Ukraine's army in the Kursk region is taking many prisoners; they say Putin's conscripts often don't want to fight.

It makes sense that they don't; so when Zelenskiy says that prisoners of war become part of the "exchange fund" to swap for Putin's Ukrainian prisoners, that creates a moral quandary. If a Putin forces soldier surrenders in order to get out of the Putin forces, swapping him back to Putin would spoil the point of his surrender.

Does Ukraine give each prisoner the option not to be traded?

*Inciting rioters in Britain was a test run for Elon Musk. Just see what he plans for America.*

We should not suffer anything like today's antisocial media platforms to live. But what is the crucial aspect that we must make them change? I suggest that it is that they run recommendation engines and impose them on every user.

We can't be sure that changing this would correct the danger, but unless we have a better idea, we should try it.

After RFK Jr tried to corrupt the corruptor, he reportedly tried corrupting Kamala Harris the same way — he would endorse her in exchange for a cabinet job.

The reports say she made no reply to him.

How pitiful it is to try to sell out and find that what you're selling is not worth anything.

US citizens: Protect the Biden-Harris Antitrust Agenda.

Israeli bombing killed 18 people in the same family at once.

Families tend to stick together when they flee in search of safety. So if you make a habit of bombing places where hundreds of civilians are sheltering, and sometimes killing dozens of them, by chance sometimes the many civilians you kill will include a dozen or two from one family.

Whether the victims are related is not morally crucial. The war crime consists of bombing a place where there are many civilians. Related or not, civilians are not a legitimate target.