*Netanyahu's Government Takes a Turn Toward Theocracy.*

Theocratist parties joined the government in exchange for an opportunity to attack the liberal order and human rights in Israel.

US citizens: call on Congress to protect the Office of Congressional Ethics.

"Liberty Mutual" insurance company (an ironic name) has a new CEO. A gklp-0=campaign presses for him to stop the corporation insuring and investing in fossil fuel projects.

This is a clear example of a pernicious development in progressive thinking: advocating an explicitly privileged higher status of citizenship for indigenous people.

The campaign makes four demands. I support the first three,

1.	Immediately stop insuring new and expanded coal, oil, and gas projects.
2.	Commit to phase out insurance for coal, oil and gas companies in line with 1.5ºC.
3.	Divest all assets from coal, oil, and gas companies that are not aligned with a 1.5ºC pathway.
4-.	Adopt a policy to ensure the projects and clients you insure respect the right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) of impacted Indigenous Peoples.

but I criticize the fourth demand (which I have relabeled "4-") for the unfairness of demanding new rights but limiting them to indigenous people, thus denying those rights to all other people impacted locally by a large fossil fuel project. That omission is racist in spirit.

Item 4- should be replaced by this one:

4+.	Adopt a policy to ensure the projects and clients you insure respect the right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) of the people of impacted areas.

Why would a group of progressives think of proposing 4- instead of 4+? Why advocate rights that are clearly required by justice, then spontaneously and arbitrarily limit them to a small subset of humanity?

In today's progressive thinking, there is a current which, not satisfied with the goal of eliminating the racism against indigenous people and compensating the injustices that have been practiced against them, seeks to elevate them to a status above ordinary human beings. According to that line of thought, they are inherently superior by birth to the rest of humanity -- born high-minded and loyal to preserving nature. Therefore we (the rest) should have faith in them, consider them born to be our leaders, and grant them the privileges and power to make decisions for all of us. They would be, in effect, a new noble class.

I would support demand 4+, which advocates additional rights for everyone, indigenous people included. I will not support 4-, which denies those rights arbitrarily to the rest of us.

Someone is shooting at Democratic elected officials in Albuquerque. After five attacks, I think we can conclude that this is an expression of the Republican party's encouragement of political violence.

A campaign calls on governments not to require internet infrastructure companies to censor people's communications.

Please don't call communications and publications "content". That term disparages all of them as mere filler to keep a container full of something or other.

I find it disturbing that Facebook is criticized for labeling the statement "Men are trash" as "hateful". Of course it is hateful — it blatantly expresses misandry, just as "Women are trash" would express misogyny. Both statements carry hate, similar kinds of hate, in a similar way, differing only in which target is hated.

The crucial point is that neither of those statements should be banned or censored. I might rebuke a person for saying either of them, but to forcibly limit people to saying only nice things (or to show hate only towards those we revile) is intolerable.

Despite that minor inconsistency, this campaign stands for freedom.