Cats, charts, and politics
I saw yet another article today about the "deeply unpopular" Joe Biden. You know what that means: I'm going to put up the latest version of The Chart:
Are you tired of seeing this? Tough. I'm going to keep posting it over and over and over until either (a) the nonsense about Biden's unpopularity stops, or (b) Biden's approval rating really does drop significantly below other presidents at the same point in their terms.
Here is Hilbert playing with his string toy last night as Charlie looks on. This is by far their favoritest toy—aside from each other, of course.
The Guardian today writes about the possibility that AI will eventually take over nearly all jobs:
Elon Musk’s suggestion to Rishi Sunak that society could reach a point where “no job is needed” and “you can do a job if you want a job … but the AI will do everything” revives a debate on the issue of how we work that has long been discussed.
....One significant body of research in 2019, led by Brendan Burchell, professor in social sciences and a former president of Magdalene College, Cambridge, established that eight hours of paid employment a week was optimal in terms of benefit in mental health, and that no extra benefit was subsequently accrued.
....A world without work “is a terrible idea of what society would look like for all sorts of reasons, as well as people’s mental health”, he said.
The labour market, as a way of distributing money around the economy, would have to be transformed, as would the education system, “to teach people how to fill their days, by writing poetry or going fishing or whatever, instead of going to the factory or the office”, Burchell continued.
It's possible that a world with no work is a terrible idea. But then, a world with atomic weapons is a terrible idea. A world with climate change is a terrible idea. A world with pandemics is a terrible idea.
None of that matters. AI will eventually take over practically all labor whether we like it or not. Instead of moaning about it, the only thing we should be doing is planning for it. Because we will indeed need to figure out a whole new way of distributing money around the economy.
The end of work, in every practical sense of the word, is coming. Maybe in 10 years, maybe in 50. In the grand scheme of things that's a difference barely worth noting. Does anyone care today about predictions in 1900 of precisely when cars would take over the roads? Maybe 1910, maybe 1930. Did it really matter who was right?
For the past half century, an increase in the unemployment rate of half a point from a new low has been an unfailing indicator that a recession is either underway or very close:
There are no exceptions to this rule. If it doesn't happen, no recession. If it does happen, recession.
This month marks a half point increase from the April low of 3.4%. Just sayin'.
The American economy gained 150,000 jobs last month. We need 90,000 new jobs just to keep up with population growth, which means that net job growth clocked in at an anemic 60,000 jobs. The headline unemployment rate ticked up again to 3.9%.
The jobs estimates for August and September were revised downward by 79,000. The trendline for net new jobs is now very close to zero:
The unemployment rate has increased by a full half point since the beginning of the year:
Both the Employment-Population ratio and the Labor Force Participation Rate went down in October. Overall, this is a fairly miserable jobs report.
For Republicans, one of the nice things about their waning support for Ukraine is that it means they can credibly threaten to vote against it unless Democrats throw in some goodies for them. As usual, the goodies they want involve border security.
Politico reports that one concession President Biden is considering is a tweak to asylum law:
Under current law, if a migrant is subject to expedited removal and put through the credible fear process, that person is required to show a “significant possibility” of credible fear of persecution, torture or fear returning to their country. A tweak to the law’s language could in theory mean fewer migrants hitting the credible fear threshold and, therefore, more being denied the opportunity to apply for asylum.
That's all well and good, but it won't accomplish much. We need to do two things:
In addition, we need a change in how we handle ordinary illegal immigration:
None of this is especially coercive or inhumane, but it would work. I often wonder if that's why nobody seems very interested in it.
I've seen several TV interviews with Hamas leaders over the past week, and I have to say I'm surprised they even do interviews. al-Qaeda never did interviews, and with good reason. Even a friendly reporter is likely to have some tough questions for outfits like al-Qaeda or Hamas.
In any case, I've now seen one where the guy walked out. I've seen another where a guy just blustered his way through, insisting that Hamas never intended to kill civilians. And then there's Ghazi Hamad, who eagerly volunteered that Hamas's only goal was to wipe Israel from the face of the earth:
“Israel is a country that has no place on our land,” Hamad said in an interview with Lebanese TV channel LBC....“We must remove it because it constitutes a security, military and political catastrophe to the Arab and Islamic nation. We are not ashamed to say this.”
In the interview, Hamad said that Israel’s existence is “illogical”....When asked whether this meant the complete annihilation of Israel, Hamad replied: “Yes, of course.”
“We must teach Israel a lesson, and we will do it twice and three times. The Al-Aqsa Deluge [the name Hamas gave its October 7 onslaught] is just the first time, and there will be a second, a third, a fourth,” Hamad continued.
....“We are the victims of the occupation. Period. Therefore, nobody should blame us for the things we do. On October 7, October 10, October one-millionth, everything we do is justified,” Hamad said.
None of this is a surprise, but it certainly puts to rest the prospect of a ceasefire, whether or not Israel would agree to one.
Israel is badly in the wrong to have cut off supplies to Gaza. Regardless of how loathsome Hamas is, civilians should have access to food, water, power, and medicine at a bare minimum. I think we all understand that providing this stuff means that Hamas will have access to it as well, but that's hardly a conundrum unique to this war. Israel needs to act with basic human decency even if it's hard.
Ditto for their seemingly indiscriminate bombing. It's difficult to know exactly what Israel's goal is here, but they've certainly given every impression of, at the least, not caring much about civilian casualties. That's got to end.
This makes it harder to destroy Hamas, but not impossible. And destruction of Hamas is surely justified. So even though I wish them good luck with this, that doesn't mean they're absolved of acting civilized any more than 9/11 absolved us of torturing Iraqi prisoners. Evil doesn't stop being evil just because you're at war.
The trial of Sam Bankman-Fried was long and complicated, but the jury's deliberations weren't. After a few short hours they've already returned a guilty verdict:
The conviction cements Bankman-Fried as one of the largest financial fraudsters in history, whose victims suffered nearly $10 billion in losses after FTX misappropriated customer funds to spend lavishly on luxury real estate, investments, and “dark money” political donations, all at his direction, the jury found.
Bankman-Fried’s lawyer suggested his client will appeal the conviction. “We respect the jury’s decision. But we are very disappointed with the result,” defense attorney Mark Cohen said in a statement. “Mr. Bankman Fried maintains his innocence and will continue to vigorously fight the charges against him.”
Well, Mr. Bankman-Fried can maintain his innocence all he wants, and who knows? He might be delusional enough to actually believe it. But an appeals court won't, so it's off to the pen for SBF. Few white-collar fraudsters have ever deserved it more.
This is all ancient and well-trod history, but it sure seems like a lot of people no longer have much understanding of how Israel originated, and why it is where it is. So here's a very brief Beginner's Refresher to Israel.
Before the First World War, the area we now call the Middle East was part of the vast Ottoman Empire:
The Ottoman Empire decided to enter World War I on the German side, which turned out to be a big mistake. After the war it was dismembered in the Treaty of Versailles, leading eventually to the creation (or consolidation) of Turkey and Saudi Arabia. In addition, shortly after the treaty was signed Great Britain was given the "Mandate for Palestine," ex-Ottoman territory it was authorized to control under the supervision of the League of Nations:
Several years before this, in the Balfour Declaration, Britain had already declared its support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine—a recognition of the Zionist movement that had begun among European Jews a few decades earlier. This was formally recognized in the final document from the League of Nations creating the Mandate. The next couple of decades after that were relatively quiet, producing plenty of fighting in Palestine but nothing definitive.
The League of Nations finally dissolved after World War II and was replaced by the United Nations. In 1948, driven by both historical currents and the shock of the Holocaust, the UN created the state of Israel on the western side of the Mandate, while the British turned over the eastern side to the new Kingdom of Jordan. The area known today as the West Bank (i.e., west of the river Jordan) was held back as a proposed Arab state.
A few days after the creation of Israel, Arab nations declared war. They lost, but Jordan annexed the West Bank and East Jerusalem, while Israel took control of West Jerusalem. In 1967 Arabs declared another war. They lost, and Israel took over the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan and the Gaza Strip from Egypt. In 1973 Arabs declared yet another war, and lost yet again.
Around this time Israel began building settlements in the West Bank. In 1979, they signed a peace treaty with Egypt in which Egypt renounced all claims to Gaza.
In 1987, Palestinians waged another war against Israel, the First Intifada. They lost. After the collapse of the 2000 Camp David peace talks, they waged a Second Intifada and lost again.
In 2005 Israel withdrew from Gaza and in 2006 the residents of Gaza voted Hamas into power. Egypt and Israel then put in place a blockade surrounding Gaza that continues to the present day. In 2023 Hamas launched a deadly attack against Israel, torturing and killing thousands of civilians. Like Israel's other enemies, they will undoubtedly lose yet again.
In the meantime, Israel has expanded its West Bank settlements tremendously:
The Palestinian areas of the West Bank are now so chopped up that it's difficult to imagine any plausible creation of a Palestinian state there. For this and other reasons, the so-called "two-state" solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is all but dead. It continues a sort of zombie-like existence, but no one really believes it will happen anytime in the foreseeable future.
We were lucky that the eclipse a couple of weeks ago lined up nicely with leaf season in Colorado. The scenery was chock full of brilliant yellow aspens, like this copse a little north of Durango. It was all very pretty.
