Showing posts sorted by date for query STRAY. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query STRAY. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Sunday, August 23, 2026

Overflowing Bins in Bethlehem Tell a Bigger Story

They are telling the story of a city under pressure, a story of institutions struggling to maintain essential services, a story of workers trying to do their jobs under increasingly difficult circumstances.



A waste collection point overflows in Bethlehem.
(Photo by Mahmoud Ibrahim)

Mahmoud Ibrahim
Aug 23, 2026
Common Dreams

The world knows Bethlehem as the city of the Nativity. It is a city of churches, olive groves, ancient stone streets, and a history that attracts pilgrims and visitors from across the globe. For many, Bethlehem symbolizes peace, hope, and human resilience.

Yet in recent weeks, another image has emerged. Overflowing garbage containers. Piles of waste left uncollected for days. Unpleasant odors drifting through neighborhoods. Stray dogs searching through torn plastic bags. Flies, rodents, and growing public concern about health and sanitation.

For residents, these scenes are disturbing. For visitors, they are difficult to reconcile with the image of one of the world’s most recognized and beloved cities. But the garbage accumulating in Bethlehem’s streets is not the real story. It is merely the most visible symptom of a much larger crisis. The question is not why a container is overflowing. The question is what happened to the system behind it.

At first glance, it may seem like a simple municipal problem. A shortage of fuel. A broken truck. Workers on strike. Delayed collection rounds. The reality is far more complicated.

The environment does not understand politics. It understands only what we do—or fail to do—to protect it.

Waste management depends on an entire chain of institutions, workers, vehicles, roads, fuel supplies, disposal facilities, municipal revenues, and public cooperation. When enough pressure is placed on that chain, it begins to break. And in Bethlehem, pressure has been building for years.

The city has suffered repeated economic shocks. The tourism sector, once a major source of income, was devastated by the Covid-19 pandemic. Before it could fully recover, the war and the broader economic crisis brought new hardships. Businesses struggled. Workers lost jobs. Household incomes declined. Many families found themselves prioritizing food, rent, and basic necessities over municipal fees.

As revenues declined, local institutions found it increasingly difficult to sustain essential services. At the same time, operational costs continued to rise. Fuel became more expensive and, at times, harder to secure. Vehicles required maintenance. Equipment aged. Service providers struggled to balance growing needs with shrinking resources.

The crisis does not stop there.

Road closures, military gates, and movement restrictions have increasingly complicated daily life throughout Bethlehem Governorate. What should be a routine collection route can suddenly become longer, slower, or more expensive. A delayed truck today may become an overflowing container tomorrow.

Even the final destination of the waste is not immune from these pressures.

The Al-Minya landfill, which serves communities in southern parts of the West Bank, represents a critical component of the region’s waste management system. Any disruption affecting access, transportation, security, or operations along this chain eventually reaches the streets of Bethlehem and surrounding communities.

The result is a problem that residents experience every day. A container left uncollected. A street corner filled with waste. A smell that lingers in the summer heat. A growing sense that something is no longer working as it should.

When waste accumulates, the consequences extend beyond appearance.

Overflowing garbage attracts stray dogs, insects, rodents, and other disease vectors. It increases environmental risks and can create fire hazards during hot weather. It affects public health, community well-being, and the quality of life in neighborhoods already facing multiple challenges.

This is why waste management should never be viewed as a secondary service. It is not simply about removing garbage from the street. It is about protecting public health. It is about preserving human dignity. It is about maintaining the environmental quality of cities and communities. It is also about protecting the people who perform this difficult work.

One night, at around 2:00 am in the morning, I drove into Bethlehem to take my wife to catch an early bus to Allenby Bridge Boarder with Jordan. While most of the city slept, sanitation workers were already on the streets. Wearing reflective orange uniforms, they swept roads, emptied containers, and loaded waste onto trucks. Few residents would ever see them. By sunrise, most traces of their work would have disappeared.

Their presence reminded me that waste management is not an abstract system. It depends on real people working under difficult conditions, often exposed to hazards that most citizens never think about.

But workers alone cannot solve this crisis, neither can municipalities, nor can citizens. Responsibility is shared.

Citizens must reduce the waste they generate, support cleaner public spaces, and contribute to the sustainability of essential services whenever possible.

Municipalities and service providers need stronger planning, better resource management, and long-term financial stability.

National institutions must support local governments struggling under extraordinary economic and political pressures.

And international partners should recognize that environmental services are not luxuries. They are fundamental to public health, social stability, and human dignity.

There is another reason this issue deserves greater attention. Pollution does not recognize borders. Smoke from burning waste does not stop at a checkpoint. Contaminated water does not respect political divisions. Air pollution travels wherever the wind takes it.

The environment does not understand politics. It understands only what we do—or fail to do—to protect it. That is why environmental protection requires cooperation, shared responsibility, and long-term vision.

Bethlehem does not simply need more garbage trucks or more containers. It needs investment in sustainable solutions. It needs stronger institutions. It needs public awareness. It needs serious efforts to reduce waste generation, expand reuse and recycling, and create economic opportunities through a circular economy approach.

Most importantly, it needs recognition that environmental challenges are not isolated technical problems. They are deeply connected to economic conditions, governance, public services, and the daily lives of ordinary people.

The overflowing containers seen today across Bethlehem are telling a much bigger story. They are telling the story of a city under pressure, a story of institutions struggling to maintain essential services, a story of workers trying to do their jobs under increasingly difficult circumstances, a story of economic hardship, environmental vulnerability, and a community searching for sustainable solutions.

And perhaps they are also reminding us of something simple: Garbage does not appear overnight. Neither do environmental crises. Both are the result of problems left unresolved for too long.

If Bethlehem is to remain the beautiful city that the world knows and cherishes, addressing those problems can no longer wait.



Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Mahmoud Ibrahim
Mahmoud Ibrahim is a Palestinian humanitarian and environmental professional based in the Bethlehem area of the occupied West Bank, Palestine.
Full Bio >



‘Palestine Is Being Erased Before Our Eyes’: 100 Former French, British Diplomats Say End Weapons Sales, Trade With Israel


The abuses by the Israeli government and military are “a stain on the conscience of humanity, requiring the UK and France to act.”



Palestinians mourn for a three-month-old baby named Tim El Khavaja, who lived in a tent in the Shati Camp lost his life due to cold weather conditions in northern Gaza Strip, Gaza on December 12, 2025. The body of the baby was brought to Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City for funeral arrangements.
(Photo by Hamza Z. H. Qraiqea/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Jon Queally
Aug 23, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

While critics of the French and British governments say they are doing too little to confront the crimes and human rights violations of Israel against the Palestinian people, about 100 former diplomats of the two nations penned an open letter published over the weekend agreeing that much stronger actions must be taken to end the atrocities taking place in both the Gaza Strip and Occupied West Bank.

Published in Le Monde on Saturday, the joint op-ed by the former UK and French ambassadors and foreign diplomats argues that because their two nations “played a decisive role in the shaping of the Middle East,” it is incumbent upon them to “make common cause over the region’s fundamental faultline: equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians”—a dynamic grossly lacking as Palestinians are starved and bombed in Gaza, with their rights endlessly under assault in the West Bank.

According to the letter:
In Gaza, two million Palestinians are kettled into 30% of their devastated land, hungry, lacking medicine and housing. Over 1,200 Palestinians have been killed since the so-called “ceasefire” of October 2025. In East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank, Palestinian house demolitions and rampant settler violence—with the connivance of the Israeli army and police—amount to ethnic cleansing. Palestine is being erased before our eyes.

This policy of occupation and destruction extends to Lebanon—where many villages have been razed—and Syria. It is a stain on the conscience of humanity, requiring the UK and France to act.


While human rights groups have steadfastly demanded accountability for Israel—including tougher sanctions, suspension of trade agreements, a halt to weapons transfers, and enforcement of rulings by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and proceedings at the International Criminal Court—for its ongoing criminal behavior against the Palestinians, European governments, the United States, and other western allies have resisted such calls.

While noting that much can be done to help Palestine become “a fully functioning democratic nation,” the letter from the former diplomats makes a call for seven specific action designed to end Israeli impunity and bring the government back into compliance with international law. The policy recommendations directed at the UK and French governments are:Uphold the decisions of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court;
Suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement and the UK-Israel Trade and Partnership Agreement for breach of human rights provisions;
Suspend arms transfers to and from Israel and all bilateral military cooperation;
Insist on unrestricted aid access to Gaza, led by UNRWA, other UN agencies and international NGOs, with consequences for non-compliance; access too for journalists, diplomats and parliamentarians;
Ban all trade with settlements, including goods, investment, insurance and other financial services;
Warn potential bidders for the red-line “E1” area [east of Jerusalem, in the occupied territories] or other settlement financing/construction that their interests in and with our countries will suffer;
Make it an offense for our citizens to buy property on stolen Palestinian land and remove charitable status from “charities” funding settlements.


Nicholas Hopton, a former UK ambassador to Iran, Qatar and Yemen and one of the signatories of the letter, said that the language they used was not invented by the diplomats themselves.

“The words are not our own,” Hopton explained to Al Jazeera. “They are taken from the international legal bodies, the UN, those who have been observing from a neutral position and with expertise.”

What’s key to understand, said Peter Millett, a former British ambassador to Libya who also signed the letter, is that what the signatories are asking for “is action, not words.”

Foreign ministers of the France and Britia “over the last few months and years have issued statements of criticism, of condemnation and so forth,” Millett told Al-Jazeera, “but as the letter makes clear, this is the time now where we need to see action on trade, action on settlements, more support for aid to go into Gaza, and the ending of the arms trade.”

At the heart of the letter is the idea that world leaders, whether in Europe or elsewhere, must now act aggressively to bring the suffering of the Palestinians to an end and bring Israel’s violations and abuses to a halt.
"These proposals reflect our shared values—international law and equal rights—which are in our interest," the letter concludes. "Where there is no law, none of us is safe."

Friday, August 21, 2026

Korean Peninsula: One Small Step in the Right Direction

by | Aug 19, 2026

“President Donald Trump’s decision to scale back joint military exercises with South Korea,” Matthew Lee and Ben Finley write for the Associated Press, “does not just slight a longtime ally but raises broader concerns about the security interests of the United States in Asia and elsewhere.”

Trump’s reason for supposedly, and in unspecified ways, downsizing the annual “Ulchi Freedom Shield” exercise is that South Korea has been insufficiently supportive of his  war against Iran. That doesn’t seem like a very good reason … but there ARE good reasons, and it’s a tiny move in the correct direction of drawing down US military entanglement on the Korean Peninsula.

The history, in brief:

After World War 2, Korea — which had been occupied by the Japanese — was split into two states. In the north, a Soviet/Chinese-backed communist regime under Kim Il Sung held power, while the south  was ruled by a US-backed  fascist regime under Syngman Rhee. Each side wanted to invade, conquer, annex, and absorb the other’s territory, but the US held Rhee back from doing so and Kim beat him to the punch.

The resulting war technically goes on to this very day, although it’s been in a tense state of ceasefire since 1953. More than 35,000 American troops, hundreds of thousands of South Korean, North Korean, Chinese, and Soviet soldiers, and millions of civilians died to reach that stalemate.

North Korea remains “communist” in name and pageantry while actually embodying absolute , quasi-religious monarchy under the Kim dynasty’s third generation.

South Korea is theoretically a “democracy,” but mostly just a big state capitalist enterprise operating under military protection from, and advantageous trade deals with, the US . The US spends $5-6 billion per year to support 80 military bases and 27,000 deployed US troops, and has now been doing that much or more for 80 years.

Interestingly, the AP story quotes Dan Fried, an official in George W. Bush’s administration, to the effect that “there is no American interest I can see” in reducing US military commitments to South Korea.

But in 2004, Bush himself proposed a much bolder plan than small cuts to joint military exercises. He wanted, he announced, to completely withdraw US forces from the Korean peninsula over the course of ten years.

Granted, Bush made that proposal under duress after rushing to New Mexico when his campaign learned that Libertarian Michael Badnarik was polling at 5% in the state, that Democrat John Kerry had scheduled a speech of his own there, and that New Mexico’s electoral votes might hang in the balance. He needed an olive branch to the growing anti-war movement, and quickly dropped the plan once he was re-elected.

But it was a good idea then, and it’s a great idea now.

American taxpayers have been throwing blood and treasure at South Korea for most of a century even as it has become an economic powerhouse that competes with US producers, and that commitment also feeds into US entanglement in every regional argument involving not just the Koreas, but China, Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines, etc. It’s a raw deal for America.

South Korea possesses abundant means to provide for its own defense , especially since Kim Jong-Un  certainly understands that even success at military conquest of a population twice the size of the one he already rules would eventually bring his own regime down.

I hope that President Trump will continue on, and accelerate ambitiously along, this course. The US armed forces should stand down in South Korea. Whether the South Korean regime stands up in their place, and if so in what ways, isn’t a matter for the US regime to decide. Bring the troops home.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism, publisher of Rational Review News Digest, and moderator of Antiwar.com’s commenting/discussion community.


Another Trump-Kim Carnival?


by | Aug 21, 2026 |


A Trump-Kim summit would be a spectacle like no other. A carnival extravaganza with the Korean Peninsula holding center stage, and every handshake, expression, seating arrangement, and stray remark dissected by troupes of North Korea pundits across the world’s news networks. But like any great traveling carnival, a few days later ticket holders will be left with an uncomfortable queasiness and a sense that they’ve somehow been cheated. Spectacle, not strategy.

As the media fawned over the prospect of another Trump-Kim carnival, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi arrived in Seoul for two days of talks with South Korean Foreign Minister Cho Hyun. Strategy, not spectacle.

Washington is lost in spectacle, Beijing is focused and strategic. The differing approaches will transform the region.

Iran as a warning

The decision to attack Iran demonstrated that U.S. decision-making was driven less by strategic or operational considerations than by personal motivations. The conflict was poorly planned, employing the wrong military tools at the wrong time. Earlier operations had already exposed these limitations: the United States struggled to achieve its objectives against Houthi positions in Yemen between March and May 2025, and again against Iranian targets during the Twelve-Day War in June 2025. These warnings went unheeded. The resulting conflict exposed a deeper problem: an inability to match military means to strategic ends.

The continuation of the conflict appears to be shaped by political, financial, and reputational incentives as much as a coherent assessment of strategic costs and benefits. The distinction between the national interest and personal interests is increasingly difficult to discern. The problem therefore extends beyond poor strategy or operational failure: the machinery of war itself has become a vehicle for presidential profit.

The failure to come to terms has demonstrated that the U.S. is “agreement incapable”. The weakening of the State Department and the reliance on poorly qualified presidential envoys has hollowed out the institutional capacity needed to negotiate, conclude, and sustain credible agreements.

Then there’s the treatment of allies, such as South Korea. Start with removal of the Patriot and THAAD platforms, their effective failure in high-intensity conflict, the departure of the last U.S. carrier group from East Asia, and unilateral changes to long-planned military exercises, and the value of the U.S. alliance begins to look very different. Add the ever-present demand that South Korea play a larger role in containing China, and the alliance itself begins to look like a risk.

Awaiting Washington’s move?

Unarguably, South Korea currently needs the U.S. – and Donald Trump in particular. Securing an end to the Korean War would replace a temporary armistice with a permanent peace regime, reduce the risk of renewed conflict, and open space for a more stable relationship with North Korea. Achieving this requires U.S. participation and presidential authority, as well as the narcissism and recklessness to break with decades of established policy.

An end to the Korean War would also fit nearly two decades of South Korean preparation to survive a weakening of the U.S. alliance or its end.

South Korea regained peacetime OPCON in 1994, while the formal process for transferring wartime OPCON began in 2006, when Roh Moo-hyun and George W. Bush agreed on the basic principles of the transfer. Twenty years later, the process remains incomplete, but its direction has not changed: greater South Korean responsibility for its own defense and less dependence on U.S. command.

The growth of South Korea’s arms industry points in the same direction. Once dependent on U.S. weapons, South Korea now produces and exports tanks, artillery, aircraft, warships, missiles, and air-defense systems. More than an export success, this is building the industrial capacity for greater strategic independence.

The nuclear “wish list” points further in the same direction. South Korea currently moving toward a domestically produced nuclear submarine, with the first planned for the mid-2030s. At the same time, public support for an independent nuclear deterrent remains strong, even though the government currently formally rejects the development of nuclear weapons.

All three point in the same direction: greater autonomy, military-industrial independence, and ultimately independent deterrence. South Korea still needs the alliance, but it is preparing for a future in which it may no longer have one.

However, the current South Korean push for Trump to play a role on the Korean Peninsula is more about cognitive and institutional reflex than strategic foresight – and this reflex is rapidly weakening. South Korea is increasingly aware that this is Beijing’s region.

The future lies in Beijing?

America’s greatest supporters in Seoul are aware that that the Iran conflict suggests the U.S. no longer has the capacity to decisively shape events on the Korean Peninsula. The deeper strategic logic is difficult to ignore: the long-term dynamics of East Asia increasingly point toward U.S. departure.

The regional balance is shifting from maritime toward continental power, while technological change is making forward bases, surface fleets, and extended supply lines increasingly vulnerable. At the same time, the military and political costs of maintaining regional primacy are rising faster than the benefits it provides. Withdrawal will not be immediate, but the strategic trajectory is clear.

Across the West, it’s assumed that middle powers seek to balance nearby great powers by securing the support of more distant great powers. South Korea’s alliance with the U.S. fits this logic. But East Asian history shows that accepting and even profiting from a nearby great power sometimes makes more sense. Much of Southeast Asia’s more acquiescent approach to China fits this logic.

For South Korea, coming to terms with this is politically and socially difficult. Yet, in strategic terms, it makes sense to “negotiate” the departure of the U.S. with Beijing before, rather than after. Waiting until the U.S. leaves of its own accord, or is pushed out in a region-changing diplomatic failure, will not improve South Korea’s position. Time is not on Seoul’s side.

Another Trump-Kim carnival may take place. If it soothes and engenders favor with President Trump, then it serves a purpose. If it supports immediate objectives, such as securing greater military independence or an end to the Korean War, then it serves a purpose. But beyond the immediate spectacle, the future of the Korean Peninsula will not be decided on Trump’s social media, but by talks at the Zhongnanhai.

Jeffrey Robertson previously worked for the Australian government in the fields of foreign policy and diplomacy with a focus on East Asia. He now writes from the other side of the line as an academic at Yonsei University in Seoul, South Korea. His updates can be found at https://junotane.com.

Wednesday, August 12, 2026

 


Robert Reich: Stop AI Before It’s Too Late – OpEd


Recent U.S. job losses (23,000 in July) and slowing wage growth, especially in AI-exposed occupations, indicate that artificial intelligence is already contributing to higher unemployment and reduced earnings for millions of workers.

AI is concentrating vast wealth and political power among a small group of executives and investors while imposing heavy environmental costs through energy-intensive data centers and raising serious safety risks, including rogue models and potential bioweapon development.

Given that the known costs and risks currently outweigh broad benefits for most people, the rapid advance of AI should not be treated as inevitable; society has both the right and the responsibility to pause or halt its development to protect jobs, democracy, the climate, and public safety.


I’m going to make a proposal today that’s almost certain to get me consigned to the neo-Luddite dustbin of history.

But first, let me lay out some facts.

Rather than producing jobs, the U.S. economy actually lost 23,000 job in July, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data released Friday. In addition, May’s and June’s job numbers were revised downward, showing a combined 103,000 fewer jobs than previously reported.


As if this weren’t bad enough, wage growth has also slowed. Average hourly earnings In July were just 0.1 percent higher than in June. This isn’t just a single month’s slow wage growth, either. Average hourly earnings increased just 3.2 percent over the past year — the lowest annual growth rate in five years.

What’s going on? It’s too early to tell. But evidence is mounting that artificial intelligence is playing a role.

New research by economists at Morgan Stanley shows that the rate of unemployment is half a percentage point higher than it would otherwise be in occupations exposed to AI, which they put at about 30 percent of all employment. The effect is even more dramatic among younger people.

Wage growth in jobs exposed to AI has contracted by 6.7 percent since 2023, according to research by economists Sania Edlich and Apollo Global Management’s Torsten Slok. This has resulted in at least $28 billion in losses for 5.8 million affected workers.

These findings still don’t explain the startling loss of jobs in July or the downward revisions for May and June. There are probably many factors at play. But they suggest that employers may be anticipating they’ll need fewer workers in the future — and won’t need to pay them all that much in order to attract them.


It’s possible that AI may create more jobs over the long term. But as John Maynard Keynes once noted, over the long term we’re all dead.

More than half of Americans surveyed by Reuters/Ipsos in June say they’re worried AI will put someone in their household out of work.

Edlich and Slok write that “the critical policy question is not whether AI will reshape the labor market more broadly, but how quickly, and whether workers will have the support they need when it does.”

As a former secretary of labor who’s kept his eyes focused on the Trump regime, I can assure you workers won’t have the support they need any time soon.

And even if AI begins to generate the productivity bonanza its advocates predict — but hasn’t yet — there’s no reason to assume American workers will see any of the benefits in their paychecks. If you hadn’t noticed, wages have been stuck even as the stock market has roared.

To the contrary, all signs point to vast riches for a few major AI investors and executives while most Americans are left behind.

Wealth inequality is already at record levels, and wealth at the top is quickly morphing into political power.

AI is creating a vast wave of campaign money. OpenAI’s superPAC “Leading the Future” has amassed over $140 million to influence upcoming elections, while Anthropic’s superPAC “Public First Action” isn’t far behind.


As the great jurist Louis Brandeis is reputed to have said, “America has a choice: we can have great wealth in the hands of a few, or we can have a democracy, but we can’t have both.”

AI is pushing us further toward the first option.

Meanwhile, there’s the planet to consider.

Amazon is now investing in a large-scale natural-gas power plant as part of a huge data center in Pecos County, Texas — a facility that could become the largest single source of climate pollution in the United States.

It’s racing to build enough data centers to keep pace with other giant AI corporations and secure the electricity to power them. Amazon’s new gas-burning plant is permitted to release 33 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, regulatory records show, more planet-warming gases than any other power plant in America.

So much for Amazon’s promise to eliminate its planet-warming emissions by 2040 as part of its Climate Pledge. You can bet other giants in the AI race will be turning to natural gas, too.

Oh, and I haven’t even mentioned the Frankenstein monster in the room. A few weeks ago, OpenAI admitted that two of its artificial intelligence models went rogue and successfully hacked into a digital library of AI technology.

The incident, which happened while OpenAI was testing the cybersecurity capabilities of its systems, was the kind of science-fiction nightmare that could soon be a reality. How soon before AI models escape all their cages?

Just last week, scientists published a study documenting how they used A.I. to create new kinds of viruses, raising the frightful possibility that the technology could be used to invent dangerous pathogens.

Lost jobs. Lost wages. Widening inequality. Data centers using up water and electricity and polluting the climate. Vastly more money polluting our politics. Models escaping their cages and hacking into everything, possibly threatening human life on this planet.

Can we pause for a moment and talk about what’s really happening here?

As sociologist Tressie McMillan Cottom writes, AI has merged regressive politics with unchecked economic power under the guise of technological innovation.

Far too much money is giving a small group of unelected people extraordinary power to determine our future in ways that are likely to remake — and could possibly destroy — our lives.

We’re watching all of this roll out as if we have no choice, as if it’s inevitable, as if AI is just something we’re going to have to adapt to.


But why should we have to adapt to it, when it is the product of people like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Sam Altman, Mark Zuckerberg, and Dario Amodei?

Why should we be confined to being spectators at their enormously dangerous game? Why should we have to accept all these hugely negative, potentially life-threatening consequences?

The fact is, we don’t.

Communities across America are organizing against data centers near them. MAGAs and progressives are joining together to say “no” to the noise, higher electricity bills, and water shortages.

Well, then, why can’t we stop the whole damn thing? Why can’t we decide that the incalculable costs and risks of AI aren’t worth the potential benefits to the vast majority of us?

AI proponents argue that stopping or even pausing AI in the United States would risk American industry falling behind competitors overseas.

But if the costs and risks exceed known benefits, why not let China or any other competitor try AI out first? Why should we be the canary in this extraordinarily dangerous coal mine?

Other advocates of AI say we have no right to stop innovation in the free market. That’s baloney. We don’t allow private corporations to come up with new types of nuclear weapons or varieties of cocaine or biological pathogens. We protect the public from certain kinds of innovation.

So let’s protect ourselves here. Stop AI before it’s too late.



This article was published at Robert Reich’s Substack


About Robert Reich

Robert B. Reichis Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies, and writes atrobertreich.substack.com. Reich served as Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. He has written fifteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock", "The Work of Nations," and"Beyond Outrage," and, his most recent, "The Common Good," which is available in bookstores now. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and co-creator of the award-winning documentary, "Inequality For All." He's co-creator of the Netflix original documentary "Saving Capitalism," which is streaming now.
View all posts by Robert Reich →

A Democracy Cannot Run on an AI Model

AI is already inside election administration; before it moves deeper into the count, results have to stay verifiable.



Clerk Matthew Sandbar, 34, demonstrates part of the ballot-sorting process to members of the media attending a walkthrough of the Philadelphia Ballot Processing Center used to process the ballots of the 2022 US midterm elections, in Philadelphia on October 27, 2022.
(Photo by Ryan Collerd / AFP via Getty Images)

Davis Austria
Aug 12, 2026
Common Dreams

Tallying the results of Washington, DC’s first ranked-choice election in June took about 10 days—longer than many voters are used to. In an age when artificial intelligence can generate an answer in seconds, waiting days for election results can feel old-fashioned, inefficient, even suspicious. And it is about to matter far more widely. This November, 17 states, cities, and counties will use ranked-choice voting, including Maine and Alaska statewide, in races that could help decide control of Congress. More voters than ever will watch results take days to resolve, and more will be asked to trust a count they cannot see.

But that slowness may be one of its most democratic features.

I come to this question from health informatics, where I study how even AI-generated information that sounds clear, fluent, and helpful still requires careful review before it reaches a patient. The same verification problem applies to elections. The more authoritative a system sounds, the more important it becomes to make sure the output can be checked.

DC’s June 16 primary followed a system that requires more than a simple tally: Voters rank candidates, and if no candidate receives more than 50% of first-choice votes, lower-performing candidates are eliminated, and votes are redistributed according to voters’ next choices. New York City already uses ranked-choice voting in local primary and special elections.

AI may soon be able to produce election results in seconds. That does not mean it should.

There is nothing wrong with ranked-choice voting, but it must be carried out with verifiable results. Because election counting is not just a math problem; it is a trust problem, especially in the US today, where election workers face harassment, routine counting delays are recast as fraud, and many voters already doubt institutions before a single ballot is counted.

In this climate, counting ranked-choice votes in a way that allows for public verification might take longer than people are used to. Every ballot must be tied to a voter-verifiable record. Every round of tabulation must be explainable. Every disputed outcome must be auditable by people who can inspect the evidence themselves.

AI is not yet counting votes, but AI and machine-assisted systems are already touching elections before ballots are counted, including information voters receive, and how their signatures are reviewed. In 2024, X’s Grok chatbot gave users false information about ballot deadlines; after election officials from five states complained, X changed Grok so election-related questions directed users to Vote.gov, the federal government’s official voting information website. In North Carolina, 10 counties piloted automated signature-verification software for absentee-by-mail ballots in 2024. The pilot did not affect whether any ballot was counted, but later reporting found reliability problems: The software failed to match about 11% of signatures, most software-flagged signatures were approved after human review, and technical issues complicated the test. Neither example is the same as artificial intelligence counting votes, but both show how software can shape what voters are told or what happens before a ballot enters the count.

I have seen the problem in my own research. AI systems can cite studies that do not exist, with titles, authors, and journals that look real until you check them. A 2026 Nature analysis⁠ warned that hallucinated citations are polluting scientific literature, and OpenAI researchers have warned⁠ that some training and evaluation systems reward guessing over acknowledging uncertainty. A system that gives a confident answer may look more useful, even when that confidence is misplaced, than one that says, “I don’t know.”

That matters because elections often turn on ballot conditions that are not immediately machine readable and need human review: stray marks, undervotes, overvotes, damaged ballots, or ambiguous voter intent. In races where the margin between the candidates is narrow, a few disputed ballots can change the result. These questions should not be resolved by a system whose rules, error rates, or decision process the public cannot understand or meaningfully examine. They should be handled through documented procedures, human review, paper records, and public audits.

Human counting is also imperfect. But precisely because humans are fallible, democratic systems have developed safeguards such as paper ballots, bipartisan observation, chain-of-custody rules, cure processes, recounts, and post-election audits. Risk-limiting audits⁠, for example, hand check samples of paper ballots and can trigger a fuller count if the sample does not support the reported result. Colorado was the first state to conduct a statewide risk-limiting audit in 2017; today, all Colorado counties conduct one before results are certified. Other states have since adopted, required, or piloted risk-limiting audits.

The best election systems do not ask voters to trust either a person or a machine. They produce evidence. That is where current policy is behind the curve. States have moved quickly to regulate AI-generated deepfakes in campaign communications, because fake videos and robocalls can mislead voters. But far less attention has been paid to the AI inside election administration itself. That gap should close before AI moves deeper into election administration, especially into decisions that could affect whether a ballot is accepted, cured, rejected, or counted.

Federal and state governments should establish clear standards for AI used in anything election related. The Brennan Center for Justice⁠ has called for such safeguards around quality, transparency, consistency, certification, and monitoring. Election offices should have to explain to the public what an AI system does, who checks it, and how voters can verify the evidence. AI systems whose rules, error rates, or decision process the public cannot understand or meaningfully examine should not make final decisions about whether a ballot counts.

Voters have a role, too. Ask your local election officials whether AI tools are being used anywhere in election administration and how those decisions can be audited. Ask how voters will know if the AI setup gets something wrong. And volunteer as a poll worker. You don’t need a background in elections; local officials train you. Democracy needs more people who understand how ballots are handled, checked, and verified.

AI may soon be able to produce election results in seconds. That does not mean it should. The labor of democracy is not a bottleneck in need of streamlining. It is part of the safeguard.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Davis Austria
Davis Austria is an assistant professor of health informatics conducting AI research at Xavier University of Louisiana, a Hopelab HBCU translational science fellow, and a Public Voices fellow with The OpEd Project.
Full Bio >



Queen’s Brian May outraged by AI version of album cover and tells UK PM Andy Burnham: ‘You must stop it now’

Queen’s Brian May outraged by AI version of album cover and tells UK PM Andy Burnham: ‘You must stop it now’
Copyright AP Photo


By David Mouriquand
Published on

"Maybe this is the time to realise WE ACTUALLY DON'T NEED AI," Brian May declared when posting a ridiculously poor version of what AI thinks one of Queen's albums looks like. He has urged UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham to block AI "before it's too late".

Queen guitarist Brian May has taken to Instagram to post an AI-generated version of the artwork of the band’s classic 1980 album ‘The Game’.

May used Meta AI to make the cover, which resurrects late frontman Freddie Mercury. He did so in order to make a “very serious” point about the environmental impact of AI to UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham.

Check out the post below:

The original cover sees all four members of Queen standing side-by-side in matching leather jackets.

As you can tell by the AI version, there are now apparently five members in Queen, and they're all unrecognisable.

Check out the original album cover for comparison:

Queen - The Game (1980)
Queen - The Game (1980) EMI / Elektra
So this is the kind of intelligence that will soon be ruling the world ??! Well, great. Maybe this is the time to realise WE ACTUALLY DON’T NEED AI !!
 Brian May 

May captioned the picture of the laughably poor AI cover: “I just had to share this with you guys. I asked Meta AI to show me what the cover of THE GAME album looked like. This is what it gave me ! Good job, eh ?”

“So this is the kind of intelligence that will soon be ruling the world ??! Well, great. Maybe this is the time to realise WE ACTUALLY DON’T NEED AI !!”

May added that he was “now very serious”, adding: “I believe the price we are about to pay for this ‘inevitable’ development is way too high. We must not allow these hideous Data Centres to be built in the UK. They will destroy our beautiful country, like they are already destroying beautiful America.”

Addressing Prime Minister Andy Burnham, May signed off his post by writing: “Dear Andy – you must stop it now. Before it’s too late.”

May's comments come at a time when creative fields are wrestling with the existential crisis that AI can represent. It's a divisive topic, with various artists condemning its use and the recent likes of Martin Scorsese and George Lucas receiving backlash for their endorsement of AI.

Recently, Brad Pitt spoke about the use of generative AI in music.

“I heard an AI song the other day that was pretty damn good,” he said in an interview with Esquire. “But it had a repetitive nature to it. It’s not going to be the same as hearing her voice - a woman’s voice, a person’s voice.”

In July, British record producer and singer Nia Archives said AI music “won’t last” while speaking at the launch of the Mercury Prize.

“I don’t know if AI music will last to be honest with you," she said. "I think it’s quite like a fleeting technology moment.”




Spotify to label AI-generated artist personas with new ‘AI Persona’ badges

Spotify to add 'AI Persona' badges on AI-generated artist profiles
Copyright Credit: Spotify
By Theo Farrant
Published on

Spotify's move comes as AI-generated music floods streaming platforms, with Deezer recently reporting that AI tracks accounted for more than half of all new daily uploads in June.

Music streaming giant Spotify has announced that from September it will begin adding an “AI Persona” badge to some artist profiles, helping listeners identify when an artist’s music may have been generated using artificial intelligence.

AI Personas will also be excluded from Spotify’s editorial and algorithmic recommendations, in an effort to give greater visibility to music made by genuine human musicians and artists.

Spotify will give artists the option to disclose whether they consider themselves an AI Persona. The platform will also conduct its own reviews to identify profiles that appear to be AI-generated identities.

Listeners will also beable to report artists they believe should be reviewed by Spotify’s team.

"Although there’s a broad spectrum in how artists use AI as a creative tool, the question of whether a profile represents an actual human is one where Spotify can help make a clear determination," reads a press release from Spotify.

It adds: "This badge is about the artist’s public identity, not about how the music was made."

Growing concerns over AI music

The move comes at a time of growing concern across the music industry over the volume of AI-generated musical slop flooding streaming platforms.

In June, French music streaming service Deezer reported that uploads of AI-generated tracks had, for the first time, exceeded half of all daily new music deliveries.

Following the milestone, the platform said it would remove generative-AI tracks being used to generate fraudulent streams, as well as tracks that had not been streamed for six months or more.

Spotify has faced a similar problem. Last year, the platform revealed that it had removed 75 million spam tracks over a 12-month period, as AI tools contributed to a flood of low-quality and fraudulent music.

The alarming success of AI-generated music

The Velvet Sundown provided an early glimpse of how easily AI-generated artists can break through into the mainstream. The psychedelic rock project appeared on Spotify in 2025 and quickly amassed more than a million monthly listeners, releasing two albums in June.

Its supposed four members - complete with names (led by vocalist and “mellotron sorcerer” Gabe Farrow), photographs and elaborate biographies - appeared to present the band as a genuine four-piece from the US.

AI-generated image of the fictitious band The Velvet Sundown
AI-generated image of the fictitious band The Velvet Sundown Credit: The Velvet Sundown

But doubts soon emerged. Reddit users started questioning the band’s authenticity after their music began appearing in listeners’ Spotify Discover Weekly playlists, while the group's imagery and promotional material appeared clearly artificial.

The band’s own social media accounts initially denied the allegations, insisting that the music had been created by “real” people using “real instruments, real minds, and real soul”.

Eventually, The Velvet Sundown’s Spotify profile was updated to acknowledge the truth. The band described itself as a “synthetic music project guided by human creative direction”, with its music, voices, lyrics and imagery created with the assistance of AI.

The group still has more than 100,000 monthly listeners and several of their tracks have over one millions streams.

The phenomenon has also begun to spill into more traditional measures of musical success with the AI-generated country project Breaking Rust reaching No 1 on Billboard’s Country Digital Song Sales chart with “Walk My Walk”.

The viral track now has close to 30 million streams on Spotify.


Opposition to local data centers rises sharply, Annenberg survey finds



3 in 5 Americans oppose data centers; broader views of AI hold steady



Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania

Opposition to local data centers rises sharply; views on AI hold steady 

image: 

Source: Annenberg Public Policy Center IOD 2026 national surveys in June-July and in February-March.

view more 

Credit: Annenberg Public Policy Center






PHILADELPHIA – As protesters rally against data center construction in dozens of states and New York and Texas pause the issuance of permits for large data centers, a new nationally representative survey finds that Americans’ opposition to data centers in their communities has risen sharply since last spring.

The survey, conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania, finds that about 3 in 5 U.S. adults (61%) oppose the construction of new data centers in their area, up 12 percentage points from an APPC survey in February and March.

Americans’ broader views of artificial intelligence (AI), however, have remained stable. The share saying that AI’s impact on the United States over the next 10 years will be somewhat or very negative was 39%, statistically unchanged from the spring. Two-thirds (68%) continue to say the government has done “too little” to regulate AI, unchanged from the spring.

The movement over these four months was concentrated in one place: what Americans think about the physical infrastructure of a data center being built near their home.

Read the complete news release here.

Key findings

The survey, by the Annenberg Public Policy Center’s Institutions of Democracy division, was conducted among a nationally representative sample of 1,320 U.S. adult citizens from June 16-July 19, 2026. It finds that:

  • Opposition to local data centers rose 12 points over four months: Three in five Americans (61%) now somewhat or strongly oppose the construction of new data centers in their area, up from 49% in the survey ending in March. Only 14% are supportive, down from 21% in the spring.
  • Opposition crosses party lines and is highest among younger adults: Majorities of Democrats (69%), Republicans (54%) and independents (53%) oppose new local data centers. Opposition is highest among young adults under 30 (70%) and declines to 57% among those 65 and older, the inverse of what one might expect for a new technology.
  • Views of AI overall, and demand for regulation, have held steady: 39% expect AI’s impact on the United States to be negative over the next decade, against 18% who expect it to be positive, unchanged from the spring. Over two-thirds (68%) say the government has done “too little” to regulate AI, including majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents.
  • Medical research remains the one area where Americans expect AI to help: Across 13 areas, only medical research and discoveries draws a net-positive assessment (+41 points) in which the anticipated benefits of AI outweigh the expected negatives. The most negative areas are personal privacy and data security (-63 points), children’s safety online (-50 points), and employment and jobs (-46 points).
  • People who use AI are less negative about it – but not about data centers. Among those who report “never” using AI in the past month, 54% expect AI’s impact on the United States to be negative. That falls to 40% among light users and 29% among those who used AI many times or almost every day. But opposition to local data centers is essentially flat across different usage groups.

“The people who use AI the most are the most optimistic about what it will do for the country, and that has been consistent across our surveys,” said University of Pennsylvania political science professor Matt Levendusky, the Stephen and Mary Baran Chair in the Institutions of Democracy at APPC. “That optimism, however, has clear limits, and it disappears when we ask about privacy, about jobs, and about whether a data center should go up nearby. Even heavy AI users seem to be concerned about these very concrete worries.”

The Annenberg Public Policy Center’s Institutions of Democracy survey was conducted for APPC by SSRS, an independent research company, primarily online, with a small sample of phone respondents. Respondents were weighted to align with population benchmarks. The margin of error for the full sample is ±3.5 percentage points, and it is larger for subgroups.

For additional data and details, read the full news release, the topline and the survey methodology.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania was established in 1993 to educate the public and policy makers about communication’s role in advancing public understanding of political, science, and health issues at the local, state, and federal levels.