Is the history of New York City the heart of the American story? Or does it exist in parallel, perhaps even independently, from the main American narrative. As with everything about the Big Apple (so good they named it twice), the answer is both. Or everything. At least according to Jonathan Mahler, author of The Gods of New York, a new history of the egoists and opportunists who remade the city in the 1980s. It’s the story of Donald Trump, of course, as well as Rudi Guiliani, Ed Koch, Spike Lee, Larry Kramer, Al Sharpton and an astonishingly entertaining cast of characters that only New York could create. But it’s also the broader American story of the victory of neo-liberal economics and ever-deepening chasm between Wall Street wealth and main street poverty. Mahler argues that the transformation from the "Mean Streets" dystopia of the 1970s to the finance-dominated metropolis of the 1980s didn't just save New York City —it created the troubling template for modern America, complete with all our current economic inequalities, political absurdities and tabloid cultural realities.

1. The 1980s Created Modern America's Template The transformation of New York from 1986-1990 wasn't just urban renewal—it was the birth of neoliberal America. The city's embrace of Wall Street, real estate development, and deregulation became the blueprint for how America would operate for the next four decades.

2. Power Shifted from Public to Private The era marked a fundamental transfer of urban power from public officials like Robert Moses and labor unions to private developers like Trump. Instead of government-led projects, cities began relying on private industry to drive development—often with devastating consequences for working-class communities.

3. Trump's Origin Story Explains His Political Magic Trick Trump went from being the 1980s symbol of greed and excess to becoming the voice of America's disaffected in 2016. This transformation from tabloid character to populist leader represents one of the most remarkable political reinventions in American history.

4. The American Dream Became Less Accessible New York's evolution into what Bloomberg called "a luxury product" reflects a broader national trend. The same forces that saved the city from 1970s decline also priced out working and middle-class families, making economic mobility increasingly difficult.

5. Tabloid Culture Became Political Culture The larger-than-life personalities who dominated 1980s New York—the "Gods" of Mahler's title—pioneered a celebrity-driven, spectacle-based approach to public life that eventually consumed American politics, from Trump's rise to our current media-saturated political landscape.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

It’s not often that there’s sunny news on the environmental front, especially from grizzled activists like the great Bill McKibben. But in his new book, Here Comes the Sun, McKibben argues that the sun - or, at least, solar power - might actually save the earth. There’s a pagan quality to McKibben’s manichaean message: the sun, he says, offers both last chance for the climate and a fresh chance for civilization. McKibben's optimism, he guarantees, is anything but naive cheerleading—it's grounded in the hard numbers of energy economics. Solar power has quietly become the cheapest energy source on earth, triggering what he calls a "warp speed" buildout, particularly in China. While the climate crisis continues melting ice caps and breaking temperature records, McKibben sees this energy transition as our one scalable tool that can move fast enough to matter. Move fast and fix the world. The timeline is unforgiving: climate scientists say we need to cut emissions in half by 2030. The question isn't so much whether solar will dominate—it's whether we humans can deploy it quickly enough to prevent catastrophe and provide us with a new beginning on earth. McKibben urges both individual action—solar installations before tax credits expire on New Year's Eve—and collective organizing through events like Sun Day, the upcoming September 21st day of action.

1. Solar Power Has Hit an Economic Tipping Point Solar is now the cheapest energy source on Earth - what McKibben calls "the Costco of energy." This isn't "alternative" energy anymore; it's become the obvious, economical choice that's driving rapid global adoption.

2. China Is Dominating the Solar Revolution China installs solar at "warp speed" - the equivalent of a nuclear power plant every 8 hours in May 2025. They're using American-invented technology (solar cells, lithium batteries) to become the world's first "electrostate" and reshape global power dynamics.

3. We Have a Narrow Window to Act Climate scientists say we need to cut emissions in half by 2030. Every tenth of a degree matters - it moves 100 million people out of comfortable climate zones. Solar is our only scalable tool that can deploy fast enough to make a difference.

4. Fossil Fuel Companies Can't Adapt Traditional energy companies won't invest in renewables because, as Exxon's CEO admitted, they don't offer "above average returns." Once solar panels are installed, the sun delivers energy for free - destroying the fossil fuel business model of controlling supply.

5. Individual and Collective Action Both Matter McKibben urges people to install solar before tax credits expire on New Year's Eve, while also organizing collectively. His "Sun Day" on September 21st aims to shift public perception from seeing solar as "alternative" to recognizing it as the mainstream energy solution.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Who is to blame for the redistricting farce that many fear is breaking American democracy? There’s Trump, of course, and his gang of MAGA crazies. But according to David Daley, the author of Antidemocratic, Inside the Far Right’s 50-Year Plot to Control American Elections, the real culprit is anything but crazy. It’s John Roberts, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. In a devastating 2019 decision, Daley argued in a powerful New York Times essay this week, Roberts closed federal courts to partisan gerrymandering claims just as judges from both parties were successfully policing redistricting abuses. "It's like that moment in Ghostbusters where they turn off the containment packs," Daley explains. "All the evil spirits spill out." The result? Today, 398 of 435 House districts are non-competitive, and we're witnessing what Daley calls a "redistricting apocalypse" with no end in sight. And those evil spirits aren’t just on the far right, with Democratic hacks also benefitting from this out-of-control gerrymandering. What gets lost in all this, of course, is the bipartisan political center in both parties - thereby creating a political system increasingly out of touch with the kind of non-ideological voters (ie: most American citizens) whose interests John Roberts’ Supreme Court is supposed to protect.

1. Chief Justice Roberts Created the Current Crisis Roberts' 2019 decision to close federal courts to partisan gerrymandering claims removed the last guardrails just as bipartisan judges were successfully policing redistricting abuses, unleashing the current "redistricting apocalypse."

2. Technology Has Made Gerrymandering Permanent Modern software and voter data have transformed gerrymandering from a temporary trick into decade-long control. Districts can now be carved with surgical precision, making 398 of 435 House seats non-competitive.

3. Democrats Were Caught Completely Off-Guard Despite clear warnings (Karl Rove even published the Republican strategy in the Wall Street Journal), Democrats "fell asleep" on redistricting and are now playing catch-up with far fewer opportunities to retaliate.

4. The Math Doesn't Favor Democratic Counter-Gerrymandering Republicans can draw about 195 seats on their own while Democrats control only 49. Even if Democrats maximize gerrymandering in California and Illinois, Republicans have many more states where they can respond.

5. The Stakes Go Beyond Elections Daley warns of "militarized voter suppression" and sees America on a "dark path" where the combination of gerrymandering, voting restrictions, and authoritarian tactics could fundamentally undermine democracy by 2026.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Might the supposedly revolutionary future of AI healthcare actually be a return to the gig economics of Uber and Airbnb? That’s the intriguing proposition put forward by former Kaiser Permanente Chief and Stanford Medical School professor Robert Pearl, a prescient observer of the future of his industry. According to Pearl, we may be returning to the digital future: freelance doctors, he predicts, will train people to use existing AI tools (ChatGPT, Claude, etc.) for managing chronic conditions - essentially "Uberizing" medical AI guidance. The real question, of course, is whether this will cheer up both doctors and patients. Pearl isn’t sure about either. But one thing he is certain about is that MAGA government isn’t the answer to fixing America’s healthcare future. Having been cautiously optimistic about RFK Jr six months ago, he now gives the US Secretary of Health and Human Services an “F” for his first six months in office. Maybe we should Uberize RFK Jr. It certainly couldn’t make things worse.

1. Two Competing AI Healthcare Models

Pearl identifies two paths: expensive, FDA-regulated products from tech companies versus affordable, clinician-led training programs that teach patients to use existing AI tools like ChatGPT for chronic disease management—with the second potentially avoiding regulation entirely.

2. AI Could Prevent 30-50% of Medical Deaths

By better managing chronic diseases like hypertension and diabetes (which account for 70% of doctor visits and costs), AI could save $1.5 trillion and prevent massive numbers of deaths from heart disease, cancer, kidney failure, and strokes.

3. The "Uberization" of Medical Care

With 40% of doctors already doing gig work, Pearl envisions freelance physicians training patients to use AI tools for continuous health monitoring—replacing the current system of infrequent office visits with real-time, at-home care management.

4. Insurance Companies Will Welcome AI, Hospitals Will Resist

Insurers will benefit from lower costs and reduced need for prior authorizations, while hospitals and drug companies will see fewer patients and medication sales—making them the primary opponents of AI healthcare adoption.

5. Medical Education Faces Major Disruption

Elite institutions like Stanford will focus on complex procedures (heart transplants, major cancers), while routine medical knowledge becomes commodified. Mid-level healthcare jobs will disappear, similar to what's happening in computer programming.

Bonus Political Takeaway: Pearl gives RFK Jr. an "F" for his first six months, saying he's capitulated to the agricultural industry instead of tackling the root causes of chronic disease through nutrition policy.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Anyone lucky enough to have seen Wim Wenders’ 2023 masterpiece Perfect Days is familiar with the dignity of professional Japanese toilet cleaners. Mark Eltringham, the publisher of the excellent future of work newsletter Workplace Insight, hasn’t seen Wenders’ movie, but he is nonetheless sympathetic to the dignity of the armies of invisible workers paid to clean up our mess - from those who tidy up offices to to those who scrub public toilets. We conveniently ignore this precariat, Eltringham argues, when it comes to imagining the impact of AI on jobs. While tech elites debate hybrid schedules and productivity algorithms, these essential workers remain largely untouched by automation's promises and threats, establishing a convenient myopia in our understanding of work's future. So next time you go to your office or use a public bathroom, Eltringham suggests spare a thought for the professionals who made the experience palatable - and ask yourself why it’s their voices that are missing from our mostly privileged and solipsistic AI centric conversations about the future of work.

1. The "Solipsism Problem" in Work Discourse

Eltringham argues that workplace conversations about AI, remote work, and the "death of the office" suffer from solipsism - knowledge workers project their own experiences onto the entire workforce, ignoring that these discussions only apply to maybe 30-40% of workers.

2. AI's Uneven Impact Across Job Types

While tech elites debate AI's productivity effects, vast numbers of workers - from toilet cleaners to factory workers - remain largely untouched by automation. The AI revolution is primarily a knowledge worker phenomenon, not a universal workplace transformation.

3. The Return-to-Office Paradox

Tech companies like Google and Microsoft led the push to get employees back into offices, despite having the most sophisticated remote work capabilities. This suggests that even digital-native companies see value in physical proximity that goes beyond mere productivity metrics.

4. "Weak Ties" Matter More Than Water Cooler Moments

Eltringham dismisses the clichéd "water cooler conversation" argument for offices, arguing instead that the real value lies in "weak ties" - the informal networks that help you connect with people who know other people, creating problem-solving chains that are harder to replicate virtually.

5. Work Culture Trumps Office Design

A good working culture in a badly designed office will make people happy, but a bad culture in a beautiful office won't. The focus on trendy office furniture and Silicon Valley-style spaces misses the point - relationships and culture matter more than design aesthetics.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Once upon a time, it was very easy for the American left to determine progress. The working class was good, the traditional left knew, and so progress meant embracing the economic and cultural interests of that class. Today, however, in our age of authoritarian populism in which part, at least, of the (white) working class appears nostalgic for the economics and culture of industrial America, things aren’t quite as self-evident. As both David Masciotra and Soli Ozel note, then, this leftist dilemma is that of nostalgia versus progress. This tension, these progressive thinkers note, is exemplified in the work of the American sociologist Christopher Lasch, which simultaneously critiques elite betrayal while romanticizing traditionally male and even religious working-class virtues that may never have really existed. It’s the Lasch paradox. Contemporary progressives face an uncomfortable reality: delivering material benefits—whether healthcare, jobs, or infrastructure—doesn't automatically translate into electoral support or, dare I say it, the strengthening of democratic values. The puzzle deepens, Ozel and Masciotra agree, when considering that Trump's base includes not just struggling communities but also affluent exurban voters. Perhaps the real challenge isn't choosing between nostalgia and progress, but reimagining what progress means in a post-industrial capitalist society where traditional class-based politics no longer provide clear moral or strategic guidance for building the kind of sustainable democratic coalitions created by progressive Presidents from FDR to Obama.

1. The Lasch Paradox: Accurate Diagnosis, Flawed Prescription Christopher Lasch correctly identified elite failure and betrayal of democratic institutions, but his romanticization of working-class civic virtue ignored the reality of racism, sexism, and authoritarianism within those communities.

2. Material Benefits ≠ Political Loyalty Progressive policies that demonstrably improve people's lives—from Obamacare to renewable energy investments—don't automatically translate into electoral support, challenging traditional left assumptions about economic determinism.

3. Trump's Base Is More Complex Than "Economic Anxiety" Significant portions of Trump supporters are middle-to-upper-middle class exurban voters, not just struggling working-class communities, complicating narratives about purely economic motivations for populist support.

4. Corporate Capital's Role in Democratic Erosion Major corporations and tech leaders, despite initial opposition to Trump, ultimately supported his return through funding and institutional backing, demonstrating how economic interests can override stated democratic values.

5. The Progressive Coalition Crisis The left faces a fundamental challenge: how to build sustainable democratic coalitions when traditional class-based politics no longer provide clear guidance, and when moral righteousness often alienates potential allies while failing to win elections.

Some post show thoughts from David Masciotra: Now that I had more time to think about it, I would add the following about Mamdani: I am disturbed by the allegations of antisemitism, and some of the inconsistencies in his moral positions (he condemns politicians who visit Israel, but enjoys time at his family's residence in Uganda, a country that executes gays). As Soli suggested, let's leave that aside. While I support the programs that Soli highlighted - free bus rides, creative solutions to food deserts - the DSA agenda has failed in other cities. For example, Chicago has its own version of Mamdani right now - Brandon Johnson. His approval rating is around 20 percent, because he hasn't delivered on the economic promises, but he has introduced eccentric ideas for fighting crime, to put it mildly, and implemented some unhelpful policies in the school system. The city council in LA is dominated by DSA members. They've also failed miserably. I would like to see a return of the "sewer socialism" of Milwaukee progressives from the early 20th century. They were very practical - improving the sewer system, creating vast public parks, expanding public health and public education services. In Chicago and LA, the DSA pairs its rational and helpful economic agenda with ideological excess that, invariably, creates dysfunction and alienates voters.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Tech nostalgia. Winner-take-all economics. The cult of "storytelling". A Stanford educated aristocratic elite. This was the week that nothing changed in Silicon Valley. Alternatively, it was the week that radical change broke some ChatGPT users hearts. That, at least, is how That Was the Week tech newsletter publisher Keith Teare described this week in Silicon Valley. From Sam Altman's sensitivity to user backlash over GPT-5's personality changes, to venture capital's continued concentration in just ten mega-deals, to Geoffrey Hinton's apocalyptic warnings about AI wiping out humanity - the patterns remain stubbornly familiar even as the technology races forward. So is nothing or everything changing? Keith says everything, I say nothing. Maybe - as AI Godfather Hinton suggested on the show earlier this week - it's time for an all-knowing algorithm with maternal instincts to enlighten us with the (female) truth about our disruptive future.

1. AI Users Are Forming Deep Emotional Bonds

ChatGPT users experienced genuine heartbreak when GPT-5's personality changes made their AI feel like a different "person." This forced OpenAI to backtrack and restore GPT-4, revealing how humans are treating AI as companions rather than tools.

2. Silicon Valley's Power Structures Remain Unchanged

Despite AI's revolutionary potential, the same patterns persist: 40% of VC money goes to just 10 deals, Stanford maintains legacy admissions favoring the wealthy, and winner-take-all economics dominate. The technology changes; the power concentration doesn't.

3. The Browser Wars Are Over - Chat Interfaces Won

The future battle isn't about owning browsers (like Perplexity's bid for Chrome) but controlling the chat interface. OpenAI and Anthropic are positioning themselves as the new gatekeepers, replacing Google's search dominance.

4. AI's Pioneers Are Becoming Its Biggest Skeptics

Geoffrey Hinton, the "AI godfather," now believes there's a 15-20% chance AI could wipe out humanity. When the field's leading experts admit they "have no clue" about AI's future risks, it reveals how little anyone really knows about what we're building.

5. Context and Prompting Are the New Programming

The era of simple AI prompts is over. Success now requires sophisticated prompt engineering and providing rich context - making AI literacy as crucial as computer literacy once was. The abstractions are changing, and so must our skills.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

I’m not sure on this one. On the one hand, Isabelle Boemeke is a pin-up of an environmentally activist generation - going from superstar Brazilian model and Instagram influencer to the author of Rad Future, a manifesto about how nuclear electricity will save the world. On other other hand, there’s something slightly troubling in our social media age about this kind of dramatic trajectory - especially given the existential stakes here. Especially since Boemeke - who happens to be married to Joe Gebbia, Airbnb co-founder and one of the world’s richest men - acknowledges her lack of scientific knowledge about electricity, nuclear or otherwise. The New York Times just ran a piece about Boemeke , describing her appearance as “like the heroine of a dystopian novel”, and expressing similar concerns, even wondering is she might be in the pay of the nuclear electricity lobby. I guess my worry is less about Boemeke and more about a culture that is comfortable transforming “saving the world” into an Instagrammable meme. Or maybe, as Boemeke suggested in our feisty conversation, I’m just an old fart who just doesn’t get the immediacy of the existential environmental crisis that the world now faces.

1. Nuclear Energy Has Surprising Bipartisan Political Support

Unlike most energy sources, nuclear power enjoys support from both Trump and Biden administrations. This rare political consensus suggests nuclear might transcend typical partisan energy debates, making it more viable for large-scale implementation than other clean energy sources.

2. The Weapons-Electricity Connection Is Largely Overblown

Only 7 of the 31 countries with nuclear electricity have weapons, and 5 of those had weapons before developing civilian nuclear programs. The data suggests the fear of proliferation from civilian nuclear programs may be largely unfounded, challenging a core anti-nuclear argument.

3. Nuclear Safety Data Contradicts Public Perception

Nuclear power has a death rate per terawatt hour comparable to solar and wind, and significantly lower than hydropower. Boemeke argues that Three Mile Island wasn't actually a disaster (no health impacts), and that safety fears are largely based on outdated perceptions rather than current data.

4. Shutting Down Nuclear Plants Increases Fossil Fuel Use

Every time a nuclear plant closes (like Indian Point in New York), it gets replaced by fossil fuels, not renewables, despite political promises. This pattern suggests that nuclear closures may actually harm climate goals rather than help them.

5. Expertise vs. Influence Raises Troubling Questions

Boemeke's transformation from model to nuclear advocate highlights broader questions about who gets to shape critical policy debates in the social media age. Her acknowledged lack of scientific expertise, combined with her massive platform and wealthy connections, exemplifies tensions between technical knowledge and cultural influence in addressing existential challenges.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Few of the world’s great scientists have given more thought to the existential threats to humanity than the irrepressible British cosmologist and astronomer Martin Rees. He’s the co-founder of Cambridge University’s Centre for Existential Risk as well as the author of the 2003 book Our Final Hour. So it’s striking that Rees has a quite different take on the existential risk of artificial intelligence technology than many AI doomers including yesterday’s guest, the 2024 Physics Nobel laureate Geoffrey Hinton. For Rees, bio-threats and network collapse represents the most dangerous technological threats to humanity in the near future. Unlike nuclear weapons, which require massive detectable infrastructure, Rees warns, dangerous pathogens can be engineered in small, unmonitored laboratories. Meanwhile, our civilization's complete dependence on interconnected global networks means system failures could trigger catastrophic societal breakdown within days. Apocalypse now? Perhaps. But, according to the prescient Rees, we are preparing for the wrong apocalypse.

1. AI's Real Danger Isn't Superintelligence—It's System Dependency

Rees is "very skeptical" about AI takeover scenarios. Instead, he worries about our over-dependence on globe-spanning networks that control electricity grids and internet infrastructure. When these fail—whether from cyberattacks or malfunctions—society could collapse within "two or three days."

2. Bio-Threats Are Uniquely Undetectable and Unstoppable

Unlike nuclear weapons that require massive, monitorable facilities, dangerous pathogens can be engineered in small, undetected laboratories. "Gain of function" experiments could create bioweapons far worse than COVID, and preventing this would require impossible levels of surveillance over anyone with relevant expertise.

3. We're Living Through a Uniquely Dangerous Era

Rees believes "the prospect of a catastrophe in the next 10 or 20 years is perhaps higher than it's ever been." We're the first species in Earth's history capable of changing the entire planet—for good or ill—making this a genuinely special and precarious moment.

4. Scientific Wonder Grows with Knowledge, Not Despite It

Contrary to those who claim science diminishes mystery, Rees - the co-author of an upcoming book about scientific wonder - argues that "the more we understand, the more wonderful and complicated things appear." As knowledge advances, new mysteries emerge that couldn't even be conceived decades earlier.

5. Humility About Human Limitations Is Essential

Just as "a monkey can't understand quantum mechanics," there may be fundamental aspects of reality beyond human comprehension. Rees warns against immediately invoking God for unexplained phenomena, advocating instead for accepting our cognitive limits while continuing to push boundaries.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

So will AI wipe us out? According to Geoffrey Hinton, the 2024 Nobel laureate in physics, there's about a 10-20% chance of AI being humanity's final invention. Which, as the so-called Godfather of AI acknowledges, is his way of saying he has no more idea than you or I about its species-killing qualities. That said, Hinton is deeply concerned about some of the consequences of an AI revolution that he pioneered at Google. From cyber attacks that could topple major banks to AI-designed viruses, from mass unemployment to lethal autonomous weapons, Hinton warns we're facing unprecedented risks from technology that's evolving faster than our ability to control it. So does he regret his role in the invention of generative AI? Not exactly. Hinton believes the AI revolution was inevitable—if he hadn't contributed, it would have been delayed by perhaps a week. Instead of dwelling on regret, he's focused on finding solutions for humanity to coexist with superintelligent beings. His radical proposal? Creating "AI mothers" with strong maternal instincts toward humans—the only model we have for a more powerful being designed to care for a weaker one.

1. Nobody Really Knows the Risk Level Hinton's 10-20% extinction probability is essentially an admission of complete uncertainty. As he puts it, "the number means nobody's got a clue what's going to happen" - but it's definitely more than 1% and less than 99%.

2. Short-Term vs. Long-Term Threats Are Fundamentally Different Near-term risks involve bad actors misusing AI (cyber attacks, bioweapons, surveillance), while the existential threat comes from AI simply outgrowing its need for humans - something we've never faced before.

3. We're Creating "Alien Beings" Right Now Unlike previous technologies, AI represents actual intelligent entities that can understand, plan, and potentially manipulate us. Hinton argues we should be as concerned as if we spotted an alien invasion fleet through a telescope.

4. The "AI Mothers" Solution Hinton's radical proposal: instead of trying to keep AI submissive (which won't work when it's smarter than us), we should engineer strong maternal instincts into AI systems - the only model we have of powerful beings caring for weaker ones.

5. Superintelligence Is Coming Within 5-20 Years Most leading experts believe human-level AI is inevitable, followed quickly by superintelligence. Hinton's timeline reflects the consensus among researchers, despite the wide range.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.