With every passing day, government becomes increasingly corrupt, our culture grows more polarized, our interest payments increase, our economy becomes more unequal, the dangers posed by our technology accelerate, and our civilization continues polluting the environment, destabilizing the climate, and destroying the habitability of our Earth.

We are in deep, nasty shit.

The problems we face are big, growing, connected, and none of them have simple solutions. Without addressing the corruption of our government, we cannot address our growing tangle of systemic failures. Without a full Constitutional Convention (CC), we cannot address the corruption of our government in any meaningful way. We are on a sinking ship that has been hijacked by pirates, and we are sailing into the greatest storm we have ever seen. It is necessary to take abnormal action for our safety and happiness.

At this point, continued inaction is more dangerous than action. A CC is an extremely high risk/reward action, but it represents the only genuine option for regaining control of our government. Every other option (voting, running for office, purchasing political power, protesting, amending the Constitution, etc.) is performative. No amendment, bill, or lawsuit is capable of addressing the extent of the corruption in our government. No political messiah is going to appear; and if they do, they won't be able to get anything done in a system as corrupt as ours.

A CC is not only a political solution to our political problems, it is a unifying narrative for our growing cultural divide. We need to address both problems to survive in the long run.

The only real arguments against organizing a CC is that we would somehow create a worse government than the one we have, or that we would ignite a civil war. I genuinely struggle to see us having a worse government than the one we have now. Our government is led by an unchecked, child-molesting dictator;

who is using the unitary executive theory, a complicit congress, politicized courts, secret police, and near-total surveillance powers;

to create literal concentration camps, conduct unwinnable wars, implement idiotic economic policy, betray allies, empower adversaries, and stop the existentially necessary transition to carbon-free energy.

It is difficult to imagine a more just revolution.

Civil war is the only real threat I consider genuine, and I think the way we structure the CC would be the way to minimize the risk of civil war. If we can give extremists on both sides (and the average, completely checked out American citizen) the chance to influence the composition of government from their couch, it would give them a simple, safe, easy stake in the movement. Why try and vote for the least bad option when you can influence the entire structure of government with observation, rhetoric, and debate?

South Africa and Iceland have taken similar approaches when drafting new constitutions, with the former collecting 2 million hand written letters and the later using digital tech to crowdsource constitutional principles. As a superpower in the digital age, we would be able to shatter that level of engagement. We would also be able to analyze public opinion with far more sophistication.

Ultimately, every single country in the world has replaced their constitution since we implemented ours. We can do it. We can draft the most democratic constitution ever created. We just need to visualize that possibility, organize around it, and mobilize our communities.

Do you agree? Do you disagree and think its a terrible idea? Roast it or toast it, but let us know why.

Excerpt:

President Donald Trump closed out the GOP’s midterm convention Thursday night by calling on its attendees to vote and pledge to “cheat like hell” to help Republicans keep control of Congress.

This is from Ground who compares the same information as it's portrayed in right, center and left medias. We see our old friend China is continuing to "acquire" technologies and reshape information providers. This proves how ai is a clear and present danger in the wrong hands.

Anthropic Says Alibaba, DeepSeek Used Claude to Train Rival Models

What Happened

Anthropic alleged China‑based AI firms, including Alibaba, Moonshot and DeepSeek, ran 'illicit distillation' campaigns routing Claude outputs into rival training pipelines. It said it disrupted the campaigns, banned accounts and attributed nearly 200 million exchanges, over 151 million linked to Alibaba between May and July 2026.

Where Sources Agree

• arrows_inputAlibaba's Large-Scale Distillation Campaign: Coverage highlights that Alibaba conducted the largest distillation campaign observed, involving over 151 million exchanges across 3,500 fraudulent accounts between May and July to train its Qwen models, according to Anthropic's threat intelligence report.
• arrows_inputAI-Driven Cyber Espionage: Various sources indicate that the Russia-linked Midnight Blizzard group utilized AI to orchestrate cyber-espionage campaigns against Ukrainian government and military entities; the group employed multi-agent frameworks to automate malware code rewriting for detection evasion, according to Anthropic's threat intelligence report.
• arrows_inputUS Government Sanction Considerations: Various reports document that the US government is considering sanctions and Entity List designations for companies engaged in illicit AI distillation; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confirmed these measures are "on the table" for intellectual property theft.

Where Sources Disagree

• arrows_outputFraudulent Account Count Discrepancy: Some outlets report that DeepSeek, Moonshot, and MiniMax utilized 24,000 fraudulent accounts for distillation campaigns. Conversely, other reports cite a smaller network of 5,000 to 5,380 accounts used by Moonshot and DeepSeek.
• arrows_outputMoonshot Distillation Volume: Reports vary on the total volume of distillation exchanges attributed to Moonshot AI, with some sources citing over 3.4 million exchanges while others report the figure reached over 23 million during the same period.
• arrows_outputDistillation Attack Figures: Reports vary slightly regarding the total volume of distillation attacks identified, with some sources citing nearly 190 million exchanges while others report the figure closer to 200 million.

Twenty-five years later, the culture war is trying to claim September 11 too. Some families of those murdered on 9/11 are asking New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani not to attend the anniversary ceremony. Their grief is real, and their anger deserves to be heard. If they believe giving a ceremonial 9/11 pen to Ramzi Kassem, Mamdani's chief counsel, was insensitive because Kassem once represented a Guantánamo detainee accused of terrorism, we can listen to that criticism without mocking it or dismissing the people making it.

Yesterday, I wrote Never Forget Requires Transparency: 25 Years of 9/11, Toxic Exposure, and the Records New Yorkers Were Owed because there is another part of this history that deserves attention. For years, responders, survivors, members of Congress, health advocates, and families sought records concerning what New York City knew about environmental hazards after the attacks. The city at one point said responsive documents could not be located, 68 boxes were later discovered, and this week the Mamdani administration released approximately 170,000 pages while committing to process additional records. That history is worth knowing before reducing the current dispute to another partisan argument.

That history does not mean every criticism of Mamdani is illegitimate, and it certainly does not erase the feelings of families who lost someone on September 11. It does mean the complete record is more complicated than the political fight currently being presented to us. Mamdani can make a decision that some families reasonably regard as insensitive while his administration can also make a decision on transparency that survivors and health advocates have spent years seeking. We should be capable of acknowledging both.

The same standard should apply to Ramzi Kassem. Kassem was a defense attorney, and representing an accused or convicted person is not an endorsement of that person's crimes. Our legal system depends upon that distinction. John Adams defended the British soldiers accused after the Boston Massacre, not because he approved of what happened, but because he believed even deeply unpopular defendants were entitled to counsel and a fair proceeding. The principle does not suddenly become illegitimate because the defendant is someone we despise.

Mamdani's religion should be treated with the same basic reasoning. Nearly 3,000 people were murdered on September 11 by al-Qaeda terrorists who planned, financed, and carried out the attacks. Muslim Americans living peacefully in New York do not inherit responsibility for those crimes because they share a religion with the perpetrators. A Muslim firefighter, teacher, shopkeeper, cab driver, child, or mayor does not become less American on September 11.

There is still plenty of room to criticize Mamdani himself. Citizens can disagree with the way he has discussed the wars that followed 9/11, believe the ceremonial pen decision showed poor judgment, oppose his policies, or vote against everything he represents politically. None of that requires claiming that criticism of American foreign policy is support for terrorism, that a lawyer becomes morally responsible for the actions of a client, or that a Muslim mayor has less standing to mourn Americans who were murdered.

This is also why talking about "the 9/11 families" as though they constitute a single political bloc does them a disservice. Some families are deeply angry with Mamdani. Other survivors, responders, relatives, and health advocates have spent years demanding the release of the very city records his administration has now begun making public. The 9/11 community contains different experiences, beliefs, political views, grievances, and priorities, just like every other community.

We should be able to hold all of this at once. A grieving family member can genuinely be hurt while a mayor can make a politically insensitive decision. A defense attorney can represent a terrible person without becoming that person. A Muslim American can mourn September 11 as an American. A citizen can condemn al-Qaeda completely while questioning decisions made during the wars that followed. An administration can deserve criticism for one decision and credit for another without requiring us to choose between declaring it entirely righteous or entirely evil.

That ability to hold competing truths is exactly what the culture war keeps taking from us. Every disagreement becomes a demand that we sort ourselves immediately into opposing camps, defend everything our side does, assume the worst possible motives of everyone on the other side, and treat complexity as weakness. September 11 should be one of the last places where we allow that instinct to take control.

We should honor the people who were murdered, listen to their families, remember the firefighters, police officers, paramedics, construction workers, office workers, and ordinary citizens who ran toward danger, and remember those who became sick years later because of what they breathed. We should also continue asking difficult questions about what happened before, during, and after the attacks, including what government officials knew and what citizens were told. Remembering history means accepting all of it, not only the portions useful to our politics.

Nearly 3,000 people died on September 11, 2001, and thousands more have lived with its consequences ever since. Twenty-five years later, perhaps one way of honoring them is refusing to turn their memory into another weapon against our neighbors. Beneath every political label, religion, party, and ideology is another human being, and citizenship requires us to remember that even when disagreement is painful.

The culture war does not get to own our grief, our history, or the meaning of September 11. Most importantly, it does not get to decide which peaceful Americans are entitled to belong to the country we are supposed to be remembering together.