Wow, what a week. As democracy continues to crumble in the USA, I’ve made some updates to my “Resist” page. If you haven’t seen it, please check it out.

I’d also draw your attention to my “Citizen’s Manifesto” post, in which I outline some “working principles for democratic renewal.” I’d love to hear your thoughts on it, if you give it a read.

Some things I bought recently that I’d recommend:

Here are some other things I came across that I found interesting:

Cal Newport, “On Charlie Kirk and Saving Civil Society”:

We know these [social media] platforms are bad for us, so why are they still so widely used? They tell a compelling story: that all of your frantic tapping and swiping makes you a key part of a political revolution, or a fearless investigator, or a righteous protestor – that when you’re online, you’re someone important, doing important things during an important time.

But this, for the most part, is an illusion. In reality, you’re toiling anonymously in an attention factory, while billionaire overseers mock your efforts and celebrate their growing net worths.

After troubling national events, there’s often a public conversation about the appropriate way to respond. Here’s one option to consider: Quit using these social platforms. Find other ways to keep up with the news, or spread ideas, or be entertained. Be a responsible grown-up who does useful things; someone who serves real people in the real world.

To save civil society, we need to end our decade-long experiment with global social platforms. We tried them. They became dark and awful. It’s time to move on.

Enough is enough.

Quoting Gabor Maté, Sam Parker writes the following in Good Anger: How Rethinking Rage Can Change Our Lives:

‘There are two fatal beliefs,’ he says. ‘One: you’re responsible for how other people feel. Two: you must never disappoint anybody.’

(1) You’re responsible for how other people feel. (2) You must never disappoint anybody.

Do you believe these?

From Isaac Bradshaw via Bluesky:

Ultimately the split in US politics is between those who bear false witness against their neighbors for gain - and those who do not. The end state of this sort of split is what we see now, where there can be no compromise because there is not a common grasp of reality.

It is ultimately impossible to civilly disagree over policy when you are enabled to choose your own reality based on consumer preference.

Richard Haas offers a clarification on why we might not want to require proof of citizenship to vote:

Several readers reached out to me asking why I questioned the desirability of demanding that voters provide proof of citizenship in order to vote. So, let me explain.

It is all about principle versus practice. Of course, only citizens should be able to vote in our elections. But the requirements for proving citizenship could be (and in some instances, have been) sufficiently onerous as to deny many citizens their right to vote. How? By demanding a passport or a certificate of citizenship. It sounds reasonable, but approximately half of adult Americans don’t have a passport. Many don’t have other forms of proof of citizenship, and what people tend to have, such as driver’s licenses or social security cards, are available to non-citizens. It takes money and time to get a passport, and the government is not in a position to issue millions of them any time soon.

Just as important, it is useful to keep in mind that voter fraud – the notion that the integrity of American elections is being undermined by millions of illegal voters – is simply a myth. There is no supporting evidence for what Trump loyalists are claiming. All of which is to say proof of citizenship requirements, unless readily available to those who qualify, could well be a cure far worse than the alleged disease it is meant to cure.