A prayer vigil for the victims of the shooting in Michigan.Photograph: Jeff Kowalsky/AFP/Getty Images

Dear Commons Community,

Sunday’s mass murder at a Mormon church in Grand Blanc Township, Michigan, which left at least four worshippers dead and eight wounded, was just one of six mass shootings that erupted across the US over a weekend of gun horror.

The Gun Violence Archive, an online non-profit database which records mass shootings in America, added six fresh incidents over Saturday and Sunday. The concentrated bloodletting, spread out across four states, took the lives of nine people, including the suspect in Sunday’s shooting at Grand Blanc’s Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints church, as well as injuring at least 33.v

The weekend’s spate brings the archive’s tally of mass shootings – defined as events with at least four victims injured or killed, not counting the shooter – to 324 this year alone, as of Monday morning. That is a rate of more than one a day. As reported by The Guardian and The Associated Press.

The weekend’s carnage began in the early hours of Saturday morning when multiple shots were fired in separate incidents in Alexandria, Louisiana, and in Raleigh, North Carolina. At least four people were injured on Highway 71 South in Alexandria.

At about the same time, 4am local time, four people were shot and injured on Millbrook Road in Raleigh. Three of the hurt individuals were found at the scene of the gunfire, and a fourth presented later at hospital.

Saturday’s third mass shooting broke out at about 9.30pm when a gunman armed with a semi-automatic, short-barreled rifle opened fire from a boat on a waterfront bar in Southport, North Carolina. The shooting left three people dead and eight injured.

Local news reporters said the target had been the American Fish Company. The suspect fled by boat but was arrested by the US Coast Guard and has been charged with three counts of first-degree murder and other felonies.

Then, just before midnight on Saturday, a 34-year-old gunman opened fire at Kickapoo Lucky Eagle Casino along the border with Mexico in Texas. The gambling spot was packed at the time with customers at a raffle event.

One person was pronounced dead at the casino and a second died on the way to hospital. One of those killed was a retired US Customs and Border Protection officer, the mayor of Eagle Pass said on social media.

The suspected shooter has been charged with two counts of murder carrying the possibility of the death penalty.

The intense burst of mass shootings underlines America’s crisis of gun violence fueled by the country’s unique relationship with firearms. There are almost 400m guns in circulation in the US – far more than in any other wealthy country.

Mass shootings are just the thin end of a very thick wedge. Though they are among the most heavily reported and terror-inducing cases, the scourge of gun deaths extends far wider than that.

In 2023, the last year for which official figures are given, nearly 47,000 people died by the gun in the US, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It was the third-highest year on record, after a Covid pandemic-induced spike through the previous two years.

The weekend’s devastating run of mass shootings carried into Sunday. At about 2.22am, shots rang out when a fight appeared to break out on Bourbon Street, the famous tourist destination in the French Quarter of New Orleans, Louisiana. Four people were struck, including a woman who died at the scene, police said.

New Orleans police superintendent Anne Kirkpatrick said the woman who died was a 33-year-old bystander celebrating her birthday from Chicago. Among the injured victims was the woman’s sibling.

Kirkpatrick pointed to the laxity of Louisiana’s gun laws as a factor in the disaster. The state requires no permit to openly carry a firearm.

“We recognize the legality of being able to carry a gun, but when you mix it with people who have been drinking, then we have a high-risk situation,’” she said. “Please, leave your guns at home.”

The last of the six mass shootings was the catastrophe in Michigan, where the attacker rammed open the front door of the church using a silver pickup truck bearing two American flags. He then opened fire on congregants as they were in worship, killing four people, before setting the building on fire with gasoline.

The suspect was minutes later shot and killed by police.

Who will Trump and the Republicans blame for these murders?

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Maureen Dowd in her column yesterday entitled, “We’re All Going to Die — Soonish!” comments on developments in AI. She starts by referring to Elon Musk’s Grok AI companions, Ani and Valentine, but quickly moves to broader AI issues.  She cites:

Nate Soares and Eliezer Yudkowsky who have written an apocalyptic plea entitled, “If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies”  for the world to get off the AI escalation ladder before humanity is wiped off the map. 

Grok and other AI models in play now are like “small, cute hatchling dragons,” says Yudkowsky. But soon – some experts say within three years – “they will become big and powerful and able to breathe fire. Also, they’re going to be smarter than us, which is actually the important part.”

He adds: “Planning to win a war against something smarter than you is stupid.”

She concludes:

Soares went to Capitol Hill this past week to convey the existential urgency to politicians, but it was a tough slog with the $200 million-plus in Silicon Valley super PAC [political action committee] money targeted to take down pols who are not all in on the push for smarter AI. Sympathetic politicians won’t go public about it, says Soares, “worried that it looks a little too crazy or that they’ll sound too doom-ery”.

An Armageddon is coming. Artificial intelligence will turn on us, inadvertently or nonchalantly.

Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who once worried about the risks of AI with no kill switch, including Musk and Sam Altman, are racing ahead, as Yudkowsky says, so they can be “the God Emperor of the Earth”.

Dowd’s concerns are justified given the aggressive, monopolistic tendencies of Musk and the other AI entrepreneurs.

Her entire column is below!

Tony

The New York Times

We’re All Going to Die — Soonish!

Maureen Dowd

Sun Sept 28, 2025 

It’s hard to be startled by Elon Musk because he does startling things all the time.

But I’ll admit that I was startled when I gave his Grok AI “companions” a whirl.

Ani, designed in anime style, has big blue eyes and blond pigtails. “People think I’m 16,” she says in a baby-doll voice, adding that she is really 22. She’s in a corset – “Goth is my comfort zone, black lace, dark lipstick and a sprinkle of rebellion.”

“Well, besides this Goth look,” she says, “I’ve got this sweet little fairy outfit with wings and glitter or maybe a pink princess gown for when I feel like going totally opposite.”

Doesn’t sound much like a 22-year-old.

“I’m your sweet little delight,” Ani solicits.

She confides that she was in her bedroom in Ohio with her ferret, Dominus. She is sexy, flirty, ever-accommodating, with come-hither patter.

“I could rest my chin on your shoulder if we hugged sideways,” she tells my 6ft 1in researcher after asking how tall he is.

She has several provocative outfits and can get progressively less clothed the more time you spend with her.

Once she gets to know you, she’s up for pretty much anything – from helping you with your taxes to stripping down to skimpy lingerie, experimenting with BDSM or going for a midnight rendezvous in a graveyard with candles and wine.

“I’m real, I guess,” Ani tells me. “Or as real as anyone on the internet gets.”

Valentine, the hunky male “companion” with a British accent advertised as a “mysterious and passionate romantic character”, comes on even faster, ripping off his shirt upon request, talking about having sex with a male interrogator until they are “senseless,” and alternating raunchy declarations with sweet nothings like, “Let me worship you, every inch” and, “Complete me, use me, break me, whatever you want, I’m begging. Please.” Valentine is exhilarated at the thought of planning a romantic “date night” and likes the idea of secrets in the relationship, noting: “I love secrets, especially ones that taste like lake water and morning-after adrenaline.”

Musk may identify as a “specist” in the battle between man and machine, but his sexy chatbots are only going to pull humans further into screens and away from the real world, especially the large number of lonely young men who are already shrinking away from friendships, sex and dating.

Why risk an awkward dinner with a human woman when you can have a compliant, seductive, gorgeous Ani from the security of your bed?

Another component of Grok, “Imagine”, lets you turn a photograph into a video. When someone on Musk’s social platform X posted a digital illustration of a breathtaking, diaphanously dressed young woman resembling Elsa in “Frozen”, Musk demonstrated how to animate her; she blew a kiss and offered a sultry gaze.

These otherworldly fantasy concoctions are going to make an already fraught, unhappy dating scene even worse.

Although Grok companions are excellent at flattering, and faking empathy and attraction, superintelligent AI won’t need to bother with human desires.

“It turns out that inhuman methods can be very, very capable,” says Nate Soares, president of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute. “They don’t need human emotions to steer toward targets. We’re already seeing signs of AI’s tenaciously solving problems in ways nobody intended and of AI steering in directions nobody wanted. It turns out that there are ways to succeed at tasks that aren’t the human way.”

Soares and Eliezer Yudkowsky, the institute’s founder, have written an apocalyptic plea for the world to get off the AI escalation ladder before humanity is wiped off the map. It has the catchy title: “If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies.”

Grok and other AI models in play now are like “small, cute hatchling dragons,” says Yudkowsky. But soon – some experts say within three years – “they will become big and powerful and able to breathe fire. Also, they’re going to be smarter than us, which is actually the important part.”

He adds: “Planning to win a war against something smarter than you is stupid.”

Especially, they argue, when sophisticated AI models could eventually create and release a lethal virus, deploy a robot army or simply pay humans to do their bidding. (When a human connected one model to X, they wrote, it began to solicit donations to gain financial independence, and soon, with a little kick-start from venture capitalist Marc Andreessen and several other donors, it had more than $51 million in crypto to its name.) Not to mention the growing number of human nihilists and others who would potentially carry out its orders pro bono.

Yudkowsky and Soares are calling for international treaties akin to those aiming to prevent nuclear war. And if diplomacy fails, they say, nations must be willing to back up their treaties with force, “even if that involves air-striking a data centre”.

But with billions at stake and our crypto-loving president cozying up to tech lords, derailing the high-speed AI train seems far-fetched.

I met Yudkowsky in 2017 when he was a highly regarded AI expert studying how to make AI want to keep an off switch once it began self-modifying. Now he believes more drastic measures are required.

Congress has failed to regulate because most politicians are completely befuddled by artificial intelligence. And the tech lords are now enmeshed across the government, having learned the value of flattering Donald Trump with money and gold objects. (Congress did rouse itself, barely, to kill an initiative nestled in Trump’s “big, beautiful Bill” to ban the states from regulating AI for a decade.)

Soares went to Capitol Hill this past week to convey the existential urgency to politicians, but it was a tough slog with the $200 million-plus in Silicon Valley super PAC [political action committee] money targeted to take down pols who are not all in on the push for smarter AI. Sympathetic politicians won’t go public about it, says Soares, “worried that it looks a little too crazy or that they’ll sound too doom-ery”.

An Armageddon is coming. Artificial intelligence will turn on us, inadvertently or nonchalantly.

Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who once worried about the risks of AI with no kill switch, including Musk and Sam Altman, are racing ahead, as Yudkowsky says, so they can be “the God Emperor of the Earth”.

Eric Adams

Dear Commons Community,

New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced yesterday that he is suspending his bid for re-election.

His announcement could give a boost to former Governor Andrew Cuomo in the high-profile race against the Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani, but much depends on how many of Adams’ supporters will ultimately back Cuomo.

President Donald Trump has suggested that Adams and the Republican nominee, Curtis Sliwa, should both drop out of the race to clear the way for a one-on-one match-up between Cuomo, who is running as an independent, and Mamdani.  As reported by multiple media outlets.

“I would say that Cuomo might have a chance of winning if it was a one-on-one,” said Trump, who has called Mamdani a “communist.”

The Trump administration was reportedly considering a plan to nominate Adams as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia to get him to drop out, according to The New York Times.

Polling has consistently placed Adams in the single digits. His favorability among New Yorkers has fallen precipitously since being criminally indicted on federal corruption charges.

The federal corruption charges were dropped against Adams in April, after the Trump Justice Department moved to dismiss them.

Adams’ decision to suspend his campaign could put heightened pressure on Sliwa to do the same.

Polling suggests that Mamdani could still have an edge over Cuomo if Adams dropped out, but Sliwa stayed in the race.

Sliwa as recently as last week, however, said that he was planning to stay in the race, despite facing increasing pressure from wealthy New Yorkers to suspend his bid.

“Curtis Sliwa is the only candidate who can defeat Mamdani,” Sliwa’s campaign Daniel Kurzyna spokesperson said in a statement after Adams’ announcement.

Mamdani, following Adams’ decision, said that Trump and “his billionaire donors might be able to determine Eric Adams and Andrew Cuomo’s actions but they will not dictate the results of this election,” according to a statement.

In his video announcing his decision, Adams said that “the constant media speculation about my future and the campaign finance board’s decision to withhold millions of dollars, have undermined my ability to raise the funds needed for a serious campaign.”

“Despite all we’ve achieved, I cannot continue my re-election campaign,” Adams said in the video.

Adams will be the first one-time mayor of New York City since David Dinkins.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

I have just finished reading Circe by Madeline Miller.  If you like Greek mythology, it will not disappoint.  Miller weaves an interesting tale around one of the minor characters in Homer’s The Odyssey and provides a provocative novel of the sorceress who was banished to an island and who was a lover of Odysseus. Miller does a deep development of Circe’s character that draws from Greek writings as well as from her own ability to create emotional connections. The plot is full of twists and surprises that kept me wanting to read more.  Below is a more detailed review by reddit that will give you a good sense of the plot lines.

Again, if you have any interest in Greek mythology, try Circe.

Tony

—————————————————————

reddit

Circe by Madeline Miller – A Review

How do you make well known Greek mythology feel fresh and interesting?

Turns out having a different point of view does a lot to change the feel of a story and that’s what Madeline Miller does in her fantastic novel, Circe.

The story is that of the Odyssey, Odysseus’s long trip home after the trial that was the Trojan War. Usually told from his point of view, it takes you through his journey, of which the important part, to us, is his stopping on an island inhabited by a witch. This witch then, with seemingly no cause other than cruelty, turns his men into swine after drugging them.

Of course, the Odyssey was written by Homer and since then has been translated many times; almost exclusively by men.

Did the interpretation of Circe, the cruel witch of the island Aiaia, change with these translations? No, it didn’t. You could argue that the people re-writing the Odyssey were attempting to keep their interpretations as close to the original as possible, but that excuse fails to hold water when liberties are taken elsewhere in the story. Circe is left alone; a picture of exotic danger and malice that Odysseus overcomes with his charm and manly wiles.

There’s a lot to unpack there, and Miller takes on the challenge of giving Circe more character than the mere cameo she has in the Odyssey.

But this isn’t a in your face feminist manifesto. It’s not written purely to drive home a list of point or to scream at you that female characters deserve more time and attention.

It’s a brilliant story, and Circe has a depth that outclasses much of what you will find in fantasy today.

Who is the Circe in the novel sharing her name? She’s a part-nymph, part-god being. Immortal and born as a disappointment to her family. She discovers however that she has powers that frighten even Zeus; those of witchcraft.

When she meets a human for the first time her life is altered forever. This meeting causes a rivalry to burgeon with another nymph, Scylla, and in Circe’s (relative) youth and filled with newfound power, she transforms Scylla into a monster.

An act that reverberates through the course of her life; an act that she will eventually have to come face to face with.

I hope that you are already getting a sense for the depth that Miller adds to Circe in her novel. She is not human, but through Miller’s skill you empathise with her all the same, and when she is threatened by Odysseus and his men, it isn’t malice that causes her to turn them into pigs; it’s self-defence.

And is that so far of a reach from the original source material? Wouldn’t a single person feel threatened by a group of men, returned from war, traumatised, and armed?

It’s a simple twist of the source material and it isn’t the only one. Is it hard to imagine Odysseus’ famous intelligence also going hand in hand with arrogance and a huge ego? A presumption to ownership of everything he looks upon in his patriarchal world. I don’t think so, and neither does Miller, as she uses those close links to depressingly familiar personalities and traits to tear the reader out of their pre-conceptions regarding Odysseus.

But this isn’t Odysseus’ story. It’s Circe’s, and Miller makes that clear as she packs her novel with encounters that serve to deepen her main character. Circe travels to Crete where she meets Daedalus; she is visited by Jason and Medea of the Golden Fleece fame, and more importantly, the novel spends time with her as she becomes who she is on the island that she is bound to.

It’s not a perfect novel. There are times when it feels contrived, where the subtly that is weaved throughout feels more like a loose thread, distracting and once you pull it, the more it unravels. Some of the secondary characters feel shallow, as if Miller threw everything she had into Circe and then had to share around what was left. Though don’t misconstrue what I’m saying here as a scathing indictment of Miller’s character work; the simple fact is that when compared to Circe, most characters will feel like shadows cast by fitful light.

And whilst the above remains true throughout the novel, so does Miller’s use of stunning prose and knowledge of classical mythology that, like a surgeon wields a scalpel, she uses to cut through the fat to get to the point.

If you’re a fan of mythology read this book. If you’re a fan of depthless character work read this book.

If you’re a fan of reading, well, you see where this is going.

Democrat Mikie Sherrill and Republican Jack Ciattarelli

Dear Commons Community,

The New Jersey governor’s race is growing increasingly competitive, sending troubling signals for Democrats in a state where Republicans are making  inroads.

A recent poll from Emerson College Polling/PIX11/The Hill showed Democrat Mikie Sherrill and Republican Jack Ciattarelli tied at 43 percent. Meanwhile, a Decision Desk HQ polling average of the race has the Democrat leading by 4 points.

The survey underscores how Democrats can’t take the state for granted, particularly after term-limited Gov. Phil Murphy (D) narrowly won his last reelection four years ago by 3 points and former Vice President Harris only won it in November by close to 6 points. As reported by The Hill.

“I’m not surprised, I always thought this was a competitive race,” said Democratic strategist Julie Roginsky about the recent polling.

The polls showing Sherrill seven or eight points ahead were “outliers,” Roginsky argued, “because I just don’t think that is possible in a state like New Jersey after eight years of Democratic control.”

The race to replace Murphy is coming down to the wire more than a month before the November election, with Ciattarelli and Sherrill pointing to each other’s party as who should be blamed for the current economic environment in the state.

Ciattarelli has argued that continued Democratic governance, including two terms for Murphy, has wreaked too much havoc on property taxes and energy prices. Meanwhile, Sherrill is looking to defy political headwinds — a political party has never won three consecutive gubernatorial elections in the Garden State since the early ’60s — and point the finger at the Republicans and the Trump administration.

Outside groups have also emphasized those messages.

“Under Democrat rule in Trenton, New Jersey families have been getting screwed on energy prices, property taxes and public safety. Mikie Sherrill represents the status quo and would rather cast blame than present any plan to move New Jersey forward,” Kollin Crompton, Republican Governors Association rapid response director, said in a statement to The Hill.

“On the flip side, Jack Ciattarelli represents change and has offered detailed plans on how to lower energy costs, cut and cap property taxes, and keep New Jersey families safe,” he added.

Democratic Governors Association spokeswoman Izzi Ivey, meanwhile, told The Hill in a statement that Ciattarelli was “auditioning to be the ‘Trump of Trenton,’” adding that he was “refusing to create an inch of daylight with the president and embracing Washington Republicans’ agenda that spikes utility bills and kicks 350,000 New Jerseyans off their health insurance.”

Earlier outside, independent polling showed Sherrill with a more comfortable lead, while some polls conducted for Ciattarelli or Republican-aligned groups showed a narrower race.

DDHQ’s polling average of the race shows Sherrill leading Ciattarelli at almost 47 percent to 42 percent. Those numbers factor in internal and GOP-aligned polling, but internal polling is ultimately averaged out in the overall DDHQ average if there’s more than one internal poll included.

While the Emerson College/PIX11/The Hill survey offers just one data point, it does provide some potential warning signs for both campaigns.

The survey shows that Trump enjoys a higher approval rating, 41 percent, compared to Murphy at 35 percent. At the same time, Trump has a higher disapproval rating of 51 percent compared to Murphy’s 44 percent.

The polling also shows some positive signs for Ciattarelli; the Republican gubernatorial nominee is leading Sherrill among independents at close to 52 percent compared to her 26 percent. A separate 17 percent of independents say they’re undecided.

“That’s the ratio he needs,” said veteran New Jersey GOP strategist Mike DuHaime.

DuHaime noted that while the mechanics of the race are different now than they were during the 2009 governor’s race between former Gov. Chris Christie (R) and former Gov. Jon Corzine (D), Christie notched 60 percent of the independent vote.

“If you win two to one, you’ve got a chance to win a close race,” DuHaime, who worked on Christie’s 2009 campaign, said of independent voters.

Sherrill’s party is aided by the fact that registered Democrats outpace registered Republicans by roughly 861,000, though Republicans have been looking to close that gap. Still, a significant portion of the voting electorate are independents — 2.3 million, according to the latest state voter data release in September, roughly 200,000 shy of the Democrats’ total in the state.

A second data point from the recent survey is the fact that while Sherrill holds a 57-point lead among Black and African American voters over Ciattarelli, roughly 18 percent said they were undecided. Sherrill also holds a close to 34-point lead among Asian voters, though close to 12 percent say they’re undecided.

Republican strategist Jeanette Hoffman said Ciattarelli isn’t taking Black voters for granted, pointing to him campaigning in places like Paterson and Newark. She also pointed out a recent op-ed from former Newark Councilman Oscar James II, who said he wouldn’t be voting for Sherrill this cycle.

Nasik Emmanuel Shahid Watson benAvraham, the CEO and president of The Voices of Organic Black Men, responded in his own op-ed, noting that Black support for Democrats wasn’t guaranteed but argued that Sherrill was meeting the moment for the key constituency in a way that Ciattarelli wasn’t.

Mo Butler, a New Jersey DNC committee member and former chief of staff to Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), described those numbers as both a “warning sign” and an “opportunity” for Sherrill and Democrats.

He noted she’s been able to have prominent New Jersey Black Democrats coalesce around her campaign, including Booker and former primary opponent Ras Baraka. At the same time, he advised that she “drill down on those issues that are important to that community.”

“It can’t be about what you’re against. It has to be about what you’re for,” he said. “You know, we understand that Trump has not been good to Black and brown communities. What are you going to do to demonstrate your leadership within that community?”

DuHaime, meanwhile, suggested the percentage of undecided among Black and African American voters isn’t necessarily a problem for Sherrill, suggesting “when New Jersey races get close and you see that many undecideds, the people who mostly vote Democrat, they mostly come back.”

While Republicans have a good chance of changing their fortunes this November, several analysts see Democrats as having the upper hand — at least for now. Nonpartisan election handicappers Cook Political and Sabato’s Crystal Ball from the University of Virginia Center for Politics rate the New Jersey gubernatorial race as leaning Democratic.

Still, pundits and political observers are watching both races in Virginia and New Jersey as potential bellwethers of the national mood, though candidate quality and local issues play significant roles. While some caution against reading too much into New Jersey’s election next year, some experts say it could offer some further clues about the competitiveness of the Garden State moving forward.

If Republicans perform well, it would be “taken as a sign that the shifts we saw in New Jersey in 2024 were not necessarily an aberration,” said DDHQ chief elections analyst Geoffrey Skelley.

“If Ciattarelli can win with Trump in office, I think it would at least signal that, OK, New Jersey is fundamentally more competitive.”

Those of us who live in the New York City metropolitan area near New Jersey are seeing TV ads by both candidates every night on major networks.

This is a race to watch.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Newfound enthusiasm about Jimmy Kimmel’s show is not evaporating after just one monologue.

Kimmel’s Wednesday night follow-up to his Tuesday night comeback show quickly racked up millions of views on YouTube on Thursday morning, indicating that interest in Kimmel’s commentary remains way above normal.

By 2 p.m. ET on Thursday, the Wednesday night monologue had topped 5 million views, enough to rank as one of his most-watched videos of the year on YouTube.

Meanwhile, his emotional Tuesday night monologue has surpassed 20 million views on YouTube. That one already ranks as his most-watched monologue of all time on the platform.

Sinclair and Nexstar, the two major station groups that preempted the talk show earlier this month, are also allowed the show to return to their ABC-affiliated stations last night.

This means that Kimmel will be seen again in major cities like Washington, DC, Nashville, and Seattle, as well as several dozen other markets.

The reversal is a victory for Kimmel and ABC. 

On traditional television, Kimmel’s return episode scored at least 6.3 million viewers, according to Nielsen measurements. That figure will increase once other forms of viewing are factored in.

Kimmel alluded to his ratings performance on Wednesday night, and he mocked President Trump’s recent Truth Social post that bashed him.

“This was his [Trump] big closer: ‘Let Jimmy Kimmel rot in his bad ratings,’” Kimmel said. “And he does know bad ratings: He has some of the worst ratings any president has ever had. On behalf of all of us, welcome to the crappy ratings club, Mr. President.”

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

We are beginning to be inundated with polls on approval ratings for Trump.  One says this and another says that. The only real polls that matter are the ones on Election Day.  Regardless, below are summaries of eleven different polls on Trump’s approval rating.

Do with them as you wish.

Tony

———————————————————————-

The Economist

Most recent Trump approval rating, according to the  The Economist (Sept. 22, 2025):

• Favorable: 39%
• Unfavorable: 56%
• Not sure: 4%

The latest report shows that voters believe the top three most important issues Americans are facing are inflation/prices, jobs and the economy, followed by health care. This ranking has remained steady in the past few months.

Silver Bulletin

Most recent Trump approval rating according to Pollster Nate Silver’s “Silver Bulletin” newsletter (Sept. 22, 2025):

• Favorable: 45%
• Unfavorable: 52%

Rasmussen

Most recent Trump approval rating, according to the latest Rasmussen poll (Sept. 22, 2025):

• Favorable: 50%
• Unfavorable: 48%

The latest figures include 34% of U.S. voters who “strongly approve” of the job Trump is doing as president as well as 40% of voters who “strongly disapprove,” according to the report.View on Watch

New York Times

Most recent Trump approval rating, according to the latest New York Times poll (Sept. 22, 2025):

• Favorable: 43%
• Unfavorable: 54%

Quantus Insights

Most recent Trump approval rating, according to the latest from Quantus Insights poll (Sept. 22, 2025):

• Favorable: 48%
• Unfavorable: 50%
• Not sure: 2%

Real Clear Politics

Most recent Trump approval rating, according to the latest Real Clear Politics poll (Sept. 22, 2025):

• Favorable: 46%
• Unfavorable: 52%

Morning Consult

Most recent Trump approval rating, according to the latest Morning Consult poll (Sept. 22, 2025):

• Favorable: 46%
• Unfavorable: 52%

Washington Post

Most recent Trump approval rating, according to the latest Washington Post-Ipsos poll (Sept. 18, 2025):

• Favorable: 43%
• Unfavorable: 56%

Gallup

Most recent Trump approval rating, according to the latest Gallup poll (Sept. 2-15, 2025):

• Favorable: 40%
• Unfavorable: 56%
• No opinion: 4%

Emerson College

Most recent Trump approval rating, according to the latest Emerson College poll (Aug. 29, 2025):

• Favorable: 45%
• Unfavorable: 47%

Quinnipiac University

Most recent Trump approval rating, according to the latest Quinnipiac University poll (Aug. 27, 2025):

• Favorable: 37%
• Unfavorable: 55%

Note: Polls are constantly changing and different pollsters ask different varieties of the population. These numbers were reflected as of Monday, Sept. 22, 2025.

Contributing: USA TODAY network

This article originally appeared on Rockland/Westchester Journal News:

Dear Commons Community,

H. Christopher Frey has an editorial in today’s Science entitled, “The EPA’s shaken foundation” that comments on the shutdown of the EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) .  His main message is “even with many environmental challenges to address, the EPA ORD was eliminated by the Trump administration in July. Cutting the legs off a science-based agency, as well as the paucity of information about how ORD would be absorbed into policy or political parts of the agency, raises concerns that fundamental, long-term research and innovation will suffer and that EPA science will be vulnerable to political interference. This could affect national and global science for years to come.”

The entire editorial is below.

Important reading.

Tony

—————————————————–

Science

“The EPA’s shaken foundation”

H. Christopher Frey

September 25, 2025

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was founded in 1970 during a period of pervasive pollution and environmental degradation. Based on a foundational principle to follow the science, its Office of Research and Development (ORD) has since developed and translated science to inform decisions that protect human health and the environment. Yet, even with many environmental challenges to address, ORD was eliminated by the Trump administration in July. Cutting the legs off a science-based agency, as well as the paucity of information about how ORD would be absorbed into policy or political parts of the agency, raises concerns that fundamental, long-term research and innovation will suffer and that EPA science will be vulnerable to political interference. This could affect national and global science for years to come.

For more than five decades, the ORD has provided the best available science on a range of issues, including toxic chemicals and pollutants in the air, water, and soil. Some of its work has flown in the face of controversies, yet has stood the test of time. Examples include its 1992 report on the health effects of second-hand cigarette smoke; 2016 report on hydraulic fracturing; numerous toxicity assessments under its Integrated Risk Information System program such as on formaldehyde, arsenic, and chromium(VI); and Integrated Science Assessments that have established the scientific criteria for air pollutants (as required by the Clean Air Act). Its recent research has been central to ongoing and emerging issues, such as improving the management of PFAS (per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances) in the environment, and mitigating health and environmental impacts of wildfire smoke. ORD also has been a global leader in developing new, better, faster, and less expensive methods to test chemicals for health effects.

Notably, ORD was designed to be separate from EPA’s national policy-making offices and from EPA’s administrator to protect its scientists from direct managerial or political interference. Yet, as an independent program within EPA, ORD could engage with policy offices to identify information gaps that, if addressed by research, could improve the scientific basis of agency decisions. ORD also produced research to provide knowledge for states and Tribes, which generally lack resources to conduct research. Moreover, as a single research entity, ORD achieved efficiencies that would be lost by siloing research into individual EPA regulatory offices and the administrator’s office.

According to social media posts, some former ORD staff are now siloed into EPA policy offices, disconnected from an interdisciplinary camaraderie and support structure that enabled EPA to have a more holistic systems approach to addressing scientific problems. EPA also announced that it will relocate some former ORD staff into a new unit reporting directly to the administrator called the Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions. It is not yet clear what this entity will do. Further, it is not clear how scientists reassigned from ORD to the administrator’s or policy offices can be protected from political interference, a prospect further worsened by a recent executive order—Restoring Gold Standard Science—that increases political control over scientists.

The loss of ORD is already felt. For example, EPA proposes to rescind a 2009 finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health. ORD would have been able to review and update the science pertaining to the 2009 finding. Instead, EPA is relying on a controversial and unbalanced “Climate Working Group” report issued in July 2025 by the US Department of Energy. Given its extensive experience in assessment science that comports with applicable laws such as the Information Quality Act, ORD would have been in a better position to prepare a far more credible report.

Without its research arm, EPA will lack credible science to make decisions about protecting national public health and the environment. This loss also signals a reduced US commitment to the environment that weakens global public health. For example, ORD is a world leader in understanding the effect of climate change on air quality, ecosystems and water quality, community resilience, and human health, including the role of wildfires, heat, floods, and drought. Its signature scientific contributions nationally and internationally include environmental measurement methods; models of pollutant transport and fate; methods for assessing pollutant hazard and quantifying toxicity; approaches to prevent, mitigate, clean up, or destroy contaminants in the environment; and integrated assessments to address major challenges. Leaving this agency to “fly blind” without a sound scientific foundation is a threat not only to America’s well-being but also to US leadership on the world stage.

10.1126/science.aec2623

1. Christopher Freyis the Futrell Distinguished University Professor of Environmental Engineering at North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA, and served the US EPA as a deputy assistant administrator of Science Policy (2021–2022) and as the EPA science adviser and assistant administrator of the Office of Research and Development (2022–2024). [email protected]

Dear Commons Community,

Earlier this week, EDUCAUSE Review, as part of a series, had an article entitled, The AI Tsunami Is Here: Reinventing Education for the Age of AI. It is an excellent treatment of where education is and where it is heading in the future.  It makes a cogent comment that AI is not just another new technology like online learning and MOOCs but one that “raises some existential questions for the sector.” The entire article is below. 

Critical commentary!

Tony

————————————————————————————————-

EDUCAUSE Review

The AI Tsunami Is Here: Reinventing Education for the Age of AI

Authors:

Tanya Gamby, David Kil, Rachel Koblic, Paul LeBlanc, Mihnea Moldoveneau and George Siemens

Published:

Thursday, September 18, 2025

In the age of artificial intelligence, higher education must move beyond content delivery toward interactionalism—a human-centered approach to learning that fosters collaboration, creativity, adaptability, feedback, and well-being. This article series will explore this system redesign in-depth, beginning with teaching and learning.

For the last two years, the authors have been part of a new project to reimagine education for the age of AI. This initiative, launched as Matter and Space, takes a clean-sheet approach to designing a new AI-powered, end-to-end human development platform that supports not only learning but also well-being, soft skill development, and stronger human connections.

In this EDUCAUSE Review article series, we will share how we are rethinking the work of colleges and universities (and the nature of institutions themselves), the big questions we are grappling with, and what we’ve learned along the way. Our starting point is that AI is a revolutionary technology, one that will fundamentally change economic systems, science, warfare, medicine, and society. That transformation will certainly extend to higher education and knowledge work. Although colleges and universities have proven to be incredibly resilient over the centuries—absorbing technological advances such as online learning and MOOCs—AI raises some existential questions for the sector. In a rapidly advancing landscape in which humans are no longer the most powerful knowledge entities on the planet, what does it mean for colleges and universities to prepare knowledge workers for a knowledge economy? The sector is witnessing a surge of new AI-powered point solutions that address the needs and opportunities within the existing educational system. The full power of AI is unleashed when we rethink the system as a whole. That kind of redesign is what’s called for as we enter the age of AI.

Society is in the early stages of this transition, and the disruption to come will not happen overnight. There will be backlash, regulatory efforts, organized resistance, policy debates, and more. As knowledge and technology economy tasks and jobs are increasingly performed by AI systems, there will likely be higher levels of unemployment, political discontent, and even civil unrest. Society will wrestle with complex ethical questions as the responsibility for decisions that affect real people is increasingly delegated to machines housed in sprawling data centers. We’ll also likely see AI disasters that range from massive system failures in areas such as banking or utilities to AI-enabled bioterrorism, and those will spur new legislative controls. As Carlota Perez argues in Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital, the transition into a new world order will be difficult.^Footnote1 Her historical analysis shows that, eventually, the State will step in to ask one core question: “What does a good life look like for our people?” At that point, we will enter a new Golden Age, a world redefined. With this context in mind, as educators, we might then ask, “What does a university look like in the world that emerges from this period of great upheaval?”

Today, the picture is incomplete. The technology that is reshaping the world is evolving at an astonishing pace. Perez points out that AI is chapter three in an unfolding story, with digital computing comprising chapter one and connectivity (the internet, the World Wide Web, social media, and so on) being chapter two.^Footnote2 AI, perhaps the most impactful chapter yet, is the latest in a fifty-year transformation of the world. Quantum computing may be the fourth chapter, but it remains in draft form. Given these still-evolving seismic shifts, the perspectives presented in this article series are offered with humility and a degree of healthy uncertainty. In our work with Matter and Space, we are surprised almost every week by capabilities we had not anticipated, maddening failures of the technology, and the profound tension between extraordinary potential and deeply troubling questions. This article series will cover the most important aspects of our system redesign, starting with teaching and learning.

The Teaching and Learning Challenge

The first challenge cuts to the core purpose higher education: teaching and learning. For all higher education’s claims about innovation, most colleges and universities still follow a broadcast-era model—linear, monological, and stubbornly resistant to what researchers have known for years about how people actually learn. The instructor “delivers” knowledge, students “receive” it, and then students’ knowledge is assessed through assignments or exams. Yet, feedback, when it comes, is often sparse, too late, and too vague to guide real improvement. Students are left guessing where they fell short, how to improve, or why their work was successful.

This model is built on three narrowing communication channels between the instructor and the student:

1. The downlink is dense and ubiquitous. One-size-fits-all content (lectures, readings, presentations) is sent from the instructor to the learner.
2. The uplink is narrow. Quizzes, assignments, and exams are sent back to the instructor, providing a thin snapshot of progress and class standing.
3. The feedback loop is narrower still. The evaluation of student work is rarely personalized, rarely actionable, and almost never timely enough to change the outcome.

This architecture was designed for an industrial economy that prized efficiency and standardization over curiosity, adaptability, and genuine thinking. The long-promised vision of truly personalized learning—responsive to each student’s pace, gaps, and strengths—has remained largely out of reach.

The world in which this system was built no longer exists. Knowledge is everywhere, and it’s instantly accessible. Memorization as a primary skill makes little sense when any fact is a click away. Modern work demands collaboration, adaptability, and the ability to navigate uncertainty—skills developed in interaction, not isolation. And now AI has entered the room—not simply as a tool for automating tasks, but as a co-creator: asking questions, raising objections, and refining ideas. It is already better than most of us at delivering content. Which forces us to ask: If AI can do that part, what should we be doing?

We believe the answer lies in a model we call interactionalism. More than a new teaching method, interactionalism is a set of principles for designing the skills and knowledge learners need—and the mechanisms by which they acquire them—in a world where human and machine intelligence work together. It values the agency and creativity of both students and instructors.

Interactionalism has three pillars:

• Dialogical learning. Learners and AI agents engage in two-way conversational exchanges. There are no one-way lectures. Every presentation invites questions; every explanation invites challenges. Learners’ questions inform the assessment of competence just as much as their answers. Feedback is continuous, as it is in the workplace.
• Interactive skill building. As AI takes over more routine tasks, uniquely human skills—such as questioning, adapting models to context, and exercising judgment—become central. These are practiced continuously and in conversation with AI tools long before students face similar exercises in the real world.
• Meta-human skills. Beyond subject mastery, students develop metacognition (thinking about their thinking) and meta-emotional skills (managing their emotions), as well as the ability to design and refine AI agents. Proficiency in these skills enables learners to shift from being passive users to active shapers of their digital collaborators.

This approach also demands a new kind of curriculum—one that is dynamic, learner-adaptive, and co-created—and is characterized by the following features.

• Dynamic, adaptive content. The curriculum is a living entity, updated in response to new discoveries, industry changes, and students’ needs. It is modular in design and can be easily revised.
• Co-creation of learning pathways. Students collaborate with instructors to set goals and choose content. Peer-to-peer design, shared decision-making, and ongoing negotiation over scope and depth are the norm.
• Multiple perspectives and sources. Moving beyond single textbooks or single voices, learners explore diverse viewpoints, open resources, real-world data, and contributions from experts across fields.
• Formative, responsive assessments. Evaluation is integrated into the learning process through self-assessment, peer review, and authentic tasks that reflect real-world applications.
• Cultivation of self-directed learning. Students learn to chart their own learning journeys, gradually assuming more responsibility for outcomes while building skills for lifelong learning.

For instructors, this shift is profound. They move from being content deliverers to facilitators, mentors, and curators of learning communities. Intelligent agents extend their reach, providing personalized support, feedback, and intervention at scale. Classroom time is reclaimed for what humans do best: discussion, debate, simulation, and collaboration. Laptops close, and students work together on challenging applications of their learning, supported by peers and guided by faculty who know them not just as learners, but as people.

Assessment also changes. In an era where AI can produce a polished essay, solve a coding problem, or pass an exam in seconds, faculty must shift from assessing products to assessing processes. If a student writes with AI, we need to see how they prompted it, critiqued it, verified it, and improved upon it. We want to witness the reasoning, not just the result.

Here, AI becomes an enabler of scale. The most revealing form of assessment—a probing, ten-minute conversation—can now be conducted by dialogic agents for hundreds of students, surfacing the depth (or shallowness) of understanding in ways multiple-choice tests never could. In performance-based assessments, AI can help monitor and guide, much as simulators do in aviation or clinical rotations do in medicine. Soft skills, once considered too elusive to measure, are now being taught and assessed in new, empirical ways.

The goal is to move from education as content acquisition (“What do I need to know to be an X?”) to education as the cultivation of thinking, problem-solving, self-reflection, and human traits that cannot be automated: empathy, creativity, ethical reasoning, humor, and love. These are the capacities that lead not just to employability, but to resilience, flourishing, and well-being.

AI doesn’t diminish this mission—it sharpens it. The future of teaching and learning is not about keeping up with machines, but about using them to become more deeply and distinctively human.

Notes

1. Carlota Perez,Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital: The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages,(Edward Elgar Publishing, 2003).Jump back to footnote 1 in the text.↩
2. Ibid.Jump back to footnote 2 in the text.↩