*Gas producers using Cop27 to rebrand [natural] gas as "transitional fuel", experts warn.*

Switching from coal to natural gas makes no sense. We already know that the system of using natural gas emits, in practice, as much greenhouse gas as the system of using coal.

Junk food ads in the US try to make children pressure their parents to buy junk food for their children. That is surely harming children and promoting obesity. Curiously, the advertisers appear to target these ads primarily at black families.

Does that make the practice more wrong? I don't think so. I think that luring children to eat junk food is equally wrong regardless of details about those children.

Why do they advertisers target mainly black families? I doubt that racist thinking plays a direct part, and the article doesn't say it does. As far as I know, advertising agencies are motivated by unscrupulous greed and will target whoever appears vulnerable. The article mentions various reasons why black families are likely to be more vulnerable, on the average.

Those reasons seem to be aspects of systemic racism; they are probably consequences of other forms of racism, such as housing discrimination.

Should we restrict these ads? If we can find an effective way to do so, I think we should. Corporations are not human beings, and neither is a large business even if it is owned by one human being. But what goal should the restrictions aim for? To make advertising agencies target white children just as much as they target black children? I think the goal should be to stop targeting children of whatever race.

The article linked to above displays symbolic bigotry by capitalizing "black" but not "white". (To avoid endorsing bigotry, capitalize both words or neither one.) I denounce bigotry, and normally I will not link to articles that promote it. But I make exceptions for some articles that I consider particularly important. I made an exception for this article because it is an opportunity to explore a moral point.

Arguing that Biden should choose different legal authority to use to cancel student debt.

Maybe so, but I can also see an argument that Warnock is more likely to win if his winning will enable Congress to legislate to cancel the debt.

Ultimately, the support for abortion rights brought Democrats many votes and saved them a big defeat. Disgust for election lies seems to have helped too.

But I think Sanders was right nonetheless: Democrats should have campaigned for the progressive economic and environmental policies that most Americans support, as well as abortion rights. With the two, they could have won a substantial victory.

I expect that the progressive Democratic candidates did exactly that, but the plutocratist Democratic candidates didn't dare.

Republican officials in Georgia have rigged up a way to block 149,000 residents of Georgia from voting. Volunteers have stepped forward to "challenge" them. One person "challenged" 32,000 voters, based on no knowledge except that their names appeared on a partisan list of targets. Most of the targets are black, or young, thus likely to vote Democratic.

If your right to vote is challenged, you have to return physically to Georgia in order to get it restored. That can be effectively impossible if you are staying somewhere far away.

This is obviously unjust, but Republicans don't about justice, only winning by hook or by crook.