Framing the Right Questions

  • Salon is shutting down, after 31 years;
  • Elon Musk has deleted his posts supporting Republicans;
  • Paul Davies on three great origin mysteries, and how maybe people just don’t “frame the questions” correctly;
  • Scientific American about the Earth’s “Great Unconformity”;
  • A book by David Treuer about the history of violence;
  • And political items, briefly noted: Trump, Stephen Miller, the Christian left, Christian nationalism, and calls from the right for violence;
  • Another map of political alliances in the US, scaling states proportionally.
– – –

One more round. But I need to begin wrapping this thread up.

Before the politics round:

Salon is shutting down!

Salon, 5 Nov 2026: Goodbye from Salon, subtitled “It has been an extraordinary privilege.”

Today, after 31 years, we are saddened to announce that Salon is ceasing publication.

It’s difficult to find the right words for the end of something that has meant so much to so many people. Salon was never just a website. It was an idea about what journalism could be, born at a moment when the internet was still a largely unexplored frontier.

When Salon launched in November 1995, the web was a very different place. A small group of journalists set out to create something original: a publication with a strong voice, a curiosity about the world and a belief that the internet could bring journalism and readers together in new ways. They helped pioneer a form of journalism that would come to define an entirely new era of publishing.

And so on. NYT notes it here:

NY Times, 5 Nov 2026: Salon, a Pioneer of Digital Journalism, Shuts Down, subtitled “The progressive website, founded in 1995, said its business was ‘no longer sustainable.'”

Salon was started in 1995 by the journalist David Talbot as a digital magazine covering books, culture and ideas at a time before blogging and online news had taken off. It was financially backed by Apple, Adobe and the now-defunct bookstore chain Borders.

Over the years, it became known for its politically progressive views and expanded to cover politics and tech. It employed a number of well-known journalists, including Glenn Greenwald, Joan Walsh and Michelle Goldberg. Steve Kornacki, the beloved data nerd at NBC News, was at one point Salon’s politics editor, while CNN’s Jake Tapper also worked for the site as a Washington correspondent early in his career.

This is all very sad, but then media is changing and magazines are being affected too. A concern I had right away was, what would happen to the accumulated site archives at Salon? (Since I’ve posted links to many articles on site for decades.) Would they all vanish, as has happened with some website that go out of business? NYT ends:

A spokesperson for Salon said in an email that the company was still exploring options, “but there are no plans to take the archive down at this time.”

(I’ve already noticed that some image links to Salon articles expire, or rather change, which is why my links to them now don’t display the images. But that’s probably a different issue.)

\\\

Meanwhile, there’s some weird irony here.

JMG, 5 Nov 2026: Elon Musk Is Mass-Deleting His Tweets About Election

This is a perfect example of Orwellian authoritarian behavior: change the record to deny you ever supported the losers.

\\\

On a fundamental theme: on many basic issues, maybe humans are just asking the wrong questions. (Recall Weinberg’s book.) We think the universe works in the same way mundane, parochial human life works, even though we already know it doesn’t, at different scales.

Big Think, (6 Nov 2026): The laws of the universe are unable to explain these origin mysteries, subtitled “Physicist Paul Davies explores how chemistry first learned to write its own code, and what that reveals about the origin of life.”

(Despite the locked content warning, the full transcript is available.)

I have several of his books. Let me quote just the core of his theme here.

There are really three origin mysteries. I like to say there’s the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin of consciousness. Now most of my career I’ve been working cosmology. And I would say that we actually understand the origin of the universe pretty well. The origin of consciousness is a really tough one because we don’t even know how to frame the questions. We don’t know the right conceptual structure to apply when it comes to the nature of consciousness. I think it’s still deeply mysterious. The origin of life is a tough one, but we’re sort of on the case and I can imagine that within a few decades we might have a pretty good understanding.

How to “frame the questions.” We’re probably just thinking about them in the wrong way. It’s not that there aren’t some kind of ‘explanations,’ because these things exist, and must be consistent with each other.

\

Two other science items.

Scientific American, today: Scientists finally solve the mystery of Earth’s ‘Great Unconformity’, subtitled “The ‘Great Unconformity’ has puzzled scientists since its discovery in the 1870s”

It seems the geological record has gaps of hundreds of millions of years, and new research suggests an answer: “deep processes inside Earth lifted some continents high above the sea, where their surfaces were scoured down by the grinding movement of enormous sheets of ice.”

\

Review of a new book: THE SAVAGE MIND: An American Legacy, by David Treuer.

NY Times, Michael Thomas, today: How Frontier Violence Defined the American Mind, subtitled “David Treuer’s new book is a letter to his children about the savage history of our national character.”

Though it reads by turns like a polemic, a manifesto, a history and a meditation, “The Savage Mind” is a letter that Treuer, a member of the Ojibwe tribe, wrote to his children after George Floyd’s murder and the Jan. 6 Capitol siege, in an attempt to hold his family together as the nation seemed to be falling apart.

The book is a study of the American frontier and the violence that has always been its defining feature. The frontier no longer exists as a physical space, Treuer asserts, but endures nonetheless as “the idea, the impulse, the culture” of what once lay outside civilized life. The frontier has migrated inside us, and it has become our cultural practice to see violence as the only response to fear.

Mind you, this is not about ancient history, but about relatively contemporary American history. And it goes to the bifurcation of human nature often discussed here. And it’s about a truth of human nature that modern conservatives, as with so much else, would prefer to ignore or deny.

\\\\

And now some political items from the past two days, as briefly as possible.

\\\

Another useful map. The standard political maps of America that show states colored red or blue is deeply misleading — precisely because of the way our electoral college works.

This is from the UK paper The Guardian, via several Facebook posts today. Comment on Fb: “Instead of showing the massive but empty red geography, it shows the state’s size based on the number of House seats. I like that. (Update: The districts inside each state are shown as equal in size, so they fit as best as possible.)”

There’s another map, which I may already have posted, that shows the US with red and blue population circles, with big blue circles around the major cities, and relatively tiny red bubbles throughout most of the middle of the country. The point of both of these of maps is that more people live in big cities, and presumably vote Democratic, than live in small towns in mid-America, who vote Republican.

But then how do Republicans win so often? Because– back to the electoral college (and the senate), that gives every small-population state the same weight as all the huge-population states. Someone calls this “the tyranny of the minority.” This is the state of modern American politics. It is dragging us down.

Posted in Human Nature, Philosophy, Politics, Science | Leave a comment

So What Then, Next?

  • Adam Serwer on how MAGA lost even when they won, i.e. because American society has changed;
  • Robert Reich has ideas about what should be on the Democrats’ agenda;
  • So does Dahlia Lithwick at Slate;
  • Andrew Prokop at Vox looks at the three reasons the GOP think they lost;
  • And Paul Krugman suggests that Democrats force Trump to use his veto power, echoing a comment a made yesterday.
– – –

Following up on a comment from Ken Paxton, noted yesterday, of an “America our founders gave us versus something they would never recognize.”

The Atlantic, Adam Serwer, today: Even Where MAGA Won, MAGA Lost, subtitled “A vision of a multicultural America emerges from this election.” [gift link]

Leading with this:

One of the biggest Republican wins in an otherwise-terrible midterm night for the GOP was the victory of the Trump-supporting Byron Donalds in Florida’s race for governor. Donalds will become the first Black governor of that state. If you could resurrect Jefferson Davis and tell him that the governor of Florida will be a Black Republican married to a white woman, he would crawl straight back into his coffin.

Conservatives presumably want to retain the values common in the founders’ era. They probably don’t actually mean it, because they don’t realize what those values were, but that’s what they say.

Then this:

That this was MAGA’s big win in a night of defeats is remarkable, given the movement’s hostility toward diversity, and its nostalgia for an America where rigid race and gender hierarchies were enforced by the state. Even where Republicans won, in other words, President Trump’s racially exclusive conception of American citizenship lost. Trump could browbeat corporate America into eliminating DEI programs; he could threaten colleges to let in fewer students of color; he could direct the full power of the federal government toward deporting immigrants. But he could not will away the America that actually exists.

Going on with many examples. And concluding:

In September, Trump said, “America does not belong to those who hate it. America belongs to those who love it.” But the way MAGA talks about the America that actually exists—as opposed to the one it imagines once existed—doesn’t sound like love at all. Whether or not Americans believe in multiculturalism, we are multicultural. One is an ideology; the other is a fact.

\\\

Now we get to the stage where commentators anticipate what will, or should, happen next.

Robert Reich, today: Office Hours: What Should Be #1 on the Democrats’ Agenda?, subtitled “Their priority when they take over Congress?”

Even with full control of Congress, it won’t be easy. Trump will remain in the White House. He’s likely to veto whatever the Democrats try to do and ignore whatever they say. He and his Cabinet officers won’t willingly testify before congressional committees investigating the regime’s actions, pleading executive privilege.

He has four items:

  1. Impeach and convict Trump of high crimes and misdemeanors;
  2. Reform our broken system of campaign finance;
  3. Enact a wealth tax on billionaires;
  4. Enact Medicare for All.

He acknowledges the challenges with each of these.

\

A similar piece from Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick.

Slate, Dahlia Lithwick, today: What Democrats Must Do Now

Affordability. Accountability. Supreme Court reform. Investigations into all sorts of abuses. Probably not impeachment, even if many Americans are anxious for it.

\

Looking back.

Vox, Andrew Prokop, yesterday: Whose fault is the GOP’s cataclysmic defeat? 3 theories are gaining steam on the right., subtitled “Was it Iran? The tariffs? Trumpism more broadly? The narrative warfare has begun.”

This seems to boil down to: the war; a rejection of Trumpism; and the economy.

\

This piece echoes my thought from yesterday.

Paul Krugman, today: What Democrats Can Do, subtitled “Yes, Trump has veto power. Force him to use it.”

With this passing thought:

If we had a parliamentary system, the moving trucks would already be at the White House.

It’s odd that candidates who win their elections in early November don’t take office until January. I think this is another vestige of how laws were written two centuries ago, when it could have taken weeks for a new senator from a western state to make his way to Washington DC. Like the electoral college, this is a vestige of the constraints of a past that no longer exists.

But let’s get to the point.

Democrats won’t have the margin to override Trump’s vetoes. Still, they will control the agendas.

Everyone paying attention knows that Trump and his cronies have been stealing billions, but many Americans probably don’t grasp the full extent of the corruption. Gaining the ability to bring this corruption into the sunlight is critical to rebuild Americans’ faith in the integrity of government, as well as to hold Trump and his vandals accountable. Moreover, knowing that his days are numbered, the Trump gang have every incentive to engage in a wholesale smash-and-grab spree.

Then this. Exactly.

Pass highly popular legislation that would clearly benefit ordinary Americans and not the oligarchs, knowing full well that Trump will veto the legislation. Emphatically, the Democrats should not try to make deals with Trump, a man who never agreed to a deal that he didn’t subsequently try to break.

… When Trump vetoes a bill, they should attempt to override that veto, forcing each and every Republican to either to uphold Trump’s obstruction — making it clear that they are as culpable as he is — or to develop a spine and supply the additional votes required for such overrides.

And then suggestions of laws to pass. Some form of Medicare. Restore subsidies for ACA. Dealing with Russia and Ukraine.

Other obvious examples are:

· Refusal to spend more billions of dollars on a failed war with Iran
· Ending the Trump tariffs
· Policies to safeguard Americans against the dangers of AI and data center hegemony
· Reforming tax policy so that it no longer benefits the wealthy and enables corporate tax evasion
· Ending ICE abuses
· Ending self-harming immigration policies
· Reconstituting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and giving it enforcement powers
· Levying a windfall profits tax on oil companies
· Policies that benefit cost-effective green energy, like solar and wind farms
· Legislation that eliminates the ability of politicians and their family members to benefit financially from their offices

On all these issues and more, the Democrats should force Trump to use his veto power, making it clear to the country that he is the reason Americans are suffering under destructive policies that benefit the oligarchs, Trump and his cronies.

\\\

Music:

More Mahler middle movements. 4 and 5 today.

Posted in conservatives, Politics, progress | Leave a comment

Jared Huffman: NO PROPHETS

Subtitled: The Fight to Save Democracy from Christian Nationalism
(Norton, August 2026, 221pp, including 26pp acknowledgements, notes, and further reading)

This book came to my attention because its author, a congressman from California, was on KQED’s Forum show a few weeks ago (audio and transcript here) and Huffman is the only member of Congress to ‘come out’ as an atheist or agnostic, or as he puts it, “he does not believe in gods.” This isn’t just a coming-out story, though; it’s mostly about what he’s observed from Congress about the organizations pushing Christian nationalism, and specific members of the current administration who endorse them or actively promote them. Finding out who they are and what they “believe” is pretty scary. As I’ve said before, they strike me as un-American, putting their religion above the Constitution they swore to uphold, a Constitution they would replace if they could.
Continue reading →

Posted in Book Notes, Politics, Religion | Leave a comment

The 2026 Blue Wave

  • Results of the election;
  • Reactions at Slate, The Atlantic, from John Scalzi, at The New Republic, from David Pakman;
  • JMG reports Midterms Sadz from various conservative voices;
  • What a change in news coverage might look like;
  • NYT contrasts blue vs red, or “Radicalism vs. Corruption,” so I looked closely to see what conservatives think is so radical about the left.
– – –

So there was a big election yesterday, with a larger-than-expected ‘blue wave’ of Democratic wins in many states. Most significant midterm election of 50 years, or something like that. I don’t need to summarize the details here, except to note that Trump blames everyone but himself, Vance blames the war, and the usual suspects think voter fraud was involved (or maybe demons).

Some just headlines.

Continue reading →

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

David Pakman: THE ECHO MACHINE

Subtitled: How Right-Wing Extremism Created a Post-Truth America
(Beacon Press, March 2025, 200pp, including 25pp of acknowledgements, notes, and index)

Pakman is a podcaster and YouTuber with frequent posts on Facebook, which is where I started following him. See The David Pakman Show. This is his first book, from early last year. He has another book, just out, called PAY ATTENTION.

Much in this book is familiar, especially the history of the right as a reaction against the era of civil rights and the resistance to science and expertise as the increasing regulatory environment against big business. Passing through critical thinking, and leading to the modern era of social media and media bubbles. It’s a good summary, familiar from Richardson and others, and more current, since Pakman is on the air every day reacting to current events, and this book is less than two years old. What’s new here include his basic defense of the left, given the progress in recent centuries, and discusses how countries that are social democracies (not socialist) are among the most prosperous in the world.
Continue reading →

Posted in Book Notes, conservatives, Politics | Leave a comment

Life Is About Uncertainty

Election Day! In recent years every election day is the most critical one in history, which is just one more piece of evidence about scale-blindness and short-term thinking. I could do more political posts today, but I think I did enough yesterday, and I’m sure there will be lots more tomorrow.

Step out to the big picture. All our politics are petty tribal disputes. There is a real world out there, that exists despite human politics, even if some tribes deny it.

Washington Post, opinion by Stuart Firestein, today: The best part of science might be what rattles you, subtitled “It’s uncertain why blood pressure medicine works. That’s no reason to reject it — or other discoveries.”

Continue reading →

Posted in conservatives, Music, Politics | Leave a comment

The Trashing of America, Intellectually and Civilly, under Trump and MAGA

  • How Trump is dismantling the American scientific research machine;
  • And how Republicans are trashing decorum and civility;
  • How Trump is deteriorating;
  • Voting recommendations from John Scalzi: don’t vote for Republicans;
  • Max Boot on why Hegseth should go;
  • Tuck Carlson, demon hunter;
  • California’s Prop 40, and Robert Reich’s take on it;
  • From last week, a perspective on Trump’s utter failure.
– – –

Long article on today’s NYT front page.

NY Times, posted 31 Oct 2026: How Trump Is Dismantling America’s Scientific Research Machine, subtitled “The system that has driven life-altering discoveries and helped make the United States a superpower is now under intense strain.”

MAGA presumably doesn’t care. They have their Bibles. The one-time greatest nation in the world is being taken down.

Continue reading →

Posted in Conservative Resistance, conservatives, Politics, Science | Leave a comment

A Day’s Drive

We took a ‘day off’ yesterday to get out of the house and away from our computers. (That’s the official story.) I had a plan to drive down through Scotts Valley, a part of the Bay Area, seen on TV weather maps, that we’ve never visited, or even driven through. It’s north and just a bit west of Santa Cruz, and includes neighborhoods like Ben Lomond and Bonny Doon that people we know, or have read, once lived in.

Along the way, I wanted to visit Kepler Books, one of the major bookstores in the Bay Area and one which I had never, in the 11 years we’ve lived in Oakland, visited. (It’s an hour’s drive south from us.) So we drove across the 84 bridge — which I’d never been across, another first — and into the rather lush neighborhoods of Atherton and Menlo Park, just north of Stanford.

(In the middle of this drive, my sister in Simi Valley called to tell me that she are her husband are moving to Philadelphia early next year. She has a son who settled there. And so many things she doesn’t like about California. I didn’t ask.)

Continue reading →

Posted in Personal history, Travel | Leave a comment

Patrick Stewart and Two Notes About Narrative

  • Noting the passing of Patrick Stewart, and how the noble passages spoken by Picard (and written by unmentioned writers) are credited to the actor;
  • Mike Johnson supports Christian Nationalists (while Republicans rant and rave about Muslims and Sharia Law); and Trump claiming a moral Christian high ground;
  • And Ted Chiang remarks on the gap between writers’ intentions and readers’ understandings.
– – –

No wait, three notes about narrative.

Vox, Ian Millhiser, today: Patrick Stewart taught us what good men do with power, subtitled “Great leaders, and great nations, need role models like Jean-Luc Picard.”
Continue reading →

Posted in Culture, Humanism, Narrative, Religion | Leave a comment

A Muddled Take on Religion v Atheism

  • Jack Symes on a third path between religion and atheism, which turns out to be about why the former is taken for granted, and why God is good and not bad;
  • Another essay on what horror films have to say about God;
  • Brief items about the GOP’s plan to make Americans hate Muslims; Christians who think non-Christians shouldn’t serve in Congress; and that guy with two wives who thinks his rationale is Christian.
– – –

This piece appeared over a week ago, but I don’t want to forget it, since it seems to take an approach I find attractive: that many of our philosophical problems exist because we frame them incorrectly. We project human protocols onto the universe at large, to domains where they don’t apply. (And how science fiction helps exercise the mental muscles needed to consider such thoughts.) Alas, now that I’ve read it, I am disappointed.

Big Think, Jack Symes, (17 Oct 2026): Beyond religion and atheism: The secret third answer to big questions, subtitled “Philosopher Jack Symes explores the space between devout religion and atheism.”

Continue reading →

Posted in Politics, Religion | Comments Off on A Muddled Take on Religion v Atheism