putting this in the context of other committee fights the Democrats have been having:

77-year-old Jerry Nadler was the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee (which also plays a crucial oversight role)

Nadler’s leadership was successfully challenged by 62-year-old Jamie Raskin.

so Democrats’ version of “younger blood” was to replace a baby boomer (born 1947) with…a slightly younger baby boomer (born 1962, which depending on where you draw the line is the last of the baby boom, or the very beginning of Gen X)

Raskin had previously been the top Democrat on House Oversight, so that spot became vacant.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ran for that leadership position on House Oversight. she’s 35 years old, has an excellent media presence, and is well-known nationally.

instead of AOC, Democrats chose a 74-year old, Gerry Connolly.

and not just any 74-year old…they chose a 74-year-old who has cancer

and not just any 74-year old with cancer…a 74-year-old who has an especially deadly form of cancer

and not just any 74-year old with an especially deadly form of cancer…esophageal cancer. cancer of the esophagus. you know, that thing that’s in your throat. you know what else is in your throat, right next to your esophagus? your voice box. that thing you speak with.

Democrats in a nutshell: the guy we put in charge of oversight of the Trump administration…there’s a good chance he’s going to have surgery that renders him physically incapable of speaking.

the most plausible explanation I’ve seen so far - credit to this post (from one of the hosts of the 5-4 podcast) where I saw it first:

my suspicion is that Kamala is floating a CA governor run or 2028 run not because she thinks she has a chance but because it will help convince wealthy donors that it’s still worth buying influence with her and thus help her fundraise to pay off her campaign’s debts

but also Kamala ending up as the nominee wouldn’t surprise me. if it’s not her, there’ll be a different “establishment” Democratic candidate that the DNC puts their thumb on the scale for. 2028 seems likely to be yet another “this is the most important election of our lives, it’s crucial to the future of the country that you vote for whichever Democrat we tell you to vote for, now shut the fuck up and stop complaining”.

golly, I sure do feel awful for those executives.

imagine having something happen in the world - something completely out of your control - and as a result, your cost-of-living skyrockets, in a way you have no control over, you just have to pay it. I’m sure that’s an experience that is unique to CEOs and that other people have never had to deal with.

oh golly why would anyone do such a thing

here’s a totally unrelated news article from about a year ago: UnitedHealth uses AI model with 90% error rate to deny care, lawsuit alleges

(my attorney has advised me to state that I think murdering CEOs is *checks notes* wrong)

tangentially related:

11 children worked ‘dangerous’ night shift at Iowa pork plant, investigators say

A sanitation contractor has been fined nearly $172,000

Burger King, Popeyes fined more than $2 million for violating child labor laws

poor people go to jail when they get caught committing crimes. wealthy people pay a fine and move on with their lives. usually the fine is small enough that they can just treat it as a cost of doing business.

when people can commit crimes without feeling any real consequences, vigilante justice like this is an entirely predictable outcome.

(and of course, there’s a whole additional layer to this problem, where there’s a ton of corporate malfeasance and misbehavior that harms society but technically isn’t a crime because of some loophole or another…those child labor law violations are one of the few examples where employing children is unambiguously against the law as well as being relatively easy to prove)

here in Seattle: the at-large City Council seat (district 8) between Tanya Woo and Alexis Mercedes-Rinck

Woo ran for a different city council seat a year ago, and lost. in the same election, a sitting city councilmember (Teresa Mosqueda) won an election to the King County Council, so she resigned her city council seat. to fill that vacant seat, the other newly-elected city councilmembers appointed Woo, even though she had just lost.

by the rules of the resignation and temporary appointment, the next regular election (now) elects a permanent replacement.

this leads to an unusual scenario - normally, Seattle (and all of Washington state) holds its municipal elections in odd years. the current mayor was elected in 2021, the most recent city council election was 2023. this leads predictably to much lower turnout for the municipal elections, which leads in turn to conservative business interests having an easier time buying the local elections.

Woo is aligned with the “business-friendly”, conservative (by Seattle standards) councilmembers who were elected in 2023. Mercedes-Rinck is significantly more progressive.

based on the primary results and subsequent polls, Woo winning seems pretty unlikely - but the margin of Mercedes-Rinck’s victory will still be interesting, because of what it says about Seattle politics in elections with high turnout. voter turnout in the 2023 elections was a dismal 36%. this year is likely to be in the ~80% range.

it’s also an opportunity for something very funny to happen - Tanya Woo may set a record that will likely never be broken, becoming the first candidate in city history to lose 2 elections in consecutive 2 years, for a seat that normally gets elected every 4 years.