Two generations of photographers, Gerald Cyrus and Gioncarlo Valentine, reflect on mentorship, cultural preservation and the responsibility of carrying each other’s work forward.
Category: Uncategorized
-
Hollywood warned young screenwriters about AI. Now it may be their ticket in
As generative AI spreads through Hollywood, unsettling writers worried about losing jobs and creative control, some L.A. educators see it as a way for emerging screenwriters to develop pitches, visuals and projects — and reach industry contacts once reserved for insiders.
-
The Mothers We Pay
Two début novels, Courtney Bush’s “Learning” and K Chiucarello’s “Nanny Nanny,” look at the rewards—and the perils—of losing one’s self in child care.
From The New Yorker
-
The Afterlife of Diana’s Revenge Dress
Three decades ago, the Princess of Wales responded to Charles’s televised confession of infidelity with what would become the most famous little black dress of all time. Now it’s up for auction—and Camilla is Queen.
From The New Yorker
-
Democrats and Republicans unite to investigate Nvidia, but diverge on whether Trump is at fault
From The Hill
Republicans and Democrats are showing rare unity in their calls for investigations into whether Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang compromised U.S. national security after admitting he had an affair with an alleged Chinese spy. The revelation surfaces a host of concerns that cut across committees related to intelligence, foreign relations and banking and finance, diving deep…
-
This Veterans Day, it’s even more important to celebrate American values
On the 107th anniversary of the first Veterans Day, our nation is facing one of the most challenging national security environments in modern history. The day gives us an opportunity to reflect on how the 2.1 million Americans in uniform view their ongoing service to the nation.
Because the U.S. military reported a massive turnaround from pandemic-era lows and broadly met or exceeded its recruiting and retention goals for active-duty, National Guard and most reserve forces for fiscal 2026, the Trump administration argues that there’s a high level of satisfaction across the force. However, some of that success has been attributed to a cooling civilian job market; significant junior military pay increases, including historic 10% enlisted pay raises in recent years; expanded pre-enlistment academic and fitness preparation courses; and restructured recruiting commands. A recent poll, however, suggests many military personnel feel abandoned by politicians and society and have decided to leave the service as soon as possible.
Major overseas deployments and a high operational tempo (OPTEMPO) due to the war in Iran have increased the strain on service members and their families, with significant implications for future recruiting and retention.
Major overseas deployments and a high operational tempo (OPTEMPO) due to the war in Iran have increased the strain on service members and their families, with significant implications for future recruiting and retention. The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and destroyer USS Spruance were each deployed for more than 300 days. Spruance set a post-World War II record with 342 days underway. A brigade from the 82nd Airborne Division has spent eight months in the region, and its soldiers were recently told their deployment will extend into next year.
Active-duty personnel are also aware of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s efforts to reform the military and instill what he describes as a “warrior ethos.” They realize his politicized vision includes a hard-line stance on eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, and some even agree with that vision. But Hegseth seems bent on eroding the notion of the “citizen soldier” and replacing it with a distinct class that is male, white and Christian.
This will be disastrous for recruitment and retention in the future, especially for women and minorities. Why would a young woman join — or remain in — the military after Hegseth has fired senior female officers without cause, removed qualified women from promotion lists and argued women should not serve in combat roles? How should a young Black American react to a Pentagon that, at least briefly, removed a webpage devoted to the military service of Jackie Robinson and is reportedly considering removing Pearl Harbor hero Doris Miller’s name from a ship under construction?
Many active-duty members, particularly senior NCOs and officers, have expressed deep embarrassment and frustration with Hegseth’s leadership, which may cause them to separate or retire early. In September 2025, the secretary, accompanied by President Donald Trump, summoned top military commanders from around the globe to Quantico, Virginia, to deliver a highly political lecture mocking “fat generals,” facial hair and “dudes in dresses.” Multiple senior defense officials and officers in attendance described the expensive meeting as “embarrassing,” but Hegseth delivered a similar rant to 600 junior officers a few months ago. In October 2025, he delivered a “hype man” speech for Trump aboard the USS George Washington that was met by an embarrassing dead silence by the crew.
The nature of warfare is changing rapidly and failure to innovate will be paid in blood in future conflicts. But Hegseth has ended efforts to learn from the war in Ukraine by shutting down an Army unit focused on transforming the military to meet these emerging challenges. But war is a harsh teacher and one of its lessons is that the failure to innovate is paid for in blood in the next conflict.
Hegseth seems far more concerned with personal appearance and troops’ testosterone levels than innovation.
Veterans and those in uniform are right to be concerned by the defense secretary’s apparent belief that war should be conducted without constraints.
Veterans and those in uniform are right to be concerned by the defense secretary’s apparent belief that war should be conducted without constraints and is solely transactional. This is why he argues respect for international law or efforts to avoid civilian casualties are examples of weakness. But this is not the ethos of the American military. In fact, it’s in direct conflict with a Marine Corps maxim that better describes the American warrior ethos: “There is no better friend or worse enemy than an American Marine.” Compassion toward innocent civilians and allies must exist with ferocity in combat.
There’s a quote that’s been attributed to President Ronald Reagan that says, “Some people live an entire lifetime and wonder if they have ever made a difference in the world. A veteran doesn’t have that problem.” But that sentiment is true only to the extent that they serve with honor, respect and integrity. With a defense secretary scoffing at the rules of war, it’s harder than it should be for some of our service members to hold on to those values, but they owe it to the nation they serve to maintain them, and they owe it those who served in the past.
The post This Veterans Day, it’s even more important to celebrate American values appeared first on MS NOW.
From MS Now.
-
Jordan looks to move Republicans beyond midterm rout
From The Hill
House Republicans on Tuesday tapped Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) to lead their diminished conference in the next Congress, betting that a conservative spitfire — and onetime leadership nemesis — can restore the fight to a party battered by the midterms and scrambling for a path back to power. In brief comments right out of the…
-
Trump’s latest Oval Office order is simply embarrassing
Despite the historic beating Republicans took during the midterms, and much to the dismay of some White House staff, President Donald Trump has kept his focus on what truly matters to him: overlaying the nation’s capital with his overly ornate aesthetic. To that end, Trump signed a proclamation Friday naming the Oval Office a national monument. With it, he seeks to forbid future presidents from following him as project-manager-in-chief.
President Barack Obama mocked Trump’s heavily gilded makeover of the Oval Office last month when he said it looks “like Saddam Hussein opened a Cheesecake Factory.” Even before that jab and the overwrought response from conservatives, Democrats had discussed undoing the changes Trump has made at the White House. The incoming Democratic majority may choose to halt some of Trump’s construction projects, including the giant ballroom rising where the East Wing once stood.
Trump’s executive order proclamation acknowledges that the White House and its grounds are already recognized as a National Historic Landmark but gives the Oval Office — and Cabinet Room — a special carveout. The National Park Service will now require “documentation, review, and consideration of alternatives before any action that would substantially alter or demolish the monument or its essential architectural elements.”
Trump seems not to have considered that the Democrats taking office soon will likely happily sign off on any efforts to undo to his gold-plated gussying.
As he signed the proclamation, Trump weirdly claimed he would require help from Congress to make it stick. “We’re going to be declaring it a national monument, and we’re going to send it over to Congress, have it ratified,” Trump told reporters. “If they want to say, ‘Let’s not have oval anymore, let’s make it square,’ what happens is they have to go back to Congress and hopefully the Congress, the people in Congress, will be smart enough not to let that happen.”
There’s a lot to unpack in Trump’s statement. The proclamation doesn’t mention Congress but relies on the Antiquities Act of 1906, which allows a president to create a national monument on federal land by proclamation without congressional input. Though there are lawyers who say the statute doesn’t let a subsequent president revoke or diminish a previously established monument without Congress, that’s not what Trump’s DOJ has said. When the Trump administration was looking to undo monuments created by President Joe Biden, it argued tersely that the Antiquities Act that gives presidents the “power to declare carries with it the power to revoke.”
Trump calling on Congress to protect his tacky alterations is inconsistent with his administration’s stance on executive authority. He has steadfastly refused to let Congress tie his hands on most matters. His proclamation is a blatant attempt to keep future presidents from doing what he himself is doing.
Even if Congress did need to get involved, Trump seems not to have considered that the Democrats taking office soon will likely happily sign off on any efforts to undo to his gold-plated gussying.
The executive order is quite a display of tunnel vision from a president whacked by voters who had every reason to believe he only cares about his own interests and not theirs. The day before the midterm elections, he held a news conference boasting about his renovations to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. The day after the election, he signed the final beam in the White House ballroom alongside Interior Secretary Doug Burgum. Burgum, whose department will now oversee changes to the Oval Office and Cabinet Room, called Trump “the builder in chief” and “the greatest builder that has ever been president of the United States,” the latter of which feels like New Deal construction erasure.
Friday’s spectacle felt like the White House staff placating a toddler on the verge of a tantrum.
Graciously, the proclamation acknowledges that future presidents can restyle the Oval Office with no consequences: “Nothing in this proclamation shall be construed to restrict the President’s authority to redecorate the monument, select furnishings, or make ordinary operational and security modifications that do not substantially impair the monument’s historic structure or architectural character.” In other words, if whomever is sworn in January 2029 wants to get rid of the tacky wall sconces and swap out the gold curtains, then they can.
Friday’s spectacle felt like the White House staff placating a toddler on the verge of a tantrum. The document has no real impact on anything, but if it makes Trump feel better to sign a piece of paper, then hand one to him.
Consider that a staffer took the time to write this proclamation, newly installed White House chief of staff Stephen Miller likely reviewed it, a communications aide drafted a fact sheet and a staff secretary scheduled a signing. It’s an incredible use of resources on exactly the kind of nonsense that has left the GOP rudderless but provided Trump a degree of escapism when he’s supposed to be working for the people.
The post Trump’s latest Oval Office order is simply embarrassing appeared first on MS NOW.
From MS Now.
-
What did Epstein’s banks know? Democrats want to find out
From The Hill
Democrats on Capitol Hill are vowing to probe major banks with ties to deceased convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein once their new congressional majorities become official in January. Those investigations, Democrats say, will provide insight into whether executives at financial institutions, such as JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank and Bank of America, were aware of or…
-
The pollsters who ‘nailed’ 2024 just whiffed on 2026
On Nov. 9, President Donald Trump took to Truth Social to wonder how the polls could have been so wrong. “Does anybody really believe that this ‘Election’ was honest,” the president wrote. “How could the Polls be so wrong???” The same day, Scott Colom, the Democratic candidate in Mississippi’s still-uncalled Senate race, complained that political prognosticators who called the contest safely Republican made it “much more difficult to fundraise and are part of the reason the South has been neglected for so long.”
Is this narrative of a massive polling and forecasting miss right?
Expert handicappers whiffed on Mississippi and on other seemingly unlikely Democratic victories in the House. But most pollsters performed in line with historical expectations. The president’s advisers may have been showing him surveys from right-leaning outfits that performed well in the 2024 presidential race. Those did worse than others this year.
How the polls did
I used our historical polling database at FiftyPlusOne to select every public poll released in the final three weeks of the campaign for House, Senate and governor races, plus the national generic ballot — 373 polls of 88 contests in all. I then compared them to the results of the midterm elections as of 7:04 a.m. EST on Nov. 10. On average this year, the polls underestimated support for Democrats across races by 3.4 points.
That’s worse than a typical year. Since 1998, the polls in an average cycle have missed by about 2.8 points in one direction or the other. But misses tend to come in two sizes: In half of those cycles, the polls missed by a point or less. This year’s miss is the fourth-largest of the 15, behind 2020 (6.3 points in Republicans’ favor), 1998 (3.8 points in Democrats’ favor, also in a midterm) and 2016. That puts the polls on par with their performance in 2012, 2014 and 2024. The miss was also even across offices: House, Senate and governor polls each underestimated Democrats by about 3.3 points.
So why were so many election watchers so surprised at the polling error last week? One explanation is that they were caught off guard by the direction of the miss, as the polls have recently tended to underestimate Republicans, not Democrats. That’s fair psychologically, if not statistically. The final average of generic-ballot polls had Democrats up 9 points nationally, and on current counts they’re winning the national House vote by about 13 points. If that holds, it would be the largest underestimate of Democrats on the generic ballot since 1986.
It’s looking more like the secret sauce these pollsters were adding to their surveys to make them look accurate was just pro-Republican bias.
Another is that Democrats are winning in places that would have been shocking just two years ago. Colom’s race in Mississippi is a good example. The only public poll of Mississippi’s Senate race in the final three weeks, from Change Research on Oct. 21-22, had him trailing Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith 43% to 40%, with another candidate, Ty Pinkins, at 6%. With nearly all the vote counted, Colom is narrowly ahead, making for a roughly 4-point error (some of which may be Pinkins’ voters breaking for Colom late). But … come on, Mississippi? A Democrat winning? That is unthinkable from the vantage point of 2024.
The ‘bad pollsters’ were the usual suspects
A narrower explanation for Trump’s shock is that he was looking at the wrong pollsters. The firms that missed worst this year were the ones that usually lean Republican and get shared on GOP-leaning social media, including the president’s service, Truth Social.
Consider the polls in Texas. Seventeen pollsters surveyed the Senate race in the final three weeks, and their average had Democrat James Talarico up about 3 points over Republican Ken Paxton. As of Tuesday, Talarico was winning by about 12 points. That 9-point error is quite large, even considering a neutral selection of the pollsters.
For instance, polls from the Trafalgar Group — led by Rob Cahaly, a frequent guest of right-leaning cable networks who has worked with GOP campaigns in the past — leaned 3.6 points toward Republicans this year, compared with other pollsters in the same races. Also compared with other polls in the same races from 2016 to 2024, Trafalgar leaned Republican by 3.8 points. InsiderAdvantage leaned 2.1 points to the right this year and 1.5 points historically. Surveys from co/efficient and Echelon Insights, two prominent Republican campaign pollsters, also understated support for Democrats (in Echelon’s case, by a little less).
In 2024 other pollsters underestimated Republicans by about 3 points in the races Trafalgar and InsiderAdvantage surveyed. Trafalgar’s polls missed by just 0.3 and InsiderAdvantage’s by 0.6. Quantus, which polled the presidential race, was off by an average of 0.2 points in the races it surveyed, while other pollsters in those races underestimated Trump by 2.4. This made these firms look like geniuses.
However, with a new election under their belt, it’s looking more like the secret sauce these pollsters were adding to their surveys to make them look accurate was just pro-Republican bias. That works when all the other polls understate support for Republicans, but adds even more error to your surveys when Democrats are the ones being underestimated.
To be clear, it’s not like the nonpartisan pollsters had a good year, either. Polls from neutral and highly respected outfits, such as The New York Times/Siena University, YouGov and Marist University, all underestimated Democrats too. They just understated them by less than the historically GOP-leaning pollsters.
The wrong lesson from past misses
After the polls underestimated Republicans in 2016, 2020 and 2024, the conventional wisdom hardened into a rule that polls are biased against the GOP. Firms that leaned right, meanwhile, got credit for “getting it right.” In August, Patrick Ruffini, a Republican pollster and co-founder of Echelon Insights, wrote a widely shared analysis noting that Senate polls had overestimated Democrats “for four cycles in a row,” and he pointed to summer polls showing Democrats ahead in Ohio, Texas and Alaska as the same pattern playing out again. From this, many poll watchers concluded that polls would overstate Democrats again.
This turned out to be a fatally flawed assumption. Anyone who adjusted their analyses in favor of Republicans, whether by trusting the right-leaning firms or by assuming another GOP miss, ended up further from the result than the plain averages. Forecasters rated Mississippi’s Senate race “safe Republican,” as Colom pointed out, even though the only late poll had it within 3 points.
The day before the election, we warned at FiftyPlusOne that you can’t tell in advance which way the polling miss will go. Since 1998 there has been almost no relationship between one cycle’s polling error and the next. (Statistically speaking, there is even a slight negative correlation between cycles; when polls overshoot Democrats in one year, they tend to undershoot them the next.)
So one lesson from 2026 is that analysts should not push poll numbers toward Democrats in 2028, any more than analysts should have pushed them toward Republicans in October. Expect the polls to miss by a few points, and don’t assume you know the direction.
The other lesson is to not overindex on recent apparent wins by individual firms. It is possible for firms to get lucky for a few cycles in a row just because other pollsters happen to be off, or because their methods work in one environment and not another. You should judge pollsters on their record over many elections rather than on whether they leaned the right way once.
The post The pollsters who ‘nailed’ 2024 just whiffed on 2026 appeared first on MS NOW.
From MS Now.
-
Nvidia spy scandal could reshape fight over AI chips and China
From The Hill
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang’s relationship with an alleged Chinese spy is putting a microscope on the company’s influence on AI chip policy in Washington and throwing new momentum behind a trio of bills aiming to place restrictions on chip sales abroad. Huang’s disclosure of his affair with a Chinese businessperson, who U.S. officials concluded was…
-
Trans rights advocates regroup after ballot-box losses in blue states
From The Hill
Advocates for transgender Americans are trying to pick up the pieces and move forward after suffering significant defeats at the ballot box even amid last week’s historic blue wave. Arizona, Nebraska, Washington and Colorado all passed measures seeking to bar transgender women and girls from female sports teams, showing troubles for trans rights even…