Bonds are getting very expensive (for a lot of govts to issue) right as govt spending (at least in the US) skyrockets—along with the debt. Something has to give.
The latest in the saga of the drying Colorado River. Lakes Powell and Mead at lowest levels since 1957.
Yes, the biggest use of water is livestock feed.
Given China's huge trade surplus, is China approaching overcapacity? Will China face a collapse in demand, leading to a global economic shock? This piece argues that it is a serious concern, and whether or not you agree, it might be of interest to users with an interest in Chinese economics and global economic policy.
The Taliban continues to not let women participate in government, gain education, or take leadership roles in society.
This article outlines how other countries should be forcing and demanding the protection and participation of Afghani women, including requiring meetings with women's groups as formal parts of diplomatic missions, humanitarian assistance to women-led organizations, and putting pressure on countries that have or are considering deporting Afghan migrants back to Afghanistan.
Relegating women to a bystander role in society deprives them of their rights and also deprives the whole of Afghanistan from achieving its potential--especially economically.
Ned Resnikoff (former policy director for California YIMBY, among other things) argues that wealth inequality is both a cause and a consequence of restrictive land use. This touches on the political economy of land use policy and the politics of YIMBYism as an incipient political movement, addressing its leftward critics.
Resnikoff's book Build or Die: How America Is Suffocating Its Cities and What to Do About It will be published on December 8th, 2026.
Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan have signed a mutual defense agreement. This is particularly interesting because (1) Turkey is in NATO, (2) Pakistan faces conflict with India, and (3) Saudi Arabia has been the recipient of attacks from Iran (although notably Pakistan hasn’t yet entered the fray despite already having an agreement with SA).
Costa Rica is experiencing a showdown between its legislative body and its judiciary over judicial appointments--a constitutional crisis.
Planned protests happened today.
No constitution can account for bad actors. These situations are interesting to liberals who believe in the rule of law.
Despite the recent Supreme Court ruling upholding birthright citizenship, Trump is looking to push the issue as far as he can.
From the article:
>The executive orders apply only to future births tied to four categories:
>1. Children born of foreign diplomatic staff working on behalf of another government while in the U.S. The 14th Amendment doesn't confer automatic citizenship to ambassadors' families, and this order would expand that category to other noncitizen employees.
>2. Children of people who are classified as alien enemies, including those who belong to federally declared terrorist groups. The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to invading armies, and this designation would expand that category.
>3. Those born in U.S. territories — but only if Congress changes the law to end automatic citizenship there. A bill seeking to do that was introduced last month but isn't expected to pass. This would apply most notably to those in Puerto Rico.
>4. Children born of mothers who expressly and deceptively enter the U.S. for the sole purpose of having a child here, namely at a birth-tourism center. The order seeks to limit the use of surrogate mothers for this purpose as well.
Liberalism has taken some major hits in recent history. "Liberal" is even used as a slur by both the left and the right! :(
Liberalism needs some help. It needs liberals to do more than talk to each other.
What have you done recently to promote liberalism?
Have you canvassed for a liberal candidate? Did you make a public comment? Are you serving on a public board? Did you finally read "A Vindication of the Rights of Women"? Did you explain comparative advantage to an unsuspecting bystander?
Use this thread to share your "liberalism in action" stories, get and give validation and kudos, and get (and give) inspiration. Feel free to be as vague as you need to feel comfortable sharing. Any action, big or small, counts :)
The AP reports on Tibet in the context of China’s new ethnic unity law. This relates to liberalism in the context of individual freedoms and the promotion of pluralism rather than forced assimilation. Reporters struggle to get access to Tibet, so this article may be of particular interest. As it was a govt run trip that appears to have allowed multiple foreign journalists, there may be articles to look for from other outlets, too.
Should be a gift link.
We've read about "Belt and Road" for years, and there have been differing opinions on how effective it has been for China or how concerning it is for the continued influence of wealthy Western nations.
This article outlines smaller, under-the-radar, steps China has taken to integrate its influence in Latin American countries.
Data center policies have been a hot topic in the forum. There have been a lot of discussions about energy use, land use, water use, etc. The public HATES data center development. I suspect a lot of that is due to actual bad political dealing on a few major projects, which gives the whole industry a bad reputation. This seems like an example of one.
Should be a gift link. Title sucks; he's not doing the gentrifying. I used the user discussion flair because I think that's more appropriate for this type of article...
housing in quickly gentrifying neighborhoods. That is, it buys the property but doesn't upgrade, and in fact lowers rents for residents. The company then provides a low (6% is given in the article) but (hopefully) stable return.
Seems like an interesting mix of market-based reform + social welfare to ensure people aren't priced out of their apartments.
Thoughts?
We must discuss the most difficult of policy questions. :(
The Anthropocene is the apocalypse.
----
By
Seattle Times D.C. correspondent
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Federal lawmakers are considering whether to expand the government’s authority to kill more sea lions and seals to bolster salmon recovery efforts in the Pacific Northwest.
The region’s critical salmon runs are on life support: Fourteen species and populations of salmon and steelhead trout in Washington are deemed at risk of extinction under the Endangered Species Act. The hurdles to their livelihood are numerous, spanning a worsening climate crisis, habitat loss, pollution and — as Congress members debated this week — proliferating predators.
The House Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries on Tuesday probed bipartisan legislation co-sponsored by Reps. Michael Baumgartner, R-Spokane, and Emily Randall, D-Bremerton, that would ease restrictions in the Marine Mammal Protection Act for killing sea lions and seals, renewing a decades-old conversation over whether humans should intervene to curb pinniped predation. It’s the second attempt this month by a Washington lawmaker to expand culling of the marine mammals.
The debate comes as marine wildlife officials investigate the shooting of a baby harbor seal found near Bellingham this month with a gunshot wound to its face. The pup, euthanized last week by medical professionals, is the third seal treated for a gunshot injury by SR3, a nonprofit sea life response, rehabilitation and research facility in Des Moines, in the past year, underscoring the tensions surrounding the animals even as Congress weighs broader lethal management.
Baumgartner in a statement before the hearing said his bill is a “common-sense” update that would allow Washington state and federally recognized tribes in Western Washington to explore new ways to responsibly manage booming pinniped populations. Randall told the committee that declining salmon runs also threaten tribal treaty-reserved fishing rights. “We have to find ecosystem balance,” she said. “Nonlethal methods of controlling the pinniped population haven’t worked for us.”
Both first-term members of Washington’s congressional delegation emphasized the bipartisan nature of the effort. Still, lawmakers representing the Pacific Northwest clashed on whether greater allowances to kill sea lions and seals is an effective — or prudent — solution.
“On the West Coast, we know salmon are the beating heart of the Columbia River,” said Rep. Maxine Dexter, D-Ore. “I’m concerned we’re getting ahead of ourselves with the changes in this legislation.” Predation is only one factor, she argued, and recovery will require tackling the many other pressures facing Columbia River fish.
Rep. Jared Huffman, the top Democrat on the House Committee on Natural Resources who represents one of California’s northernmost districts bordering Oregon, said the bill “goes too far” in greenlighting pinniped killings without adequate safeguards. Rep. Val Hoyle, D-Ore., criticized lawmakers for not consulting Oregon tribes while drafting the legislation. “Sea lions cross both sides of the river. They go from Washington to Oregon and back again. So we can’t have a one-state solution,” Hoyle said, adding that a fix remains urgent: “This issue is too critical to get wrong or sit on it.”
Salmon recovery is widely viewed as vital to Washington state and the broader Pacific Northwest because salmon are a cornerstone of the region’s ecosystems and economy. They provide food for numerous species, including endangered southern resident orca whales, and are essential to sustaining Northwest commercial and recreational fisheries, as well as tribal treaty-protected fishing traditions.
Baumgartner and Randall’s Northwest Endangered Salmon Predation Prevention Act of 2026 would broaden where, and how, Washington state and Western Washington tribes with protected fishing rights can manage the growing sea lion and seal populations. In 2018, Congress authorized Washington state to expand a program to capture and euthanize sea lions in the Columbia River Basin due to concerns for salmon survival.
Their bill goes further, expanding the law from “sea lions” to all pinnipeds, including harbor seals, California sea lions and Steller’s sea lions. It would remove geographical restrictions limiting killings to portions of the Columbia River and eliminates the requirement that chemical euthanasia be the only approved killing method. It would take the effort beyond the Columbia River, too, establishing permits for tribes and state officials to kill pinnipeds in “each river and stream in the State of Washington that flows into the marine waters of the State.” The bill would also direct the development of nonlethal methods that prevent pinnipeds from traveling upstream into salmon habitats.
The Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, which represents 20 treaty tribes in Western Washington, threw its support behind the bill, and some researchers say the controversial tactic may save culturally, economically and ecologically critical fish.
“The Marine Mammal Protection Act already allows the targeted removal of predatory sea lions,” Tim Petty, assistant secretary for oceans and atmosphere with the U.S. Department of Commerce, told lawmakers during the hearing. “But that process hasn’t moved the needle in salmon recovery on the scale that we need to move.” The proposal, he said, gives Washington and eligible tribes broader authority to manage pinnipeds in state waters.
“We are so focused on trying to manage the salmon. We need to manage the pinniped the same way,” Petty said.
Richard Merrick, a marine scientist and retired chief science adviser with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, told lawmakers the legislation is well intentioned, but will do little to recover Pacific Northwest salmon. Healthy habitats for salmon remain limited, he said, and new sea lions will replace the culled mammals. Merrick suggested further studies to find comprehensive solutions.
Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Washougal, pushed back. “This is a topic of conversation at dinner tables in my district for decades,” she said. “I fail to see what spending more time and money on biologists would provide here that we don’t already know. We know that sea lions are heavy predators on our salmon and steelhead.”
Gluesenkamp Perez — who has been vocal about sea lions overrunning stretches of the Columbia River in her district — introduced a separate billearlier this month with the same end goal: Kill pinnipeds to save salmon.
Her Protecting Columbia River Salmon Act of 2026 has a narrower scope, covering only California sea lions and Steller’s sea lions and focusing solely around the Columbia River. It would, however, allow a broader definition for tribes, allowing tribes with ancestral ties to the river to participate rather than limiting eligibility to tribes with treaty-reserved fishing rights.
“I have some concerns about this bill,” she said of Baumgartner and Randall’s legislation. “I am not hearing from my community that there are strong concerns about harbor seals.”
Her bill has not yet had a hearing.
Nate Pamplin, director of external affairs at the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, testified in support of Baumgartner and Randall’s measure at the hearing. For Pamplin, the effort represents significant progress.
“It’s pretty exciting that for this longstanding issue, there are two bills out there that are trying to address it,” Pamplin told The Seattle Times. “While we’re working across a variety of threats on salmon recovery, this is an area that we don’t have much authority to do anything about.”
This sub has often discussed the decline in reading among kids and adults. The state of Texas has recently developed a list of required reading for students across the state that focuses on reading entire books. Teachers can add to the list as they wish.
The list has come under some fire for its inclusion of several Bible passages. I do find this insidious and would like to see more religious inclusion. I don't think English lit needs to leave out religion--I buy the argument that being introduced to texts like the Bible is an important part of literacy.
My take:
(1) I think the initiative is overall good. The vast majority of choices make sense, and it is good to have students read entire books and to have some of those books be in common with their fellow students across the state.
(2) As I said above, I wish there were more religious inclusion. I surprised myself a bit because after a quick glance through, I think the Bible passages they chose are fine.
(3) I'm more upset by the Grade 3 Davy Crockett glazing *eyeroll* fucking Texas
(4) Ayn Rand and Thomas Sowell of all people you could excerpt in Grade 11 *eyeroll* (edit to add that I don't think Sowell is as bad of an inclusion as Rand)
(5) I've expressed this before in this forum, but I think the teaching of Animal Farm should be limited to university courses that will go in depth on the Soviet and European politics that led Orwell to write the book. I do not trust that the average Grade 9 teacher in Texas has the knowledge or the guts to get into a nuanced discussion about socialism, communism, and totalitarianism with WWII realpolitik with their students. Even if you have an accompanying text, like in this list. And if you want to teach allegory, well the Bible is right there.
Any thoughts?
!ping ED-POLICY
edit to add gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/20/us/texas-schools-required-reading-books.html?unlocked_article_code=1.zFA.9S9_.Siy6JqcSRLyt&smid=url-share
“Mr. Rubio has become the de facto viceroy of Venezuela”
This article describes the power Rubio has assumed over the governance of Venezuela, including finances and distribution of natural resources.
Of interest to the sub because of US/Venezuela relations as well as an example of strongman, even expansionist, fopo.
Debt held by households is an issue. These are my thoughts:
I think 2 and 4 would be palatable; forgiveness simply isn't.
I'm interested in a policy conversation here--is student loan debt a problem? If so, what should we do about it?
It's been 250 years since we got this banger:
>When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Let's discuss it in this post. Let's also discuss the United States as a nation and as an idea. What are your thoughts on this particular Fourth of July?
---
250 years ago, the Second Continental Congress voted to declare independence from the British Crown (on July 2nd, except for the abstaining New York, who took until the 9th to make it unanimous), and on July 4th, issued a statement that would become a defining document of both American and liberal values.
The US Declaration of Independence defined a right to revolution, and in its most famous sentence, enshrined the natural rights of everyone that governments are supposed to protect. It also demonstrated that the previously separate colonies were able to function as a whole–the “United States” already existed in spirit.
Did the writers and signers mean "everyone"? Well, "everyone" thought it applied to them, and have been using the text to fight for their rights ever since. The meaning of the Declaration of Independence is what Americans have read into it, from the moment it was printed to the present day. It is not law; it is an argument--one that has been frequently ignored--and yet it has been called "American Scripture".
---
At the time of its writing, the colonies had been at war with Britain for over a year. The colonies were largely already self-governing; the governors appointed by Britain had been forced out or had fled their duties, leaving sometimes hastily-formed state governments to pick up the slack. The Second Continental Congress convened to not only deal with the big issues--should we declare independence?--but also the small--how to keep the states from fighting with each other? how to keep the soldiers fed?
And yet, it took some time for the colonists and the Congressional delegates to be convinced that a full break from the Crown was their solution. The colonists' primary complaints had been with Parliament. The First Continental Congress had petitioned the King to free them from the tyrannical lords, but King George III, in his post-Glorious Revolution wokeness (or unwillingness to get his ass handed to him), stuck by Parliament’s prerogative. The King even went further and declared the colonies in “open and avowed” rebellion, said he would look for foreign help in bringing them back under control, and approved of the British navy patrolling and blockading the colonial coasts.
The real kicker, though, was when the royal governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore, offered freedom to all slaves or indentured servants who joined the British military. This made the southerners very very mad. Now the powerful Virginians were truly ready to team up with the scrappy troublemakers from Massachusetts and ditch the Crown for good. Then, in January 1776, Thomas Paine published Common Sense, arguing in plain language for the separation of the colonies from Britain. It is still one of–if not the–best-selling American piece of writing of all time relative to population. The Second Continental Congress decided to officially support new governments and began drafting a formal resolution declaring independence.
Thomas Jefferson was selected to write the first draft of the Declaration of Independence because he was a Virginian and a good writer. (Also, Congress was still bogged down with committee work on the “little stuff” and Jefferson was young and ambitious, so I kinda think they just stuck him with unpaid overtime.) Jefferson admitted himself that nothing in the document was original; he had previously written A Summary View of the Rights of British America, which was his draft of grievances against the Crown, and he had George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights on hand, from which he freely drew. The most famous sentence of the Declaration of Independence is a re-editing of Mason’s opening:
>That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
Those documents themselves were based in a Lockean tradition and a tradition of English declarations, most notably the Declaration of Right of 1689, which laid out the grievances of the English against monarchy.
Local jurisdictions were writing their own Declarations, too. There was a lot of chatter and scribbling and experimenting throughout the colonies, to various extents. In many colonies, townspeople were encouraged to assemble and discuss independence amongst themselves. Although they differed on how much of the “rabble” they wanted to include in deliberations, the delegates to the Continental Congress were very interested in ensuring public support for independence. They were quite concerned about acting outside of their mandate. (I cannot help but note the contrast with the present day.)
Jefferson’s draft was heavily edited by the rest of the drafting committee and by the Congress as a whole. Most notably, they removed a screed he wrote blaming the Crown for the institution of slavery in the colonies. Jefferson may be history’s most notorious hypocrite.
Who was the Declaration written for? It wasn’t written for the King or Parliament. Parliament and later historians tried to align the list of grievances with actual acts–some are obvious, other grievances seem to have been merely rhetorical generalizations. Ostensibly such a Declaration was written for potential allies in the war, namely the French. However, the copy of the Declaration meant for King Louis XVI got lost in the mail and didn’t arrive until after Europe had already been talking about it for months. Perhaps America’s first foreign policy oopsie. King Louis is unlikely to have been swayed by talk of revolution, anyway. He wanted to stick it to the Brits, and he needed to be assured that the States could hold their own. It would take Benjamin Franklin’s brilliant diplomacy to finally convince him to formally pitch in.
The Declaration was largely written for the American people. Jefferson likely always intended for it to be read aloud, in assemblies and other gatherings. It demonstrated that the new government could be a capable alternative to the Crown, and its aspirational rhetoric secured support for the war, which would continue for several more years.
---
As I wrote above, the Declaration is not law. So why is it so important? Because its readers made it important. In the early Republic, the Declaration is rarely mentioned and is not incorporated into governing documents. Internationally, however, the act of declaring independence and revolting against the current government caught on quickly and continued through the 20th century. Many declarations of independence from other nations draw from the US document.
Domestically, the text of the Declaration was very quickly coopted by those who wanted to expand rights. Danielle Allen, a prominent historian and scholar of politics describes of the signing of the Declaration as a spark for the abolition movement. (Listen to her on a recent episode of On Point: https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2026/06/01/declaration-of-independence-250-years-later) Jamelle Bouie recently wrote a column on this for the NYT, which I encourage everyone to read: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/01/opinion/declaration-independence-jefferson-douglass-lincoln.html
In his famous speech, “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?”, Frederick Douglass calls out the hypocrisy in the stated values of the Declaration and calls upon the people of the States to uphold them, thus further elevating the text to a set of aspiration values. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/What_to_the_Slave_Is_the_Fourth_of_July%3F
(Friend of the sub John Brown wrote his own imitation of the Declaration–the “Declaration of Liberty” https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/active_learning/explorations/brown/planning3.cfm)
It was finally Lincoln who secured the status of the Declaration of Independence as the enduring statement of the values and principles of the United States. In his famous debates with Stephen Douglas, he expands the meaning of “all men are created equal” to mean, quite literally “all men”; an oratorical sleight-of-hand that obscured historical complexity to create a national system of belief. He would further ingrain this belief with his Gettysburg Address:
>Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
(It’s been said many times, but holy shit Lincoln was a great president.)
---
Some books:
The go-to is Pauline Maier’s American Scripture, Making the Declaration of Independence. I mostly drew from here.
Danielle Allen: Our Declaration, A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality
David Armitage: The Declaration of Independence, A Global History
---
Late Edit: It's worth noting that the Declaration of Independence was catastrophic for the tribes of North America.