Incoming Feed Items

This is a Premium piece of Notes on the Crises.

This interview is also available on podcast platforms and Rumble.

As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more ubiquitous by the day, its alleged dangers are being increasingly discussed by the dominant players of Silicon Valley, who are beginning to call publicly for a slowdown in its implementation. The greatest risk to people is not the technology itself but the military-contracting capitalists behind it such as Sam Altman and Elon Musk, who envision a technocratic future where man and machine merge in a dystopian harmony.

The morning after you win, the National Governors Association will call. They will offer a seminar, a binder, and a roster of former governors prepared to explain why you should slow down. Take the meeting if you must—but do not buy their theory.

The midterms may cost Republicans the House, and possibly even the Senate. But they will not lose the states. Thirty-six governorships are on the ballot, and the incoming class, with open seats in Ohio, Alabama, Iowa, Georgia, Tennessee, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and others, will likely yield the most conservative slate of new governors in a generation. The federal government will likely be deadlocked in 2027, but the states offer hope for advancing a bold and transformative national agenda.

To carry out such an agenda, incoming governors must reject the advice found in the NGA’s transition manual, which is an apologia for paralysis. On page 39, a former governor offers what the association presents as wisdom: “As a businessman, I spent 90 percent of my time on process and 10 percent on policy. As governor, I find I spend 90 percent of my time on policy and 10 percent on process.” This advice comes from a man who once controlled his own calendar but learned to let someone else control it. Unsurprisingly, he did not transform his state during his term in office.

The American Mind’s 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.

Beasts, Gods, and Bots: Facing down the Specter of a Post-Human Future | The American Mind Podcast

Americans can’t afford to be complacent about our election security. The right to vote is one of the most indispensable civil rights in a constitutional republic, but it is not self-executing. Laws must protect that right, ensure its proper administration, and defend it against error, fraud, and foreign influence.

Citizenship must be verified when voters register. States must maintain accurate voter rolls and give federal authorities the data to which they’re legally entitled. They must also have reliable proof-of-eligibility requirements and prosecute election-law violations.

This is ultimately not merely an election-administration issue—it is a matter of sovereignty.

The proposition that only American citizens may vote in elections is a cornerstone of our republic. The citizenship requirement preserves self-government and ensures that those who decide our elections are members of the American political community. If these basic rules are treated as mere aspiration rather than an enforceable legal requirement, then American sovereignty is at risk.

The vote—and the machinery that receives, records, verifies, counts, and reports it—is how the American people confer legitimate authority on public officials.

135th Henry George Commemorative Dinner Address by Mr Adam Creighton, Graduate House, Thursday, 17th September 2026.  Matt, thank you very much for the introduction. Look, it’s a great pleasure to be here. I’m very grateful to the committee for reaching out to me, and Rayna in particular, when we had a nice tea, actually, on […]

On this episode of Follow the Money, Senator Barbara Pocock, Australian Greens Spokesperson for Housing & Homelessness, joins Ebony Bennett to discuss the housing crisis, its long-term impacts on the lives of younger Australians, and her proposals to turn the situation around.

This episode was recorded on Tuesday 6 October.

If you or anyone you know needs help, you can contact Lifeline on 13 11 14 or online at www.lifeline.org.au.

Guest: Barbara Pocock, Senator for South Australia and Australian Greens Spokesperson for Housing & Homelessness // @barbarapocock

Host: Ebony Bennett, Deputy Director, the Australia Institute // @ebonybennett

Show notes:

Locked out: the growing generational housing divide, Select Committee on Intergenerational Housing Inequity (September 2026)

If a week is a long time in politics, then it’s an eternity in the universe of artificial intelligence.

All the way back in June, Andrew Charlton, the Assistant Minister for Science, Technology and the Digital Economy, gave a speech on the government’s commitment to AI.

Charlton is an unabashed advocate of Australia embracing AI and developing what he calls “world-class Australian AI industry”.

Charlton explained that this aspiration would not succeed without one non-negotiable ingredient: trust in the technology. The Australian people would need to trust that the government could protect them from the risks of AI and that they would share in the benefits of AI.

He finished his speech in observing that “… trust is not the price of an AI industry. Trust is the foundation of one.”

Charlton’s speech hasn’t aged well. On September 18, CNN reported that an intelligence report provided to the US military and generated with the help of a chatbot “almost started a war“, by falsely asserting that a Chinese ship in the Middle East was transporting nuclear material to aid Iran.

According to the report, shortly before the US military prepared to intercept the vessel, the errors in the report were identified and the plan was abandoned.

Washington’s Farewell Address is often celebrated as one of the great documents of American history—the political testament of the nation’s founding father. Its authorship, however, has occasioned debate. Some, especially those who viewed Washington as a puppet of closet monarchists, wondered if he was even in charge of his own administration and whatever statements emerged from it.

The record shows that while Washington certainly had assistance during the drafting process, the document was truly his—he dictated what he wanted included and gave the final approval of the text. The tenets espoused reflected beliefs Washington had held for decades—beliefs he hoped could guide the nation from infancy to maturity. The Farewell Address was a worthy capstone to his extraordinary career and a touchstone of American republicanism.

Writing the Farewell Address

I thought I’d do a brief description of some of the panels I went to at the Texas Tribune Festival. The TribFest (as it’s called) is policy wonk heaven. It’s three days of panels and interviews on policy questions.

You are not the kind of person who writes about Jay McInerney. But here you are, and you cannot say the terrain is entirely unfamiliar, although the details are fuzzy.

McInerney is best known as the author of the 1984 coke-fueled bestseller “Bright Lights, Big City”. You devoured it in high school and can quote it from memory. You just did that in the paragraph above. You are tired of repeating yourself and want to see what it’s like to repeat others. Robots are stealing your work and now they’ll jack a McInerney line by proxy. They’ll snort his line and come back for more. You’re not a stealer, you’re a dealer. Does blatant theft still count as theft? Not in The US of AI!

You apologize to Jay McInerney for this and all that follows.

When you were sixteen, McInerney confirmed your suspicions about big city elites. They were high and hollow. McInerney treated them with a wry detachment you envied. You were a 1990s teen: prey for the Epstein Class. Detachment felt good. You wished more men would detach from you.

Only months into Avi Lewis’ leadership of the New Democratic Party of Canada, the work to rebuild the party appears underway. Beyond “winning seats” in a long forthcoming federal general election, “rebuilding” the NDP from the disastrous 2025 election results involves three main tasks: restoring energy among current members, growing the membership, and regaining public support. These three tasks will depend on making the party more internally democratic. This is clearly recognized by Lewis who has the stated ambition of making the NDP “a political instrument of the people” which entitled his leadership policy platform for renewing party democracy. However, this goal cannot be achieved by reproducing the 20^th century model of intra-party democracy that still structures the party. Instead, building a truly democratic party requires a new model for the 21^st century, capable of raising the bar for Canadian democracy. There are certainly proven alternative models that have worked and have been previously demonstrated within the NDP.