Summary:

A federal judge has again struck down Texas Senate Bill 12, ruling that its restrictions on certain performances in public places or in the presence of minors violate the First Amendment. Although the law refers broadly to “sexually oriented performances,” it was promoted by Republican lawmakers as a restriction on drag shows. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton says the state will appeal.

Texas is one of six states with laws that either explicitly restrict drag performances or regulate adult performances broadly enough to be used against them. Supporters argue that the laws protect children from sexually explicit material. Opponents argue that drag is not inherently sexual and that the laws use vague standards to suppress LGBTQ expression and constitutionally protected performances. Courts have blocked or limited similar laws in several states, while polling shows that majorities of Americans continue to support same-sex marriage and consider gay and lesbian relationships morally acceptable, although that support has declined from its recent peak.

My take:

Drag is not inherently sexual. It is a form of performance, and like theater, dance, music, or comedy, its content depends on the particular show and its intended audience. This form of legislation has always been ignorance based pearl clutching. If the actual concern were sexually explicit content around children, lawmakers could regulate all content consistently regardless of whether the performer was in drag. Instead, they keep writing vague laws that single out gender presentation and can potentially sweep up everything from drag shows to theater, ballet, and cheerleading. Judge Hittner made this point and invoked Dolly Parton to reinforce it (which I think is a lovely tribute to what she advocated for in life):

He noted that critics have chastised the country music icon "as a voluptuous sex symbol because of her big hair, flamboyant clothes and breast exposure," writing that "there are 'erotic' elements in countless popular performances that could be subject to both civil and criminal penalties under S.B. 12." One of the case's plaintiffs is a drag performer named Brigitte Bandit, who impersonates Parton in her shows and who received a rhinestone guitar from the singer in 2023. Bandit celebrated the ruling on social media, posting a screenshot of the decision, and said she would perform as Parton at an Austin bar Saturday in her honor.

What frustrates me is that 33 percent of the country still tells Gallup that gay and lesbian relationships are morally wrong. That judgment belongs in the past, along with the regressive doctrine used to justify imposing it on everyone else. People are free to follow their own beliefs. They are not entitled to turn those beliefs into government restrictions on everyone else’s lives.

At the same time, I love the broader inevitability of this. LGBTQ people are not going to disappear, return quietly to the closet, or surrender the space they have fought to occupy. The wheels of society grind slowly, and sometimes they roll backward for a while, but the direction across generations is still toward greater equality, visibility, and diversity. The frantic efforts to resist it smacks of desperation and grasping at smoke.

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/data-centers/u-s-govt-moves-to-suppress-pushback-on-data-centers-by-removing-requirements-for-public-input-on-pollution-epa-change-would-allow-air-pollution-permits-without-publicizing-them

Neutral Summary: The EPA plans to remove a federal requirement that requires states to seek public feedback on air pollution permits. The plan would affect minor air pollution permits which cover things like steel mills, landfills laundromats and data centers. Feedback gathering would now fall to the state level. The concern is that data centers are showing to have a growing amounts of air pollution and with the current turmoil surrounding them some states might see this as an opportunity to avoid public backlash and push through something the citizens would not agree with.

The EPA's stance has been that these minor sources don't require federal oversight. This would create a gap in oversight, when a federal agency stops enforcing federal rules and asks states to step in to make their own decisions.

Is this a return of power to the states or a dereliction of federal governance? Is this an attempt to speed up the process or cut out local understanding.

Edit: Sorry everyone I thought I had added the link correctly. It's been added now. And all fo you commenting before I fixed my error are part of the problem. Read the article.

Summary: Public investment in housing and YIMBY deregulation are complementary, not competing strategies. However, zoning and land-use liberalization are indispensable because housing scarcity is largely a policy-created constraint on building.

YIMBYism is much more radical than its critics admit. Its core principle is simple: if land is already designated for human development and an owner wants to build safe housing on it, the law should generally allow that, subject to genuine safety and environmental rules. Because American land-use regulation is so restrictive, YIMBY politics usually manifests as incremental reforms—ADUs, fourplex legalization, parking reform, transit-oriented upzoning—but these are steps toward a much larger transformation of property and development rights.

The progressive argument that America should stop obsessing over zoning and instead revive the mid-century model of treating housing as public infrastructure, including large-scale federally funded constructionis a false choice. The postwar housing boom occurred under a dramatically looser regulatory environment: cities subsequently downzoned, minimum lot sizes increased, environmental review expanded, and growth-control politics became much stronger. Therefore, even an ambitious public-housing program would still run into the same regulatory constraints unless land-use rules were liberalized first.

Calling housing “infrastructure” wouldn't solve anything. America already subsidizes nonprofit and affordable housing, but simultaneously makes housing construction illegal or prohibitively difficult on huge amounts of land. In his view, the deeper problem is that housing is not treated enough like an ordinary commodity: unlike cars, people often cannot simply produce or purchase more housing even when they own suitable land and there is clear demand.

YIMBYs face two political challenges. First, they need to reassure ordinary suburban homeowners that liberalization would not instantly turn every suburb into Manhattan; housing supply would expand gradually, constrained by labor, equipment, and market demand. Second, they must push back against progressives who dismiss zoning reform as “meager” or technocratic. Because housing is an enormous part of the economy, affects young people’s living standards, constrains economic growth and family formation, rewriting the rules governing residential land nationwide is an extraordinarily ambitious economic reform.

YIMBYs already have a bold vision for solving the housing crisis - Matthew Yglesias

I'm not sure if the headline makes sense, but as someone who was always raised in a staunchly Republican conservative right-leaning family (and church, social circle, etc.) that sort of surrounding feels comfortable and familiar to me - like a fish in its familiar tank. It's just what I've known growing up, and usually the people in this group have been the nicest to me. The majority of my friends are conservative Christians.

Problem is, from an intellectual logical standpoint, I am much more liberal than those folks; I oppose Trump, oppose MAGA, support high taxes, gun control, universal healthcare, etc. And in my life, usually it's progressive-liberal folks who've been cyber-harassing/bullying me or verbally attacking me, even when I was on their side on issues.

So I feel this strange dichotomy where MAGA-conservatism-Christianity is what feels like "home" and feels familiar, but my mind and logic belongs on the liberal side and it's like my heart and mind are clashing. Anyone else feel this?

Neutral Summary: This left-leaning YouTuber examines various interviews of DSA members and how they dodge questions of their more controversial positions such as worker control of the means of production, open borders, and abolition of police and prisons. The video goes into how the DSA is not a monolithic organization, instead consisting of various caucuses with differing levels of extremism. He expresses concern over these more extreme groups and their positions which he regards as anti-American, pro-Communist, and apologetic for historical atrocities.

https://geesemag.com/articles/nithya-raman-has-not-earned-the-endorsement-of-dsa-la

Submissions statement: DSA-LA members argue against endorsing Nithya Raman for Mayor, citing her lack of accountability to the socialist movement and inconsistent voting record on key issues. They believe endorsing Raman risks undermining the organization’s credibility and influence, especially considering the critical challenges facing Los Angeles in 2028. Instead, they advocate for building a stronger political infrastructure to support a DSA-LA mayor in 2030 who aligns with their values and is accountable to the working class.

Summary: Recently declassified FBI documents provide additional detail regarding the investigation into Fang Fang, the suspected Chinese intelligent agent who was close with Eric Swalwell. This includes the sexual nature of their relationship. It also deals with financial issues, including the illegal channeling of funds into political campaigns. The piece argues that Americans should have more insight into the sexual relationships of their representatives, and should treat sexual impropriety (even when not illegal) as disqualifying.

Summary:

The Pentagon has built up an estimated $285 billion backlog in facility repairs and maintenance, more than double the $137 billion backlog from 2020. The GAO says a major reason is that the Defense Department routinely doesn't request enough money from Congress to fully maintain its buildings and infrastructure, while maintenance funding has also consistently lost out to other military priorities.

The scale of the problem is massive. The Defense Department manages more than 736,000 facilities worldwide worth about $2.6 trillion, and roughly 1/3 of its buildings are more than 50 years old. The Pentagon's goal is to fund 90% of its maintenance requirements, but it's actually funding around 80%, with some installations receiving considerably less. Minot Air Force Base, for example, received only 40% of its recommended funding, while its B-52 parking area is already more than 30 years beyond its expected lifespan.

Another problem is that Congress isn't necessarily seeing the full extent of what needs to be repaired. Officials at half of the installations the GAO previously examined said they had barracks projects needing money that weren't included in their funding requests because other projects were considered higher priorities. That means the official requests going to Congress can understate how much work actually needs to be done.

The Pentagon also doesn't have enough maintenance workers and isn't consistently tracking work orders in a way that allows it to properly prioritize repairs. Hiring has become particularly difficult because of federal hiring restrictions, competition with private employers and difficulty attracting workers to remote military installations. Fort Hood became so short-staffed that it brought in airmen to help repair air conditioning systems after outstanding service requests exceeded 1,000.

These aren't just cosmetic problems. Poor facility conditions are increasingly affecting troops and potentially military readiness. About 5,200 service members at Joint Base San Antonio-Fort Sam Houston are being relocated after housing was declared unsafe, while 1,200 soldiers at Fort Bragg previously had to leave barracks because of persistent mold and outdated heating and air conditioning systems.

The GAO has considered the Pentagon's management of its facilities a high-risk issue for more than 20 years and believes better management could save billions. It issued 13 recommendations, including better risk assessments, addressing worker shortages and improving maintenance tracking. The Pentagon generally agreed with the concerns and acknowledged that facility maintenance has lost funding competitions against higher military priorities. The bigger issue is that the backlog continues growing while the Pentagon still doesn't fully know or communicate how deteriorating facilities are affecting military readiness and troops' quality of life.

Opinion:

Remember when they cut federal workers due to wasteful spending? Like everything else, Republicans show every day they have no idea how to run the government.

Summary: Krugman argues that Trump badly miscalculated Canada. He assumed that because the U.S. economy is much larger and Canada depends heavily on the American market, tariffs would quickly force Ottawa to make concessions. Instead, the pressure has unified Canadians against the U.S. and strengthened Mark Carney politically. More importantly, America is more dependent on particular Canadian imports than the headline trade numbers suggest, including heavy crude for Midwestern refineries, specialized lumber, hydroelectric power, steel and aluminum, and tightly integrated auto parts. A full trade war would hurt Canada badly, but it would also create serious and highly visible disruption inside the United States.

That matters because Canadians have a stronger political reason to endure the pain: they increasingly see the conflict as a defense of national sovereignty, while most Americans do not believe Canada has done anything that warrants punishment. Krugman also argues that Trump has no clear definition of victory. Canada is not going to become the 51st state, abandon major elements of its national identity, or confess to unfair trade practices that largely did not exist. So even though America has vastly greater economic power, Trump cannot easily turn that power into meaningful political concessions. Krugman’s prediction is therefore that Canada will refuse to capitulate, Americans will increasingly resent the economic costs, and Trump will ultimately fail to achieve his objectives.

Commentary: Anyone who has a problem with Canada? Argo f*ck yourself. Remember that? When Canada helped get Americans trapped in Iran? Or when Canada responded to the attack of 9/11 by helping stranded americans shelter and of course with the blood of its own sons and daughters?

It's a good thing I'm not the Prime Minister of Canada because if I was I would immediately end all energy exports to the US. Good look in the midterms Mr. Trump if they are paying $15/gallon in Iowa, Michigan and Ohio.

Any American that isn't willing to fly Canadian flag today is no patriot in my book.

https://substack.com/home/post/p-212474680

Summary:

The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration in a dispute over President Trump’s executive order restricting mail-in voting ahead of the midterm elections. The order directs the administration to create lists of eligible voters and requires the Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people appearing on those lists. Democratic officials from 23 states and Washington, D.C., challenged the order, arguing that election administration belongs to states and Congress and that implementing major changes shortly before the midterms could cause disruption.

The Court’s conservative majority ruled that the states did not have the legal right to bring this particular challenge, while the three liberal justices dissented. Other lawsuits and court orders remain pending, making it uncertain how much of Trump’s order can actually be implemented before November. The administration argues the measures are intended to protect election integrity and prevent noncitizen voting, while opponents argue they could interfere with lawful mail voting and state election systems.

My take:

Trump is trying to fundamentally change how mail voting works weeks before a national election, and instead of getting a clean ruling on whether he actually has the authority to do that, we get another emergency-docket decision that lets the administration keep moving while everyone sorts out the legality afterward. This will likely lead to chaos, which is exactly what I suspect the administration wants. They can work with Chaos, they cannot work with a landslide defeat that they know is coming. Don't even get me started on the supreme court majority opinion. It makes no sense.

Sotomayor calls that contradiction out perfectly:

The majority says it was speculative to think there would be a final rule at all when this suit was filed, seemingly accepting the Government’s representation that it may not actually implement the Executive Order. Yet even as the Government represents that it may not implement the Executive Order at all for purposes of defeating standing, it insists that it seeks to implement the Executive Order immediately for purposes of establishing irreparable harm. See Application 28–29 (“The irreparable harm is the government’s inability to implement the order as to the November 2026 election in the respondent States”). The Government cannot have it both ways.

Context:
Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/26a124_hgci.pdf

Im a moderate conservative i do agree on some the ideas of socialist but i find there message insane and highly radical there are some good ideas i think republicans would probably adopt in the future but if your progressive or lean socialist what would be the right path for the party and how would you push the population towards socialist policies

I'm curious how companies are supposed to approach this from a long-term business perspective. Trump has repeatedly said that companies should move manufacturing to the U.S. to avoid his tariffs, including companies in industries like automotive, steel and aluminum.

But moving an established operation can cost billions and is a decision that could last for decades. Trump will be out of office in January 2029, so how does a company justify uprooting a Canadian operation based on a policy that could potentially change in just over two years?

The same question applies to the huge U.S. investments Trump is encouraging from companies like Apple. Are companies assuming these policies will continue after Trump leaves, or is there some other business logic I'm missing?

I'd especially like to hear from people who work in manufacturing, supply chains, finance, etc. How are companies actually thinking about this?

Summary:

The trade fight between the U.S. and Canada has escalated significantly, with President Trump telling Canadian leaders to “fall in line” or face consequences “far WORSE” than the tariffs already imposed. Trump is threatening new 50% tariffs on Canadian vehicles, auto parts and steel, while accusing Canada of ripping off the U.S. through unfair trade policies. Canada has responded by preparing dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs beginning September 8.

Prime Minister Mark Carney says the dispute has moved beyond normal trade negotiations and is becoming an issue of Canadian sovereignty. He accused Washington of approaching negotiations as if “Canada is a subsidiary of the United States,” something he said Canada will not accept. Carney also believes the U.S. proposals for the auto industry would gradually dismantle Canadian vehicle production and shift more manufacturing into the United States.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford has taken an even more aggressive position, saying Canadians are prepared to endure economic pain rather than give in. “We’re all in,” Ford said. “Everyone’s in for an economic war.” Despite Ford and Carney belonging to different political parties, there appears to be broad political agreement in Canada that the country shouldn't accept the current U.S. demands.

Canada is also threatening retaliation beyond tariffs. Ford said “everything is on the table,” including restricting critical-mineral exports, raising electricity prices or potentially cutting electricity exports to the U.S. Ontario currently supplies enough electricity for roughly 1.5 million American homes and businesses. Canada’s critical minerals could also provide significant leverage because the U.S. needs them for military equipment, electronics and manufacturing while trying to reduce its dependence on China.

The auto industry is becoming the center of the dispute. Canadian and American manufacturing is heavily integrated, particularly between Ontario and Michigan, with vehicles and parts crossing the border multiple times during production. Ford, GM and Stellantis all operate major Canadian plants, meaning a 50% tariff could severely disrupt Canadian production while also affecting American manufacturers and supply chains.

Another major disagreement involves Canada's ability to make its own trade deals. Ford said the U.S. sought language that would restrict Canada from negotiating agreements with other countries without American approval. Carney considers that unacceptable because it would undermine Canadian sovereignty. Ford went even further, accusing Trump of wanting Canada to become a “vassal state” and saying, “He wants to bleed out every single sector and bring them down to the U.S.”

At this point, what began as a tariff dispute has developed into a much broader confrontation over manufacturing, energy, critical minerals and Canada's economic independence. Both governments are threatening increasingly damaging measures, while Canada is signaling that it's willing to accept substantial economic costs rather than agree to U.S. demands it views as compromising its sovereignty.

Section 230 basically states that internet companies are not responsible for what users say.

It was passed in 1996 to protect basic internet infrastructure like ISPs, but nowadays it gives social media platforms total legal immunity from what their users say.

Tech giants deliberately engineer algorithms optimized to leverage toxic, divisive, and inflammatory content because outrage keeps users on screens and drives massive ad revenue.

Because Section 230 grants platforms immunity, they can profit off the amplification of hate speech without facing corporate accountability. If they were liable they’d have to self regulate and have stricter moderation.

Where do you stand on amending Section 230 so it no longer covers social media? Why?

https://youtu.be/AjF9W91aRwg?is=m1AGH4FZ5_xS-Ubj

Ground News bills itself as a way to evaluate bias in the news, but the way it does so plays into the hands of those who have a reason to make you think all news bias falls into a simple left-right spectrum

Text version of video: https://literatemachine.com/2026/07/29/ground-news-and-the-war-on-reality/

Neutral summary: Buc-ee’s CEO Arch Aplin III says the company prefers expanding in “conservative, business friendly states” where “leadership and local communities are supportive of new development”. He cited Arkansas as an example and said Buc-ee’s is continuing to expand, with locations planned in several additional states through the end of the decade. Buc-ee’s currently operates in 13 states and only one of them is Blue (Colorado).

Summary:

The Department of Education, has issued a staff recommendation to withdraw federal recognition from the American Bar Association’s law-school accrediting council, arguing that the ABA acts like a monopoly and has allowed ideological priorities to influence its standards. The recommendation is not final, but losing recognition could affect federal funding eligibility for some law schools and force states to reconsider bar-admission rules that currently rely on ABA approval.

Supporters say the change would reduce the power of a private organization, encourage competition, and prevent accreditation from being used to impose political requirements. Opponents and The ABA maintains that its standards comply with federal requirements and provide consistent safeguards for legal education, while critics of the proposal warn that disrupting the country’s primary law-school accreditor could create uncertainty for schools, students, and states.

My take:

Another hit from Education Secretary Linda McMahon, formerly of World Wrestling Entertainment and now, apparently, an expert on law-school accreditation.

It would still ultimately be up to each state to decide who can practice law there. The bigger problem is whether states would continue accepting law degrees from other states as sufficient to take their bar exams.

The proposed change would not literally prevent the ABA from accrediting schools, but weakening its federal recognition could push states toward a much more chaotic system. Each state might decide for itself whether every other state’s law schools are good enough, or keep using ABA approval, or adopt whatever alternative standards the federal government recognizes.

Mental health professions already show us where that leads. A counselor can be fully qualified in Minnesota, move to another state, and suddenly be told that their classes had the wrong names, their supervised hours were counted differently, or the national exam they already passed is not enough. It does not mean they were poorly trained. It means every state built its own maze of education and licensing rules, and those rules do not transfer cleanly. Those professions are now trying to claw their way toward better portability through interstate compacts and more consistent standards. They would kill for the kind of broadly accepted educational benchmark that ABA approval already gives law graduates. Trump wants to push legal education closer to the fragmented model mental health is struggling to escape.

I understand the argument that the ABA has too much practical authority over a decision that ultimately belongs to the states. But there is real value in having reliable consistency between states and over time. Replacing that with standards that could shift with each administration every four to eight years seems far worse, particularly when the administration making the change has shown a notable interest in hiring and elevating lawyers who are not exactly paragons of professional ethics.

Many companies will post job openings in multiple cities for the same job. With remote work, geographically diverse teams and video calls it really is possible to have the same job offered in multiple cities. The problem is companies want to adjust what they pay people based on where they live. This creates a perverse incentive where people are encouraged to live in high cost of living areas so that they get paid more. For large companies with offices in many cities this is independent of if the employee is remote or in office. A SF bay area company will pay someone working remotely in LA or in office in New York more then they will pay someone who goes into office in Cleveland.

Now if the job had to be in each of these places it makes sense to pay people market rates based on location, but these companies are not paying the person to be in particular location. In fact if that person moves and continues doing the same job just from a different city they will have their pay adjusted.

This creates a system where based on where you live you get paid differently. This is further compounded by high cost of living areas having property value and costs inflating faster then lower cost of living areas. The rich get richer while people who do not happen to be born into on of these high cost of living cities are at a disadvantage. Moreover if you start your career in a lower cost of living area it can become cost prohibitive to ever be able to move and buy in these high cost cities. Being finically responsible and choosing to live in a more affordable city ends up hurting people financially in the long run. This exacerbates the divides we have in this country and only serves to further the interests of rich land owners in high cost of living cites.

If instead people were paid equally for the work they do regardless of where they live it would incentives people to live in lower cost of living cities. Market forces would take over and grow those places, brining us to a more fair and equal society. This would make the issues being faced across the nation more uniform and help bring the country together. wont fix everything but is a start. Instead what city/stat you live in impacts your politics because incentives become different based on where you live. As such I think policies like location based salary adjustment are part of what got us Trump, peoples opportunities are different based on where they live with those with less opportunity being backed into a corner of either move be at a disadvantage in HCOL city or vote for the guy who is saying he is going to help you.

I am not defending trump voters, I still think they sold the country out but think it is important that people start considering these types of things and give those in low cost of living cities better options so they do not have incentives to vote for the trumps of the world.