The president of Cop26 presents the "half full" appraisal of the results of that event.

Kay Raworth's "doughnut model" of economics is briefly described near the end of this article.

As presented here, it seems to make a valid point, but I think the article makes a conceptual error in calling it an "economic model" and presenting it as an alternative to profit-based behavior economics, as if the two were different answers to one question. I think they answer two different questions.

Profit-motivated economics invites people to ask, "How can I get ahead?" Raworth's economics invites people to ask, "What do we all need?"

Keeping Jerome Powell as head of the Federal Reserve will interfere with climate defense and can interfere with helping the non-rich. Keeping inflation down will harm Americans who are in debt, and that is a large fraction.

As for diversity, appointing women or blacks could in principle inject a little more awareness of what it's like to face individual and systemic discrimination. That would be the case with a randomly-chosen woman or black. But these nominees would hardly be randomly chosen; they would be bankers, and likely to hold plutocratist views regardless of other personal details.

*Seven doctors contract Covid after attending Florida anti-vaccine summit.*

Opposition to vaccines is indicative of an irrational approach towards medicine, which in a doctor says you shouldn't choose that one.

Teachers can't be neutral in the classroom about politics when one political party has declared war on the idea of truth.

The Missouri bill cited in the article is interesting, because it juxtaposes a valid point with an invalid point, in such a way as to partly hide the latter.

It is wrong to teach that certain groups of people are inherently or immutably racist, or inherently or immutably hold any views whatsoever, because such is prejudice. People vary, and people can learn.

However, teaching that certain groups of people are systemically oppressed, or that certain institutions are systemically racist, is legitimate because that is a verifiable fact about existing systems. Here's one example of verification.

This truth doesn't conflict with the truth that people vary and that people can learn. Systems can change, too, but that doesn't deny that they are now what they are now.

The bill groups people with institutions, and groups "inherently" with "systemically", so as to confuse.