee for attorney general, and his nominees for deputy attorneys general before taking up the nomination of Kash Patel to lead the FBI, the outlet reported.
Are hearings required for every nominee?
Not necessarily. There are over 1,300 political appointee positions that require Senate confirmation, and some nominees, like military promotions, often go straight to the Senate floor. But nominees for the Cabinet and other high-profile political appointments almost always have confirmation hearings.
What happens at a confirmation hearing?
Before a hearing, senators on relevant committees will request biographical information and a financial disclosure from the nominee. At the hearing, senators will ask questions about a nominee’s background, their qualifications and their views. Nominees for positions that require a security clearance also traditionally undergo an FBI background check.
Gabbard and Patel are expected to draw scrutiny for their records and stances on national security issues. Democrats will likely question Hegseth about a past allegation of sexual assault against him, which he denies, as well as his previous comments opposing women in combat roles. Senators on both sides of the aisle are also likely to question Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s nominee for Health and Human Services secretary, on his views on abortion, vaccines and food policy.
How does a nominee get confirmed after a hearing?
After a committee holds a hearing, its members can report the nomination favorably or unfavorably to the full Senate for a final vote. In 2013, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid led his fellow Senate Democrats in changing the chamber’s rules to require only a simple majority to invoke cloture, or end debate, on presidential nominations other than Supreme Court nominees. A simple majority is also needed for final confirmation. In 2017, then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans also lowered the threshold for Supreme Court nominees.
Historically, it’s been very rare for the Senate to reject a president’s Cabinet nominee. The last time the Senate voted down a Cabinet nominee was in 1989, when senators rejected Sen. John Tower, then-President George H.W. Bush’s nominee for defense secretary, due to concerns about his drinking. Some Cabinet nominees like former Rep. Matt Gaetz, Trump’s first pick for attorney general, also bow out of the process before they go up for confirmation.
Scottie's Playtime 