Tag Archives: U.S. politics

August 2026 in Review

Leave a reply

Most frightening and/or depressing story: There are some dire projections of severe global famine in the next year. This would be due to the Super El Nino affecting important food-growing regions, closure of important grain-exporting ports in Ukraine, and the sudden loss/price spikes for fossil fuels and fertilizers that have already disrupted planting and growing seasons over the past six months, and will continue to do so. It will be similar to an 1877 El Nino that killed over 50 million people. I am a bit skeptical of the most extreme impact projections though because they do not seem to be a majority view, and the collective view of people participating in financial markets does not seem to be anticipating anything this bad. Still, it seems likely that regional famines and high food prices could affect a lot of people, and the worst projections would represent an existential threat that should not be ignored.

Most hopeful story: There is an effective malaria vaccine in use in Africa. It requires four doses, which hampers widespread implementation, but hopefully the numbers of doses will be reduced, eventually to one. In the United States, amid an embarrassing political dust-up over the measles vaccine (happening to involve my state’s governor, who does NOT at this point make the “top 5” list mentioned in the next paragraph), the FDA has quietly approved an mRNA-based flu vaccine.

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: Election Betting Odds provides aggregated stats across the various prediction market platforms for a few categories including U.S. Congressional and Presidential elections. As I write (September 1, 2026), it is telling me there is a 51% chance the Democrats will take majority control of the U.S. Senate this fall (along with 84% chance of House control). The top 5 2028 Presidential contenders are Vance (21%), Occasio-Cortez (12%), Ossoff (11%), Rubio (10%), and Newsom (9%). I suspect at this point the latter is similar to a poll of “which of these names have you heard of?”. It might be a fairly good prediction of who will actually run, however.

prediction markets

Leave a reply

A site called Contrary Research has a deep dive on prediction markets. They are similar to sports betting and options trading mathematically, but different in terms of legal and regulatory treatment (which is constantly litigated and evolving). There are concerns about insider trading. Despite all this, I like them just because they give us some more data points to look at. On political events, sometimes they echo polls and sometimes they tell a different story. On geopolitical events, they provide a somewhat objective, independent data point that might help us spot bullshit in the narratives we are being offered by the media.

Anyway, Polymarket and Kalshi are the big ones. There are others, and there is a blurring of the lines between sports books and prediction markets, which both starting to overlap each other. I was curious if there was an aggregation site for multiple prediction markets, and a popular one is Election Betting Odds. They are pretty true to their name and don’t cover everything on the prediction markets. At the moment, they show J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio leading Gavin Newsom for U.S. President in 2028. They show Democrats with an 80% chance of taking the House in November but the Republicans with a 56% change of continuing their majority in the Senate. Now, prediction markets are not always even consistent internally. If you go to Polymarket itself, they match that 56% chance of Republicans controlling the Senate, but another contract shows a 44% chance of a Democratic sweep of both levels of Congress (and a 41% chance of a Democratic House, Republican Senate. I’m having trouble wrapping my head around the probabilities here – are these things in fact inconsistent?)

Here is CBS News telling me “Senior defense officials looking at Cuba military options“. Well, today Polymarket thinks there is a 14% chance that the U.S. will invade Cuba in 2026 and a 31% chance of U.S. military action against Cuba by December 31, 2026. Well, I guess military action could fall short of an invasion so these two markets are not necessarily inconsistent.

May 2026 in Review

Leave a reply

Most frightening and/or depressing story: The people running Palantir and other companies focused on military/security/surveillance applications of information technology seem to have, at best, a faith-based belief that the United States can do no wrong. At worst, their beliefs are based on eugenics and white Christian nationalist attitudes which simply have no basis in fact or logic. I don’t believe the technology itself is good or evil, but pair in with these irrational beliefs and there are many frightening, depressing, dystopian paths I can imagine our country going down.

Most hopeful story: It’s a struggle to find a silver lining to the illegal, unprovoked U.S. war of aggression in Iran, but I mused that the artificial restriction on oil supply might create some long-term gain by accelerating the economic and geopolitical incentives to transition to other forms of energy. Such rational policy almost certainly could not have been achieved through international diplomacy in the current environment. This is not to minimize the very real and very avoidable near-term suffering and death the immoral choices of the Trump administration have caused. Even the cynical economic and financial elites who arguably control most policy have not been served by this irrational violence. In the future, I hope the world has some talented and courageous leaders who can find ways to bring about rational long-term solutions to problems without short-term mass murder.

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: On the AI front, I looked at an argument that today’s AIs are pushing people toward the political center relative to social media, which is pushing people toward extreme views. This is true even for AIs like Grok that are demonstrably being trained on data that is intentionally biased toward extreme views. I am not confident this will always be the case, as we are already hearing about a trend toward more customization of AI to whatever the tastes of the paying customer are. And…I looked at David Chalmers’s concept of a “philosophical zombie” which displays all the traits of a human being externally but has no consciousness internally. This would seem to describe today’s large language models pretty well, or at least so the majority of us think at the moment. However, I recall Ray Kurzweil’s argument that there is not and never will be a scientific test for consciousness whether animal/vegetable/mineral (some argue plants are conscious on some level), which is simply a secular counterpart to the idea of a soul, and that over time if AIs act conscious in every respect we will gradually accept them as conscious and stop thinking much about it.

AI as pro-social media

This is an idea I hadn’t thought of – because AIs are inherently rational and objective (more or less, most of the time?), they tend to nudge people towards rational evidence-based views (which tend to be centrist politically). Whereas social media tends to herd people toward extreme views, wild conspiracy theories, and political fringe-ism.

My provisional theory is that LLMs, as a consumer product, will push people’s senses of reality closer together in a sort of mirror image of the way social media has fractured them. They are not algorithms meant to custom-tailor content (including facts) to you, and what you will find infuriating or motivating. They are centralized systems that, until you prompt them or give them context, behave basically the same way for everyone. As the philosopher Dan Williams put it, “Whereas social media democratised information, LLMs technocratise it.”

A couple points he makes is that even though AIs can demonstrably be trained to favor one part of the political spectrum (see the analysis of Grok below posted by the blog Urbanomics), even then they are much more centrist than social media. So is it possible AI could nudge our entire society in a more rational, evidence-backed direction?

There is no absolute guarantee they are going to stay this way, of course. If I wanted to train an agent right now to go out and look at the day’s news headlines, and filter them for me in the style of Breitbart (which generally provides factually accurate information, but cherry-picked and presented with biased language), I could do that.

https://gulzar05.blogspot.com/2026/04/weekend-reading-links_12.html

March 2026 in Review

In fast-moving current events as I write on April 4, 2026…I have nothing left to say about the stoopid war in Iran and our stooopid war criminal “leaders” who chose this path. I tell my children “stupid” is a bad word that nice people don’t use, and I don’t use it lightly here. I just hope when I am reviewing April 2026 a month from now at least the part where human beings are dying daily from shooting and blowing up is over.

Most frightening and/or depressing story: The idea of the lone psychopath developing a bioweapon in their garage with AI assistance is very scary. I outlined some proposals out there for how to deal with this issue, but none are really completely satisfying. Of course, nuclear proliferation is always a close runner-up.

Most hopeful story: I took my first Waymo rides in the Phoenix area in March, and I observed Waymo being tested in Philadelphia. I would like to live in a society where transportation is oriented around walking, cycling and other very light personal vehicles, and public transportation. But given that the U.S. is unequivocally not headed in that direction, I think autonomous vehicles are going to be a win for safety, mobility, and the environment in most U.S. cities.

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: I finally got around to reading The Singularity is Nearer. Kurzweil is very big on cultured meat, vertical farming, 3D printing, and generally using computer simulation to super-charge scientific and technical progress in many areas. Then there are his weird ideas about nanobots in our brains allowing us to upload our brains to the internet sometime in the 2030s – sounds crazy at first, but I could sit down and name a few things that sounded crazy a decade ago and are now commonplace. I mused about when the robots are coming now that we seemingly have their AI brains ready for transplant. I mused about the seeming paradox that AI is increasing demand for dirty fossil fuel energy and its attendant impacts while also representing some possibility of a longer-term solution to those problems. It seems like slowing down the deployment of AI is not on the table, so the important question becomes how long is “longer-term” – if measured in single digit years, we just may pull through, but if measured in multiple decades, we may be sunk. Anyway, I brainstormed a list of specific areas of research AI may be able to boost: incremental improvement and deployment of today’s solar, wind, battery, electrification, and electric grid technology; fusion power; safer, more cost-effective and scalable fission power; space-based solar technology; cutting edge materials science and energy storage technology; and fundamental research into the mysteries of the universe, which also comes with attendant risks.

February 2026 in Review

In fast-moving current events as I write on March 1, 2026, the United States (executive branch, which is unconstrained in this moment by the other supposedly co-equal branches or public opinion) has launched an unprovoked military attack on Iran, in crystal clear violation of the UN Charter and domestic law. Theoretically, there are mechanisms both international (International Criminal Court) and domestic (impeachment – which can apply to cabinet members, agency heads, and federal judges in addition to the President and Vice President; and court martial which applies to military officers who follow illegal orders) that could eventually hold the criminals involved accountable for their crimes. Lots of people have lots to say and we will see how this unfolds. I am just documenting that I am present at this particularly sad moment in history.

Most frightening and/or depressing story: I hadn’t heard of mirror life, technology we apparently have right now which can destroy all life on Earth. This new, shocking, theoretically existential threat narrowly edged out the usual stream of depressing climate disaster news, the existential threat known to be currently unfolding, but which I suppose I am somewhat desensitized to.

Most hopeful story: Falling consumer prices in China might represent a new industrial revolution analogous to the age of railroads and electricity in the west in the late 1800s, rather than a textbook financial recession which seems to be the (propaganda-tainted?) conventional wisdom. I put this in the win column because if it is true, I am hopeful we will see it spread peacefully to the rest of the world rather than representing a threat.

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: Ray Kurzweil predicts broad consensus that Artificial General Intelligence has arrived by 2029 (defined as AI equal to the leading experts in all fields), “longevity escape velocity” in 2032 (which would reverse the US slipping in recent decades), universal basic income in the U.S. sometime in the 2030s, and the Singularity in 2045 (defined as 1000X human intelligence – always pronounced TIMES according to me), but most importantly and the only thing that truly matters, robots doing my dishes in a couple years.

American Life Expectancy

This article from something called the Institute for New Economic Thinking has some depressing info (not many stats though) on U.S. life expectancy. I’ve had this feeling for a few years now, that the U.S. is not only not the leader of the pack when it comes to developed nations, we are not even solidly in the middle of the pack, and we are slipping to developing country status on many indicators. But even saying that is not entirely fair to developing countries, because they are making gains on many quality of life measures out of proportion to their income levels, while we are losing quality of life in spite of our nominally growing economy.

That’s what public health researcher Steven H. Woolf, professor of family medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, has documented. By 2019, just before COVID‑19 hit, U.S. life expectancy ranked 40th among the world’s most populous countries, trailing places like Albania and Lebanon. The pandemic only made things worse: by 2020, the U.S. had fallen to 46th, as six more nations overtook it.

Woolf hasn’t just compared the U.S. to wealthy countries like Canada, Germany, or the U.K. He looked at life expectancy across dozens of nations with very different histories and economies, and the results are startling. The U.S. began falling behind as early as the 1950s, with countries in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East steadily overtaking it.

The reasons are not really secret: our lack of a universal health care system, our food system and lack of physical activity, our motor vehicle dominated lives, and our unusual level of deadly violence. There are many examples of effective policies to address these issues if our leaders choose to look to other developed and middle income countries, and even to pockets of sanity in some U.S. states and cities.

Can the U.S. executive branch legally withdraw from a treaty ratified by Congress?

The Trump administration has announced that the U.S. intends to withdraw from the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. I think this is awful, as I naively thought that a treaty being “ratified” by Congress and signed by the President meant that the legislative and executive branches had come to a consensus on adopting it, and therefore a consensus would be needed to break it. By contrast, recent agreements including the Paris agreement were signed only by the executive branch. Here is what a site called Just Security (which I know nothing about) has to say.

As a matter of domestic law, the mainstream legal view, as taken in the Restatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law, is that the president may constitutionally withdraw the United States from a Senate-approved treaty where, as here, the withdrawal is lawful under international law and neither the Senate’s resolution of advice and consent nor a congressional law has put limits on withdrawal. The president’s power to do so has never been definitively resolved by the courts. In the 1979 case of Goldwater v. Carter (which involved President Jimmy Carter’s termination of a mutual defense treaty with Taiwan), a fractured Supreme Court declined to address this issue. In practice, however, presidents have exercised this unilateral withdrawal power, especially in the years since Goldwater.

Theoretically, it sounds like the Senate could try to insert language saying a President cannot unilaterally break a treaty. But there is really no protection. A treaty is a weaker agreement than I thought, and in recent decades Congress has not even been participating in the process of discussing and signing them. Other countries really cannot rely on the U.S. to honor any agreement from one four-year political administration to the next.

Here is what the Constitution actually says:

He [i.e. the President, whom the Founding Father-Gods assume in 1783 shall henceforth be male] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

Too bad it doesn’t say “make, break or modify”, but it doesn’t. Perhaps we need some more practical mechanism for modernizing our outdated constitution. But those rules would have to be updated in…the Constitution.

January 2026 in Review

Well, I seemed to be in a political mood in January. I try to stay on the policy side of the line, but that is hard when bad politics makes good policy impossible. Inspired by a Nate Silver post, I took a look back at what I see as key moments in the last 25 years of U.S. history, and there were just so many that were on a knife edge and ended up going the wrong way, in my view. Maybe there are other universes where things went better, but remember my scientific theory that once they make a Spiderman movie about a scientific theory, it is almost certainly wrong. I find it depressing how we got here, but there is no sense crying over it. We need to learn from the past yes, but then face up to the present moment and start picking up the pieces from where we are.

Most frightening and/or depressing story: Evidence is crystal clear that sabotaging R&D spending is a very effective way to sabotage economic growth and progress. Attaboy to the fools, assholes and traitors currently in nominal charge of the U.S. government. Meanwhile, if a more rational administration ever takes hold, research on learning curves might provide some clues on where to concentrate our efforts for the greatest gains.

Most hopeful story: New York City congestion pricing was a hard-won U.S. transportation policy win in 2025. This is just good, economically sound urban policy that would be apolitical in a more rational world.

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: I reviewed book reviews from 2025, one of which was Ezra Klein’s Abundance (not the 2012 book Abundance by Peter Diamandis, which while I am not a huge fan I continue to be puzzled how Ezra Klein could either not be aware of that book or intentionally choose to name his book the same thing.) I still find it hard to summarize that book in a sound bite, which would need to be done if it were ever going to serve as the basis for a political campaign. But here is an attempt: (1) Continuously review and streamline federal regulations, (2) increase public and private investments in critical technology and infrastructure, including recommitting to clean energy, and (3) address market failures in housing, health care, and education. #3 is a doozy of course, but the un-sexy answer just has to be understand and implement the latest evidence-backed policies. I would think ramp up housing supply, Medicare for All, and free (tax-funded) college or trade school for all. And um, if we want a chance for any domestic agenda to succeed, we also need serious plans to manage international risks including war, ecosystem collapse, famine, and massive refugee flows that may be coming. Now, I just want to acknowledge that there is a rosy future scenario where AI magically solves all these problems. The way that could work is that technological progress and economic growth suddenly pick up so drastically that we are awash in cash and resources to the point that even the wildly suboptimal operations of our dysfunctional political system are adequate to solve the problems. I don’t think it is safe to put all our eggs in that basket! We better assume that we will need to continue doing the hard work of allocating scarce resources to manage difficult problems for the foreseeable future.

climate refugees

This Common Dreams article goes into the existing legal framework governing refugees and how it could be extended to define and benefit climate refugees. For example:

  • The Refugee Convention of 1954 was set up in the wake of WWII and addresses “those who must leave their home countries due to war, violence, conflict, or any other kind of maltreatment”. So it doesn’t address environmental displacement or internal displacement, but it could be adapted to address these things.
  • The “1998 Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement” are what they sound like – they have not been formally adopted and are not legally binding. They could be developed into a treaty and/or countries could just adopt the principles as part of their own internal legal frameworks, hopefully also offering aid to neighbors experiencing hardship.
  • A “Global Compact for Migration” was adopted by the UN in 2018. It “promotes safe, orderly pathways for migrants, including planned relocation, visa options, and humanitarian shelter”. “Adopted” means the general assembly adopted it as another voluntary, legally non-binding set of principles. This also could be developed into a treaty and/or countries could incorporate the principles into their own internal legal frameworks.
  • The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is an actual treaty ratified by many countries including the United States Congress. Trump has announced the US is withdrawing from the treaty – which I don’t understand. I naively thought that if Congress ratified a treaty (which is extremely rare nowadays when win-win agreements are viewed by our cynical politicians as a loss of sovereignty), the executive branch didn’t have the right to unilaterally withdraw.
  • “The Loss and Damage Fund was established in 2022 at COP27 to address the financial needs of communities severely impacted by climate change. The money would support rehabilitation, recovery, and human mobility.” It is underfunded of course.

I don’t want to be cynical, but the global political mood is just cynical at the moment. US politicians in particular are not in the mood to sign international agreements or even cooperate informally. So while I think it is good to pursue all of these ideas, I do not think it is a good idea to put all our eggs in this basket.

Climate crisis-fueled migration is already a driving force behind the rise of right-wing parties in the US and Europe, and this ugly feedback loop looks to just keep accelerating over time. As economic conditions in the destination countries deteriorate, the right-wingers are able to scapegoat migrants and that accelerates the feedback loop even more. The most rational way I can see to try to break the feedback loop is to address the environmental and economic conditions in the source countries. Aid and trade are the consensus center-left and center-right ways to do that. The right-wingers are probably aware of this, and so they sabotage both, which accelerates the feedback loop again. So they have no incentive to solve problems, because increasing problems fuel their agenda. Meanwhile more rational politicians can point to the rational solutions, but then when they can’t deliver them within a political cycle, real peoples’ real economic pain again accelerates the feedback loop. We could try to deliver the best economic performance possible as a strategy with some chance of success. Here, the current US administration is unpatriotically sabotaging the foundations of economic success such as R&D, education, and a strong central bank. Sorry for the doom and gloom as I am not seeing an easy way out of this political conundrum. Sit back and hope AI raises productivity in spite of our currently incompetent government and institutions?