“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)
“I still sometimes see commentators asserting that fears about the effects of Trump’s disastrous Iran war on energy prices were overstated, because the price of crude oil is “only” $102 a barrel, far above prewar prices but well below the $150-$200 range some analysts warned was possible. But nobody burns crude oil; they burn products refined from crude oil, mainly gasoline and diesel. And here’s what has happened to the price of diesel: Diesel is currently selling at more than $200 a barrel. It’s true that there is always a ‘crack spread’ between crude and diesel, but it’s typically on the order of $20. So the price of diesel is currently roughly what we would normally expect with crude at around $190.” (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)
‘The number of Americans without health insurance is soaring this year. Last week’s Census Bureau report on the uninsured rate for 2025 is the last good news we’ll get for a while.” (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)