Summary:

The University of Washington agreed to pay $600,000 to computer science professor Stuart Reges after a federal appeals court ruled the university violated his First Amendment rights by disciplining him for a parody land acknowledgment he included in his 2022 syllabus.

Reges wrote a parody land acknowledgment in his syllabus, challenging the university’s official statement about the Coast Salish peoples.

Reges wrote: “I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.”

UW removed the statement from his online syllabus and opened an investigation, citing anti‑harassment policies. Reges then sued, claiming UW retaliated against him for protected speech.

A district court initially dismissed the case, but the 9th Circuit reversed, saying UW violated his free speech rights. In August 2026, both parties agreed to a $600K settlement

Opinion:

A minor but notable win for free speech and academic freedom over an establishment so captured by woke progressive ideologues that it has become an Orwellian force seeking to destroy the careers of any apostates.

Gazan writer in the NYT: reconstruction is a fantasy while Hamas still rules Gaza.

The author grew up in Gaza City, lost family in Israeli strikes, and still says the core problem is Hamas treating 2m Palestinians as hostages. He also hits Western activists who treat Hamas as “resistance” and the other side that treats every Gazan as Hamas.

Summary:

President Trump threatened to stop trading with countries that sell more to the United States than they purchase from it unless the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates. Following a stronger-than-expected August jobs report, he argued that America’s financial strength should entitle it to the world’s lowest rates and named Canada as a potential target. The Fed declined to comment, and the White House did not provide CNBC with additional details about the threat. CNBC

The proposal could affect dozens of countries, including major American trading partners. Economists cited in the article note that trade deficits are not inherently harmful and can reflect strong purchasing power. Officials also differ on interest rates: Vice President JD Vance supports cuts, economic adviser Kevin Hassett sees a strong case for holding steady, and Fed Chair Kevin Warsh has indicated that increases could be necessary to bring inflation down to the central bank’s 2% target. CNBC

My take:

I think Trump is getting desperate and flailing around with the same tired strategy: find someone who can serve as a reservoir for everything making people angry and dump the blame there. This time it is the Federal Reserve and countries that sell us more than they buy from us.

The threat itself barely holds together. The Fed sets rates in response to inflation, employment, and broader economic conditions. It does not lower them because the president declares that America deserves a better deal. Trade deficits are not invoices other countries owe us, and cutting off trade with dozens of major partners would not somehow erase the cost-of-living problem. It would disrupt supply chains, restrict access to imported goods, and risk making those goods even more expensive.

Context: Trump's truth social post:

Great jobs number just announced, breaking all estimates (except mine!) by double and triple - And you haven’t seen anything yet! EMPLOYERS ADDED 162,000 JOB IN AUGUST. Lower the interest rates because the U.S.A. is a much stronger credit than it was just a short time ago! A STRONG COUNTRY MEANS A LOWER INTEREST RATE - IT’S A BETTER CREDIT…Very simple! We should have the LOWEST RATE of any country in the World, like “the old days.” Without the United States agreeing to allow them their big surpluses, and we could stop that immediately, they would no longer be considered financially ELITE! LOWER THE RATE OR I’LL STOP TRADING WITH COUNTRIES WITH WHICH WE HAVE A DEFICIT, which the U.S. Supreme Court, in its ridiculous and very costly Tariff decision, strongly acknowledged “the President” has an absolute right to do. IT’S BETTER THAN TARIFFS! The Fed Board, with its great new leader, must get smart - BE PATRIOTS for a change. High interest rates put the U.S.A. at a very unfair disadvantage, and I won’t allow that to happen! President DONALD J. TRUMP

In light of my recent permaban from r/politics for my rampant 'bigotry' against trans women, an opinion echoed in the attached article by Mara Keisling, an American transgender rights advocate and senior fellow at the Searchlight Institute. To clarify for the Mods and anyone and everyone else. This thread is not an invitation to flame ware or hate. Trans people are people that have human rights, and a right to live their life in a manner they choose.

Sports however, are not a human right and post-pubescent sport are segregated by Sex, not gender, for a reason.

Summary: We can have a pragmatic middle ground on transgender participation in sports. Prepubescent trans children should generally be allowed to play on the teams of their choosing because, before puberty, there is little reason to think their participation undermines competitive fairness. At the same time post-puberty and elite sports raise different questions, particularly around biological differences, safety, and competitive advantage. Because most Americans are uncomfortable with trans women competing in women’s sportstrans advocates should recognize this concern rather than dismiss it.

Eligibility rules should be set by sports organizations, not politicians. Professional leagues, the NCAA, Olympic bodies, state athletic associations, schools, players, and other people directly involved in sports are better positioned to establish rules based on fairness, safety, age, and the specific characteristics of each sport. Blanket government bans are wrong. A case-by-case or sport-specific standards informed by science and common sense is the correct path.

Politically the sports issue has become disproportionately important in public debate over transgender rights. Although sports are far less consequential than issues such as healthcare access and anti-discrimination protections, they have become one of the main ways many Americans encounter the transgender-rights debate. Insisting on unrestricted participation in elite women’s sports could further alienate the public and strengthen politicians who oppose transgender rights more broadly.

The proposed compromise is to protect young trans children from exclusion while accepting that elite and post-puberty sports may require meaningful eligibility restrictions. Sophie Cunningham has every right to express concerns about fairness in women’s sports. Trans children should be treated with dignity and allowed to participate where fairness is not genuinely at issue, while competitive sports should retain the ability to establish evidence-based rules

Commentary: This seems a common sense, non-bigoted positon to take. And anyone in the comments is more than welcome to call me a bigot for taking it, however, hatred or verbal attacks against any other users will be reported to the mods.

As for the argument that has been made that 'all trans rights are connected and denying one is to deny their essential humanity'. I'm sorry, but thats just wrong. Your rights end where it demands society to accomodate your unique needs. Before that, every human person has the right to do what they will with thier one life. After that, the ability of anyone to demand anything is greatly diminished.

https://substack.com/home/post/p-213600385

It used to be the case that the left was more aligned with scientific and technological progress, futurism, investment in science, while the right/conservatism was associated more with traditionalism, science skepticism, etc..

However, with the resent rise in AI and the corresponding increase in AI capabilities — and resulting increase in safety/alignment concerns — there seems to be more an more resentment and outright hostility towards AI from left-leaning individuals/communities, and more pro-AI stances from right-leaning ones.

For example, the rise of ChatGPT saw many artists and screenwriters go on anti-AI strikes. Now, Sen Sanders has proposed an outright AI ban. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is steaming ahead with AI infrastructure investment and technological race with China.

I have always been strongly pro-technology and pro-scientific development, am very strongly pro-AI (though the point of this post won't be to debate this per se), and I thought this was the side of me that was more associated with left-leanings (human progress, science, enlightenment, futurism, etc.). While I acknowledge genuine problems society needs to solve with respect to long-term AI risks/alignment, and short-term economic risks from transformation of labor and economy, I see these as inevitable effects of technological development, not unlike what humanity saw during the Industrial Revolution and the overall arc of human technological progress, albeit at an accelerated pace.

Accordingly, I also see the strongly decelerations positions as forms of Luddism. I could also see an argument that anti-ai sentiment coincides with somewhat of a Marxist / anti-capitalism sentiment: lots of people complaining about AI simultaneously complain about billionaires and trillionaires. From that perspective, I'm also strongly pro-capitalism (but not against social programs and increasingly socialist-style solutions to AI job market displacement like UBI, etc.). not sure if that part of me is more right-leaning or simply centrist.

Would it be fair to say that anti-AI sentiment is a new norm on the left, or is the Sanders-style extreme decelerations an outlier on the far left? Is AI possibly being associated with the divisive personas like Trump and Musk, and a hostile sentiment being formed accordingly? What is your position and political leaning? Are my priors and assumptions about the left being more pro-technology in the past themselves incorrect?

In a report from the Wall Street Journal, Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman is described as systematically ducking meetings with vulnerable constituents, highlighting an incident in which he allegedly feigned illness to avoid meeting with paralyzed military veterans. Three wheelchair-bound veterans from rural Pennsylvania had traveled to Washington to advocate for legislation improving support and care for disabled veterans. Fetterman canceled the long-planned meeting at the last minute, instructing staff to inform the group that he *"*may have eaten something bad and wasn't feeling well." However, less than an hour later, Fetterman arrived at his office showing no signs of illness, explaining to aides that he could not skip a scheduled live appearance on Fox News to discuss foreign policy and Israel.

The reporting frames the canceled veterans' meeting as part of a broader pattern of Fetterman snubbing Pennsylvania groups and local leaders in favor of national television hits. Beyond the incident with the disabled military veterans, the WSJ article details how Fetterman refused to meet with a busload of constituents from a flood-prone, low-income Philadelphia neighborhood who traveled to D.C. to discuss federal grant program cuts, with state Lawmaker Anthony Hardy Williams noting, "He was available. He just chose not to meet with us." Furthermore, when pressed by staff to meet with officials from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia regarding health policy, text messages show Fetterman dismissing their concerns, writing, "Well I'm not... I'm convinced they just want free trips to DC." Text messages also have him refusing to attend a funeral for three police officers killed in the line of duty, citing the length of the funeral as a "nonstarter."

The revelation triggered immediate backlash from political figures and congressional colleagues, who condemned Fetterman’s prioritizing of cable news appearances over basic representation. Following the report, Pennsylvania Democratic lawmakers publicly criticized his actions, with Representative Brendan Boyle calling him a "disgrace" and Representative Chris Deluzio asserting that Fetterman's behavior shows a total lack of a "sense of duty." Despite the mounting public criticism from within his own party regarding his neglect of constituent obligations, Fetterman and his team declined to comment on the allegations.

Summary:

President Trump is renewing his pressure on the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates, this time tying the demand directly to U.S. trade policy. His comments came immediately after the August jobs report showed the economy added 162,000 jobs, far above expectations, while unemployment remained at 4.1%.

Trump's central argument is that a stronger U.S. economy and stronger creditworthiness should translate into lower borrowing costs. In his Truth Social post, he said:

Great jobs number just announced, breaking all estimates (except mine!) by double and triple - And you haven’t seen anything yet! EMPLOYERS ADDED 162,000 JOB IN AUGUST. Lower the interest rates because the U.S.A. is a much stronger credit than it was just a short time ago! A STRONG COUNTRY MEANS A LOWER INTEREST RATE - IT’S A BETTER CREDIT…Very simple! We should have the LOWEST RATE of any country in the World, like ‘the old days.’ Without the United States agreeing to allow them their big surpluses, and we could stop that immediately, they would no longer be considered financially ELITE! LOWER THE RATE OR I’LL STOP TRADING WITH COUNTRIES WITH WHICH WE HAVE A DEFICIT…IT’S BETTER THAN TARIFFS! The Fed Board, with its great new leader, must get smart - BE PATRIOTS for a change. High interest rates put the U.S.A. at a very unfair disadvantage, and I won’t allow that to happen!

The biggest part of the statement is the threat to stop trading with countries that run trade surpluses with the United States if the Fed doesn't lower rates. Taken literally, that would be an enormous change in U.S. trade policy because the country runs deficits with many major trading partners. Trump is essentially presenting restrictions on trade as another source of leverage for getting the economic conditions he wants. Reuters confirmed the threat but reported no details yet about how such a policy would actually be implemented.

There's also an unusual tension between the jobs report and Trump's demand for lower rates. The unexpectedly strong 162,000 job increase actually caused financial markets to increase expectations that the Fed could raise rates rather than cut them, because inflation remains elevated and a stronger labor market gives the Fed more room to keep fighting it. Inflation is currently around 4.1%, above the Fed's 2% target.

So the strong jobs report is being interpreted in two very different ways. Trump sees a strong economy as justification for substantially lower interest rates, while the Fed could see that same strength as giving it more freedom to keep rates high or raise them to control inflation.That's setting up another potential confrontation between the White House and the Federal Reserve under Trump's handpicked Fed chair, Kevin Warsh.

Summary: over the objections of military commanders, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had cut the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response program. CHMR officials were tasked with developing a picture of life on the ground in combat zones to avoid or minimize civilian harm.

Summary

The latest Harvard Caps - Harris polling shows the Democrat Party maintaining a small margin in the generic congressional ballot and a lead among independents, while Republicans are holding onto a slim lead among likely voters. Inflation/Cost of Living dominates voter concerns with issues like crime, immigration, and American values placing a distant second. 7 in 10 voters plan to vote along party lines, but only about 40% currently plan to show up on Election Day to vote in person. Voters are still slightly more favorable to GOP responses to Democrat claims and roughly 51% of voters believe that Democrats are being overtaken by leftwing extremists, whereas 45% believe that Republicans are being overtaken by right wing extremists.

Opinion

Intense and intractable partisan polarization means American politics will continue to be decided by a combination of which side motivates its base the best to get out and vote in the midterms and how the small percentage of independent voters break.

Summary:

The article reports that the U.S. economy added 162,000 jobs in August, a figure that exceeded expectations and marked a rebound from July’s revised total of 21,000 jobs. Payroll numbers for June were also revised upward, suggesting a stronger summer labor market than initially believed. The unemployment rate held steady at 4.1%, while labor force participation inched up to 61.6%. Average hourly earnings rose by 10 cents to $37.75, up 3.1% over the past year, though it remains unclear whether wage growth kept pace with inflation in August. Federal Reserve officials are expected to weigh the new employment data and the upcoming inflation report as they consider whether to raise interest rates later in September

Summary:

The Pentagon temporarily rescinded newly published clinical guidance that would have required annual testosterone-deficiency screening for service members age 30 and older. The guidance, released Wednesday and removed Thursday, called for questionnaires that could trigger blood testing and possible testosterone treatment for men, while women would be screened for hormone-related conditions such as Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport. A Pentagon official said the document was pulled so it could be updated, while interim guidance remains in effect. Doctors quoted by Reuters questioned the scientific basis for universal testosterone screening, noting that neither the American Urological Association nor the Endocrine Society recommends routine screening. Physicians also warned that unnecessary testosterone treatment can cause problems including infertility, elevated red blood cell counts, worsened sleep apnea, cardiovascular risks, and complications involving undiagnosed prostate cancer. One specialist nevertheless supported targeted screening and praised safeguards included in the withdrawn guidance.

My take:

I read the original guidance last night and literally scoffed at how ridiculous it was. Doctors generally do not go around screening otherwise healthy men for low testosterone just because they turned 30. You test when symptoms or other clinical reasons actually justify looking for it, which is probably why the major medical organizations cited here do not recommend universal screening.

And testosterone is not some harmless masculinity vitamin. If you actually need replacement therapy, great, that is medicine. If you do not, screwing around with exogenous testosterone can suppress your own hormone production, harm fertility, raise red blood cell counts, worsen sleep apnea, and cause other serious problems.

So I am glad they pulled this guidance, even if only temporarily. Coming right after all the reporting about Hegseth obsessing over testosterone, muscles, and warrior aesthetics while actual military modernization suffers, this feels like another strike against the idea that he is approaching the job with particularly serious judgment.

Summary:

CNN reports that multiple current and former military officials believe Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s focus on culture-war issues and personnel loyalty is disrupting the Army’s modernization efforts. The concerns intensified after Army Secretary Dan Driscoll resigned, with sources saying he objected to Hegseth firing or pushing out senior leaders who had been central to adapting the Army to drone warfare, emerging technologies and other modern battlefield demands. Hegseth’s office rejected the criticism, saying modernization, readiness, recruitment and innovation have all improved under his leadership.

The article highlights the departures of several highly regarded Army leaders, including Gen. Randy George, Gen. Christopher Donahue and Gen. David Hodne, and describes growing concern that experienced officers are being replaced by leaders more aligned with Hegseth’s emphasis on warrior ethos, physical standards and opposition to DEI and transgender service. Republican Sen. Thom Tillis publicly called for Trump to replace Hegseth, accusing him of being intimidated by competence and prioritizing culture wars over national defense.

My take:

It’s hard not to be sarcastic about this because this has literally been the concern since day one. Why do we need to damage the armed forces before the lesson sinks in?

Modern militaries win through logistics, intelligence, technology, drones, procurement, and competent people making competent decisions. Hegseth seems far more interested in warrior aesthetics, culture-war politics, and loyalty.

And honestly, that feels characteristic of this entire administration: shallow, performative politics with very few real solutions and a growing list of new problems.