silly duck

the ick is when attraction suddenly disappears over something small and irrational. they didn’t even do anything wrong. your brain just went “absolutely not” and refused to elaborate.

don’t stop immediately after walking through the entrance.

a parasocial relationship is when you feel like you know someone who has no idea you exist.

a celebrity, streamer, creator, athlete, even a fictional character.

social media made it way easier because you see their face, hear their thoughts, watch their daily life, and slowly your brain starts treating familiarity like friendship.

online dating is basically the default now.

going cold turkey means quitting something completely and all at once instead of slowly cutting back.

like deleting every social media app on sunday night and deciding monday morning you’re suddenly a person who “doesn’t really use their phone.”

works for smoking, caffeine, sugar, doomscrolling, or apparently your entire personality for 48 hours.

art is something created or presented to express, represent, question, or make us experience an idea, emotion, or way of seeing the world. there is no single rule for what counts as art. beauty, skill, intention, context, originality, and even the viewer’s interpretation can all matter.

this is a state by state look at the republican and democratic candidates in every state holding a u.s. senate election in 2026, including the special elections in florida and ohio.

positions are based on candidates' own statements, congressional records, campaign platforms, interviews and reliable reporting available as of september 21, 2026. when a candidate has not publicly taken a clear position, it says that rather than assuming one based on party affiliation.

three states currently do not have a democratic senate nominee on the november ballot: idaho, nebraska and south dakota. in those cases, that is noted instead of incorrectly labeling an independent candidate as a democrat.


alabama

republican: barry moore

stance: supports a close u.s. israel alliance and has publicly described himself as pro israel. his clearest published statement says the united states should support israel against threats from hamas, hezbollah, iran and other armed groups. i could not find a detailed current 2026 position from him on a gaza ceasefire or humanitarian aid.

quote: “my short answer is, i’m pro israel.”

democrat: everett wess

stance: no specific public position on israel or gaza was located. a 2026 candidate guide noted that his campaign website did not provide a foreign policy platform.


alaska

republican: dan sullivan

stance: supports israel's security and its campaign to defeat hamas. he has also said humanitarian assistance should reach civilians in gaza. more recently, he backed a senate resolution supporting israel's continued survival, release of the hostages and preventing hamas from rebuilding its military capacity.

democrat: mary peltola

stance: while serving in the house, peltola supported u.s. funding for israeli defensive systems while also supporting humanitarian assistance for civilians in gaza. i did not find a newer 2026 campaign statement substantially changing that position.


arkansas

republican: tom cotton

stance: supports israel's military campaign against hamas and argues that hamas bears primary responsibility for civilian suffering in gaza. he has also pushed to eliminate u.s. funding for unrwa and supports preventing hamas from governing or rebuilding militarily in gaza.

quote: “hamas is to blame for suffering in gaza.”

democrat: hallie shoffner

stance: no specific public position on israel or gaza was located. the american jewish congress candidate guide lists no position on record for her.


colorado

republican: mark baisley

stance: no specific public israel or gaza policy was located in the campaign material and candidate records reviewed.

democrat: john hickenlooper

stance: supports israel's security but has also supported restricting some offensive weapons transfers. he has called for an end to the fighting in gaza, humanitarian assistance, release of the hostages, disarming hamas and ultimately a two state solution.

quote: “netanyahu has gone too far.”


delaware

republican: michael katz

stance: no detailed public israel or gaza position was located in the candidate interviews and campaign material reviewed.

democrat: chris coons

stance: supports israel's security and continued u.s. assistance, but has also supported a ceasefire, humanitarian assistance for gaza and a two state solution. he has criticized actions by the netanyahu government, including restrictions on humanitarian aid.


florida

republican: ashley moody

stance: supports israel's long term security, release of the hostages and preventing hamas from rebuilding. she has also backed legislation intended to defend israel from what supporters describe as discriminatory treatment within international organizations.

democrat: angie nixon

stance: describes israel's actions against palestinians as genocide and opposes continued u.s. support for those actions. she has also explicitly rejected support from aipac.

quote: “the genocide happening in palestine.”


georgia

republican: mike collins

stance: supports israel and continued u.s. security assistance. he has defended israel's decision to go to war against hamas following october 7 and opposed efforts to block israel security funding.

democrat: jon ossoff

stance: supports israel's security and defensive capabilities but has supported blocking some weapons transfers over israel's conduct in gaza. he calls for a ceasefire, release of the hostages, large scale humanitarian assistance and a postwar gaza not governed by hamas.


idaho

republican: jim risch

stance: supports continued u.s. security assistance to israel and has opposed efforts to block arms transfers that he argues are necessary for israel's defense. he has also backed legislation responding to actions against israel at international organizations.

quote: “america will always stand with israel.”

democrat: no democratic nominee

david roth won the democratic nomination but ended his campaign in july and formally withdrew from the november ballot on august 28. the ballot therefore does not currently contain a democratic senate nominee. independent todd achilles is among the remaining candidates.


illinois

republican: don tracy

stance: supports israel and its defense and describes israel as the united states' most important ally in the middle east. he says hamas initiated the current conflict.

quote: “i do believe in supporting israel and its defense.”

democrat: juliana stratton

stance: supports a two state solution. her campaign told the american prospect that she had not accepted money from the aipac pac. the reporting reviewed did not identify a comparably detailed public 2026 position from her on weapons transfers or the gaza war.


iowa

republican: ashley hinson

stance: supports israel and continued u.s. assistance for its defense. she has argued that hamas bears responsibility for the suffering caused by the war in gaza.

quote: “i stand with israel.”

democrat: josh turek

stance: says israel remains a u.s. ally but argues there should be limits on american assistance. he has said u.s. support should not contribute to civilian casualties or the obstruction of humanitarian aid in gaza.

quote: “the response at this point has been disproportionate.”


kansas

republican: roger marshall

stance: supports military assistance to israel, release of the hostages and preventing hamas from rebuilding. he has also criticized foreign aid packages that simultaneously provided money for humanitarian assistance in gaza.

democrat: adam hamilton

stance: says israel should be defended if it is attacked, but opposes american tax dollars paying for weapons that kill civilians in gaza. he has also questioned whether israel still needs the current level of u.s. assistance.

quote: “i would not want my tax money going to weapons” used against civilians in gaza.


kentucky

republican: andy barr

stance: supports a close u.s. israel defense relationship and continued cooperation against iran, hamas and other iran aligned groups.

democrat: charles booker

stance: describes israel's campaign in gaza as genocide. he supports palestinian freedom, release of the hostages and an end to the violence, and says he will not accept aipac funding.

quote: “not take a cent of aipac money.”


louisiana

republican: julia letlow

stance: supports a strong u.s. israel relationship and has described israel as one of america's most important allies. no detailed current position on a gaza ceasefire or conditions on military assistance was located.

democrat: jamie davis

stance: no specific public israel or gaza position was located in the current candidate material reviewed.


maine

republican: susan collins

stance: supports israel's security and u.s. military assistance while also supporting humanitarian assistance for gaza, release of the hostages and a political outcome in which israelis and palestinians can live in peace and security.

democrat: troy jackson

stance: describes israel's military campaign in gaza as genocide and supports ending u.s. military assistance that enables it. he also calls for release of all hostages, a permanent ceasefire and unrestricted humanitarian access.

quote: “end the genocide in gaza. no u.s. tax dollars to israel's military.”


massachusetts

republican: john deaton

stance: says he would not automatically support additional aid to israel or other foreign countries and would require foreign assistance to be shown to serve u.s. interests. he has also said criticism of the netanyahu government should not automatically be treated as antisemitism.

democrat: ed markey

stance: supports israel's right to exist, self defense and defensive systems such as iron dome, but has supported blocking some offensive weapons. he calls for ending the war in gaza, humanitarian assistance and release of the hostages.


michigan

republican: mike rogers

stance: supports israel and the u.s. israel security relationship. current reporting describes him as supportive of continued assistance to israel. aipac planned outside spending supporting rogers in the general election, although a planned advertisement was later shelved after his allies asked the group not to run it.

democrat: abdul el sayed

stance: describes israel's campaign in gaza as genocide and supports ending u.s. military assistance to israel, including offensive and defensive military aid.


minnesota

republican: michele tafoya

stance: has publicly expressed support for israel. however, no comparably detailed public position was located on restricting weapons, humanitarian assistance or the future governance of gaza.

democrat: peggy flanagan

stance: describes israel's actions in gaza as genocide, supports a two state solution and has called for ending unconditional u.s. military assistance to israel. she also says she will not accept aipac money.


mississippi

republican: cindy hyde smith

stance: supports military and security assistance to israel, release of the hostages and preventing hamas from rebuilding its military capabilities. she has previously backed legislation aimed at ensuring delayed weapons are delivered to israel.

democrat: scott colom

stance: no specific public israel or gaza position was located in the campaign materials and candidate profiles reviewed.


montana

republican: kurt alme

stance: no specific public israel or gaza position was located in his detailed candidate questionnaire or campaign materials.

democrat: alani bankhead

stance: says the united states should stop “underwriting the suffering in gaza.” her campaign platform cites the u.n. commission's genocide finding and argues against continued american involvement in the conflict.

quote: “stop underwriting the suffering in gaza.”


nebraska

republican: pete ricketts

stance: supports israel's security, release of the hostages and preventing hamas from rebuilding its military capacity. he welcomed the israel hamas ceasefire and hostage agreement while arguing that gaza must not again become a base for attacks on israel.

democrat: no democratic nominee

democratic nominee cindy burbank formally withdrew from the race in july. nebraska's secretary of state confirmed that her name will not appear on the november ballot as the democratic nominee.

major independent candidate: dan osborn

stance: says u.s. assistance to israel should be cut off until israel ends what he describes as aggression against gaza and neighboring countries.


new hampshire

republican: john e. sununu

stance: has not laid out a detailed current position on restricting u.s. assistance to israel or the war in gaza. when previously asked about limiting aid, he declined to give a simple answer and described the situation as complex. he has separately supported regional security efforts involving israel and lebanon.

democrat: chris pappas

stance: supports security assistance for israel, humanitarian assistance for gaza, release of the hostages and a ceasefire. his platform says hamas should be disarmed and should not govern gaza, while also supporting a two state solution.


new jersey

republican: justin murphy

stance: no specific public israel or gaza policy was located in the campaign materials and current candidate coverage reviewed.

democrat: cory booker

stance: supports israel's security and a two state solution while also calling for an end to the gaza war, release of the hostages and a major increase in humanitarian assistance. he says hamas should no longer govern gaza and palestinians should have self determination.


new mexico

republican: larry marker

stance: no specific public israel or gaza policy was located in the current campaign interview and materials reviewed.

democrat: ben ray lujan

stance: supports israel's security and defeating hamas while also calling for civilian protection, humanitarian assistance for gaza, release of the hostages and a two state solution.


north carolina

republican: michael whatley

stance: supports israel and continued u.s. military assistance. he describes israel as the united states' leading ally in the middle east.

quote: “israel has been and will be our no. 1 ally in the middle east.”

democrat: roy cooper

stance: has condemned the october 7 hamas attack and supports israel's security, while also saying the united states should press israel to reduce civilian casualties and pursue a two state outcome. i did not find a substantially more detailed 2026 campaign position on weapons transfers.

quote: “continue pressing israel to limit the loss of civilian life.”

ohio

republican: jon husted

stance: supports israel's security, release of the hostages and preventing hamas from rebuilding. he cosponsored a 2026 senate resolution setting out those positions.

democrat: sherrod brown

stance: his established senate position supports israel's right to defend itself and u.s. security assistance while also supporting a ceasefire, humanitarian assistance for gaza and release of the hostages.


oklahoma

republican: kevin hern

stance: supports israel's military campaign against hamas and has opposed u.s. efforts to withhold weapons from israel. he has said israel has his support in its effort to destroy hamas.

quote: “my full support as they continue the mission to destroy hamas.”

democrat: n'kiyla jasmine thomas

stance: describes the netanyahu government's actions in gaza as genocide, opposes continued u.s. funding for the war and supports a two state solution. she also says she does not accept aipac or corporate pac money.

quote: “we have to stop providing funding for these wars.”


oregon

republican: david brock smith

stance: no specific public israel or gaza position was located. coverage of his 2026 campaign launch noted that he did not provide specific policy positions, and the american jewish congress candidate guide lists no position on record.

democrat: jeff merkley

stance: supports israel's security but has sharply criticized the netanyahu government's conduct in gaza. he supports a ceasefire, humanitarian assistance, a two state solution and restrictions on some offensive weapons when he believes u.s. arms are contributing to civilian harm.


rhode island

republican: raymond mckay

stance: no specific public israel or gaza position was located. the american jewish congress candidate guide currently lists no position on record.

democrat: jack reed

stance: supports israel's security but has called for a major change in the netanyahu government's approach to gaza, substantially greater humanitarian assistance and a political path toward two states.


south carolina

republican: darline graham

stance: supports a close u.s. israel security partnership and describes israel as a major american ally. her public position emphasizes confronting iran and organizations that threaten israel.

quote: “i stand with israel.”

democrat: annie andrews

stance: supports israel's right to defend itself and a two state solution, while saying the netanyahu government's recent actions have gone too far.


south dakota

republican: mike rounds

stance: supports israel's security, release of the hostages and preventing hamas from rebuilding. he has supported continued u.s. assistance to israel and efforts to change or eliminate u.s. support for unrwa.

democrat: no democratic nominee

democratic nominee julian beaudion withdrew on august 4. south dakota's official general election candidate list shows republican mike rounds and independent brian bengs as active senate candidates, with beaudion listed as withdrawn.


tennessee

republican: bill hagerty

stance: supports israel's campaign against hamas. he says the humanitarian crisis in gaza should end but places primary responsibility for it on hamas and has said he trusts israel to determine how to conclude the war.

democrat: marquita bradshaw

stance: no specific current public israel or gaza position was located. the american jewish congress candidate guide lists no position on record.


texas

republican: ken paxton

stance: has a longstanding record of supporting israel and condemning hamas as texas attorney general. during the 2026 senate campaign, however, he has also emphasized an “america first” approach that questions foreign assistance more broadly. current reporting therefore suggests a more conditional approach to foreign aid than a simple promise of continued funding.

democrat: james talarico

stance: supports israel's right to defend itself and continued support for defensive systems such as iron dome, but says he would stop offensive weapons sales to the netanyahu government. he supports a two state solution, disarming hamas and palestinian sovereignty, and says he will not accept aipac support.

quote: “stop offensive weapons sales” while continuing support for defensive systems.


virginia

republican: bert mizusawa

stance: no specific public position could be established from the clearest current comparison available. when vpm directly asked the 2026 senate candidates about israel and u.s. policy, mizusawa did not provide an answer.

democrat: mark warner

stance: supports israel's right to exist and its security but says that does not require supporting every action of the netanyahu government. he has criticized civilian suffering in gaza, supported restrictions connected to settlement activity and continues to support a two state solution.

quote: “we can stand firmly with israel's security while also speaking out” against actions that undermine peace.


west virginia

republican: shelley moore capito

stance: supports israel's security and preventing hamas from rebuilding while also supporting hostage release and ceasefire efforts intended to produce a longer term peace arrangement.

democrat: rachel fetty anderson

stance: supports a two state solution and says both israel and palestine have a right to exist. she says she would support sending or selling weapons only when they are strictly for self defense.


wyoming

republican: harriet hageman

stance: supports israel and has backed congressional resolutions and funding supporting israel's response to hamas. no detailed current 2026 position was located on a ceasefire, gaza humanitarian assistance or conditions on future weapons transfers.

democrat: james byrd

stance: no specific public position on israel or gaza was located in his detailed 2026 candidate questionnaire or campaign material reviewed.

ms. rachel originally started making videos because her own son had a speech delay. what began as parents trying to help their kid communicate eventually turned into one of the biggest early childhood education channels on the internet.

image

the legal line between saying something dangerous and actually trying to make something dangerous happen right now.

in brandenburg v. ohio in 1969, the supreme court ruled that even advocating violence or illegal activity can be protected speech unless it is intended to provoke imminent illegal action and is actually likely to do so.

the interesting part is that this protection came from a case involving a ku klux klan leader.

sometimes the strongest free speech rules come from protecting speech almost nobody wants to defend.

anaximander’s word for the boundless and undefined source of everything.

not water, not fire, not air, not any specific thing.

just something infinite and formless from which everything comes and eventually returns.

basically one of the earliest attempts in western philosophy to explain the universe without putting a god directly in the mechanism.

one of those revolutionaries who managed to remain a marxist while still criticizing marxism and trying to develop it further.

lenin, rosa luxemburg, and gramsci are some of the clearest examples of thinkers who challenged parts of marxist theory without abandoning it.

one of gramsci’s biggest questions was this:

if capitalism produces so much inequality, why does it survive not only through police, armies, and state power, but also through the consent of ordinary people?

his answer was hegemony.

the ruling class is strongest when it can present its own interests as if they were simply the interests of society as a whole.

for example:

“if the rich invest, everyone benefits.”

“if you are unemployed, you just did not work hard enough.”

“there is no alternative to the market.”

“unions hurt the economy.”

“successful people simply earned what they have.”

“nationalism means defending the interests of the nation,” even when those interests may largely reflect those of the capitalist class.

for gramsci, schools, newspapers, religious institutions, universities, associations, foundations, and unions were all arenas of political struggle.

the state can use force when necessary.

civil society often does something more subtle. it makes the existing order look natural, legitimate, and inevitable.

that is how consent gets produced.

this is also why gramsci has become especially useful again in recent years. his work gives people a framework for thinking about how capitalism can absorb criticism instead of simply crushing it.

this is where his idea of passive revolution becomes especially interesting.

capitalism does not always respond to pressure by saying no.

sometimes it says yes, but only enough to protect itself.

it can adopt parts of demands around equality, environmentalism, women’s rights, diversity, or other social causes while leaving production, labor exploitation, ownership, and wealth distribution almost completely untouched.

in that sense, the language of reform can change while the deeper structure stays exactly where it was.

that is probably why gramsci still feels so current.

he understood that power survives not only by controlling what people are allowed to do.

it survives by shaping what people come to see as normal, reasonable, and possible.

the backstreet boys shows there this summer completely sold out, and because demand was so strong, they announced additional dates for the winter.

visually, it is apparently one of the best shows sphere has hosted so far.

ticket sales alone are reportedly bringing in an average of around $2.84 million per show.

apple's second foldable phone after the iphone 6 :)

perhaps it is continuing to have a relationship with the future even when you have no guarantees at all.