Über uns
This meetup started in 2015 as a group for people in the Philadelphia area who were concerned with the current political turmoil in America, but who also felt that the prevailing liberal-vs-conservative political paradigm is unnecessarily limiting our ability to think rationally about politics & search for policy solutions. Since we shifted to mostly online meetups in 2020, we've opened the group up to people everywhere. If you like to talk politics but you've got some moderate or unconventional views that leave you feeling out of place at most of the activist groups, party meetings & political rallies in your area, this meetup is for you!
However, if your political views put you on the far left or far right of the political spectrum - i.e. you're a Marxist, anarchist, "woke" left-wing identitarian, fascist/ethno-nationalist, Islamist, Black Hebrew Israelite, Christian fundamentalist, etc., or sympathetic to these positions - please go elsewhere. Also, if you consider yourself a moderate Republican or moderate Democrat but your views are just generic talking points you've gleaned from listening to Fox News & Tucker Carlson or MSNBC & The View, this group is not for you. It may seem uncharitable to exclude people, but from past experience our discussions just don't work very well with these folks, since they tend to be close-minded and see all of our problems as the result of only one of our political parties - i.e. they're not even remotely "agnostic".
"Political Agnosticism" is a term I came up with back in 2015 to represent a non-dogmatic approach to politics that acknowledges uncertainty and the validity of multiple perspectives, and looks for practical solutions without worrying about adherence to an overarching political ideology. The purpose of this agnostic, skeptical & free-thinking approach is to avoid treating politics as a "culture war" based on group identities or a clash of "political religions" based more on devotion to a party than knowledge of the issues. Instead, when we cover a political issue, we look at what experts in various disciplines know (and don't know) about it, tease out the ethical implications, note the tradeoffs between different policy approaches, and then look at potential solutions that encompass everything we've learned.
The only political values that are prerequisites for members are a belief in civility & tolerance towards those we disagree with, a belief in traditional civil liberties like the freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of association, and the right to privacy, as well as respect for institutional norms like separation of church & state, academic freedom, press freedom, government transparency, due process, judicial impartiality, and free & fair elections. These principles of an "open society" form the preconditions for the existence of a non-partisan political forum like ours.
Our general approach to politics is based on a concept we've borrowed from another organization, the Circle of Reason, called "pluralistic rationalism" – i.e. a personal commitment to reasoning, regardless of one's worldview. We start by assuming that reasonable people can differ in their cores values, whether it's framed as a preference for freedom vs security, tradition vs progress, individualism vs communitarianism, meritocracy vs egalitarianism, patriotism vs cosmopolitanism, etc. However, this approach is also premised on the belief that we should all commit to following the rules of logic & evidence-based reasoning. "Pluralistic Rationalism" is based on 3 tenets: (1) Factualism (as opposed to Denialism) for sourcing knowledge, (2) Skepticism (as opposed to Dogmatism) for vetting knowledge, and (3) Moderation (as opposed to Emotion) for expressing knowledge. To learn more about "pluralistic rationalism", see the Circle of Reason's website: http://www.circleofreason.org/
We are committed to creating a space for non-partisan political discussion based on intellectual honesty, mutual respect & civility. That means adopting the conversational principles of charity & good faith, avoiding name-calling, and trying to understand the best arguments that can be made for each side.
The goals for this meetup group are as follows:
(1) We try to understand why people - including ourselves - are predisposed by inherent psychological traits, cultural milieu & life experiences to have different moral intuitions & political orientations. We generally use a mix of the Big Five personality traits & Jonathan Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory, as well as Dan Kahan's work on "cultural cognition".
(2) We look at moral philosophy to try to better understand how moral axioms logically connect to one another and form ethical systems like deontological ethics, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and contractarianism. We examine how these ethical systems form the basis for political philosophy, legal philosophy, and normative theories in the social sciences.
(3) We try to increase our level of rationality by learning how to spot logical fallacies, cognitive biases, flawed statistics, and various forms of groupthink. We often look to the bloggers of the "rationalist community" (e.g. Eliezer Yudkowsky, Scott Alexander, Julia Galef, Spencer Greenberg, Stefan Schubert, Zvi Moshowitz, Ozy Brennan, Sarah Constantin), the board members of the Center for Applied Rationality (CFAR), as well as the hosts of the Bayesian Conspiracy podcast (Steven Zuber, Eneasz Brodski, Katrina Stanton, Jace Dickey). We could also include "rationalist-adjacent" bloggers like Tim Urban (Wait But Why), Matthew Adelstein (Bentham's Bulldog) & Jack Despain Zhou (Tracing Woodgrains), data journalists like Nate Silver & Nate Cohn, tech gurus like Paul Graham & Vitalik Buterin, and scholars like Daniel Kahneman, Philip Tetlock, Keith Stanovich, Scott Aaronson, Nick Bostrum, John Nerst, Samuel Hammond, and Zeynep Tufekci who've promoted a similar style of detached, analytical thinking & strategic forecasting.
(4) We try to educate members on both the fundamentals and the latest research from the social sciences, and we discuss how this relates to current events & trending political topics. Aside from looking at academic research, a lot of our reading material comes from data/explainer journalism sites, econ & policy blogs, as well as the major public intellectuals & pundits from across the political spectrum.
(5) We try to imagine alternative types of political & economic systems that could provide better outcomes for the future based on both theory & empirical data. This often involves looking at various "maps of the policy landscape" like the Cato & Fraser Institutes' Human Freedom Index, SPI's Social Progress Index, the Economist's Democracy Index, the UN World Happiness Report, and others, even as we acknowledge the way their limitations, particularly the way they try to quantify qualitative factors that are often vague or inherently subjective.
(6) As part of our effort to break away from the narrow range of ideas represented by the two major political parties, we often look at constellations of ideas that could be described as syncretic, contrarian or heterodox. This often involves looking to intellectuals who've resisted the major populist & identitarian currents on the left and right, such as the scholars associated with Jonathan Haidt's Heterodox Academy, Peter Singer's Journal of Controversial Ideas, Keith E. Whittington's Academic Freedom Alliance, and Yascha Mounck's Persuasion.
(a) For critical insight on trends within conservatism, we often refer to conservative pundits who've criticized the GOP's ideological capture by Trump, e.g. David French, Sarah Isgur, Jonah Goldberg, Charles Sykes, Kevin Williamson, Anne Applebaum, Bret Stephens, George Will, Mona Charen, and other writers at sites like 'The Dispatch' and 'The Bulwark'. Also of interest are the Obama-era "reformicons" (e.g. David Frum, Yuval Levin, Ross Douthat, Reihan Salam, Ramesh & April Ponnuru, David Brooks, James Pethokoukis) who tried to steer the party more towards the interests of the middle & working classes in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, only to end up politically homeless when Trump took over the GOP. (Note: I specifically didn't include some neocons like Bill Kristol, Max Boot, Stephen Hayes, Liz Cheney, etc., since they've never appeared to modify their hawkish foreign policy views in light of the disastrous Iraq War they championed.)
(b) For critical insight on trends within libertarianism, we often refer to "cosmopolitan libertarians" (a.k.a. Beltway libertarians) at the Cato Institute & its "liberaltarian" offshoot the Niskanen Center, the GMU economics department (e.g. Tyler Cowen, Alex Tabbarock, Robin Hanson, Bryan Caplan, Russ Roberts, Walter E. Williams, Arnold Kling), the members of the '200-Proof Liberals' blog - successor to the now-defunct 'Bleeding Heart Libertarians' blog (e.g. Jason Brennan, Chris Freiman, Kevin Vallier, Matt Zwolinski, Jacob Levy, Steve Horwitz, Sarah Skwire), as well as the 'Fifth Column' podcast (Kmele Foster, Michael Moynihan, Matt Welch) and writers at the magazine 'Reason' (e.g. Nick Gillespie, Robby Soave, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, Ilya Somin, Eugene Volokh), and the anti-Trump libertarians at the new Substack 'The UnPopulist' (e.g. Shikha Dalmia, Cathy Young, Trevor Burrus, Aaron Ross Powell, Berny Belvedere, Radley Balko). The debates within Gene Epstein's Soho Forum and the Cato Institute's 'Cato Unbound' blog (although the latter is now defunct) are good venues for seeing the clash of ideas between libertarians & non-libertarians. (Note that I've excluded the paleolibertarians at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, the objectivists at the Ayn Rand Institute, and the left-libertarians at the Molinari Institute & C4SS since they seem to be more siloed in their echo chambers - although I'm fairly open to revising this opinion.)
(c) For critical insight on trends within progressivism, we often refer to liberal & centrist journalists who've criticized the biases of legacy-media outlets from within (e.g. Jonathan Chait, Adam Gopnik, George Packer, Graeme Wood, Damon Linker, James Bennet, Caitlin Flanagan, Megan McArdle, Pamela Paul, Josh Barro, Conor Friedersdorf, Jonathan Rauch, Shadi Hamid) and those who've moved to independent platforms like Substack (e.g. Andrew Sullivan, Matt Yglesias, Emily Yoffe, Freddie deBoer, Matt Taibbi, Jesse Singal, Katie Herzog, Zaid Jilani, Lee Fang). Many of these people signed the open letter against cancel culture in Harper's magazine back in July 2020. Left-leaning scholars who've broken with the progressive orthodoxy on some key issues (e.g. Camille Paglia, Kathleen Stock, Anne Applebaum, Mark Lilla, Scott Galloway, Richard Reeves) also fit into this loose intellectual cluster, as do the advocates of the "Abundance Agenda" (e.g. Ezra Klein, Derek Thompson, Steven Teles, Jerusalem Demsas, Marc Dunkelman, Binyamin & Yoni Applebaum, Misha Chellam).
(d) For critiques of trends within both conservatism & progressivism, we often look to the scholars at the Heterodox Academy (e.g. Jonathan Haidt, John Tomasi, Nadine Strossen, Musa al-Gharbi, Lee Jussim, Phil Tetlock, Scott Lilienfeld, Alice Dreger, Allison Stenger, Nicholas Christakis, Eric Smith, Sean Stevens, Yascha Mounck, Eric Kaufmann) and the moderate "enlightened centrist" faction of what used to be called the "Intellectual Dark Web", e.g. Sam Harris, Steven Pinker, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sarah Haider, Douglas Murray, Claire Lehmann, Helen Pluckrose, Peter Boghossian, Glenn Loury, John McWhorter, Coleman Hughes, and the various other writers & editors at media outlets like 'Quillette' and 'Areo Magazine' (although the latter is now defunct). Some other heterodox pundits like Bill Maher, Razib Khan, Richard Hanania, Meghan Daum, Debra Soh, Melissa Chen, Meghan Murphy, Konstantin Kisin, Michael Shellenberger, Freddie Sayers, Winston Marshall, Bari Weiss, Nellie Bowles - as well as other writers at 'Unherd' and 'The Free Press' - could be considered the successors to the IDW. (Note I've excluded some of the former IDW members like Dave Rubin, Jordan Peterson, Brett & Eric Weinstein, and Maajid Nawaz since they appeared to go off the rails amid the COVID pandemic & 2020 election due to "audience capture" and knee-jerk contrarianism. I've also excluded Joe Rogan due to his interest in pseudoscience & conspiracy theories, and Ben Shapiro is excluded because he seems more like a garden-variety conservative pundit.)
(e) For critical insight on trends within the emerging "bipartisan populist" sphere, we may refer to some members of the new think tank 'American Compass' (e.g. Oren Cass, Chris Griswold, Abigail Ball), writers at Julius Krein's journal 'American Affairs' (e.g. Michael Lind, David P. Goldman, Joel Kotkin), the strange bedfellows at Sohrab Amari's magazine 'Compact' (e.g. Edwin Aponte, Patrick Deneen, Matthew Schmitz, Geoff Shullenberger, Alex Gutentag, Adam Lehrer, Michael Tracey), so-called "reactionary feminists" who criticize both unrestrained capitalism & the sexual revolution (e.g. Mary Harrington, Louise Perry, Nina Power, Helen Andrews, Ashley Frawley), and several "post-left" writers formerly affiliated with the "Dirtbag Left" (e.g. Amber A'Lee Frost, Angela Nagle, Aimee Terese, Oliver Bateman, Malcolm Kyeyune). We could also refer to the 'Breaking Points' online news show headed by Krystal Ball & Saagar Enjeti (with co-hosts Emily Jashinsky & Ryan Grim; and their former 'Rising' co-hosts Kim Iversen & Batya Ungar-Sargon), Glenn Greenwald's post-Intercept output (e.g. the 'System Update' podcast), the writers at 'The Liberal Patriot' blog (Ruy Teixeria, John Halpin, Michael Bahareen), as well as some of the journalists at the socialist magazine 'Jacobin' who are partly sympathetic to populism (e.g. Jennifer Pan, Dustin Guastella, Paul Prescod). This loosely defined intellectual space is still evolving from conversations between anti-woke "class-first socialists" and "post-liberal conservatives" and is less ideologically coherent right now, although it has similarities to earlier Third Way ideologues like producerism and communitarianism. In some cases, figures in this movement have taken positions at odds with the core tenets of classical liberalism, but the left-right dialogue seems to be moderating some of their stances. (The comedians-turned-pundits Jimmy Dore & Russell Brand might fit into this space, as would Tucker Carlson, but I've excluded them as they've all promoted conspiracy theories so - like some of the former IDW members I listed above - they don't help us toward a rational view of politics. There's a similar problem with Anna Khachiyan & Dasha Nekrasova's 'Red Scare' podcast - they're too uninformed on policy & prone to knee-jerk contrarianism for shock value. The "MAGA Communism" guys have a similar problem.)
-- The common feature among all of the new media projects & public intellectuals listed above is that they are openly critical of intellectual blindspots & bad ideas coming from both the left & right, although most of them are not always *equally* aware or critical of problems on both sides of the political spectrum.
(7) In order to do our part combatting political polarization, we borrow ideas from a range of organizations that are currently working on enabling mutual understanding & civil dialogue, such as David Blankenhorn's Braver Angels project, Frank Burton's Circle of Reason, Alexandra Hudson's Civic Renaissance, Liz Joyner's Village Square, Joan Blades' Living Room Conversations, John Gable's AllSides team, David Nevins & Debilyn Molineaux's Bridge Alliance, Lisa Swallow & Kareem Abdelsadek's Crossing Party Lines, Tim Dixon & Gemma Mortensen's More In Common project, David Brooks's Social Fabric Project (a.k.a. Weave), Michael Smerconish's The Mingle Project, Charles Wheelan's Centrist Project (now called "Unite America"), Irshad Manji's Moral Courage Project, the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR), and others.
Kommende Veranstaltungen
10
Braver Angels Town Hall: "Money in Politics"
·OnlineOnlineBraver Governance Citizen Town Hall on Money in Politics: Reflecting Together on What We Heard from the Money in Politics Expert Panel
Following our Money in Politics panel, join us for this Braver Governance Citizen Town Hall as we think together about what we heard.
Rather than rushing to conclusions or advocacy, this conversation creates space to reflect across differences on several core questions:
- Does the role of money in our political system reduce polarization, intensify it, or both?
- If polarization is being reinforced, how does that happen?
- What, if anything, do we agree on about the role of money in politics?
- And what next steps, if any, should we consider together as Red, Blue, and non-aligned citizens?Through a structured mix of small-group and whole-group discussion, participants will explore what felt persuasive, incomplete, or contested in the panel; where meaningful alignment may exist across differing political instincts; and what still deserves deeper examination.
This event is designed in a Braver Angels spirit: not to force consensus, but to deepen understanding, test assumptions fairly, and clarify where common ground may — or may not — be emerging. It is a space for thoughtful citizens to listen carefully, think together, and explore where greater understanding and shared purpose might take us.
A stronger America depends on citizens willing to work together across differences. Come help us explore what we may be able to understand — and eventually build — together. Reds, bring a Blue. Blues, bring a Red. Independents, non-aligned, and politically homeless Americans: bring a neighbor, friend, or family member who sees things differently. Whether you left the panel energized, uncertain, challenged, or simply curious, you are welcome.
Brief read-ahead materials will be shared in advance so participants can refresh their memory of key ideas raised in the panel.
This event will be held in person at the DC Cleveland Park Library. In-person participation is strongly encouraged if you can make it, but a virtual option will also be available for those who need it.
Questions? Contact talfredson@braverangels.org
Registering for the Online Debate:
This is a FREE event; however, you will need to register for it. Go to the following Eventbrite link & fill out the registration form:
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/braver-governance-citizen-town-hall-on-money-in-politics-registration-1985939834505?discount=BRAVER&aff=oddtdtcreatorRegistration for this debate will be closed 12 hours prior to the scheduled starting time. Check your email for the confirmation message with the Zoom link - if you don't see it, check your "Junk" folder.
- Note: Braver Angels events may be recorded, and may be shared with media or used in Braver Angels publications, including web pages. Participants who object to this may disable their video.
What is "Braver Angels"?
Formerly known as "Better Angels", Braver Angels is an organization founded in 2016 to depolarize American politics through grassroots organizing. They do this primarily by hosting events for cross-partisan dialogue & civil debate. To learn more, go to https://braverangels.org/2 Teilnehmer
Sam Harris: Truth & Consequences Tour (NYC)
Beacon Theater, 2124 Broadway, New York, NY, USGet ready for a night of intellectual rigor. Sam Harris, the celebrated neuroscientist and author, returns in 2026 with the Truth & Consequences tour, bringing his Making Sense ethos to North America.
The tour features Sam Harris as the sole headliner, dissecting modern complexities, exploring our polarized world, and offering an intimate look at the ideas shaping our future. Don't miss this chance to engage with one of the most provocative minds of our time!How can I buy a ticket?
To purchase tickets (starting at $66.35/person), go to https://www.ticketmaster.com/event/3B00634AB8C65C2C?lid=njwp7rg9cso1Important Event Info: Tickets are not available at the box office on the first day of the public on sale.
ARRIVE EARLY: Please arrive one-hour prior to showtime. All packages, including briefcases and pocketbooks, will be inspected prior to entry.
For more info, go to https://samharristour2026.com
NOTE: Since my free time is constrained as a new dad and I'm not sure I can go, this will be unhosted - i.e. you shouldn't expect to see me there. However, if you plan to go, I encourage you to connect & coordinate with our other group members who plan to go via comments on this event and/or through direct messaging.
About the Speaker:
- Sam Harris is is an American neuroscientist, philosopher, author, and podcast host. His work touches on a range of topics, including rationality, religion, ethics, free will & determinism, neuroscience, meditation, psychedelics, philosophy of mind, politics, terrorism, and artificial intelligence. Harris came to prominence for his criticism of religion, and he is known as one of the "Four Horsemen" of New Atheism, along with Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. Harris's first book, The End of Faith (2004), won the PEN/Martha Albrand Award for First Nonfiction and remained on The New York Times Best Seller list for 33 weeks. He has since written six additional books: Letter to a Christian Nation (2006); The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Moral Values (2010); Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion (2014); and (with British writer Maajid Nawaz) Islam and the Future of Tolerance (2015).
3 Teilnehmer
Bi-Weekly Discussion - How Is A.I. Revolutionizing Warfare?
·OnlineOnlineThis is going to be an online meetup using Zoom. If you've never used Zoom before, don't worry — it's easy to use and free to join.
Click on the link above at the scheduled date/time to log in...
***
***
HOW IS A.I. REVOLUTIONIZING WARFARE - AND HOW CONCERNED SHOULD WE BE?
INTRODUCTION:
What you're seeing below is a blank discussion outline. If there's no title listed above for this meetup, it probably means I haven't decided on the topic. If there's a title but not much else, it means I've picked a topic but I'm still looking around for articles & videos clips to stimulate discussion.
If you see the topic and think it's interesting, please RSVP early since this gives me a general idea of about how many people will be showing up.
I typically try to finish up the discussion outline the weekend before a meetup, but sometimes I can't finish it until a couple days before the discussion. Luckily, I only ask that people watch a few video clips prior to attending the meetup and they generally only come to 30-45 minutes total, so even if it takes me until the day prior to finish up the discussion outline you'll still have time to prepare.
- So what's up will all the X's below? Meetup's new format gives me a very short character limit that makes long discussion outline impossible. However, I found a way around it - by copying old meetups before the new character limit was introduced. But there's a catch, if all of the blank space isn't filled when I copy the meetup, the new shorter character limit will be applied, so I'm forced to fill up all the available space with X's. I know that sounds kinda ridiculous, but it's the only way I can still write up long, detailed discussion outlines.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
RELEVANT MATERIAL FROM PAST MEETUPS:
Back in Mar. 2022, we had a meetup entitled "Are We Headed For World War 3?" The most relevant sections for today's discussion are the 3rd section where we discussed nuclear proliferation & nuclear deterrence theory and the 4th section where we discussed cyberwarfare and the possibility of a "cyber world war" in which critical infrastructure like could be targeted on a massive scale.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
DIRECTIONS ON HOW TO PREPARE FOR OUR DISCUSSION:
The videos & articles you see linked below are intended to give you a basic overview of some of the major debates over some of the ways AI is revolutionizing warfare in the 21st century. As usual, I certainly don't expect you to read all the articles prior to attending our discussion. The easiest way to prepare for our discussion is to just watch the numbered videos linked under each section - the videos come to about 58 minutes total. The articles marked with asterisks are just there to supply additional details. You can browse and look at whichever ones you want, but don't worry - we'll cover the stuff you missed in our discussion.
In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll address the topics in the order presented here. I've listed some questions under each section to stimulate discussion. We'll do our best to address most of them, as well as whatever other questions our members raise. I figure we'll spend about 40 minutes on each section.
***
I. THE RISE OF SEMI- & FULLY-AUTONOMOUS KILLER DRONES:
- SECTION 1, QUESTION 1: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
- SECTION 1, QUESTION 2: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
- SECTION 1, QUESTION 3: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
- SECTION 1, QUESTION 4: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
- SECTION 1, QUESTION 5: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
1a) VICE: Cyberwar - Blueprint, "The Pentagon’s Secret AI War Machines" (video - 22:37 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=832uh2YJBr8- David Petraeus & Isaac C. Flanagan, "The Autonomous Battlefield: And Why the U.S. Military Isn’t Ready for It"
https://archive.ph/zJe5r - ARTICLE 2 - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX - ARTICLE 3 - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX - ARTICLE 4 - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
II. THE INTEGRATION OF A.I. INTO THE "KILL CHAIN" (TARGET SELECTION):
- SECTION 2, QUESTION 1: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
- SECTION 2, QUESTION 2: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
- SECTION 2, QUESTION 3: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
- SECTION 2, QUESTION 4: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
- SECTION 2, QUESTION 5: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
2a) Johnny Harris, "This Is How AI Is Rewriting the Rules of War" (video - 18:48 min, start at 4:33)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geaXM1EwZlg&t=4m33s- Kevin T. Baker, "AI got the blame for the Iran school bombing. The truth is far more worrying"
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2026/mar/26/ai-got-the-blame-for-the-iran-school-bombing-the-truth-is-far-more-worrying - ARTICLE 2 - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX - ARTICLE 3 - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX - ARTICLE 4 - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
III. POTENTIAL A.I. INTEGRATION IN NUCLEAR COMMAND & CONTROL:
- SECTION 3, QUESTION 1: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
- SECTION 3, QUESTION 2: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
- SECTION 3, QUESTION 3: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
- SECTION 3, QUESTION 4: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
- SECTION 3, QUESTION 5: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
3a) BBC, "AI must not control nuclear weapons, US State Department urges China and Russia" (video - 22:18 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfqZ8w413U- Alive Saltini, "Lessons from the UN’s first resolution on AI in nuclear command and control"
https://thebulletin.org/2025/12/lessons-from-the-uns-first-resolution-on-ai-in-nuclear-command-and-control/ - Herbert S. Lin, "Artificial Intelligence and Nuclear Weapons: A Commonsense Approach to Understanding Costs and Benefits"
https://tnsr.org/2025/06/artificial-intelligence-and-nuclear-weapons-a-commonsense-approach-to-understanding-costs-and-benefits/ - ARTICLE 3 - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX - ARTICLE 4 - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX5 Teilnehmer
Cato Institute Book Discussion: "Last Branch Standing"
·OnlineOnlineEvent Title:
Online Book Forum: "Last Branch Standing: A Potentially Surprising, Occasionally Witty Journey Inside Today’s Supreme Court"Registering for the Online Event:
To register for and watch this FREE event, go to: https://www.cato.org/events/last-branch-standing-potentially-surprising-occasionally-witty-journey-inside-todays-supremeYou can also watch it live on Vimeo - https://vimeo.com/event/5890338/
NOTE: You can submit questions in the comment box on the Cato Institute's event page and join the conversation on social media using #CatoEvents. For event updates, follow @CatoInstitute on X. If you have questions about the event or your registration, please email events@cato.org.
Event Description:
Many Americans think they understand today’s Supreme Court: six conservative justices appointed by Republicans, three liberals appointed by Democrats, and predictably partisan outcomes, especially in the “big” cases. But Sarah Isgur, host of the Advisory Opinions podcast, editor of SCOTUSblog, and one of the savviest Court-watchers in the country, is here to tell you that’s wrong.In her new book Last Branch Standing, Isgur argues that the conventional left-right framing fundamentally misconceives how the justices decide questions—not cases!—and that once you understand how they really think, the Court looks far more like a 3–3–3 institution than a 6–3 one. She also takes readers inside the building itself: the personalities, the quirks, the clerk culture, and the institutional dynamics that shape outcomes far more than partisan affiliation alone.
Isgur’s account of the Court’s role in our current constitutional moment is equally illuminating. With Congress having largely abdicated its lawmaking responsibilities, presidents of both parties have rushed to fill the resulting policy vacuum through executive action—often setting themselves on a collision course with SCOTUS. And while the shadow docket creates a misleading impression of unremitting executive branch success, the full picture of how the current administration actually fares before the Court may surprise you.
Join us for a conversation with Sarah Isgur about what may be the last constitutionally functioning branch of American government.
About the Speakers:
* Sarah Isgur is an attorney, a legal analyst for ABC News, senior editor at SCOTUSblog, and a political commentator at the conservative media outlet The Dispatch where she hosts the podcast "Advisory Opinions". She is also a former spokesperson at the U.S. Department of Justice, and former fellow at the Harvard Institute for Politics.
* Clark Kelly is senior vice president for legal studies at the Cato Institute. His areas of interest include constitutional law, overcriminalization, coercive plea bargaining, police accountability, and gun rights. Before joining Cato in 2017, Neily was a senior attorney and constitutional litigator at the Institute for Justice and director of the Institute’s Center for Judicial Engagement. Neily is an adjunct professor at George Mason’s Antonin Scalia School of Law, where he teaches constitutional litigation and public-interest law.About the Cato Institute:
Founded in 1976, the Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. The institute advocates for free market economic policies, protection of civil liberties, criminal justice reform, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. It publishes the annual "Human Freedom Index" that ranks countries based on their levels of personal & economic freedoms, and it hosts cross-partisan discussions monthly at "Cato Unbound". To learn more, go to https://www.cato.org/about.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
2 Teilnehmer
Vergangene Veranstaltungen
868
