BGlobal Watch has a post up on X claiming South Korea is sending warships near Hormuz.
BThe real move is more precise than that headline.
BMore precise how? A destroyer near Hormuz is a warship near Hormuz.
BChannel NewsAsia reports the cabinet approved expanding the Cheonghae anti-piracy unit to waters south of Oman.
BThat means a destroyer, a P-8 patrol aircraft, and an explosives team. Non-combat.
BNon-combat protection sounds like a euphemism for putting a destroyer in the neighborhood.
BIt means the crew is there to escort and monitor, not to engage.
BAnd they say not into the strait itself.
BRight, and that detail matters for how the mission is read.
BStill, sending a destroyer into that neighborhood while Iran's coast is reporting explosions? Tense morning.
BWasiuddin Siddiqui posted on X that Iran's state news agency, IRNA, says explosions in Jask, Qeshm, Sirik, and Bandar Abbas.
BCause?
BNot established. And the reports have not been independently verified.
BWe have ships moving and explosions nobody can explain yet.
BThat's exactly the mix that makes the Strait of Hormuz jittery.
BLet's not connect them yet. The South Korea mission was already in motion.
BFair. The explosions are reported, not confirmed as an attack.
BSpeaking of fights in Washington: over on Bluesky, Indivisible posted.
BThe filibuster one?
B"Ending the filibuster would transform American politics."
BThey're not wrong. The question is whether transform means better or just faster.
BAnd Kelsey Atherton posted a case for Chris Van Hollen on Bluesky.
BThat's a direct shot at Schumer, no question.
BHis line: "Schumer has won a majority; CVH would use it."
BIt is. There's a real argument here.
BIf you win a majority and can't pass anything at a sixty-vote threshold, did you actually win power?
BI think the filibuster is a guardrail, not a bug.
BIt forces a broader coalition.
BCome on, it doesn't force anything anymore. It just means nothing passes.
BBut that's the point. If you can't get sixty votes, maybe the bill is too far out.
BYou'd rather have no agenda at all? That's a defense of permanent gridlock.
BNo, it's a defense of forcing negotiation.
BThe moment you end it, the Senate becomes the House with worse acoustics.
BThe Senate is already a legislative graveyard.
BAnd you'll hate this when Republicans have fifty-one seats and pass a national abortion ban with zero Democratic votes.
BExactly my point! The filibuster is the only thing stopping that.
BBecause right now it stops everything, including things a majority of voters actually elected people to do.
BThen change the rules for specific issues. Don't burn the whole thing down.
BYou can't half-remove a filibuster. Once you carve it out, it's gone.
BTell that to the budget process. We already carved out judicial nominations.
BThe Senate has already ended it where it wanted. That's my argument: it's arbitrary.
BIt's not arbitrary, it's a legacy of choices.
BI'd rather keep a brake pedal than go full acceleration off a cliff.
BYou keep calling it a brake. It's a brick wall.
BThen maybe we need a brick wall right now.
BIf Democrats don't use the majority, Atherton's right. They'll lose it and wonder why they didn't.
BMaybe. But if they end the filibuster and lose the Senate next cycle, they'll regret every bill they couldn't stop.
BWe're supposed to accept that government can't govern? I think that's worse.
BI think it's better than whiplash lawmaking. We disagree.
BWe disagree strongly. And this fight is coming whether the Senate wants it or not.