Welcome to the start of the “work” week: Monday, October 20, 2025, and National Chicken and Waffles Day. I’ve never had this dish though we have several joints serving it on the South Side, as it was popular in the American South and probably brought here during the Great Migration after WWI. There is of course a Wikipedia page on the dish, and its origins go back farther than I thought:
Chicken and waffles, as a combined recipe, first appeared in the United States’ colonial period in the 1600s in Pennsylvania Dutch country. The traditional Pennsylvania Dutch version consists of a plain waffle with pulled, stewed chicken on top, covered in gravy.
A version using fried chicken is associated with the American South. The waffle is served as it would be for breakfast, with condiments such as butter and syrup. This version of the dish is popular enough in Baltimore, Maryland to become a local custom.
I think I’d like the Southern version, shown below, as I think alternating bites of the savory, crunchy chicken with the sweet, syrupy waffles would be lovely:
Evan Swigart, TheCulinaryGeek from Chicago, USA, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons
It’s also the Indian holiday of Diwali, International Chefs Day, National Brandied Fruit Day, National Mozzarella Stick Day, World Calvados Day, and World Statistics Day.
Here’s a statistic I found from AI (no guarantees of truth!): The average human spends a year of their life sitting on the toilet.
Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the October 20 Wikipedia page.
Da Nooz:
*In a NYT op-ed, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes tells us why “The Democrats’ main problem isn’t their message” (archived here). What is it, then?It’s that people aren’t hearing the Democrats’ message.
There is a necessary and invigorating debate over the direction of the Democratic Party and what it must do to regain the voters it lost in 2024 and get enough electoral victories to retake power at the federal level. Some argue that Democrats need to move to the right on certain high-profile issues — whether immigration or civil rights for trans people — while others say the Democrats need to double down on working-class populism and court voters who have given up on the system in disgust.
But one thing that tends to get lost in this discussion is that for all the failures of the Democratic Party in 2024, in narrow terms the Harris-Walz campaign’s message was actually an effective one. The campaign and its allied super PAC spent more money on advertising than any other presidential effort in history, and most of that was concentrated in the swing states. There, voters were less likely to defect to Mr. Trump than in nonswing states such as New Jersey, New York and California. And the message of those ads was in line with a lot of what many critics have suggested — focused on core economic issues and framed in populist terms, with Ms. Harris portrayed as an ally of the working class.
In other words, even though she lost, her core problem was not her message, however imperfect it might have been. It was an inability to get enough people to hear it, in spite of record-breaking advertising spending. If Mr. Trump had not run a single paid advertisement in the race, he almost surely would have dominated the single most important resource of our age: attention. Democrats need to win the attention contest in 2026 and beyond if they want to win back the country.
His solutions to capture American attention are these: Go everywhere (“In our current environment, national candidates must be comfortable talking off-script in a wide variety of venues with lots of different kinds of interlocutors.”); always be posting (“Successful campaigns must prioritize producing content. One thing successful content creators will tell you about excelling in the world of digital attention is that there’s no penalty for quantity.”); don’t worry so much about negative attention (“because of how distracted and distractible the public has become, gaffes — or controversial and even offensive statements by candidates — do not matter the way they once did”), and, finally, recruit candidates who are good at getting attention and talking to people (It almost seems ludicrous to state this explicitly, but if you’re going to compete in this new environment, you need candidates with a natural aptitude for attracting attention and then holding it?).
The last bit seems to me most important. Kamala Harris was, in my view, a dreadful candidate, regardless of how many Democrats dissimulated about the “joy” she brought. Even if she went everywhere and posted her word salar constantly, it was her word salad and her inability to answer serious questions coherently that helped cost her the election. The problem was the last point: we did NOT have a candidate with nearly any aptitude. The other points are good, but the last one is crucial. Who should we get: Newsom, Pritzker, Buttigieg, or a dark horse? My solution, which is only partly farcical, is to put James Carville in charge ot the campaign and do what he says.
*Over at Heterodox STEM, reader Coel Heller expands on an essay by Freddie deBoer, who I used to write a lot about. deBoer has not only first-hand experience in education, but is also a hereditarian, so while he asserts that throwing money at schools in a “no child left behind way” doesn’t work, he fails, says Heller, to carry his own views to their logical conclusion.
Such interventions don’t work. They’ve been tried multiple times and, as deBoer documents at length in his essay Education Doesn’t Work 3.0, they have little effect. That is, while schooling raises the ability of kids generally, all of the policy interventions ever tried do nothing to reduce the achievement gaps between the most-able and the least-able pupils. Indeed, if anything, they enhance them, because the more-capable pupils are most able to take advantage of whatever is on offer.
As deBoer says: “children who start out ahead in early childhood education stay ahead through the end of their academic careers, while the students who start out behind stay behind, in large majorities and with very few exceptions. […] Reformers talk in terms of “unlocking potential” or “closing gaps”, but history shows the rank order is remarkably resistant to even the most sweeping and expensive pedagogical efforts. Intervention after intervention has failed to meaningfully affect the sticky nature of relative academic performance”.
DeBoer thus concludes that we all have: “… an inherent or innate academic potential” and that “The most direct and parsimonious explanation for this attribute is genes”. DeBoer defends his thesis capably and at length, and obviously he is entirely correct (his article contains links and citations to support his claims, which I do not reproduce here).
Heller then notes that various genetic studies show that genetic variation for educational attainment within a population is due about 70% to variation in genes and 30% to variation in environments (I don’t know the latest figures, but that sounds close). Such genetic analysis may, as Luana and I wrote in our Skeptical Inquirer article, be useful in helping individuals. But of course the big brouhaha is not about differences among individuals within groups, but individuals between groups, mostly minorities. This is the hottest potato in genetics, and few will touch it. Heller does:
Isn’t it much simpler and more parsimonious to suppose that genetics, so dominant in explaining differences in individual ability, could also be a significant factor in group differences? Yes it is heresy, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be true. (And here I’m not attempting to survey the positive arguments for that conclusion, I’m just examining the internal logic of deBoer’s essay.) Too many treat this matter as a moral issue, when instead it is purely factual, about how the world is, not how we wish it were. In the end reality matters, and one is not going to help those who one is trying to help if the basic diagnosis is wrong.
Eventually we will know about group differences, as some researchers don’t care about taboos. And there are advantages of knowing about group differences in behavioral traits. As Luana and I wrote:
It should be clear from this example that the reasons for studying genetic differences between ethnic groups is to boost the success of individuals whose DNA is known, not to rank different groups for one trait or another. But to do this boosting, we must first understand the nature of genetic differences among groups. Many objections to this kind of work vanish when you realize that while the focus is on population-specific DNA segments associated with achievement, the ultimate goal is to help each person do their best.
In our view, then, research on cognition or educational attainment within and between groups should not be demonized, banned, or automatically denied publication, and the data should be publicly available. It goes without saying that scientists should be cautious about such research and vigilant against its misuse or misrepresentation. But in the end, it’s hard to argue with the idea that the more we understand—and that includes genetics—the more success we’ll have with social policies. Indeed, there are good arguments suggesting that stifling research on IQ, or equating this research with racism, will cause more harm than good. After all, political equality should be a moral imperative, not an empirical hypothesis, and ultimately the value of a human being does not and should not depend on their IQ or years of schooling.
Or are there some subjects where resarch should simply not be done? I think that’s true on ethical grounds, but am wary of such research being governmentally forbidden. And genetic differences among groups of people should not be forbidden, as it has the potential to help individuals. It’s not good policy to willy-nilly try various interventions to reduce or eliminate differences between groups until we know the cause of those differences. And those causes may result in educational policies being tailored not to groups, but to individuals who, by belonging to different groups, may on average have different sets of genes. In other words, we might be able to tailor educational policy to the specific genes of each individual.
*The Times of Israel reports that the slow establishment of an interim government in Gaza is allowing the revival of Hamas. SURPRISE! Did you expect otherwise?
The US and Middle Eastern mediating countries are working to put together a committee of Palestinian technocrats responsible for the postwar management of Gaza, while the pullback of Israeli forces from deep inside the enclave has allowed Hamas to reassert its control in the Strip.
US special envoy Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner and former UK prime minister Tony Blair are leading the effort on behalf of the Trump administration, with the ex-British leader crisscrossing the region to hold meetings with various stakeholders.
Each wants a say in the list of Palestinian technocrats who will serve on a transitional committee responsible for administering day-to-day affairs in Gaza.
The Palestinian committee will be overseen by a Board of Peace headed by US President Donald Trump, whose other members have also yet to be finalized.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty announced earlier this week that the Palestinian ministers have, in fact, been selected and vetted, but a source familiar with the matter denied this and claimed that the top Egyptian diplomat made the comments as part of an effort to finalize the list of candidates his country prefers, as Cairo seeks to benefit financially from the reconstruction process.
But the US and other mediating countries — Egypt, Qatar and Turkey — will also need at least the acquiescence of PA rival Hamas, given that the terror group remains the most dominant Palestinian force in Gaza and has the ability to play a spoiler role.
While Hamas has agreed to give up governing control of the Strip, the ceasefire deal inked last week in Sharm el-Sheikh did not include the issue of disarmament, and the terror group has indicated that it is not prepared to give up its weapons.
In the meantime, it is using those arms to go after rival clans in the Gaza Strip, summarily executing several dozen Palestinians it has accused of collaborating with Israel.
Anybody with two neurons to rub together realizes that Hamas will not give up power no matter who tries to run the Gaza strip. This is the toughest problem of the war, but the sooner the Arab countires confect a non-corrupt, non-Jew-hating government for Gaza, the faster we can have a peace that seems more secure. Hamas must surrender unconditionally and give up its weapons. Neither the U.S. nor Israel can require that, but perhaps the Arab states can.
*The NYT describes how fragile the peace really is right now:
Israel on Sunday launched its heaviest wave of attacks on Gaza since a fragile cease-fire took hold a week ago and said it was suspending humanitarian aid to the territory after accusing Hamas of firing on its forces and violating the truce.
Israel said two of its soldiers were killed in combat in Gaza on Sunday. Gaza’s health ministry initially reported 14 Palestinian deaths across Gaza on Sunday.
Both Israel and Hamas have now accused each other of violating the truce after repeated flare-ups of violence over the past three days. But both made clear on Sunday that they were still committed to maintaining the truce.
The transfer of aid into Gaza has been halted until further notice, according to two Israeli officials who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive issues.
Earlier in the day, the Israeli military said Palestinian militants had attacked its forces across cease-fire lines in Gaza, and it launched airstrikes in retaliation. It said the Palestinian fighters had fired an anti-tank missile at its troops and then shot at them in the Rafah area of southern Gaza that remains under Israeli control, according to the cease-fire agreement.
The military called this “a blatant violation” of the truce. In response, the military said, Israeli forces struck in the area “to eliminate the threat” and dismantle tunnel shafts and other military structures. Later Sunday, the military intensified its attacks, saying it struck dozens of Hamas targets throughout the Gaza Strip.
Yes, I agree that Israel has the right to defend itself in Gaza, even after it’s pulled back, if the IDF is fired on. And Hamas will push the IDF as far as they can. But I agree with a comment that reader Norm made yesterday:
I want Israel to adhere to the agreement until Hamas breaks it definitively. Failing to return all of the dead hostages on time is not definitive, as there is room for doubt over whether Hamas really has them or not. (Returning hostages a couple at a time when Israel raises hell does suggest that Hamas is withholding bodies, but it’s not definitive—or “definitive enough” in my view.) Hamas will break the agreement definitely at some point, and Israel will need to respond. But I want the U.S. and the other partners in the region to see the response as justified—whether they say so publicly or not.
*I haven’t posted much about Andrew Sullivan’s Weekly Dish columns, but that’s due largely to the time they arrive (late afternoon), after I’ve already written up the Nooz for the next day. So I’ll highlight his latest piece, “The secret of Trump’s Gaza Triumph,” subtitled “Who could have foreseen the president’s stunning innovation?” Sullivan’s big question is why this triumph, which is what he considers it, happened now rather than before:
The release of the Israeli hostages (no women tellingly and appallingly among them) is an unalloyed wonderful thing. I can’t imagine what these poor souls have gone through, or what was done to them solely because they are Jews. The return of the remains of the rest is also positive, of course, if it transpires, however grim the reality. The return of aid, if it truly gets under way, will be literally lifesaving — which even the Queers for Palestine must be able to celebrate. No one should begrudge a US president credit for helping make that happen. I sure don’t. And pausing this conflict is a real, if modest, gain.
But the $64,000 question, of course, is how and why this happened now rather than before. After all, Hamas offered a similar hostage deal for a ceasefire in April this year and October last year, and Netanyahu said no, insisting that Hamas needed to be totally destroyed and brought to “unconditional surrender” — or another 10/7 was inevitable. So what changed, after so little did?
. . .The latest Gaza offensive was still taking place, remember, after the Hamas leadership had been largely wiped out, after the entire Gaza strip, including Rafah, had been made uninhabitable, after Hezbollah had been taken out of the game, after Iran had been attacked and its nuclear threat dented, after hundreds of thousands of civilians had been displaced not once, not twice, but multiple times, after 70,000 lay dead, including many thousands of children, and after Gaza had been brought to the verge of famine. Still not enough, we were told. Hamas was like the armless, legless Knight in Monty Python’s Holy Grail — and yet somehow still lethal.
So if none of those things had caused Israel to stop its relentless assault on Gaza and its population, what had?
Here’s Sullivan’s answer:
And then you see it. The critical thing that happened — the thing that changed the entire dynamic — is that Netanyahu finally got so cocky last month he decided to bomb Qatar. Israel bombs other countries all the time at will, of course, but the concept of actually bombing Hamas diplomats while in negotiation must have been particularly irresistible: the mother of all fuck-yous to international law.
The only trouble was that this time, Bibi had bombed Trump’s Qatari sugar-daddies — the ones who’d just bribed the fathomlessly corrupt president with a giant 747 and were busy funneling billions into Jared’s bank account. Worse than that: Bibi hadn’t even bothered to tell the US in advance. So Trump was totally blindsided and humiliated.
Think about that for a moment: the prime minister of a foreign country believed he could bomb diplomats of a US ally and military base without telling the US in advance and get away with it. This staggering Israel exception to every rule is so routine we barely even notice it anymore. But in this case, the bombing made Trump seem less powerful than Netanyahu.
. . .Trump did something else as well: finally pissed off enough, he told Arab leaders that if they backed his Gaza deal, the US would prevent Israel from formally annexing the West Bank, despite the vicious campaign of violence and ethnic cleansing Netanyahu was unleashing there.
In other words, Trump finally did what no president had done for a very, very long time: he put real pressure on Israel. His rage after the Qatar bombing was the catalyst.
. . . You want to know the secret genius of Trump’s Gaza deal? It’s America First. A US president finally put the US interests ahead of Israel’s, and didn’t blink. Fuck yeah.
This all makes sense, as things happened very quickly after the Qatar bombing, though Qatar isn’t really a U.S. ally, since at the same time it harbors a U.S. airbase, it harbors Hamas bigwigs and funnels money to Hamas. But this is a pretty temperate column for Sullivan, who seems to have been pretty anti-Israel for a long time. He’s happy that “Trump and future presidents will begin to see the potential benefits of doing the thing that actually made this possible: treating Israel as a normal ally, whose interests matter but should never eclipse that of the superpower.” But Israel is more than just a “normal ally”; it’s the only bastion of democracy in the Middle East and the only refuge of the Jews. Still, it’s hard to deny that, at least at this stage, Trump did a good thing, walking a fine tightrope to bring peace. And Israel should not have bombed Qatar without consulting the U.S., which would have forbidden it. But is it now “peace for our time” or simply a pause in the war as Hamas rebuilds? I’m hoping for the former but betting on the latter.
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili’s having translation problems:
Hili: I hear a mole.
Andrzej: And what is it saying?
Hili: I don’t know, it’s speaking a foreign language.
In Polish:
Hili: Słyszę kreta.
Ja: I co on mówi?
Hili: Nie wiem, mówi w obcym języku.
*******************
From Give Me a Sign:
From Animal Antics,, a d*g is undergoing deep introspection:
From The Dodo Pet:
Masih points out the hypocrisy of Iran’s leaders (read all the text):
The daughter of Ali Shamkhani one of the Islamic Republic’s top enforcers had a lavish wedding in a strapless dress. Meanwhile, women in Iran are beaten for showing their hair and young people can’t afford to marry. This video made millions of Iranian furious. Because they… https://t.co/MAb9hNgBnN pic.twitter.com/WoRgbpXQFA
— Masih Alinejad 🏳️ (@AlinejadMasih) October 19, 2025
From Ricky Gervais (do watch “After Life”), things that can’t be said too often, including “You might not know it’s the last time.”
If you think Ricky Gervais is just a comedian, then you’re not listening.
“Once you realise you’re not gonna be around forever, I think that’s what makes life so magical.” pic.twitter.com/GrKChdvGxX
— After Life 🐕🦺 (@ForAntilly) October 19, 2025
From Malcolm, with a new hypothesis advanced:
I think cats and their tails have separate consciousnesses 🤣🧡pic.twitter.com/Ul4U1yxoDT
— No Cats No Life (@NoCatsNoLife_m) September 8, 2025
From Luana. OY!
I helped my dad clean out the basement and found this book, I’m an only child. 👀 pic.twitter.com/Y6QaVy6pZO
— SweetMarie (@Oceanbreeze473) October 17, 2025
One from my feed. This rhino clearly didn’t appreciate his ride, and he shows it. What amazing strength!
He was walking off and then was like “and you know what?!” pic.twitter.com/7gTN1cm6HU
— internet hall of fame (@InternetH0F) October 19, 2025
One I retweeted from The Auschwitz Memorial:
This Dutch Jewish girl was gassed to death, together with her mother, as soon as they arrived in Auschwitz. She was six years old. Had she lived, she’d be 87 today.
— Jerry Coyne (@evolutionistrue.bsky.social) 2025-10-20T10:39:45.194Z
Two from Matthew. Here’s the first post in a thread of his visit to the Shanghai Museum of Natural History:
I feel as though I have been miniaturised and am in one of @tetzoo.bsky.social’s display cabinets…
— Matthew Cobb (@matthewcobb.bsky.social) 2025-10-19T09:14:18.450Z
Protests in Chicago. Matthew adds: “They are chanting “Move Back” which is what the cops say, I guess. dig the Angler Fish suit.”
Im dead 😂😂😂
— CarpinSanDiego (@carpinsandiego.com) 2025-10-19T00:06:28.455Z
