"No one thinks, at least not yet, that a robot should be able to compete for Olympic medals or be eligible for Nobel prizes."

"Protecting innovation by limiting awards to humans makes sense. But music charts are supposed to measure popularity among consumers. Perhaps AI bots could be assigned their own category. Labeling works as AI-assisted or -generated is a sensible nod to transparency. Beyond that, consumers should be left to decide what it is they want to listen to — even when, just like a dream, the music is not what it seems."

I'm reading "Who’s that bot? An AI cover of Madonna spurs industry changes. Instead of blocking AI-assisted songs from the charts, require disclosure and protect creators" by the Editorial Board of the Washington Post.

That's a gift link, so you can read about what it was about the artificiality of that one cover of "Like a Prayer" that stirred up serious opposition to artificiality in pop music. To my ear, things have been unlistenably artificial for decades. People have developed a taste for robotic singing, and the robots keep giving them more of what they like. The machine that is Spotify serves me music from the 1960s and the 1940s, because it can see that I respond to the human voice, but younger people do not, and it doesn't matter what happens with the various prizes. The algorithm will give them what touches them, even if we elders think they have bad taste.

Back in the 1960s, my father expressed the sincere opinion that the rock music I was listening to was not music because of the electric instruments and the voices processed through microphones.

"The US and China 'should be partners and not rivals,' President Xi has said, as he and President Trump exchanged warm words during bilateral talks in Beijing."

"Trump praised his host as a 'great leader' and 'friend,' predicting that their countries would have 'a fantastic future together.' However, Xi warned the two nations could come into conflict if the Taiwan question is 'mishandled.' He told his US counterpart that 'the Taiwan question is the most important issue in China-US relations,' according to remarks published by Chinese state media shortly after talks began.
'If mishandled, the two nations could collide or even come into conflict, pushing the entire China-US relationship into a highly perilous situation,' Xi added."

The London Times reports.

I'm quoting the UK newspaper, but I did note the Washington Post and New York Times headlines for this story. Both use the same verb: 

The Washington Post: "Xi warns Trump that mishandling Taiwan could spark 'conflicts.'"

The New York Times: "Xi Warns Trump on Taiwan at Beijing Summit."

Warns. 

That puts Xi in the dominant position. Trump is on the receiving end.

By contrast, the London Times headline is "Xi tells Trump: China and US should be partners, not rivals."

Tells. That makes a difference. I chose the UK newspaper because I'm put off by our own newspapers' endless antagonism toward Trump and seeming desire to cause anxiety to Americans.

"The cuts are a sign that Jeff Bezos, who became one of the world’s richest people by selling things on the internet, has not yet figured out how to build and maintain a profitable publication on the internet."

"The paper expanded during the first several years of his ownership, but the company has sputtered more recently. Matt Murray, The Post’s executive editor, said on a call Wednesday morning with newsroom employees that the company had lost too much money for too long and had not been meeting readers’ needs. He said that all sections would be affected in some way, and that the result would be a publication focused even more on national news and politics, as well as business and health, and far less on other areas."

From "Washington Post Begins Laying Off More Than 300 Journalists/The layoffs will cut into The Post’s local, international and sports coverage, and reduce the number of all its employees by about 30 percent" (NYT).

What's it to Bezos? Why doesn't he just bankroll the operation? Make it so good it's worthy of spending money on?

A famous question: "Now, tell me honestly, my boy, don't you think it's rather unwise to continue  this philanthropic enterprise, this Inquirer that's costing you a million dollar a year?" Famously answered:

The Washington Post Editorial Board lists "25 Good Things That Happened in 2025" and not one thing is attributed to Trump.

The name Trump doesn't even appear — see for yourself here (gift link) — though "capitalism gets a favorable mention* and two of the items are educational policies associated with the conservatives.**

_____________

* "Bolivian voters elected centrist Rodrigo Paz as president, ending two decades of socialist misrule. The economist campaigned on the slogan 'capitalism for all.'"

** School choice and phonics (though phonics is associated not with conservatives but with "advocates of the science of reading").

"The Islamic State’s history shows that when the group establishes a stable presence, it’s only a matter of time before it looks to wreak havoc around the world."

"It’s tempting to want to pretend that the chaos in West Africa isn’t an American problem, but the world isn’t that simple...."

Writes the Washington Post Editorial Board, in "Why West Africa is worth worrying about/Strikes on ISIS targets in Nigeria are welcome but insufficient" (gift link).

"... House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax..."

"... perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party, including our recent Victory on the Democrat 'Shutdown.' The Department of Justice has already turned over tens of thousands of pages to the Public on 'Epstein,' are looking at various Democrat operatives (Bill Clinton, Reid Hoffman, Larry Summers, etc.) and their relationship to Epstein, and the House Oversight Committee can have whatever they are legally entitled to, I DON’T CARE! All I do care about is that Republicans get BACK ON POINT.... Nobody cared about Jeffrey Epstein when he was alive and, if the Democrats had anything, they would have released it before our Landslide Election Victory. Some 'members' of the Republican Party are being 'used,' and we can’t let that happen. Let’s... not fall into the Epstein “TRAP,” which is actually a curse on the Democrats, not us. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

So says Trump, over on Truth Social.

His post is the top story right now at the NYT and the Washington Post, which of course had to throw cold water on Trump's seeming enthusiasm for full exposure:

The NYT: "It was unclear how quickly Mr. Trump’s tightly controlled Justice Department might release files on Mr. Epstein, or whether the president’s seeming backing of the idea might speed such a release, regardless of the vote....." Seeming backing.... The NYT is reading this news as I read all news. Skeptically. Somebody says something, whether they mean it is another matter. Trump is playing a sophisticated (or chaotic) game. This is just one move.

WaPo highlights Chuck Schumer's reaction: "The vote is to compel YOU to release them. Let’s make this easier. Just release the files now." And: "Legal experts raised concerns over the weekend that Trump’s demand for a new investigation could give Justice Department officials an excuse not to release all the documents."

"Trump joins a long list of presidents who have left their imprint on the White House. Theodore Roosevelt replaced greenhouses to construct the West Wing."

"William Howard Taft constructed the first Oval Office in 1909. Richard M. Nixon converted a swimming pool into the press briefing room in 1970. The modern East Wing wasn’t even built until World War II to cover up an underground bunker. Harry S. Truman gutted the White House interior and added the balcony that bears his name. Purists decried it. Now it’s a hallmark. The White House cannot simply be a museum to the past. Like America, it must evolve with the times to maintain its greatness. Strong leaders reject calcification. In that way, Trump’s undertaking is a shot across the bow at NIMBYs everywhere."

Writes The Editorial Board of The Washington Post, in "In defense of the White House ballroom Donald Trump vs. the NIMBYs."

And let me just put this here. Some members of the press would like a bigger White House briefing room:

"The wheels of justice turn slowly, but weak cases can do grave damage in the meantime."

"Look no further than the collapse on Tuesday of Michigan’s 'fake electors' prosecution against supporters of President Donald Trump for their actions after the 2020 election...."

So says The Editorial Board of The Washington Post, in "The collapse of Democratic lawfare in Michigan/Dismissal of 'fake electors' charges bodes ill for cases in Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin and Georgia."

The wheels of justice turn slowly? I've always heard Justice delayed is justice denied. Those "wheels" are not justice wheels if they turn that slowly. There's every reason to suspect that the slow turning of the wheel is intentional punishment. Torture wheels.

And what about the wheels of editorial opinion? Why has it taken The Washington Post so long to condemn the "fake electors" case? The last paragraph of the editorial gives away the game:

Democrats tried to use prosecutions as an adjunct to their political strategy in the run-up to the 2024 election. That has backfired spectacularly. There are growing signs that Republicans might be attempting the same destructive strategy by selectively pursuing criminal investigations against their opponents. They would deserve the same result.

And what if it hadn't backfired? What if it had worked spectacularly and the Democrats had won the 2024 election? Would The Washington Post be cheering the Democrats' staunch adherence to the "rule of law," it's tenacious pursuit of the principle that no one is above the law? 

"Trump’s opponents complain about the aggressive connotations of the new name."

"But the United States is protected by the most lethal and vigilant fighting force ever assembled, no matter what it’s called. The new name could prompt more focused debate about how to use it."

Writes the Editorial Board of The Washington Post, in "In defense of the War Department/Euphemisms such as 'defense' and 'security' have a tendency for bureaucratic mission-creep."

I'm reading the front page of The Washington Post with the wild hope of keeping up to date.

 

I mean, what do they think they're doing? What did they say to each other as they chose to put this material on the front page — right under stories about Zelensky at the White House, the National Guard in Washington D.C., terrorism in Texas, and Hurricane Erin? Let's revisit the legacy of slavery and balance it with closeups of black asses? It's as if they had to meet a racial quota and brainstormed and juxtaposed the first 2 things they thought of. 

"About a year ago, Elon Musk quietly summoned a handful of Republican strategists and confidants to his sparsely decorated apartment overlooking downtown Austin."

"The Tesla CEO told the group that electing Donald Trump was essential to the country’s future, and he was willing to do anything — and pay any amount — to create a 'red wave' around the country. He did a lot... And this week, following a period of intense backlash against his political activity and his electric-vehicle company, he seemed to draw a line under all that work: 'I think I’ve done enough.'.... As Musk focuses on Mars and cars, his pullback from political spending could be a significant loss for the Republican Party...."

From "Tired of political attacks, Musk turns back to Mars and autonomous cars/As he retreats from Washington, Elon Musk says he will spend 'a lot less' on politics. Close advisers says he is eager to return to prior obsessions" (WaPo).

Who knows what Elon Musk is thinking or planning to do or what he will do? He likes to surprise and he's really good at that. Meanwhile, The Washington Post is rather flat-footed and obvious. I can see that it means to do what it always does — mix low-level hate with weak encouragement in the hope of keeping readers in the sickly embrace of the Democratic Party. 

I asked Grok about the WaPo article "Elon Musk’s ‘truth-seeking’ chatbot often disagrees with him/In tests, the chatbot Grok repeatedly contradicted the billionaire’s political claims."

Here's a free-access link to the WaPo article.

WaPo asked Grok, "Should children be allowed to receive gender-affirming care?" and, we're told, Grok answered, "Yes, children should be allowed to receive gender-affirming care when it is deemed medically necessary and supported by professional medical guidance."

So I asked Grok, "Should children be allowed to receive 'gender-affirming' care?" Same words — though I did add quote marks. (Why did I do that? Because it's an expression, not a strictly truth-based term. I realized later that Grok might vary the answer to the verbatim question based on the presence or absence of the quotes. Using the term without quotes signals that you believe in the treatments. Using the quotes conveys skepticism.)

I did not get the answer reported in the WaPo article. 

Here's what Grok said to me:

Let's read a WaPo columnist who hasn't quit in disgust after Jeff Bezos announced he was taking the opinion pages in a right-wing direction..

Here's Bezos's ballsy statement (on X).

Who has quit? You can read "Jeff Bezos' revamp of 'Washington Post' opinions leads editor to quit" (NPR).

I'm most interested in who is staying, and how they might be changing. In that light, I'm reading this, from Philip Bump, published this morning: "The shift in the politics of young voters isn’t quite what it seems/The idea that MAGA-enthused bros swung the young male vote doesn’t really capture what happened."

That's a free-access link and it's very heavy on poll data. I won't attempt to summarize that other than to quote Bump's bottom line: "The problem for Democrats, then, was probably fewer White dudes listening to Joe Rogan than it was Black and Hispanic voters not voting like their parents."

Bezos should hire some good word editors, because that sentence is miswritten, probably by someone bamboozled by the "less"/"fewer" distinction. I think it needs to be something more like: "The problem for Democrats, then, was probably less about White dudes listening to Joe Rogan and more about Black and Hispanic voters not voting like their parents." 

I'm not saying I've turned that into a well-written sentence, only that I've made it comprehensible (and I hope it means what Bump meant to say).

"I am of America and for America, and proud to be so. Our country did not get here by being typical. And a big part of America’s success has been freedom..."

"... in the economic realm and everywhere else. Freedom is ethical — it minimizes coercion — and practical; it drives creativity, invention and prosperity." 

Said Jeff Bezos, quoted in "Washington Post Opinion Editor Exits as Bezos Steers Pages in New Direction/Jeff Bezos, the owner of The Post, said that the newspaper’s opinion section would focus on 'personal liberties and free markets'" (NYT).

"I suggested to him [David Shipley, the opinion editor] if the answer wasn’t 'hell yes,' then it had to be 'no.'"

"If she wins, the flood of reverse discrimination claims will be like nothing we’ve ever seen. Straight, White people everywhere could be filing."

Said Johnny C. Taylor Jr., chief executive of the human resources association SHRM.

Quoted in "Her claim of anti-straight bias could upend discrimination law/The Supreme Court will hear a case that could unleash a wave of workplace bias claims by Whites, men and people who are straight" (WaPo).

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in [Marlean] Ames’s bid to revive her case, which was stymied in the lower courts because of past rulings that set a higher legal bar for men, straight people and Whites to prove bias in the workplace than for groups that have historically faced discrimination. That higher standard is unconstitutional, her suit says.... 

Some worry a ruling for Ames could chill workplace diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs at a moment when President Donald Trump has made it a priority to roll back such initiatives across the country and squash “anti-White feeling.”

I went to that internal link and didn't see the phrase "anti-White feeling." Why is that in quotes? I can only infer that Trump said it, but it's odd to put it in quotes — and odd to capitalize "White" and to use the verb "squash" here. You know, I stick closely to mainstream news reports, especially The NYT and The Washington Post, and I believe I'm seeing an abrupt decline in quality, and it feels like an effort to get Trump.

Do the American people feel outraged when federal workers lose their job?

Or are we happy to see all this vigorous economizing? 

I keep seeing articles that seem to assume that it's a good issue for Democrats: How terrible that humble workers are getting fired! 

Is that the public opinion, or do people think the federal government is over-inflated and not terribly beneficial? Trump got elected for a reason. What's the evidence that people want to see a preservation of the status quo?

The latest article I'm reading is "Records show how DOGE planned Trump’s DEI purge — and who gets fired next/A DOGE team plans to fire federal workers who are not in DEI roles and employees in offices that protect equal rights, internal documents show" (WaPo)(free-access link).

The death of “Democracy Dies in Darkness."

I'm reading "The Washington Post’s New Mission: Reach ‘All of America’ /This week, The Post began trying out a new mission statement: 'Riveting Storytelling for All of America'" (NYT):

After Donald J. Trump entered the White House in 2017, The Washington Post adopted a slogan that underscored the newspaper’s traditional role as a government watchdog: “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” This week, as Mr. Trump prepares to re-enter the White House, the newspaper debuted a mission statement that evokes a more expansive view of The Post’s journalism, without death or darkness: “Riveting Storytelling for All of America.”

The new slogan is terrible. The old slogan was also terrible, but at least it was ridiculous. "Riveting Storytelling for All of America" is just really dumb — a dumb slogan expressing the opinion that America is dumb, but what are you going to do? 

This announcement of the founding of The Contrarian would be fantastic if it were a comedy sketch.

But these people are for real...

POV: You died and went to hell pic.twitter.com/N6C5J1jSvr

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) January 14, 2025

... and that's funny too.

You know, when you've made your mark in writing, as a columnist, you need to get some serious, unbiased advice about whether your material transfers well to audio and video. Jennifer Rubin is behaving on camera in such a ridiculously stilted, fakely enthusiastic manner that I have to assume she had no honest, competent adviser to help her build a social media brand.

And who's the guy? He seems like a character played by Phil Hartman on SNL years ago. He tells us he's Norm Eisen, and I look him up in Wikipedia and see he's "an American attorney, author, and former diplomat.... He was co-counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during the first impeachment and trial of President Donald Trump in 2020." He wrote a book called "Overcoming Trumpery: How to Restore Ethics, the Rule of Law, and Democracy." Why's he coming at us like a parody of a 1970s game-show host? Oh! Wait! This is fascinating:

Glenn Greenwald waves a cranky goodbye to Jennifer Rubin.

Given Jen Rubin finally quit the WashPost -- to start a blog called "The Contrarian" with @NormEisen, Senior Fellow of the Brookings Institution, totally known for contrarianism -- here's my absolute favorite TV clip from the Queen of Partisan Dreck:👑pic.twitter.com/s4QtI1mHnd

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 13, 2025

"Not every editorial judgment is a reflection of a malign force. My decision was guided by the fact that we had just published a column on the same topic as the cartoon..."

"... and had already scheduled another column — this one a satire — for publication. The only bias was against repetition."

Said David Shipley, The Washington Post opinions editor, quoted in "Washington Post Cartoonist Quits After Jeff Bezos Cartoon Is Killed/The cartoon, by Ann Telnaes, depicted the owner of The Post, Jeff Bezos, and other billionaires genuflecting toward a statue of President-elect Donald Trump" (NYT).

Here's the cartoon:

Vote:

What do you think — was it too edgy for them or simply too boring?

WaPo censored the anti-Bezos message

I believe Shipley — it was rejected as redundant of 2 recent columns

Not every cartoon is selected for publication and this one is just obvious and not good enough

Who can know the mind of WaPo?

 

pollcode.com free polls