“I was still in college the year of the Gulf War. At the time, I opposed the war; and in hindsight, I still do. But I freely admit that the U.S. planned its war carefully. They assembled over half a million troops, got buy-in from almost all their allies, and after four days of ground combat, the U.S. was totally victorious. After victory, however, conflict with Saddam Hussein persisted for 12 more years. Why? Because although the U.S. had a careful plan for the war, they decided to wing the peace.” (09/21/26)
“Walking into a Starbucks means being greeted with the sounds of lively lobby conversation, milk being steamed, and baristas chatting with customers. As a customer you might love coming to Starbucks to customize your drink, enjoy a third space, or see your favorite barista. I thrive in this environment, and I love connecting with my customers as a barista. I love my job, but Starbucks has shown us it has forgotten about baristas like me. That’s why I’m joining my coworkers in calling on everyone who supports working people over corporations to boycott Starbucks. It would cost Starbucks less than a single day’s sales to agree to a fair contract that would ensure we’re treated fairly—why wouldn’t the company want that? Starbucks has lost its way.” [editor’s note: I have not bought their overpriced sugared coffee for years, and politics had nothing to do with it – SAT] (09/21/26)
“For many years, progressive movements and activists have longed for the moment when we could imagine a real foreign policy rooted in true internationalism and solidarity. But in our efforts to influence actual policy decisions, we’ve settled for important but smaller asks—ending specific wars, blocking the transfer of certain weapons to Israel, reducing military aid, cutting the military budget. That made sense—our movements’ view of the world was rarely fully reflected in Congress, the State Department, or the White House. Now some of those limitations are fading. There are new possibilities rising as we see new candidates with incredibly progressive politics win their campaigns—and even more importantly, we see in recent years the extraordinary shift in public discourse about the US role in the world, especially (though not only) throughout the almost three years of US-enabled genocide in Gaza.” (09/21/26)
“Two professors at a medical school in Michigan published a peer-reviewed paper in the journal Bioethics. Their argument is that it is ‘morally obligatory’ to genetically engineer ticks to spread a disease that makes humans violently allergic to red meat. My first reaction was the natural one, in my opinion. It had to be an Onion or Babylon Bee headline someone laundered through a fake citation. … So I checked and it turned out to be real. … The author’s actual argument – and remember this is not satire – is that alpha-gal syndrome (AGS), the tick-borne red meat allergy, is a ‘moral bioenhancer.’ Their logic: if eating meat is morally wrong, and the allergy makes you stop eating meat (because it will now kill you), then the allergy makes you a better person.” (09/21/26)
“Almost exactly a month ago (about a fraction of a second before the issue exploded into the public consciousness) I attempted to address the moral peculiarities of ‘Effective Altruism’, the philosophy-based behavioral code that animates and governs the lives of the tech elites who dominate AI. In retrospect, that column was not my finest. It was a bit of a mess …. In short, in an attempt to discredit the entirety of the Effective Altruism movement, I failed to pick a single target and, as a result, failed to make a particularly effective case against any of it.” (09/21/26)
“The U.S. Supreme Court in October will hear oral arguments in Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, a case arising from climate litigation but presenting a much older constitutional question: How far may one state extend its law into the affairs of another? Boulder County seeks to use Colorado public nuisance law to pursue energy companies for their alleged contribution to global climate change. The Colorado Supreme Court allowed those claims to move forward. On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Suncor and ExxonMobil argue that Boulder’s claims are blocked by the Constitution and federal law, because greenhouse gas emissions transcend state boundaries.” (09/21/26)
“The risks presented by superintelligent and uncontrollable artificial intellifence are real, but the security appartatus is already colloborating closely with these firms.” (09/21/26)
