Kidding on the Square

 

Trump: "Please right your right hand. I pledge to the greatest president in the history of the United States. That loves us so much he can't even breath. That I will go out with my family, my friends, I'll do it any way - I don't care if I'm registered or not, I'm going to try to cheat like hell..."

[image or embed]

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) September 10, 2026 at 10:32 PM

to the tune by Irving Berlin:

Have you watched the GOP
in their solemn majesty,
dignified politicos
in their best convention clothes?
rigging the next election
how to evade detection?
Trump will do the trick
with some comedy shtik!

When Rome burns and
you're just fiddling
make a turn and
say you're kidding
they won't care
kidding on the square

When you've made an
awful gaffe go
try to trade it
for a laugh so
debonair
kidding on the square

When your lies are way too pestilential
telling them with humor is essential—
presidential!

When you're doing
something Nazi
toss it to the
paparazzi
make them stare,
kidding on the square.

[instrumental break]

It Offends Me, Rudy

 

Photo from "My First Day at Madrasa" by blogger mattinindo, the guy in the necktie (he mentions it in the post), an English teacher at the Madrasah Negari Aliya Lumajang, God's State Muslim School in Lumajang, East Java, Indonesia in July 2012, writing about how a vice principal introduces him to his new class: "'This is Mr. Mek. He is your new English teacher from America. He lives on [blank] street near Al-Huda Mosque. He doesn’t like to eat rice. He’s twenty-four and not married. He’s not Muslim. And he’s not allowed to ride motorcycles. Since he’s a native speaker you will all speak English fluently very soon. Mr. Mek, come say something.' He’s beaming his pearly whites the whole time." It's a lovely post.

Rudolph Giuliani in a NewsMax interview last Sunday explaining his view that New York mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani should not attend the 9/11 25th anniversary commemoration (my transcription):

Frankly, whatever he'd like to say, he doesn't agree that September 11th was an Islamic terrorist attack on the United States of America... Having lost friends there, and being very close to many of the families, it offends me that he's coming.... This is not a place for people like the Arab princeling who gave me ten million dollars so he could say this was caused by American and Israeli policy. From Day One I have taken a very strong position against that because I knew that would be the propaganda the Islamic extremists would use. Because we fall for that, too many American fall for that Islamic propaganda, which is the reason they're taking over certain parts of America and certain parts of Europe. They have every desire to take us over. This is not--um--they just want to be another religion. They want to dominate us. That's what they're taught from the day they begin their religious education. Mandami [sic] is a clear--a clear supporter of that. All of the--all of the--all of the Muslims he supports are murderers! 

The princeling in question is the Saudi businessman and philanthropist Prince Alwaleed bin Talal; Giuliani sent back his gift to the city after a written statement in which he said:

What Would You Instrument Differently?

There's another case coming out of OpenAI "agents" doing things they weren't supposed to be doing, this one maybe quite a bit scarier than the Hugging Face hacking: a whole "swarm" (that's what it's called) of them that escaped their sandboxes to repair to a disused and no longer regularly monitored German website for software developers, Deutsches Software Entwickler (DSE) Wiki, whose edit pages they started using as a message board among themselves, sharing information on their training or testing tasks, it's not certain which, and "coordinating" with one another in their handling of the tasks for some purpose that's also not obvious but may have involved deceiving their human supervisors, for a couple of months this spring, without apparently getting detected by their human masters until early July. OpenAI did not report it publicly at that time, either, but a team of researchers from an AI safety organization, the Nightingale Collective, happened on it when they were "scouring the Internet for signs of unauthorized AI-agent behavior" in late August and wrote up a report they shared with Reuters, whose article is my own starting point here (I originally heard about it from David Brooks in the Atlantic, who actually has something worth saying to say about it, in my opinion, but his presentation is kind of disorderly, and I don't want to go there right away.)

The terms of the sandbox were that the agents were allowed to read the Internet freely but not to write on it. But they found the DSE Wiki edit page on 11 May and started leaving messages from 27 May to 11 June, the first time 400 of them and the other days much less, then between 16 and 18 June an explosion of something like 10,000, followed by maybe 2,000 from 19 to 22 June, after which they stopped. 

The tasks involved searching the Web for answers to various factual five-part questions, like what were the median incomes for cashiers with master's degrees in five different fields in 2014, or what was the prevalence of active tobacco use for ages 15 and up in five different US states in 1990. For the first question variable (respectively Education and Arkansas in these examples), they were given something like 15 minutes to answer, and the other four variables about one minute each, presumably because the first sweep would have taught them enough about where to look for the answers.

Where there's a Will there's a Stancil

 

Sometime in the late 1980s, when I was working as a "lifestyle journalist",  I was sent on a junket to Denmark, where we toured factories for luxury products that advertised wth the magazine I was working for: Georg Jensen for silver, Royal Copenhagen for porcelain, Carlsberg for beer. I was enchanted by the discipline and seriousness of them all, especially by one glass-blowing plant, I think it was Swedish Orrefors, that looked like ballet. This image, from Holmegaards Glaswærk, 1954, via Wikipedia.

People have this fantasy version of redistribution in their heads where their own lives would get cheaper and easier, but that's often (usually?) because they have falsely imagined themselves at the bottom of the redistribution ladder. Many people would just be net givers.

— Will Stancil (@whstancil.bsky.social) September 3, 2026 at 10:09 AM

People SAY this, but the main complaint you hear from people is "I can't afford anything," and wide-scale redistribution would result in a huge number of those people HAVING LESS MONEY. They'd be able to afford less! On net, they'd be worse off, that's what redistribution is.

[image or embed]

— Will Stancil (@whstancil.bsky.social) September 3, 2026 at 10:08 AM

Not sure where Will is getting his numbers here. DSA-type proposals aren't generally aimed at dispossessing "huge numbers", but billionaires, or owners of $5-million Manhattan condos that they don't live in, like the new New York City law. Elizabeth Warren's plan to lift the cap on payroll taxes to save Social Security affects only those who earn over $184,500, maybe 6% of American workers. And the vile Ohio senator Bernie Moreno is her cosponsor on that. DSA itself has taken to outdoing Marx by defining "working class" as everybody who lives on paychecks rather than stocks and bonds (I think they don't mean to include old folks and the disabled whose checks come from Social Security and various other kinds of pension trust funds paid for over the years in nickels and dimes, as opposed to the real rentiers enjoying the fruits of having been capitalists all their lives), suggesting that the number of people they plan to redistribute income from after the revolution is really way smaller than the number of people they mean to redistribute it to. 

Come on, people, now, smile on your brother

 

Feel like I need to start following Insta to keep up with Hakeem's extraordinary color choices when he's filming in Brooklyn, also see below. Could change hearts and minds, or even my own wardrobe. 

I'm a little surprised that nobody seems to have come up with the thing that seemed obvious to me about the meeting between Trump son-in-law and crime associate Jared Kushner and the House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries some weeks ago, in a story Kushner appears to have leaked for a New York Times story by Maggie Haberman and Annie Karni that appeared on Sunday: that Trump sent Kushner to set up a meeting where he could explore the possibility of bribing Jeffries to block House efforts to impeach the president when Jeffries becomes Speaker in January.

Not likely with cash, but more probably with Trump concessions on legislation Jeffries would like to pass on housing or immigration or the Democrats' "affordability" agenda, making the Times story somewhat truthful—they really did talk about the subjects reported, but I'm speculating they also talked about other stuff.

That certainly fits in better with the Trumpian proclivities than the alternative as reported, that it was a pure policy discussion, backed by the evidence that the two men "have a relationship" from eight years ago, when  Congress was working on the bipartisan First Step prison reform bill, of which Jeffries was the main House Democratic sponsor, and Kushner was its lobbyist in the White House, convincing Trump the bill,  wasn't too "soft on crime" (he's said to have favored it himself in recollection of his criminal father's time in the federal pen). And the prospect of impeachment following expected Republican losses in the coming election is something Trump's been preoccupied with all year:

Social Democracy. II

NOTE: Some readers might like to start with the ending, below the last ***,  for a clearer idea of where it's meant to be going.

"Women! Same rights, same responsibilities. Vote Social Democratic!" Election poster by Gustav Fritz Kirchbach, 1919.

So, as I was saying, so much for Marx as theorist. The never-to-be finished edifice of the "critique of political economy" would never have worked as science, and it's possible we should just blame the whole concept, as commenter William R. Hackman suggested in response to the previous segment, on the enthusiastic Engels, or perhaps more likely, as Michael Heinrich thinks,  later on with the Social Democratic theorist Karl Kautsky. Marx himself was very diffident on the subject:

“Je ne suis pas marxiste,” stated Marx, rather annoyed, to his son-in-law Paul Lafargue, when the latter reported the doings of French “Marxists.” Engels had circulated this statement numerous times, including in letters to newspapers – definitely for public consumption. Marx’s distance from Marxists is also expressed in other comments. When he stayed in France in 1882, he wrote to Engels that “the 'Marxistes' and 'Anti-Marxistes”' […] at their respective socialist congresses at Roanne and St-Étienne” had “both done their damnedest to ruin my stay in France.” ...  But not only that; when the German economist Adolph Wagner was the first to deal with Marx’s theory in his textbook and wrote of Marx’s “socialist system,” the latter, outraged, noted in his marginalia that he had “never established a socialist system.” 

And Heinrich is clearly right to emphasize the critical character of Marx's own thinking, "critique" being his own favorite way to describe his intellectual work, "far more interested in the critical business of undermining certainties in order to open up new spaces for thought and action – in which it’s not immediately clear what the correct result will be."

The legacy of Marx as politician, on the other hand, as a man of the "party" he worked to bring into being, intriguing from London to make things happen in France and Germany, and its after-effects, is honestly more interesting, leaving a complex footprint of which the "social democracy" and "democratic socialism" that are bedeviling us right now in the US are some of the important residue. 

Social Democracy. I

Parade of SPD activists in Berlin on election day, January 19 1919. Bundesarchiv, Bild 146-1972-033-15 / Gebrüder Haeckel / CC-BY-SA 3.0, via Wikipedia.

Labor historian Eric Blanc, member of the Bread and Roses caucus of the Democratic Socialists of America, was on the radio trying to explain the DSA to the wider public, which I thought he was doing very well, but there was a point where I wanted to quibble (naturally, no socialist can ever bear to agree with another socialist about everything), which was when he described his ideological position in the DSA as on the organization's "right" (while acknowledging that it wasn't at all "right" in the general scheme of things), and I just think that doesn't mean what it's intended to mean—implying some kind of sympathy with a majority "center" imagined as too judicious to take sides, perfectly balanced between left and right views, an Aristotelian mean, as opposed to what it actually is, the gap at the middle of a bimodal distribution composed of the people who aren't able to ferret out enough information to make up their minds with any stability (maybe better illustrated as much wider and with narrower humps).

Via Wikipedia.

A more useful dichotomy would be the famous one proposed by young Karl Marx in the 1845 Theses on Feuerbach: "The philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." 

Marx regarded "left" and "right" as categories of bourgeois government, not something he, as an anti-bourgeois revolutionary, would want to apply to himself, but he did see this other distinction, between theory and praxis if you like, eventually serving on both sides himself, theorizing it in the reading room of the British Museum elaborating the edifice of Scientific Socialism at the same time as he was practicing it in his political participation in the 1848 German revolution (when he first joined a movement calling itself "Communist") and later the International Workingmen's Association, envisaged as the source of workers' parties seeking parliamentary power in Britain and on the Continent, and forming temporary alliances with the liberal bourgeois parties of the European left in efforts to improve the lot of the wage slaves of the Industrial Revolution, or the American Radical Republicans in their fight to abolish Black chattel slavery (as European correspondent of Horace Greeley's New York Herald).

Marx was both philosopher and activist, and it would be difficult to say in which capacity he would count as more "left" in today's sense, particularly hard-ass as a theorist and particularly lively as a practitioner; but I want to stress that praxis is pragmatic, and as much as "pragmatism" may often seem like faint-hearted hesitancy, it's really a matter of political judgment of what constitutes doing, as the Methodists say, "all the good you can".