Incoming Feed Items

Reducing energy use is the most common sacrifice Australians are making to afford their rent or mortgage, while many are limiting driving, skipping meals and delaying medical appointments, a new national survey has exposed.

Everybody’s Home’s report ‘Breaking Point’ captures the results of a survey of more than 1,100 Australians. Of those surveyed:

Kinda Hachem

The post Beyond cost of living relief appeared first on CPRC.

The post Recent Privacy Act Updates appeared first on CPRC.

The post CPRC Awarded Grant to Study Consumer Decision-Making in Energy-Efficient Appliance Purchases appeared first on CPRC.

The post My recent scam scare exposes a larger issue in Australia appeared first on CPRC.

The post 50 years of consumer protection – reflections from consumer law rockstars appeared first on CPRC.

The post Lost in code: The missing voices in AI  appeared first on CPRC.

The post Consumers International Congress Day 3 appeared first on CPRC.

The post Consumers International Congress Day 2 appeared first on CPRC.

The post Consumers International Congress Day 1 appeared first on CPRC.

The post Brand Refresh appeared first on CPRC.

Marco Del Negro, Ibrahima Diagne, Keshav Dogra, Elena Elbarmi, Donggyu Lee, and Michael Pham

This is to announce that the Past & Present Reading Group will be meeting to discuss, on a weekly basis and starting in February 2026, our next text which is:

Evgeny B. Pashukanis, Law and Marxism: A General Theory [1924] (Pluto Press, 1987).

If you only read social media, you’d think the conservative legal movement is in dire straits. Politicians lash out at judges and at the Federalist Society. Some on the Right grumble that originalism has yielded little more than panel discussions and law‑review symposia. In this very forum, friends suggest that our moment demands a new “constitutional morality,” a more ambitious jurisprudence that will somehow arrest civilizational decline.

Count me unconvinced. The short answer to “What comes after originalism?” is more originalism, plus better policy. The movement’s future lies in consolidating the gains of the last decade, deepening our commitment to the Constitution’s text and original public meaning, and building political and cultural institutions that can address the “crises of belonging, fertility, and meaning.” Courts have an important—but limited—role in that project. Asking judges to save the country is not just unrealistic; it’s a category error.

Chile rarely captures sustained American attention. It is distant, orderly, and often portrayed as a reliable outpost of stability in South America. But this image is vanishing—and the shift matters far more to the United States than many realize.

Chile is a crucial democratic partner in a region where China and Russia are expanding their influence. Its economy is tightly linked to U.S. markets, its copper and lithium reserves are central to American technological and defense supply chains, and its politics influences the balance of the entire Southern Cone.

The country features a two-round system for its presidential elections, the second round of which will be held on December 14. Two candidates are running: one from the Right and the other from the far left-wing. A Communist victory in Chile—or a prolonged period of instability—would affect U.S. geopolitical, economic, and security interests.

But the deeper reason Chile matters to Americans is that its current crisis illustrates a broader lesson: economic success without a strong cultural foundation cannot sustain a free society. The United States faces its own internal cultural fractures. What is happening in Chile is not only a regional concern—it is a cautionary tale.

To understand how Chile arrived at this fragile moment, one must look at its origins and the long-standing tensions that have shaped its national identity.

Today, Judge Paula Xinis ordered Kilmar Abrego Garcia released from immigration detention, granting his petition for habeas corpus. This is a signal ruling, though not the end of Abrego Garcia's journey through the looking glass world of a lawless executive branch's treatment of him.

By Andrew Purves Growing up in Hong Kong in the 1970s, I remember the noise and disruption of the Mass Transit Railway (MTR) construction. Cut-and-cover tunnelling tore up roads, while new property developments rose above the stations. These developments would reshape Hong Kong’s urban landscape — little did I know that I would be writing […]

Every few years, someone tells us the United States is not really the child of the long tradition of republicanism, English common law, colonial self-government, the natural rights principles enshrined in our Declaration, and the debates involving the framing of a new government that transpired in Philadelphia after the war. No, we’re subtly led to assume that our political father is someone else entirely: this time, it’s the Haudenosaunee—the Iroquois Confederacy.

Ken Burns’s new PBS documentary on the American Revolution leans into that claim, suggesting in the first episode’s preamble that the very idea of our Union was inspired by the Iroquois. By subtly juxtaposing the Iroquois and the Founding Fathers, viewers are invited to believe that if they thought Franklin, Washington, and company fathered America, then they’ve been building the wrong monuments.

Burns tells a vivid story. But it’s also a deeply misleading one—and the very treaty on which his opening narrative depends says almost the opposite of what he needs it to say.

The scene in question is the 1744 Lancaster treaty council. Representatives of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia met with Iroquois leaders to settle land disputes and keep them allied against the French. During the talks, an Iroquois speaker did just as Burns relates—namely, he advised the colonial governors to live at peace with one another and act together as the Iroquois nations did. But the colonial reply—effectively omitted by Burns—matters just as much.

The American Mind’s ‘Editorial Roundtable’ podcast is a weekly conversation with Ryan Williams, Spencer Klavan, and Mike Sabo devoted to uncovering the ideas and principles that drive American political life. Stream here or download from your favorite podcast host.

Somalia et Alia | The Roundtable Ep. 297

In the first part of my extended reflection on the character of conservatism, I warned that the American Right is confronted by a “pseudo-Rightist culture of repudiation” that in important respects mirrors the intellectual and political Left. The crude white nationalism and vociferous anti-Semitism of the so-called “groypers,” who delight in the nasty, transgressive utterings of the internet chameleon Nick Fuentes, present the most recent example of that phenomenon.

On another front, a spirit of ingratitude dominates in certain precincts of the Right. There is a marked tendency to dismiss even the most admirable conservative wisdom of the past as outdated, irrelevant, or worse. A young critic of mine at The American Conservative, who writes very much in that dismissive spirit, accuses me of making “rote” appeals to the likes of Burke and Churchill, as if deep immersion in the thought and action of these two great conservatives can only be formulaic and irrelevant.

But a conservatism that forgets the most capacious meaning of the social contract, the enduring bond that connects the living to the dead and the yet to be born, and the multiple reasons for gratitude to our noble if imperfect forebears—Burkean themes par excellence—has lost essential bearings, and will rather quickly lose its soul.