Main page    Mar. 06

Senate map
Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu

New polls:  
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)

TrumpWatch, Part I: Noem Learns You Don't Steal from Uncle Sam without Uncle Donald's Approval

The wait is finally over, and we know which Trump v2.0 Cabinet member will be the first to be cashiered. It is, of course, now-former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, who got a pink slip from Donald Trump yesterday. Actually, we haven't been able to confirm this, but despite being famous for "You're fired!," Trump famously lacks the fortitude to swing the axe himself. So, it was probably someone like Chief of Staff Susie Wiles who actually did the deed.

There was a long list of good reasons to fire Noem. She has overseen several ICE operations that were incredibly cruel, and politically disastrous, with Minnesota at the top of the list. She's been a grifter's grifter, from taking up residence in the house that's supposed to go to the Commandant of the Coast Guard, to spending tens of millions on bordello-in-the-sky luxury jets, to giving out sweetheart deals to various contractors. She's said all kinds of impolitic, and often racist, things. She's lied under oath, over and over again. She's been "very close" to Corey Lewandowski, and both of them have been extremely abusive to the people working underneath them.

But what actually did Noem in was that she violated Rule #1 of the Trump administration, which is "You don't embarrass The Donald." Her appearance before Congress, which we wrote about yesterday, was reprehensible. Yes, AG Pam Bondi pulled the same stunt, and was no worse the wear for it (or, at very least, Bondi did not lose her job within 48 hours of her appearance). The fatal mistake by Noem was that she not only executed a nine-figure grift—with that silly advertising contract she awarded without soliciting bids—but when the members of Congress challenged her on it, she threw Trump under the bus and claimed he'd approved it. Trump very clearly has no problem with grift, if he's aware of it, and especially if he's also benefiting from it. But he apparently did not approve the ad campaign (a campaign that angered even many Republicans in Congress), and he certainly did not appreciate being used by Noem like that. So, she's out.

That said, she's not 100% out. She will have to vacate the free house she's been living in, and presumably the jets are in her past, and she and Lewandowski will just have to get a hotel room like everyone else. However, Trump has appointed Noem to a newly created position, Special Envoy for "Shield of the Americas." This is an initiative from the Trump administration that is something like NATO, but for the Western Hemisphere. We don't quite understand why the White House engineered a soft landing for Noem, in view of Trump's irritation with her, but maybe this is a "better to have her inside the tent pissing out" situation, especially since she must know things that would be problematic for the administration if they were to come up in, say, a court hearing.

Trump has already nominated a replacement for Noem, Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK). We were very, very surprised when we learned that Mullin accepted the offer. As a Republican senator from one of the reddest states in the country, Mullin should theoretically have a job for as long as he wants it. Yes, he is up this year, and would have to win reelection, but there's no lane to the right of him, and running to the left of him is political suicide in the Sooner State. Now, he's thrown that away for a job that will last 3 years at best, much less than that at worst, and that will require regular and sustained pressing of Mullin's lips to Trump's hindquarters.

We will note that Mullin isn't a great fit for the Senate, culturally. He's the only current member without a college degree, and while that's not always important, in his case, it very much shows. He's said many and numerous ill-informed and embarrassing things during his fairly brief tenure; the most recent was not knowing that there have been two ayatollahs who ruled Iran, first Khomeini then Khamenei. He's also a very crude man; he once tried to provoke a fistfight during a committee hearing, for example, and he also likes to take embarrassing photos of people when they are asleep. It is possible that Mullin just doesn't like the job, in the same way that Sen. John Fetterman (D?-PA), who is also a poor fit for the culture of the Senate—albeit in different ways—also doesn't like the job. In any event, "ill-informed," "boorish," "disrespectful of other people's boundaries" and "100% MAGA" mean that Mullin is ideally suited to lead DHS in a Trump administration. He still has to be confirmed by the Senate, of course, but they rarely give the thumbs down to one of their own.

In contrast to his first presidential term, Trump has been notably—and, by all accounts, consciously—reluctant to fire his Cabinet members and to "give Democrats a scalp" (his words, reportedly). But it has also been reported that once the administration had passed the 1-year mark, all bets were off. Well, it has, and now the first head has rolled. Will others soon follow? There is certainly no shortage of candidates, even if the only excludable offense in this administration is "You made the president look bad." (Z)

TrumpWatch, Part II: Is Bondi the Least Secure Member of the Cabinet Still Standing?

We have been following Kalshi's futures market for "Who will be the first/next person to be fired from the Trump Cabinet?" for months; it's been an interesting horse race. Kristi Noem was often in the lead, and those folks who invested money in her are obviously pretty happy today.

But "often in the lead" is not "always in the lead." There are, in fact, three different members of the administration who have been trading off, with the result that they've all spent roughly equal amounts of time as the frontrunner. The second one, after Noem, is Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick. He often surges when there is bad economic news, since bad economic news is never, ever Trump's fault, no matter how ill-conceived his policies might be. Lutnick also surged when he was caught lying about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Truth be told, we don't quite get the bettors who found that meaningful. It is rather implausible to push Lutnick out on the basis of his Epstein connections without at least implicitly acknowledging that Epstein is a big deal and a problem. That, in turn, would make a statement about the fellow in the Oval Office, who has far more connections to Epstein than Lutnick does.

The other Cabinet member who sometimes leads the horse race (and, in fact, was in the lead for most of February) is "Attorney General" Pam Bondi. She's a very... interesting case study. On one hand, she has no apparent limits in terms of what she's willing to do to keep the Dear Leader happy. Trump loves that, because his previous AGs, Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr, would sometimes say "no." On the other hand, what Trump does not understand is that Sessions and Barr generally did not say "no" because of their strong legal ethics, or their commitment to truth, justice and the American way. They said "no" because they are clever enough to know that some of the things Trump wants are not doable, and are sure to end in disaster. Bondi either doesn't know that, or doesn't care, with the result that she keeps embarrassing the administration and aggravating Republicans in Congress. This combination was fatal for Noem (see above), and it might be enough to cost Bondi her job, too, despite her unwavering sycophancy.

For example, on Monday, Bondi and the Department of Justice filed a motion to withdraw their appeal in a case won by law firms after they fought back against Trump's Executive Order to blackmail them into submission. Those law firms are Perkins Coie, Wilmer Hale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey. The ink was barely dry on that motion when, on Tuesday, the DoJ filed another motion, entitled "Motion to Withdraw Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Appeals." You can't make this stuff up. The once-venerated DoJ has been reduced to a bumbling outfit not worthy of an ambulance chaser. It's both sad and incredibly embarrassing. Meanwhile, if they continue the appeal, their opening brief is due on Friday.

It's really difficult to understand the thought process here... if there is one. Both filings were signed by the same Deputy Associate Attorney General under the direction of Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward. Readers may remember Woodward as the "architect" of Trump's legal strategy in the federal criminal cases against him. He has represented Kash Patel, Peter Navarro, Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) and many 1/6 defendants. Woodward was then tasked with representing Walt Nauta, a potential eyewitness in the classified documents case, to ensure he did not flip. Point is, like Bondi, Woodward is certainly in the bag for Trump and for MAGA. So why would he abandon the appeal, and then make a 180-degree turn 24 hours later?

Some have speculated that the DoJ's flunkies lawyers are concerned that withdrawing the appeal could derail deals with the law firms that folded instead of fighting. But the problem with that theory is that an adverse ruling in the court of appeal would be precedential and would put those deals in jeopardy more than the current lower court ruling that arguably only impacts the parties to the case. And it's worth noting that the district court's decision is final until it's overruled, so these firms are free to represent whomever they wish without fear from Trump. So, there's really no downside for the law firms if the appeal continues and drags out until Trump is no longer in office. In the meantime, the DoJ has to put together some plausible, legal basis for an appeal, and apparently they were having trouble. Add it all up—the appeal is likely to go badly, a failed appeal will do a fair bit of legal and PR damage for the administration, and the law firms can do as they please while all this plays out, and you can see why the DoJ decided this particular battle was hopeless, and so they decided to withdraw.

But then why change course? Well, if Trump got wind of the withdrawal and saw those negative headlines, he could very well have put the Justice Department in yet another precarious and unprincipled position and demanded they withdraw the withdrawal. As we know, when Trump says "Jump!" Bondi & Co. say, "How high, Your Eminence?" The court of appeal could yet save the DoJ by saying no take-backsies, and that the original request for withdrawal stands, but as (L)'s contracts professor was fond of saying, "The courts will not save you from your schmoeness." So, probably not.

Further, in addition to the gross incompetence and corruption of the people currently running the DoJ, Bondi now wants to neutralize one of the few avenues to address misconduct by government lawyers—state bar disciplinary proceedings. An attorney must be licensed in order to practice law and that license is issued by the state bar where the attorney took and passed the bar exam. That license requires attorneys to adhere to professional standards and ethics, and they can be disciplined, up to and including losing their license to practice, if they violate those standards and ethics. For example, Lindsey Halligan was accused of lying to a federal grand jury. That violates federal law, but don't hold your breath waiting for this DoJ to hold her accountable. However, the state bar where she has her license, in this case Florida, can open disciplinary proceedings and she can be disbarred because of that conduct. Readers may recall that Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman were disbarred because of their involvement in trying to overturn the 2020 election results.

Well, Bondi does not want her attorneys constrained by any notions of ethics or professional standards, and those state bar proceedings are seriously cramping her style and interfering with her suppliancancy to Trump. She has proposed a new federal regulation that would authorize the department to conduct a "review" of any state bar complaint or investigation involving a DoJ attorney. During this review, the AG would request that the state bar "suspend any investigative steps that require information or other participation from a Department attorney in response to the allegations pending completion of her review." Not surprisingly, there is no timeline on the so-called review, so if the state bar goes along with this, that essentially kills the investigation and any appropriate accountability. And if the state bar authorities refuse the AG's request, "the Department shall take appropriate action to prevent the bar disciplinary authorities from interfering with the Attorney General's review of the allegations."

In other words, "nice licensing authority you have there, it would be a shame if something happened to it." This is an absolute power grab and an effort to intimidate state bar authorities to drop any efforts to hold federal prosecutors to account and deter unlawful behavior. These investigations are arguably especially critical now, since the current DoJ has largely abdicated its responsibility to enforce ethics rules and is encouraging its line attorneys to violate court orders, lie to judges and submit baseless claims and arguments. Not surprisingly, the proposed regulation brings up this administration's favorite chestnut as a justification—that the state bar complaint process has been "weaponized" by "political activists" who are filing complaints against DoJ officials. Gee, could it be that the complaints have merit and these attorneys should be disciplined for their unlawful behavior? Nah, the answer is clearly to shut those investigations down because the process is "chilling the zealous advocacy" of Pam's lawyers. In other words, they are reluctant to do Trump's bidding and lie to the courts and violate court orders, because they don't want to lose their licenses. As such, Bondi can't "manage and supervise" them as effectively. Really, that's the argument she makes.

The DoJ has no control over state disciplinary proceedings. But it's no doubt true that there is usually cooperation between the DoJ and a state bar because, in normal times, both agencies are trying to uphold the law and rein in attorneys who behaved unethically. But now you have a DoJ who is demanding unethical behavior in its lawyers and does not want them to refuse based on a fear that they are putting their professional lives at risk. So, if this intimidation effort is successful, any state bar investigation against a federal prosecutor will be indefinitely delayed and yet one more guardrail will fall in our legal system.

There is also another problem here, namely that state bar complaints are confidential. If an investigation is opened, the attorney is informed but does not necessarily know who filed the complaint. If the initial investigation shows the complaint may have a basis, then the attorney will be told the complainant's identity in order to defend themselves, but the complaint is not shared with other parties, much less the attorney's employer. This is to protect the complaining party. If state bar authorities agree to turn over all complaints of federal prosecutors to Pam Bondi, this would put those complainants at risk and would have an immediate chilling effect on efforts to bring unethical conduct to light.

And to add to this toxic stew, we can throw in a healthy dose of hypocrisy because Bondi is issuing this regulation while she, herself, is "weaponizing" the state bar complaint process against a former senior antitrust lawyer, Roger Alford. Bondi is trying to have him disbarred for having the temerity to call out the corruption of senior Justice Department officials during a merger settlement. Alford was forced out of his position for raising those concerns and now Bondi is retaliating against him by filing a state bar complaint. The comment period for this proposed regulation is still open. Comments can be submitted at www.regulations.gov. The agency is DOJ and the docket no. is DOJ-AOG-2026-0001. As of today, it's also listed under "What's Trending" on the main page. (L & Z)

In Congress: How Will the Slate of Senate Candidates in Montana Shake Out?

We wrote yesterday about how Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) manipulated the system, waiting until the very last minute to announce his retirement, such that only his handpicked successor had time to file paperwork before the deadline arrived. This not only kept any serious Republican from jumping in, it also meant that serious Democrats had no opportunity to ponder whether they might like to take a shot at what is now an open seat.

This obvious, undemocratic chicanery is not going over well in Montana, including with many Republicans. Montana is a pretty red state, at R+10, but its redness is not the same redness as in, say, Mississippi. There is much that is populist and much that is libertarian in Montana politics, with the result that while the Democrats have no real bench in some double-digit R states (like, say, the R+11 Mississippi), they actually do have a bench in Big Sky Country. To wit, Jon Tester represented the state in the U.S. Senate until January of last year, while each of the two governors before the current one—Brian Schweitzer (70) and Steve Bullock (59)—were Democrats, and are still young enough to run.

To review, then, these are the circumstances: (1) the Republican frontrunner in the Senate race, Kurt Alme, now has an odor attached to him that may linger until Election Day, (2) there is at least some reason to believe this is a wave year, (3) the Democrats do have viable candidates to challenge Alme, and (4) if there was any hope at all of a flip, the preferred candidate of the Democrats would be awash in money, from all corners of the United States. Given all of this, we thought we'd take a look at how the blue team might play this. We see four basic possibilities:

  1. Back the Democrat: This is the safest option, of course. There are currently three Democrats whose paperwork is filed and approved. Alani Bankhead is a woman, and a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force. Michael Black Wolf is a member of the Fort Belknap Indian Community. He has the endorsement of state Sen. Jonathan Windy Boy (D), but will never get the endorsement of Donald Windbag. Reilly Neill served one term in the state legislature. One can see the potential appeal of all three of these folks.

    There are also two candidates who have filed paperwork, but the paperwork is still in process. These are Michael Hummert, who is a perennial candidate, and Christopher Kehoe, who appears to teach acting at the University of Montana, Missoula. It is rather harder to see the appeal of these two candidates. In any event, the national and state Democratic organs largely do not involve themselves in primaries, but they will certainly get involved in the general. And if the blue team somehow gets lucky, and one of these people proves to be the second coming of, well, Jon Tester, then that involvement could be substantial. As we noted yesterday, a little money goes a long way in Montana.

  2. Back the Independent: Also noted in yesterday's item is that the non-Republican with the highest name recognition in this race is actually Seth Bodnar, who was president of the University of Montana until January of this year. He is something of a dream candidate for the Democrats. Bodnar graduated West Point, and then was a Rhodes Scholar. He has two Master's degrees, one in History and one in Social Policy. He served in the 101st Airborne Division (the famed "Screaming Eagles") and as a Green Beret and is currently a lieutenant colonel in the Montana National Guard.

    Bodnar's politics are not exactly well-known, but what is known is that he considered running as a Democrat in this race, and was warned off by Tester, who said that the Democratic "brand" was always a huge obstacle for him to overcome. Obviously, this tells us that Bodnar is not a closet MAGA man, and is presumably either a centrist or is left of center. That said, as somewhat of a black box, he can define himself, rather than letting the (D) or (R) do it for him. Further, not only does an (I) allow him to escape the Democratic "brand," it also gives (R)'s who simply won't vote (D), but who also don't want to support the current administration, an alternative.

    We would guess that, either now, or once the primaries are over, the various Democratic organs will line up behind Bodnar. He clearly has the best hopes of victory, along the same lines as Dan Osborn (I) in Nebraska or Sen. Angus King (I) in Maine. It is worth noting that in every one of King's three successful U.S. Senate campaigns, there was a Democratic nominee, but that most Maine Democrats voted for the blue team's "real" candidate, namely King.

  3. The Murkowski Maneuver: It is possible that Tester, Schweitzer and/or Bullock took a pass because they did not want to square off against a sitting Republican senator in a red state, and that they would have gotten in if they had known what Daines planned to do. If so, all is not lost. Montana does allow write-in candidates; they just have to submit a letter of intent 90 or more days before the general election. Most readers will recall that Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) was elected to her second term this way, after various party machinations left her on the outside looking in. And "Murkowski" is much harder to spell than "Tester" or "Bullock." Probably a little easier than "Schweitzer," though.

  4. The Biden Maneuver: In Montana, if a party's U.S. Senate nominee drops out after the primary, but before the general election, then state law (specifically, MCA 13-10-327) empowers the state party committee to choose a replacement.

    If the Democrats wanted to travel this path, they would first have to offer the winner of the Democratic primary something to make it worth their while to drop out (e.g., "How would you like to be named Ambassador to the Bahamas the next time a Democrat is president?"). Then, that person would have to come up with a plausible non-political reason to drop out, like they have a sick granny to take care of, or something like that. If the reason for dropping out appeared to be political in nature, then the Democrats would look just as bad as the Republicans do right now, and would cede any "they gamed the system" moral high ground. Then, once the actual nominee jumped ship, one of the high-profile Democrats would have to pretend to be drafted into service, with great reluctance, for the good of the party/the state/mom/apple pie/whatever.

We don't expect that either of the more unorthodox possibilities—#3 and #4—will come to pass. That said, nobody expected the original versions of the Murkowski Maneuver and the Biden Maneuver to happen until they did. So, it's at least worth noting them, just in case. We do think #2 is very plausible, though. And so, this race could end up being one to watch, when just 48 hours ago it seemed to be as boring as a Trump State of the Union Address. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Stale Cupcakes

Last week's headlines were all song titles, and we gave the hint: "for one of the songs, it is NOT the Michael Jackson version we have in mind." On Saturday, we added: "The theme is rather on-point when it comes to the rhetoric of the current administration, particularly as practiced by one Stephen Miller." And here is the solution, courtesy of reader N.S. in Los Angeles, CA:

These headlines all are the titles of songs by artists with names that are (or contain) words that are used to disparage immigrants.

As great as MJ is as an artist and performer, I prefer the Alien Ant Farm cover of that song. It's silly but still badass, and that drum fill leading into the 2nd verse (and repeated after the last chorus) rules.

"Stale Cupcakes," recorded under the stage name Animal Crossing, also fits. See Donald Trump's 2015 launch speech when he referred to Mexican immigrants as "animals."

Here are the first 60 readers to get it right:

  1. J.N. in Zionsville, IN
  2. M.M. in Dunellen, NJ
  3. E.S. in Providence, RI
  4. S.K. in Ardmore, PA
  5. D.L. in Uslar, Germany
  6. M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO
  7. I.H. in Washington D.C.
  8. G.W. in Avon, CT
  9. M.S. in Canton, NY
  10. T.K. in Manchester, MO
  11. D.K. in Bethesda, MD
  12. P.Q. in Metuchen, NJ
  13. P.R. in Havertown, PA
  14. M.W. in Altea, Spain
  15. J.F. in Fayetteville, NC
  16. D.G. in Wood-Ridge, NJ
  17. P.A. in Redwood City, CA
  18. K.J.O. in Brookdale, NJ
  19. T.V. in Dinwiddie, VA
  20. M.W. in Marlborough, CT
  21. S.G. in Durham, NC
  22. S.S. in Lucerne, Switzerland
  23. C.R. in Salt Lake City, UT
  24. J.S. in Columbia, MO
  25. M.B. in Albany, NY
  26. R.E. in Birmingham, AL
  27. B.M. in Chico, CA
  28. D.O. in Brookline, MA
  29. T.P. in Kings Park, NY
  30. J.M.R. in Muncie, IN
  1. K.R. in Austin, TX
  2. S.H. in College Park, MD
  3. A.F. in Minneapolis, MN
  4. M.K. in Seattle, WA
  5. D.W. in Gurnee, IL
  6. J.J. in Johnstown, PA
  7. T.D. in Chicago, IL
  8. G.G. in Nottinghamshire, UK, England
  9. M.S. in Poplar Bluff, MO
  10. S.J. in Santa Cruz, CA
  11. J.S. in Pittsburgh, PA
  12. M.H. in Ottawa, ON, Canada
  13. P.W. in Tulalip, WA
  14. J.E. in San Jose, CA
  15. N.S. in Los Angeles
  16. S.M. in Warren, MI
  17. A.P. in Gaithersburg, MD
  18. B.B. in Avon, CT
  19. N.H. in London, England, UK
  20. R.P. in Brooklyn, NY
  21. T.T. in Conway, AR
  22. J.M.R. in Chappaqua, NY
  23. A.D. in Vass, NC
  24. K.L. in Sterling, VA
  25. A.R. in Los Angeles, CA
  26. P.H. in Fort Lauderdale, FL
  27. P.H. in Bozeman, MT
  28. J.E. in Gilbertsville, PA
  29. K.J. in Toronto, ON, Canada
  30. D.L. in Springfield, IL

The 60th correct response was received at 7:58 a.m. PT on Saturday.

For this week's theme, it relies on one word per headline, and it's in the category Language. For a hint, we'll tell you that you might have an advantage if you were in a dusty study right now, eating a cheap peach, and enjoying a nice, large lager.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line March 6 Headlines. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Americans Aren't Buying Trump's Tall Tales about his Ballroom

To hear Donald Trump tell it, the White House desperately needs a massive ballroom, because, um... reasons. Indeed, it's hard to understand how Franklin D. Roosevelt won World War II, or how the Nixon administration managed to put men on the moon, without adequate space for their balls. Trump also insists that the new ballroom needs to look like Louis XIV's personal decorator had a psychotic episode very classy.

The new design has already been approved by the Commission of Fine Arts, which was generously salted with Trump sycophants. Yesterday, the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) was supposed to vote on whether it would give its approval. And by statute, the NCPC must open projects to public comment, and must consider that feedback. As you might imagine, this particular project attracted a few comments. In fact, it got more than 35,000 of them, filling more than 9,000 pages.

The majority of the comments are negative, as you might guess. How big a majority? According to an analysis by CNN, 97%. The volume of comments is so vast that the PDFs of them posted to the Internet by the NCPC had to be broken into many different pieces. Here is the largest of those files, for anyone who cares to peruse some of the feedback themselves. A (very partial) list of words that appear 100+ times:

Care to guess which of these words appears most frequently? We'll tell you at the end. Meanwhile, here are some other phrases that make an appearance (sometimes many appearances):

Yep, people are not happy.

By all indications, the NCPC was ready to give the thumbs up yesterday. But once the members became aware of the tone, tenor and number of comments, they decided they needed more time to think. So, they will vote on April 2, instead. We imagine that this extra month is merely intended to give the impression of deliberation, and that they will give their stamp of approval on that date. We also imagine that if they don't vote to approve, Trump will just ignore them.

That means that if you're in the (apparent) 97% that dislikes this whole scheme, your best hope probably still lies in the several court cases in which the expansion is being challenged. As Trump himself has demonstrated, time and again, it doesn't matter if you win, as long as you can just run out the clock. We would guess that "ballroom project" does not qualify as "high priority," so this could well get pushed back until there's a new president who will actually cross the t's and dot the i's and perhaps even bring a little discretion and taste to the whole thing.

Meanwhile, we recognize that the 97% who sent in negative comments are a self-selected group, and do not precisely reflect the views of the larger populace. But the polls do show it's about 2-to-1 against, with virtually all Democrats and two-thirds of independents hating the idea. It is a rare politician who would move forward with something that unpopular. But Trump, of course, rarely backs down on ego-related things like this. Plus, he's now got a big hole in the ground, so he's pretty much stuck at this point.

Oh, and the most common of those words: "monstrosity," by a long shot, followed by "gaudy," "gilded," "vanity" and "disgrace." (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Much Better Than Buying a Tesla

At the moment, there appears to be an irresistible force in American politics, namely the rise and spread of AI. There also appears to be an immovable object, namely voters' opposition to data centers, and the jobs they might supplant, and the electricity they consume, and the global warming they help cause.

We do not presume to know how this struggle will shake out. However, American politics has a long history of people finding solutions that make both sides somewhat happy (and both sides somewhat unhappy; such is the nature of compromise). This being the case, we thought we'd pass along a news story out of the U.K., where some Londoners seem to have found a way for the irresistible force and the immovable object to coexist.

The data center in question here is the Mopac Tower Data Centre, which is going to be constructed in Kensington, in West London. It is expected to handle all the data needs of the Metropolitan Police (probably known better to Americans, and to Sherlock Holmes fans, as "Scotland Yard"). While there will be some AI stuff, the greater demands are for the storage of data and the handling of telephone and radio communications.

Unlike some English-speaking nations that used to be ruled by King George III, the Brits take global warming seriously, and so the goal is for the data center to be net zero from day one, and eventually to be energy positive, meaning it will supply more energy than it uses. The way this will be accomplished, if everything goes according to plan, is to use the heat produced by the data center to provide heating (air and water) to 4,000 nearby residences.

This is a pretty massive engineering feat, and similar projects have run into technical and logistical problems. Still, considerable progress has been made when it comes to turning theory into reality. And perhaps the best indicator that this might just work is that of the £10 billion outlay that will be needed for the project, only £1.3 billion is public money. In other words, this isn't the government taking a moon shot, it's mostly private investors putting their money where their mouth is.

It's a pretty promising example of trying to find win-win solutions. One can only hope that certain other English-speaking countries that used to be ruled by King George III can get to the point that they too can get serious about trying to find win-win solutions to global warming, as opposed to having a major political faction where most members believe that global warming is a hoax, and therefore that all proposed solutions are fake news.

Have a good weekend, all! (Z)


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones