Beginnings and Endings

You know where a war begins, but you never know where it ends.

Otto von Bismarck

This week’s featured posts are “The Court fails transgender youth” and “Questions to ask as a war begins“.

This week everybody was talking about war with Iran

That’s the subject of one featured post.

As an outside observer, it’s hard for me to assess how serious the division in MAGA-world is. Trump campaigned as an opponent of America’s recent wars, and painted Harris as the kind of hawk who might start another one. But then, Trump campaigned on a lot of things that are long forgotten now, like lowering the deficit and cutting prices. Tariffs were all going to be paid by foreigners and the millions of migrants he was going to deport were violent criminals. He wasn’t going to cut Medicaid.

All that is ancient history now, and the pattern has been that a few MAGAts say, “Wait, what?” for a day or two, but then they get back in line.

This flap seems a bit more serious, with folks like Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, and Marjorie Taylor Greene speaking out against attacking Iran. There’s little love for Muslims in MAGA-world, so nobody is going to mourn dead Iranians any more than they mourn dead Gazans. But still, it’s hard to shake the feeling that this is Netanyahu’s war, and Trump has been manipulated into going along. If you’re already of the opinion that Jews secretly run the world — which is a more popular view in MAGA-world than anybody likes to admit — it all smells bad.

Will the exposure of Trump’s false promises make any difference this time? I wouldn’t bet on it, but it’s worth watching.

and the Supreme Court

The other featured post examines one decision from this week: Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming care can stand.

Another court, however, did something encouraging:

A federal judge in Massachusetts on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from refusing to process and issue passport applications for transgender and nonbinary people in accordance with their gender identity.

And Mahmoud Khalil is free, after being detained for three months for supporting Palestine and criticizing Israel.

and you also might be interested in …

Jay Kuo describes what ICE might look like if the Big Beautiful Bill passes.

The regime is pushing three big initiatives designed to limit oversight, kneecap states that refuse to cooperate, and dramatically increase the number of ICE agents and detention facilities. … To understand this threat, we need to look carefully within the pages of Trump’s “Big, Beautiful” budget. That bill contains a funding increase for ICE of $27 billion dollars, or 10,000 more ICE officers. Trump is planning to use these billions to recruit an army of masked, armed and largely unaccountable agents. This is a break-the-glass moment for our democracy, hiding within the line items of a single, massive bill.

But the bill doesn’t just add more agents. It also earmarks an eye-popping $45 billion for new ICE detention centers—enough to house 125,000 people.

It’s hard to look at that number and realize that it represents the same number of people of Japanese descent who were put inside of 10 internment camps during World War II.

Students of fascism also understand that, once such centers are built, they won’t just be used to house undocumented migrants subject to mass deportation. The regime, now caught in a horrific dance with private contractors like Erik Prince who will build and profit from these centers, will come to view them as convenient places to house and then disappear its political opponents, perhaps on their way to one of the many gulags it is now contracting with third countries to establish.


Another provision of the Big Beautiful Bill forces the Post Office to sell off its electric vehicles and charging stations.

The proposal is unlikely to generate much revenue for the government; there is almost no private-sector interest in the mail trucks, and used EV charging equipment — built specifically for the Postal Service and already installed in postal facilities — generally cannot be resold.

The point seems to be to for Republicans in Congress to thumb their noses at people who care about climate change.


Computer science was once the career of the future, but apparently no more.

But if the decline [in computer science majors] is surprising, the reason for it is fairly straightforward: Young people are responding to a grim job outlook for entry-level coders. In recent years, the tech industry has been roiled by layoffs and hiring freezes. The leading culprit for the slowdown is technology itself. Artificial intelligence has proved to be even more valuable as a writer of computer code than as a writer of words. This means it is ideally suited to replacing the very type of person who built it.

The Atlantic’s Rose Horowitch comments:

Whether the past few years augur a temporary lull or an abrupt reordering of working life, economists suggest the same response for college students: Major in a subject that offers enduring, transferable skills. Believe it or not, that could be the liberal arts. Deming’s research shows that male history and social-science majors end up out-earning their engineering and comp-sci counterparts in the long term, as they develop the soft skills that employers consistently seek out. “It’s actually quite risky to go to school to learn a trade or a particular skill, because you don’t know what the future holds,” Deming told me. “You need to try to think about acquiring a skill set that’s going to be future-proof and last you for 45 years of working life.”

and let’s close with something nostalgic

Many fans of song parodies and humorous music in general no longer recognize the name of Dr. Demento, whose radio show popularized the genre. He’s shutting it down after 55 years. In the Doctor’s honor, here’s a song I wouldn’t know if not for him: The Cockroach that Ate Cincinnati.

If you are amused by that, YouTube has a Dr. Demento playlist.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • wcroth55's avatar wcroth55  On June 23, 2025 at 2:03 pm

    I recently retired as a senior software architect — I’ve been writing code since 1970, and a professional for 50+ years.

    I’m unconvinced that the job market issues are about AI. AI as a software development tool is just that — a tool. It can improve a developer’s performance — but it simply cannot replace a human.

    Yes, that may mean fewer entry-level positions. But not that many.

    I think we’re seeing a cycle that we’ve seen before — the fad to raise the companies’ stock prices by reducing staff. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy — the more companies do it, the more the rest of the companies think they have to do it.

    The next time some big thing (the last one was probably cloud computing) heats up competition, I expect the cycle to reverse.

    • Unknown's avatar Anonymous  On June 23, 2025 at 3:16 pm

      My job title says senior software developer and I was struck by the same line. “AI” is primarily a marketing term, and the products most often talked about as such are extremely overhyped, with the discussion more based on science fiction ideas of what an artificial intelligence could do than any actual products.

      Most media is uncritically repeating OpenAI’s press releases so it’s easy to get the impression that something huge is brewing, but that is a symptom of an industry desperate for the next big thing. A few years ago they were similarly excited about blockchain and “web3”, which any competent software developer could have at any point told you was all hot air, which by now should be apparent for anyone.

      If you want a real picture of what’s going with AI I recommend Ed Zitron’s blog. Recently he’s been covering the AI companies’ finances, and in last week’s edition he asked the question, name one AI product and a job position it has actually replaced.

      This isn’t an impossible task, but if you actually go looking, you will find it is absolutely not happening at the scale OpenAI would like you to believe. Bonus points if you can find an example where the software is actually doing the job and didn’t lead to the company finding out it’s crap and scrambling to rehire the workforce it fired, like Klarna did for one.

    • Unknown's avatar Anonymous  On June 24, 2025 at 1:57 pm

      I couldn’t agree more. AI isn’t a replacement for humans, it’s a tool that can make humans more efficient. I’m sure the same concerns were voiced when word processors and spreadsheets first came out.

      That being said, there are fewer entry-level positions like file clerk and typist, because that work has been automated.

  • stevece59d2ffde's avatar stevece59d2ffde  On June 24, 2025 at 11:11 am

    The senate parliamentarian has yanked the post office ev program out of the bill. But closer to home for me is the $250 ev vehicle tax. I have a Ford Lightning that I love driving. The uncertainty of charging facilities in West Central Illinois means it’s a local driver, hence 4500 miles in 18 months. With an EPA estimate of 88 mpg I’m assessed $250 a year for 3000 miles driven resulting in $7.35 per gallon tax. Thank you Mary Miller, mc .

    • Unknown's avatar Anonymous  On June 24, 2025 at 1:51 pm

      I agree that’s excessive. But if roads are paid for by gasoline taxes, there does need to be some additional charge for EVs to make up for that.

      • Unknown's avatar Anonymous  On June 24, 2025 at 4:30 pm

        I don’t argue that .If it’s right for me then raise the federal fuel tax another an additional$7.35 a gallon. That would be parity.

  • Kelly Schoenhofen's avatar Kelly Schoenhofen  On June 24, 2025 at 3:14 pm

    I too want to weigh in on the atlantic article 😉 If anyone wants to read it, here’s a paywall-free link.

    It’s a better article than most on the zeitgeist of this particular angle of generative ai; it’s wrong on just about every count for the first 90% of the article and then quick pivots to some actual truths in the final 10%, as compared to normal articles, which are 100% full of crap.

    Generative AI is the emperor’s clothes, full stop. It’s garbage through and through.

    If it’s replacing jobs and it’s so great, why hasn’t there been a single recorded instance of increased productivity using it?

    Wouldn’t you see a company record doing more with their current employees + generative ai, before starting layoffs?

    ZIRP and FOMO is how MAANGL (or whatever the acronym is these days) brought on hundreds of thousands of CompSci graduates at insane salaries.

    ZIRP and the FOMO window ended, there’s alot of uncertainty around the trump administration and tariffs, and generative ai is just how these companies are justifying their layoffs; no jobs are being taken by generative ai.

    CompSci enrollments are down because the $400k starting salary at MAANGL is over; you see alot of younger engineers relying on generative ai because they weren’t really any good at Computer Science in the first place; they didn’t get the degree because they were passionate about computers or technology, they got the degree for the salary, the benefits, and the employer. Take away the salary, benefits, and show the employer for who they are – Google, Tesla, Microsoft, Apple – they are all shithole entities doing horrible things – and why would someone go into the field?

    I’m more worried about the current generation graduating; they have shown over and over the heavy use of generative ai in school has started churning out people with degrees that are completely skill-less. I’m not even sure they can ever get those skills, because the normal system that washes out the people not able to do certain aligned skills is not applicable in the age of chatgpt, copilot, gemini, cursor, et al, so we have people with degrees that can do what? They have no idea.

    Second, there’s growing evidence that the long term use of generative ai literally makes you dumber. It turns out your brain is like a muscle, you either use it or lose it.

    We’re in for some scary times ahead, and it’s not from generative ai taking our jobs.

  • Unknown's avatar Anonymous  On June 24, 2025 at 5:21 pm

    Yet Another long-service programmer here, 40 years worth of experience (and that’s not the same 4 years of experience 10 times over: I’ve done it all, from embedded systems to UNIX kernel modules to CPU-bound data analysis applications to administrative shell-scripting to GUI clients to webapps).

    The AI tools now being deployed do not write code by themselves, not code that works. And to see how the code they produce does not work, and goad them into producing something that does, needs a skilled programmer with a lot of patience. These tools are best for automating time-consuming but not-really-challenging scutwork.

    For an in-depth well-informed critique of generative AI as a programming tool, see here.

Trackbacks

Leave a comment