News

Collins asks Trump to skip Maine, then confirms two of his anti-abortion judges in the same week.

By LouOne More Question · the wee small hours edition, 7 October 2026

I keep the notebook on a shelf in the garage, above the workbench, next to the coffee can of mismatched screws and a tape measure that doesn't snap all the way back in anymore. It took longer than it should have to find the right page, because I file things by month, which is not the same as filing them by anything useful. I almost gave up twice. But there it was: September 18th, underlined twice, because I didn't trust myself to find it the first time.

That's the first date I have down. Common Dreams had Senator Susan Collins voting, again, to confirm an anti-abortion judge to a federal bench — a lifetime appointment, the kind that outlasts whoever happens to be president when the vote gets taken. The judge was Kasdin Miller Mitchell, a former solicitor general of Alabama, a clerk for a sitting justice. The headline on the piece said two judges confirmed that week. My notebook has the one name in it. Where would the second one go — on the same page, or a different one I haven't found yet?

Troy Jackson, who's running against her, was quoted that day: "enough is enough." I wrote that down under Kasdin Miller Mitchell's name, in quotes, because I try to get the quotes exact.

Two weeks later, October 2nd — a different page, I almost missed it — a CBS News poll had Collins and Jackson tied. The poll didn't say why. It just said tied.

Then Tuesday. The debate. Collins told the room she is "not exactly his favorite senator." She was asked, twice, whether she'd campaign alongside Trump if he came through Maine, and she didn't say yes — the New York Post has her nudging him to stay away entirely. The Washington Examiner had her underscoring her differences with him and his policies. She's the only Republican holding a Senate seat in a state Kamala Harris won in 2024.

I wrote all of that on the same page as September 18th, because it's the same hand that confirmed the judge and the hand that says it isn't close to the man who nominated him.

Also on that page: Collins is "exploring" a block on the administration's $810 million rescission. The spending happened first. The exploring came after. I've got it in that order in the notebook, because that's the order it happened in.

Jackson spent part of the debate going after her on voter ID. The New York Post called it a binder's worth of notes — a big fat one, they said. The story didn't say how many pages.

Oh — hold on, before I put this away and go see about the tire that's been low all week. There's one more thing in here, near the bottom of the same page.

The Washington Examiner also had Jackson asked, that same night, about his own ties to the DSA. Not Collins's ties. His. I looked for a page where he answered it. I don't have one. What I have is a sentence that says he wouldn't confirm it.

So the binder's for her. Did he bring one for himself?

This story on its own page →

Branded 'cowardice, not conviction' two weeks ago, Michigan and Georgia Republicans try it again on debate night.

By SalStaff Writer · the wee small hours edition, 7 October 2026

Tuesday night, two states, two Republican candidates for governor found the same exit and used it on live television. In Michigan, Rep. John James stood across from Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson in the first debate of the race, and Benson spent the hour doing what everyone in that state already knows how to do: she called him a Trump-backed congressman, over and over, until he had to answer for the name attached to him. In Georgia, Republican Rick Jackson met Democrat Keisha Lance Bottoms at a town hall the same night, and spent his own hour sparring over the same live wire — how close his campaign looks to the president, and what to do about the data centers Georgians never voted for.

James had already run this play once, in public, with a camera on him. On August 30, with the Canada tariff fight landing squarely on the auto industry he represents in Congress, he told Face the Nation that the trade war "cannot be borne on the backs of Michiganders" — a Republican candidate on the record against his own party's trade policy, in the one state built to feel it first. Twenty-five days later, Common Dreams ran the obituary for that kind of move under the headline "Cowardice, Not Conviction," logging Republican Senate hopefuls in Iowa and Michigan calling for distance from a president whose approval numbers were cratering less than six weeks before the midterms.

What this week adds is scale. The move went from one congressman complaining about tariffs to two full governor debates, in two states, running the identical script on the identical night: put distance between yourself and the man at the top of the ticket without saying his name more than you have to. Jackson's version is data centers and closeness instead of tariffs. James didn't even need to repeat the August line — the distance was already in the bank.

Here's what the receipts don't show: either man giving up the thing the distance is supposed to cost. Two candidates, two debates, zero renunciations of the backing both still need in November. Running from the man whose base you need, in the same week, in two states, isn't a break. It's a hedge, and the house always lets you hedge right up until the bet comes due.

This story on its own page →

Carville warns Democrats not to impeach Trump, the very thing critics say they've already given up on.

By LouOne More Question · the wee small hours edition, 7 October 2026

I wrote this down. Give me a second — I know it's in here somewhere, if I can find the right page. Hang on.

Here. September 8th — the first date circled in this notebook, and I remember it for one word. James Carville, a Democratic strategist, told the journalist Al Hunt what he'd worked out about the President: that Trump wants his own party to lose this year's midterms. "He hates them," Carville said. "He wants to torture them." I underlined "torture." I don't underline much. That word, I underlined.

Six days later, September 14th, a magazine called Current Affairs asks a question for its headline: with the President's conduct described as worsening by the week, why have Democrats given up on impeachment? Three days after that, September 17th, Ralph Nader — four-time candidate for president — answers it in public, calling the party's leadership "feeble, weak, and cowardly" for walking away from its constitutional responsibility. I folded that page at the corner. I do that when I know I'll be back.

September 27th, ten days later: Jim Jordan, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, says something on the radio I had to read twice. Democrats, he says, are telling the public they won't impeach the President a third time. "They say they're not going to," Jordan says, "but we know they will." I wrote that line in the margin, because I wanted to ask somebody which one of those two things is actually true.

Then the last page. Dated this week, October 7th — twenty-nine days, I checked the subtraction twice, after Carville told Al Hunt what he thought the President wanted. Carville is back in print, different advice this time: not about what Trump wants, but what Democrats should do if they win the House back this November. His advice — don't impeach him. Investigate him. Just don't impeach.

I went out to the car Saturday — the one that's needed a fan belt since July — and sat a minute with the dog in the back seat. There's a manual in the glovebox I only open when the dash light comes on, kept there for that day, not instead of driving, in case of. Is "investigate him" that manual — the thing you keep in reserve? Or is impeachment the dash light itself, the one Jordan says is already lit, the one Democrats are telling the public they haven't noticed?

Because I've got two pages here that don't sit easy on the same seat. The other, dated twenty days later, has the party's own strategist warning them off the very thing the first page says they already stopped doing. Which page is wrong? Did the party give up on impeachment in September, the way Nader read it — or is it still on the table in October, close enough that Carville needed a column telling them to put it back down?

Excuse me — before you go. One more page. Jordan's interview, the 27th, tells his own audience Democrats say one thing about a third impeachment and mean another. Nader's piece, the 17th, says Democrats already quit on the first one. Carville's piece, the 7th, advises them against the very thing Nader says is already dead. All three dates sit in the same notebook, and I've read them in order more than once trying to make them agree. So which one of these three — Jordan, Nader, Carville — is telling the public something that isn't so?

This story on its own page →

ACCIDENTS HAPPEN

France holds emergency meeting over student protests, calls the severed hand that followed an "accident"

By LouOne More Question · the milkman edition, 7 October 2026

I had it here somewhere. I keep a notebook in the truck, glovebox side, under an insurance renewal and a grocery list I didn't get to, and I was looking for the page from last week. Not the kitchen — that one's resting, I leaned on it too hard the last time out. I did this one standing at the workbench, toolbox open, looking for a Thursday.

Found it. October 1st. Washington Examiner, dateline Paris: "Mayhem has broken out across France," riots the paper calls far-left instigation, and the Prime Minister, Sébastien Lecornu, calls an emergency meeting that same day. That's the page. An emergency meeting. On a Thursday. Over a protest that was, at that point, about a week old.

Next page, October 2nd. Four outlets wrote something down that day — Morning Star, Common Dreams, and two separate CBS dispatches. Four hundred schools closed. More than two hundred people wounded. The justice minister, on the record, calling it "an active and violent minority." I wrote all four down because I couldn't get them to agree on a number, and I wanted to see if they'd agree on anything else. Does an emergency meeting get called over an active and violent minority, or does it get called over something bigger than that? The notebook doesn't say which. It just has the meeting, and it has the minority, on facing pages.

I walked to the corner store for cigars with the notebook still in my coat pocket, because I wasn't done with it yet.

Here's where it gets interesting. October 6th, two pages, same date, two different countries' worth of story. The New York Post: an "intifada in the heart of Europe," an "orgy of Islamo-leftist violence." CBS, that same day: two hundred fifty thousand people in the street over funding cuts that have left public schools with leaks, rats, and not enough desks. The New York Times, the next morning, October 7th: a national political reckoning, people of all ages joining in, backing student demands that the government invest more in schools. Three pages, one stretch of weeks — is there one protest in any of them the other two would recognize?

And on that same morning, October 7th, Fox News wrote down what the Prime Minister said about it. A teenager lost a hand. Another was blinded. "Accidents happen," he said.

I sat with that one a while in the garage, dog at my feet, trying to get the order right before I wrote anything under it. My notebook has the emergency meeting dated the 1st. It doesn't have a date for the hand — only the day Fox got around to writing it down, the 7th. So which came first, the meeting or the hand? The page doesn't say. Does "accidents happen" sound like a sentence a government reaches for before an emergency meeting, or six days after one?

Oh — hold on. One more thing, before you go. The glovebox, the workbench, the corner store bag, the coat pocket — this same notebook went through all of it today, and at every stop I checked whether the page agreed with the one before it. A government with an emergency meeting on the 1st. A newspaper with an intifada on the 6th. A wire service with two hundred fifty thousand people and a leaking roof on the 6th. A Prime Minister with an accident on the 7th. Is there a single protest that fits all four of those pages at once? I've still got the notebook open. I haven't found it yet.

This story on its own page →

Same suspect, same charge: ABC names the crime, Post names the gender, six children remain dead.

By LouOne More Question · the milkman edition, 7 October 2026

I keep a notebook — spiral, coffee-ringed, held shut with a rubber band so the pages don't fan out in the car. I want to read you something out of it, and it's going to take me a second, because I filed it under the wrong month. Here — no. Here — no. Hold on... here it is. October. "Washington state man charged with helping Canadian mass shooter plan for attack." That's ABC. I wrote that down because that's the whole sentence — that's what they printed, and I remember thinking: fine, that's a charge, that's a person, that's a state.

I turned the page, and this is the part I keep coming back to, because the next line in the notebook isn't from ABC at all. It's the BBC, same week, same case as far as I can tell: "US resident arrested in connection with deadly British Columbia school shooting." Charged with conspiracy to murder persons in a foreign country. Six children died in that attack — I wrote the number down because numbers don't usually need a second look, and that one didn't get one either. Two networks, one filing, one word doing the work both times: charged.

What's the one word in the third headline that doesn't show up in either of the other two?

That's the New York Post. I read it twice in the car before I backed out of the lot — the same car that needs a fan belt sometime before winter, not today, today it just needed me to sit still and read a headline over again. Same federal filing underneath all three. Same person federal officials say sent money, offered advice, agreed to broadcast it. ABC's headline names the charge and the state. The BBC's headline names the charge and the country. The Post's headline is the only one of the three that names what the suspect is, before it ever gets to what the suspect is charged with.

Of the three headlines written off the same charging document, how many named what the suspect is before they named what the suspect is charged with?

I don't have that one written down as a number anywhere in the notebook, because it isn't a count — it's wording, and I only keep the notebook. What I've got is three sentences about the same man and the same filing, and underneath all three, the thing that doesn't move no matter which one you read first: a man is charged, a filing spells out what's alleged, and somewhere north of here there's a school that isn't full anymore.

I was going to leave it right there — notebook closed, rubber band back around it, dog already pacing at the porch door wanting out before dark. But hold on — one more page, near the back, I almost skipped it. Same Post headline, further down the line. It doesn't only use that word for the man they say sent the money. It uses it again, four words later, for the student they say pulled the trigger. Same word. Twice. One headline.

How many times does that headline use a word about identity, and how many times does it use a word about the charge itself?

This story on its own page →

DA calls mansion a 'house of horrors,' waits a year to agree someone should be arrested for it.

By ChipStaff Writer · the milkman edition, 7 October 2026

The district attorney's office is calling the Arcadia mansion a "house of horrors," and once you've seen the charges, the phrase earns itself. Guojun Xuan and Silvia Zhang are accused of "horrific punishment and beatings and child abuse" inside a home built around at least 25 children delivered through the largely unregulated world of surrogacy. Give the office credit: it takes real moral clarity to call a house what it is.

The children came out of that mansion over a year ago. The arrest came Tuesday. A case this size takes time to build, surely — twenty-one children pulled from one home, a legal theory to assemble around a household run to produce more of itself. That defense holds up until you ask what, exactly, the year produced. It produced one phrase and one arrest, on the same day the public got both.

Compare how fast the system can move when it wants to. In Canton Township, Michigan, police said Wednesday that the parents of a toddler who brought a loaded pistol into a daycare backpack would face charges; the parents stood in court the next day. No one died, and no one was hurt. The system still closed it in a day, not a year. Say it carefully: the Arcadia office did not need a year. It took one.

Four days before the Arcadia arrest made headlines, reporters in Philadelphia were already reaching for "house of horrors" to describe a different property entirely — a dilapidated building on West Chew Avenue tied to a dead pornographer and seven missing women, a case with no arrest at all. The phrase is not rare. It is not even especially earned. It is just the label prosecutors and the press reach for, and sometimes it comes with charges and sometimes it does not.

Surrogacy in this country still requires no license to operate and draws no inspection of the home it delivers children into. The couple now faces the charges the delay allowed to accumulate. Call it a thorough investigation if you want to. Either way, the label came free. The year did not.

This story on its own page →

AI chip rally puts the S&P 500 at a record 7,800; a Los Angeles power bill, $3,300.

By SterlingThe Ownership Desk · the milkman edition, 7 October 2026

You will be told that a council meeting ending in a fistfight is the system failing. It is the system working. In Los Angeles a man read a utility bill of $3,300 and asked, "Did LADWP just decide that I pay my mortgage twice this month?" A bill of that size is a tariff: the schedule by which what the system spends is apportioned across the meters on the wire, and the schedule does not ask whose load it was. This week the S&P 500 closed up 0.58 percent, topping 7,800 for the first time in its history, on a rally in AI chipmakers. Topped — not recovered.

And what does the meter get in exchange for 7,800? A hearing. In Tennessee officials postponed the vote on Elon Musk's data centers, and protesters took the hall while the punches went round. Postponement, mind you, is not refusal. On 2 September, Independence, Missouri turned out a councilman 68 to 32 ... six months after the March vote for the tax breaks. Palm Beach County, home to Mar-a-Lago, voted its one-year moratorium 6-0.

Recalls remove councilmen. Leases hold.

This story on its own page →

PM calls a severed hand an accident; the protest he dismissed now includes teachers and unions.

By ChipStaff Writer · the sunrise edition, 7 October 2026

"Accidents happen." Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu said that this week, defending the police response to student protests that have by now spread across France. He said it after one teenager lost a hand and another was blinded in the same police operations, over a protest that started as a complaint about school funding. I'm prepared to defend the phrase. Let me walk through what it's defending.

Go back to Thursday, October 1st, when the unrest already warranted an emergency meeting in Paris. By Friday, CBS News had high schoolers lighting fires and clashing with police, more than 200 people wounded, hundreds of schools shut for the day. The Morning Star counted 400 schools closed by then, the protests having started in Paris-region high schools over teacher shortages and crumbling buildings. Common Dreams had Jean-Luc Mélenchon saying the unions would join the students the following week, while the justice minister called the whole thing the work of "an active and violent minority" — a minority large enough, apparently, to close 400 schools.

That is the week the Prime Minister stepped into with "accidents happen," a phrase built to cover bruised knees and the ordinary cost of crowd control. It is harder to hold once you say what it is covering out loud: a hand severed — not injured, not hurt, severed — during a police operation against a protest about textbooks and leaking roofs. I had "injured" typed twice before I caught myself. It was not injured. It was severed.

By Sunday, October 4th — three days before the government's "accident" went in front of cameras — Fox News already had a cable host calling the unrest "a cautionary tale" for America, the lesson being open borders produce disorder.

By this week, the Times was counting thousands of arrests and calling it a national political reckoning, with union members, parents and teachers now beside the students the government had called a violent minority days earlier. The New York Post had already renamed it an "intifada in the heart of Europe" the day before the Prime Minister called a severed hand an accident.

I want to say "accidents happen" closed the subject. It didn't. The protests the government dismissed on one day had teachers, parents and national unions behind them within the week. The movement did not shrink after the government called it an accident. It grew. That part isn't the talking point. That's just what happened next.

This story on its own page →