For paywall: https://archive.is/WJqah

Hey, remember when in 2020 any issue he had speaking was JuSt A StUtTeR? How you should ignore decades of public speaking and interviews and how they looked nothing like the severity and number of problems he was having on stage during primaries and speeches? Remember the terrible debate with Trump this year that anyone could have felt was liable to happen if they weren't sticking their head in the sand the entire time?

Excerpts:

>To adapt the White House around the needs of a diminished leader, they told visitors to keep meetings focused. Interactions with senior Democratic lawmakers and some cabinet members—including powerful secretaries such as Defense’s Lloyd Austin and Treasury’s Janet Yellen—were infrequent or grew less frequent. Some legislative leaders had a hard time getting the president’s ear at key moments, including ahead of the U.S.’s disastrous pullout from Afghanistan. > >Senior advisers were often put into roles that some administration officials and lawmakers thought Biden should occupy, with people such as National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, senior counselor Steve Ricchetti and National Economic Council head Lael Brainard and her predecessor frequently in the position of being go-betweens for the president. > >Press aides who compiled packages of news clips for Biden were told by senior staff to exclude negative stories about the president. The president wasn’t talking to his own pollsters as surveys showed him trailing in the 2024 race. > >Presidents always have gatekeepers. But in Biden’s case, the walls around him were higher and the controls greater, according to Democratic lawmakers, donors and aides who worked for Biden and other administrations. There were limits over who Biden spoke with, limits on what they said to him and limits around the sources of information he consumed. > >Throughout his presidency, a small group of aides stuck close to Biden to assist him, especially when traveling or speaking to the public. “They body him to such a high degree,” a person who witnessed it said, adding that the “hand holding” is unlike anything other recent presidents have had. > >The White House operated this way even as the president and his aides pressed forward with his re-election bid—which unraveled spectacularly after his halting performance in a June debate with Donald Trump made his mental acuity an insurmountable issue. Vice President Kamala Harris replaced him on the Democratic ticket and was decisively defeated by Trump in a shortened campaign—leaving Democrats to debate whether their chances were undercut by Biden’s refusal to yield earlier. > >This account of how the White House functioned with an aging leader at the top of its organizational chart is based on interviews with nearly 50 people, including those who participated in or had direct knowledge of the operations. > >[...] > >The president’s slide has been hard to overlook. While preparing last year for his interview with Robert K. Hur, the special counsel who investigated Biden’s handling of classified documents, the president couldn’t recall lines that his team discussed with him. At events, aides often repeated instructions to him, such as where to enter or exit a stage, that would be obvious to the average person. Biden’s team tapped campaign co-chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg, a Hollywood mogul, to find a voice coach to improve the president’s fading warble. Biden, now 82, has long operated with a tightknit inner circle of advisers. The protective culture inside the White House was intensified because Biden started his presidency at the height of the Covid pandemic. His staff took great care to prevent him from catching the virus by limiting in-person interactions with him. But the shell constructed for the pandemic was never fully taken down, and his advanced age hardened it. > >[...] > >Yet a sign that the bruising presidential schedule needed to be adjusted for Biden’s advanced age had arisen early on—in just the first few months of his term. Administration officials noticed that the president became tired if meetings went long and would make mistakes. > >They issued a directive to some powerful lawmakers and allies seeking one-on-one time: The exchanges should be short and focused, according to people who received the message directly from White House aides. > >Ideally, the meetings would start later in the day, since Biden has never been at his best first thing in the morning, some of the people said. His staff made these adjustments to limit potential missteps by Biden, the people said. The president, known for long and rambling sessions, at times pushed in the opposite direction, wanting or just taking more time. > >The White House denied that his schedule has been altered due to his age. > >If the president was having an off day, meetings could be scrapped altogether. On one such occasion, in the spring of 2021, a national security official explained to another aide why a meeting needed to be rescheduled. “He has good days and bad days, and today was a bad day so we’re going to address this tomorrow,” the former aide recalled the official saying. > >[...] > >During the 2020 campaign, Biden had calls with John Anzalone, his pollster, during which the two had detailed conversations. > >By the 2024 campaign, the pollsters weren’t talking to the president about their findings, and instead sent memos that went to top campaign staff. > >Biden’s pollsters didn’t meet with him in person and saw little evidence that the president was personally getting the data that they were sending him, according to the people. > >People close to the president said he relied on Mike Donilon, one of Biden’s core inner circle advisers. With a background in polling, Donilon could sift through the information and present it to the president. Bates said that Biden stayed abreast of polling data. > >But this summer, Democratic insiders became alarmed by the way Biden described his own polling, publicly characterizing the race as a tossup when polls released in the weeks after the disastrous June debate consistently showed Trump ahead. They worried he wasn’t getting an unvarnished look at his standing in the race. > >Those fears intensified on July 11, when Biden’s top advisers met behind closed doors with Democratic senators, where the advisers laid out a road map for Biden’s victory. The message from the advisers was so disconnected from public polling—which showed Trump leading Biden nationally—that it left Democratic senators incredulous. It spurred Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) to speak to Biden directly, according to people familiar with the matter, hoping to pierce what the senators saw as a wall erected by Donilon to shield Biden from bad information. Donilon didn’t respond to requests for comment.

To get around pay wall: https://archive.is/RHuUy

Excerpts:

>While Palestinians are officially prohibited from entering, the reality is more severe than a simple exclusion zone. "It's military whitewashing," explains a senior officer in Division 252, who has served three reserve rotations in Gaza. "The division commander designated this area as a 'kill zone.' Anyone who enters is shot." > >A recently discharged Division 252 officer describes the arbitrary nature of this boundary: "For the division, the kill zone extends as far as a sniper can see." But the issue goes beyond geography. "We're killing civilians there who are then counted as terrorists," he says. "The IDF spokesperson's announcements about casualty numbers have turned this into a competition between units. If Division 99 kills 150 [people], the next unit aims for 200." > >These accounts of indiscriminate killing and the routine classification of civilian casualties as terrorists emerged repeatedly in Haaretz's conversations with recent Gaza veterans. > >[...] > >Haaretz has gathered testimonies from active-duty soldiers, career officers, and reservists that reveal the unprecedented authority given to commanders. As the IDF operates across multiple fronts, division commanders have received expanded powers. Previously, bombing buildings or launching airstrikes required approval from the IDF chief of staff. Now, such decisions can be made by lower-ranking officers. > >"Division commanders now have almost unlimited firepower authority in combat zones," explains a veteran officer in Division 252. "A battalion commander can order drone strikes, and a division commander can launch conquest operations." Some sources describe IDF units operating like independent militias, unrestricted by standard military protocols. > >'We took him to the cage' > >The chaotic reality has repeatedly forced commanders and fighters to face severe moral dilemmas. "The order was clear: 'Anyone crossing the bridge into the [Netzarim] corridor gets a bullet in the head,'" recalls a veteran fighter from Division 252. > >"One time, guards spotted someone approaching from the south. We responded as if it was a large militant raid. We took positions and just opened fire. I'm talking about dozens of bullets, maybe more. For about a minute or two, we just kept shooting at the body. People around me were shooting and laughing." > >But the incident didn't end there. "We approached the blood-covered body, photographed it, and took the phone. He was just a boy, maybe 16." An intelligence officer collected the items, and hours later, the fighters learned the boy wasn't a Hamas operative – but just a civilian. > >"That evening, our battalion commander congratulated us for killing a terrorist, saying he hoped we'd kill ten more tomorrow," the fighter adds. "When someone pointed out he was unarmed and looked like a civilian, everyone shouted him down. The commander said: 'Anyone crossing the line is a terrorist, no exceptions, no civilians. Everyone's a terrorist.' This deeply troubled me – did I leave my home to sleep in a mouse-infested building for this? To shoot unarmed people?" > >Similar incidents continue to surface. An officer in Division 252's command recalls when the IDF spokesperson announced their forces had killed over 200 militants. "Standard procedure requires photographing bodies and collecting details when possible, then sending evidence to intelligence to verify militant status or at least confirm they were killed by the IDF," he explains. "Of those 200 casualties, only ten were confirmed as known Hamas operatives. Yet no one questioned the public announcement about killing hundreds of militants."

Interesting look at some of the details and examining the potential causes of the particular timing of the purges and show trials.

Excerpt:

>The circumstances surrounding the assassination of Sergei Kirov, the leader of the Communist Party in Leningrad, remains disputed. Some historians such as Robert Conquest have argued that General Secretary Joseph Stalin was behind the killing, often relying on circumstantial evidence such as the fact that officials like the Ukrainian Grigory Petrovsky and the Georgian Sergo Ordzhonikidze were supportive of Kirov heading a collective leadership, thereby potentially posing a threat to Stalin.² Ultimately, the motives are to a certain degree irrelevant. Rather, the murder of Kirov permitted a rapid acceleration of the state’s effort at suppression of perceived enemies. On the night of 1 December 1934, the very same evening as Kirov’s death, the Soviet government swiftly passed an anti-terrorism law. This legislation in turn severely limited civil and judicial rights, mandated that investigations had to be completed within 10 days and that the accused were only to be informed of their trial 24 hours in advance with no legal aid, and that appeals were not to be allowed and that death sentences had to be carried out immediately.³ > >The enactment of new laws on the back of the Kirov murder in turn laid the foundation for what would become the Terror. While it did not reach its peak until 1937, arrests and trials were already beginning to take place. As early as 1935, in the newly created milieu, old leaders from the Democratic Centralists and the Workers’ Opposition were imprisoned, though not executed.⁴ While it can be argued that because many of those arrested were not killed it was technically not part of the Terror, the fact of the matter is that the processes cannot be cleanly separated. Some, like Old Bolshevik Avel Yenukidze, were merely demoted and reassigned in 1935, yet he was in fact later executed in 1937. Ultimately, the killing of Kirov and the immediate passage of new judicial mechanisms meant that the framework became rapidly more intense. As such, a decree from 7 April 1935 extended all penalties, including execution, to 12 year olds.⁵ This radicalization was not meant to necessarily target children but rather pressure Stalin’s opponents such as figures like Lev Kamenev and Grigory Zinoviev, both of whom had children. > >It is hereby necessary to address what may appear to be a discrepancy. Though the Terror can trace its immediate origins to late 1934 and early 1935, it remains the case that 1935-6 witnessed a decrease in state coercion. Andrey Vyshinsky, who was the prosecutor in Moscow Show Trials and served as Procurator General of the Soviet Union, admitted to Stalin and Molotov in a letter from April 1936 that 30-35% of convictions for agitations and counterrevolutionary activities (roughly 800 cases examined) were ‘incorrect.’⁶ This was in keeping with his calls for greater reforms to legal procedures more generally. However, this, along with the declining incarceration rate for political crimes in those years, signify a quantitative decrease, not a qualitative change. Critiques such as that by Vyshinsky, which also included attacks on NKVD practices and calls for greater tolerance of ordinary citizens’ criticisms as long as it didn’t attack fundamental policy, may represent an internal political struggle. Namely, it is very well possible that this criticism was voiced in order to enhance the standing of his own agency; one way would be to limit the power of police and in turn strengthen judicial powers. > >Unintended Side Effect of Industrialisation > >The work edited by Sheila Fitzpatrick has shown convincingly that the timing of the Terror is intimately intertwined with the pressures that surrounded the Second Five Year Plan. In short, managers were unable to keep up with the exact targets in the Second Five Year Plan, despite being less intense than those of the First Plan. This in turn resulted in the falsification of records as self-protective measures in order to hide issues they were facing. The unraveling of these coverups beginning in 1936 resulted in a crackdown on what Moscow perceived to be a large-scale ‘conspiracy.’ > >This can be seen when examining individual factories or cities like Sverdlovsk where an attempt to cover shortfalls can account for part of the state’s persecution of regional party elites. The year 1936 emerged as a crucial point in time, since it saw a slight economic downturn, which in turn led to state authorities investigating, in turn producing a cycle of arrests and denunciations. The causes for the initial decline have multiple roots, including bad weather that hurt agriculture, a decline in new capital investment, and the labor force already being stretched to the limit while problems from previous years were accumulating.⁷ Similarly, in the case of more industrialized areas, shortages in raw materials prevented machine-building factories from keeping up production, which in turn affected other industries. With the 1936 investment plan being raised 9.5% over 1935 despite the target for cost being reduced by 11%, systematic coverups became harder to conceal.⁸ > >In general, Moscow cared more about cracking down when production was down, thereby making 1936 a particularly sensitive year and consequently causing the Terror to occur during the latter half of the 1930s. This obsession with clamping down during economic downturns was built into the Soviet system. For example, the Commissions for Party and Soviet Control was created as a response to failures of grain collection yet by the time it was set up in 1934, the worst of the famine was over and crackdowns were not as intense as they otherwise might have been.⁹ > >Action, Reaction > >If the Terror is to be defined as a period of state persecution, as led by the police and the NKVD, then it is important to remember that these agencies were often reacting to events rather than initiating them. This was especially true for accidents that took place in the workplace. According to a typist for the railroad workers’ union in Simferopol, if “there was a train accident, sabotage had to be traced, and a wrecker had to be found.”¹⁰ The fact that arrests were often massively concentrated in one particular place (e.g. an office or a factory) suggests that this was not about causing fear, especially if a majority were arrested. For example, in the Kalmyk Autonomous Republic, 70% of journalists and writers and 80% of party and government leaders were arrested.¹¹ As a result, in some places for some professions, there were little to no arrests –i.e. it could not have been intended to cause widespread fear. Consequently, some of these mass arrests should be understood as not part of a systematic campaign under a single banner of ‘the Terror’ but rather locally produced sudden explosions of underlying tensions. > >This is similarly true when examined on a macro-scale. For example, despite similar climate and topography, Kazakhstan was far more affected than Uzbekistan. As such, when attributing a cause, it is necessary to define it at times more narrowly, i.e. why did the Stalinist Terror happen when it did in a specific location? In some cases, it was not so much that it was a Stalinist Terror as opposed to simply local officials going to extremes. In the case of Turkmenistan, by the beginning of September 1937, sleep deprivation and beatings were common with detentions becoming even more arbitrary, such as men arrested for having long beards.¹² The fact that this was later condemned in an internal memo by Stalin in September 1939 highlights the fact that local terrors could at times have local causes that would not elucidate the situation for the entirety of the Soviet Union.

A look at Bluesky's claims to being decentralised, written by Christine Lemmer-Webber, who helped create ActivityPub (the protocol that lies underneath Mastodon, Lemmy, Pixelfed, PeerTube and others).

>The best way to understand the reason for this difference in hosting requirements is to understand the underlying architecture of these systems. ActivityPub follows an message passing architecture (utilizing publish-subscribe architecture prominently for most "subscription" oriented uses), the same as email, XMPP, and so on. A message is addressed, and then delivered to recipients. (Actually a more fully peer-to-peer system would deliver more directly; all of email, XMPP, ActivityPub and so on use a client-server architecture, so there is a particular server which tends to operate on behalf of a particular user. See comments on the fediverse later in this article for how things can be moved more peer-to-peer.) This turns out to be pretty efficient; if only users on five servers need to know about a message, out of tens of thousands of servers, only those five servers will be contacted. Until recently, every system I knew of described as federated used a message passing architecture, to the degree where I and others assumed that federation implied a message passing architecture, because achieving the architectural goal of many independent nodes cooperating to produce a unified whole seemed to imply this was necessary for efficiency of a substantially sized network. If Alyssa wants to write a piece of mail to Ben, she can send it directly to Ben, and it can arrive at Ben's house. If Ben wants to reply, Ben can reply directly to Alyssa. Your intuitions about email apply exactly here, because that's effectively what this design is. > >Bluesky does not utilize message passing, and instead operates in what I call a shared heap architecture. In a shared heap architecture, instead of delivering mail to someone's house (or, in a client-to-server architecture as most non p2p mailing lists are, at least their apartment's mail room), letters which may be interesting all are dumped at a post office (called a "relay") directly. From there it's the responsibility of interested parties to show up and filter through the mail to see what's interesting to them. This means there is no directed delivery; if you want to see replies which are relevant to your messages, you (or someone operating on behalf of you) had better sort through and know about every possible message to find out what messages could be a reply. > >[...] > >The answer is: Bluesky solves this problem via centralization. Since there is really just one very large relay which everyone is expected to participate in, this relay has a god's-eye knowledge base. Entities which sort through mail and relevant replies for users are AppViews, which pull from the relay and also have a god's-eye knowledge base, and also do filtering. So too do any other number of services which participate in the network: they must operate at the level of gods rather than mortals. > >[...] > >I'm not sure this behavior is consistent after all with how blocking works on X-Twitter; it was not my understanding that blocking someone would be public information. But blocks are indeed public information on Bluesky, and anyone can query who is blocking or being blocked by anyone. It is true that looking at a blocking account from a blocked account on most social media systems or observing the results of interactions can reveal information about who is blocked, but this is not the same as this being openly queryable information. There is a big difference between "you can look at someone's post and see who is being blocked" to "you can query the network for every person who is blocking or is blocked by JK Rowling". > >[...] > >The reason for this is very simple: we have seen people who utilize blocklists be retaliated against for blocking someone who is angry about being blocked. It was our opinion that sharing such information could result in harassment. (Last I checked, Mastodon provides the user with the choice of whether or not to send a "report" about a block to the offending instance so that moderators of that server can notice a problematic user and take action, but delivering such information is not required.) > >That said, to Bluesky's credit, this is an issue that is being openly considered. There is an open issue to consider whether or not private blocks are possible. Which does lead to a point, despite my many critiques here: it is true that even many of the things I have talked about could be changed and evaluated in the future. But nonetheless, in many ways I consider the decision to have blocks be publicly queryable to be an example of emergent behavior from initial decisions... early architectural decisions can have long-standing architectural results, and while many things can be changed, some things are particularly difficult to change form an initial starting point. > >[...] > >I've analyzed previously in the document the challenges Bluesky has in achieving meaningful decentralization or federation. Bluesky now has much bigger pressures than decentralization, namely to satisfy the massive scale of users who wish to flock to the platform now, to satisfy investors which will increasingly be interested in whether or not they can see a return, and to achieve enough income to keep their staff and servers going. Rearchitecting towards meaningful decentralization will be a big pivot and will likely introduce many of the problems that Bluesky has touted their platform as not having that other decentralized platforms have. > >There are early signs that Bluesky the company is already considering or exploring features that only make sense in a centralized context. Direct messages were discussed previously in this document, but with the announcement of premium accounts, it will be interesting to see what happens. Premium accounts would be possible to handle in a fully decentralized system: higher quality video uploads makes sense. What becomes more uncertain is what happens when a self-hosted PDS user uploads their own higher quality videos, will those be mirrored onto Bluesky's CDN in higher quality as well? Likewise, ads seem likely to be coming to Bluesky > > >A common way to make premium accounts more valuable is to make them ad-free. But if Bluesky is sufficiently decentralized and its filtering and labeling tools work as described, it will be trivial for users to set up filters which remove ads from the stream. Traditionally when investors realize users are doing this and removing a revenue stream, that is the point at which they start pressuring hard on enshittification and removing things like public access to APIs, etc. What will happen in Bluesky's case? > >Here is where "credible exit" really is the right term for Bluesky's architectural goals. Rearchitecting towards meaningful decentralization and federation is a massive overhaul of Bluesky's infrastructure, but providing "credible exit" is not. It is my opinion that leaning into "credible exit" is the best thing that Bluesky can do: perhaps a large corporation or two always have to sit at the center of Bluesky, but perhaps also it will be possible for people to leave.

>How did the Harris campaign fumble its messaging on cost-of-living issues, and why did they struggle to convince financially-stressed voters that the Democratic ticket was on its side? Many of the Harris campaign’s brain trust had spent years in corporate consulting, facilitating access for CEOs, and some brought deep corporate networks to their advisory roles atop the presidential bid. Looking at the Harris campaign’s senior strategists sheds some light on the campaign’s trouble connecting with working-class voters—for example, its unwillingness to more clearly identify the forces, like billionaires and large corporations, standing in the way of populist policies. > >One leader of the Harris campaign was Democratic strategist Jen O’Malley Dillon, who stayed on as campaign chair from the Biden campaign, having previously served in that role in the president’s 2020 run. She moved from the White House to lead the Biden campaign in January 2024. Soon after Biden dropped out of the race in July, she was joined by Democratic consultant Stephanie Cutter, with her one of the founding partners of consulting firm Precision Strategies.Two other figures in campaign leadership were senior adviser David Plouffe, the former Obama campaign manager in 2008 who later worked as a policy and strategy executive at Uber, and Tony West, Harris’ brother-in-law and Uber’s chief legal counsel. > >[...] > >David Plouffe officially came aboard the Harris campaign in early August as senior adviser, reassessing the operation handed over by the Biden team. After managing Barack Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008, and serving as a senior adviser to the president from 2011 to 2013, Plouffe joined Uber, where he worked as senior vice president of policy and strategy from August 2014 to January 2017. His responsibilities included harnessing his digital skills and political network to help the company gain access in cities where the company squared off against regulators. Plouffe was fined $90,000 in 2017 by the Chicago Board of Ethics for lobbying former Mayor Rahm Emanuel in favor of airport pickups by the ride-sharing company without registering as a lobbyist, and in 2022 he did not respond to questions from The Guardian about whether he had knowledge of a “kill switch” that could hide access to sensitive data after French regulators raided company offices. > >[...] > >In a recent article in The Atlantic, Harris adviser Tony West was named by an anonymous Biden aide as steering the campaign away from sharp criticism of corporate power, angling toward the approval of big business. West has worked as senior vice president, chief legal officer, and corporate secretary for Uber since November 2017, according to his LinkedIn profile. In 2023, his compensation reached $10.4 million, composed of $7 million in stock and $3.3 million in cash, according to a Bloomberg Law review of company financials. West’s stock holdings in the company reportedly totaled about $14.7 million as of March. Before joining Uber, West was the general counsel, corporate secretary, and EVP of public policy and government affairs for PepsiCo for over three years, a role that had him travel to Saudi Arabia to discuss a potential sugar tax. > >In 2019 and 2020, Uber and Lyft were at the forefront of a $200 million campaign supporting a ballot initiative, known as Prop 22, to protect their ability to classify rideshare drivers and other workers as independent contractors in California, as opposed to employees who would be eligible for benefits and other labor protections. According to the New York Times, West’s efforts on behalf of Uber encompassed negotiating with unions, legislators, and aides to Gov. Gavin Newsom on a compromise measure that was fiercely opposed by state labor groups. After massive influence spending by Uber, the measure was adopted by voters, and this year was upheld by California’s Supreme Court. At the federal level, Uber belongs to a coalition suing the Department of Labor over a rule on independent contractor status. > >[...] > >Campaign memos from October, first reported by the Washington Post, show the largest pro-Harris super PAC, Future Forward, pointing out an opportunity for the Harris campaign to juice spending behind a “high-performing” ad with a script that leads with Harris saying, “I get it. The cost of rent, groceries, and utilities is too high. So here's what we're gonna do about it.” The ad saw little airtime, the New York Times wrote. > >In the November contest, working-class voters went 63% for Trump, according to an NBC News exit poll, compared with their leaning Democratic in 2008. Trump’s gains among Hispanic and working class-voters, especially in seven battleground states where Harris slightly underperformed compared with Biden in 2020, were plenty to deliver him the Electoral College, and wider trends like lower turnout for Harris helped Trump win the popular vote. Harris’ campaign time spent with Liz Cheney ended up losing ground to Trump compared with the 2020 election—the share of self-described conservatives voting for Biden in 2020 was 14%, versus just 9% for Harris this year, according to NBC News exit polls.

Really weird coincidence that a bunch of consultants and campaign managers that are part of the revolving door between regulation, politics and business would want to move away from messaging about the 1% and corporate greed and towards obsessively targeting anti-Trump republicans with people no one cares about like Liz Cheney.

>The inherent assumption in “big computer” socialism is that the problems in the Soviet system of planning were not insurmountable, and other alternative planning systems, like the brief Cybersyn experiment in Chile show a way forward. Indeed, there was a glimmer of this possibility in the USSR. Faced with a stagnating economy in the 60s, it was clear to many that the Soviet planning system needed reforms. The road taken was that of the Kosygin-Lieberman 1965 reforms which introduced some market mechanisms, such as using profitability and sales as the two key indicators of enterprise success. These substituted the old Stalinist principle of “business bookkeeping”, where enterprises had to meet planners’ expectations within a system of fixed prices for inputs/outputs, causing perverse incentives such as making badly-made surpluses or increases in product weight as a net positive for the enterprise. > >However, there was another option to the introduction of some market mechanisms in the economy: the road of using the available computing technology to help the planners plan and eliminate the perverse incentives. This was the main idea of Victor Glushkov, and his OGAS system. OGAS was not just “the Soviet internet” as it has sometimes been referred to; in its original form, it was supposed to be a system for radically modifying the planning systems of the economy. The original idea of OGAS was never implemented. Instead, it was downgraded and gutted to the point it became a ghost of itself, failing to provide a line of flight for the creation of a new economy. However, the principles behind it still hold, and can guide us in thinking about what shape the future can take. It is in this context that we present a short biography of Victor Gluskhov and the Soviet attempt at having a “big computer” plan its economy.

A very good look at the severe problems with how certain campaigns are run, the way certain people just fail upwards in the Democratic party, and the huge gap that can exist between media impact/prevalence and actual on the ground reality.

Also a weirdo 21 year old organising a campaign complaining about communism and usual signs of liberals sticking their head in the sand because anything that might critique them is automatically "helping [Republican opponent]".

>While Cruz underperformed Trump in counties across the state, Allred also underperformed in almost all of the state’s most populous counties—most of which already swing Democratic—and barely won more than Beto O’Rourke’s 2018 total. The loss was so bad that Texas’s longtime Democratic Party chair, Gilberto Hinojosa, stepped down—but not before he partly blamed Democrats’ loss on the party’s support for trans rights. > >Texas Democrats perennially claim to be on the brink of turning the state blue, but this latest beatdown ought to be the first that yields a true reckoning with why the party continually disappoints in elections in a state which, the party sages tell us, demographically ought to be shifting to their advantage. But given the recent tenor from the party’s centrist wing, from Hinojosa down to his Gen Z heirs apparent, the lesson of Allred’s loss—that no amount of money or online clout can paper over a candidate’s weaknesses—could just as easily fall on deaf ears. > >[...] > >In his concession speech last week, Allred stumbled through a Winston Churchill quote: “Courage is the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees all the others.” It took courage, he said, for him and his supporters to “participate in an American election,” despite the odds against them. Yet Allred’s strategy reeked of cowardice. Mirroring the Harris campaign, Allred ran to the right on the border and threw trans people under the bus. Counter to Harris, Allred tried differentiating himself from Biden, even voting to condemn his “open-borders policies.” It wasn’t enough. > >The Democratic Party prefers candidates—particularly in red states—who can raise a lot of money quickly. Allred visited just 34 of Texas’s 254 counties, signaling an aversion to public confrontation, but spent a mind-boggling $57.75 million on advertising and marketing to make up for it. How? He relied heavily on donation centers in other states, particularly the suburbs of Washington, D.C., receiving far fewer small-dollar donations in-state and leaning on political action committees to make up the difference. When journalists and friendly critics pointed out the obvious risks to this strategy, Monique Alcala, the executive director of the Texas Democratic Party, said on X that they were “spreading misinformation” and should “please—sit down.”* As Brandon Rottinghaus told Texas Monthly, “Beto worked from the bottom up, and Allred worked from the top down.” > >As early as the primary, fellow Texas Democrats were ringing alarm bells about a wayward campaign. But online, Allred’s team seemed more interested in squashing intraparty dissent than winning in November. After Jen Ramos, a member of the Texas Democratic Party’s executive committee, told The Texas Tribune in August that Allred was taking the party’s liberal base for granted, “a group of influencers and organizers went out of their way to discredit me,” Ramos told me, adding that she was accused of “aiding and abetting Ted Cruz.” > >Olivia Julianna, a 21-year-old influencer who spoke at this year’s Democratic National Convention and was advising the Allred campaign on “youth voter turnout,” took a similar line to Alcala, writing on X in the wake of the Tribune article: “Anyone saying Colin Allred hasn’t intentionally engaged the base or traveled the state is spreading misinformation and frankly helping Ted Cruz’s campaign divide the Democratic Party.” Since last week’s election, Julianna has been ranting online against “communism,” as if a tiny ideological milieu in the U.S.—let alone Texas—played a major role in their loss. > >[...] > >Meanwhile, Allred’s outreach to farmers, who make up 14 percent of the state’s workforce—and more than 12 percent of the U.S. total, by far the most of any state—was sporadic at best. Clayton Tucker, a rancher and chair of the Lampasas Democratic Party (based in a 712-square-mile county with a population of fewer than 24,000), said between the crowded Democratic primary and Election Day, there was “quite a dry spell” in communication. Tucker lobbied hard for Allred to appear before farmers and lay out his vision. Finally, in October, weeks away from the election, Allred joined Tucker in Lubbock, a college town just below the Panhandle, for a small roundtable to address their concerns. “That’s important work,” Tucker ceded, “but it needed to be more at scale.” > >[...] > >The more cynical among us might view this as a racket. Consider the case of Isaiah Martin, a centrist Gen Z Houstonian and friend of Julianna’s who briefly ran for Congress. In September 2023, he posted a single ad that went viral, landing him on MSNBC to talk about his vision for the country. He acquired Annika Albrecht, who previously worked for Blue Dog Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, as his campaign manager, raised about $400,000 (mostly from donors outside his district), and, a couple months later, unceremoniously dropped out. Despite his electoral face-plant, he became an influencer touring the country for the Harris campaign. The Texas Democratic Party is replete with “organizers” such as these, who seem always to fail upward. Other longtime Democrats have pointed to MJ Hegar as a similar problem: She raised all that money, and where is she now? (Far from the limelight, working for Deloitte.) > >“There’s not much money to be made when you invest in grassroots,” Tucker told The New Republic. “I think we’re too culturally obsessed with commercials and mailers. Speaking for myself, no mailer or commercial has ever convinced me of anything, but a conversation, whether that’s over the phone or in person, has.” > >Some have given up on the “demographics as destiny” argument, in which liberals assumed the changing racial makeup of the state would inevitably mean Democrats would sweep into power. Tucker, for instance, said an emphasis on economic populism is popular in the rural counties that lie devastated, to this day, by Nafta. But even as the demographic myth lies dying, the next one has been born: that young people, armed with technology and social media, will connect with voters to drive a blue wave.

It's literally 2016 but worse somehow.

>One source close to the Harris campaign tells Rolling Stone they reached out to several staffers in and around the campaign to voice concerns about the candidate embracing Dick and Liz Cheney. > >“People don’t want to be in a coalition with the devil,” says the source, speaking about Dick Cheney. They say a Harris staffer responded that it was not the staff’s role to challenge the campaign’s decisions. > >A Democratic strategist says they warned key Harris surrogates and top-level officials at the Democratic National Committee that campaigning with Liz Cheney — and making the campaign’s closing argument about how many Republicans were supporting Harris — was highly unlikely to motivate any new swing voters, and risked dissuading already-despondent, infrequent Democratic voters who had supported Biden in 2020. The strategist says they also attempted to have big donors and battleground state party chairs convey the same argument to the Harris campaign. > >Another Democratic operative close to Harrisworld says they sent memos and data to Harris campaign staffers underscoring how, among other things, Republican voters, believe it or not, vote Republican — and that the data over the past year screamed that Democrats instead needed to reassure and energize the liberal base and Dem-leaning working class in battleground states. “We were told, basically, to get lost, no thank you,” says the operative.

Democrats are committed to losing and are turning towards "we gotta be more racist and transphobic".

Seth Moulton also turning on trans people and outright declaring himself transphobic after prior tweets recognising things like Trans Day of Remembrance.

https://x.com/SLCLunk/status/1854597079773200550

"Progressive era has to end" from Elise Jordan. When was there ever one?

https://x.com/LailaAlarian/status/1854151933117788193

Full text of statement:

"It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them. First, it was the white working class, and now it is Latino and Black workers as well. While the Democratic leadership defend the status quo, the American people are angry and want change. And they're right.

Today, while the very rich are doing phenomenally well, 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and we have more income and wealth inequality than ever before. Unbelievably, real, inflation-accounted-for weekly wages for the average American worker are actually lower now than they were 50 years ago.

Today, despite an explosion in technology and worker productivity, many young people will have a worse standard of living than their parents. And many of them worry that Artificial Intelligence and robotics will make a bad situation even worse.

Today, despite spending far more per capita than other countries, we remain the only wealthy nation not to guarantee health care to all as a human right and we pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. We, alone among major countries, cannot even guarantee paid family and medical leave.

Today, despite strong opposition from a majority or Americans, we continue to spend billions funding the extremist Netanyahu government's all out war against the Palestinian people which has led to the horrific humanitarian disaster of mass malnutrition and the starvation of thousands of children.

While the big money interests and well paid consultants who control the Democratic Party learn any real lessons from this disastrous campaign? Will they understand the pain and political alienation that tens of millions of Americans are experiencing? Do they have any ideas as to how we can take on the increasingly powerful Oligarchy which has so much political power? Probably not.

In the coming weeks and months those of us concerned about grassroots democracy and economic justice need to have some very serious political discussions.

Stay tuned."

To get around paywall: https://archive.is/JY11t or use Firefox's reader mode.

In-depth piece on the use of private detention centres that Biden and Kamala claimed they were going to close. Documents abuse of detainees, detainees being held in solitary confinement as punishment when asking for the paperwork they need to complete their applications, and the massive commercial growth thanks to private prisons converting to become detention centres instead:

>But as record numbers of asylum-seekers continued to arrive at the southern border in the past three years, the administration has relied increasingly on privately operated immigration detention centers. The centers that DHS recommended be closed have remained open, continuing to hold thousands of detainees. And even though overall immigrant detention has fallen under Biden from the all-time highs during the Trump administration, the US now concentrates more of its immigrant detainees than ever in privately operated ICE facilities—the same ones Biden vowed to drive out of the sector. > >Part of that shift is tied to an executive order he signed less than a week after taking office, one barring the Department of Justice from renewing any contracts with privately contracted prisons and jails. The ban, importantly, didn’t apply to immigrant detainees. Some of those private contractors quickly converted criminal jails into immigrant detention centers, signing new contracts with ICE. In 2021 about 79% of all ICE detainees were held in privately run detention centers; by mid-2023 the percentage had jumped to more than 90%, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. In the South, which absorbed much of the shifts in detention flows, the portion was even greater. In Louisiana, for example, about 97% of detainees are now overseen by private companies. Such shifts have helped some of America’s largest private prison contractors rake in more revenue during the Biden administration than ever. > >\[...\] > >Decker’s organization is part of a coalition that has conducted more than 6,000 interviews with detainees inside the nine Louisiana detention centers since 2022. They’ve compiled stories of beatings, sexual assaults and attacks with pepper spray and tear gas. Detainees reported being shackled in five-point restraints for as long as 26 hours, unable to eat or use the restroom, and left with cuts on their wrists and legs. They described conditions inside the centers that included rat infestations, black mold, leaking ceilings and worm-infested food. “The pattern repeated especially in the privately run facilities is that the companies are actually profiting by offering substandard quality of food, clothing and medical care,” Decker says. “Less than the bare minimum.” > >\[...\] > >But in 2021 the Department of Homeland Security’s civil rights division conducted an investigation into allegations of abuse at Winn. The subsequent DHS report, published that November, raised “serious concerns” about substandard conditions, inappropriate use of force by staff and numerous “serious medical and mental health concerns.” A DHS memo written a month later recommended that Winn “be closed or drawn down” and that ICE immediately “discontinue placing detainees at Winn until the identified culture and conditions that can lead to abuse, mistreatment, and discrimination toward detainees are corrected.” > >But Winn never closed. When ICE’s five-year contract for the facility expired this May, the Biden administration renewed it. The precise terms of the deal haven’t yet been made public, but Winn continues to hold hundreds of detainees. > >ICE and the White House didn’t respond to questions for this story. But the agency has previously defended conditions in all of its facilities by declaring that it “is firmly committed to the health and welfare of all those in its custody.” It has emphasized that it uses “multi-layered inspections, standards, and an oversight program” to continuously review the detention centers to ensure humane treatment as well as comprehensive medical and mental health care.