Pentagon downplays reports of bad conditions on USS Abraham Lincoln.

 

The USS Abraham Lincoln. Fox News/Reuters.

The Pentagon has downplayed reports of bad conditions on the USS Abraham Lincoln, which has set modern records for length of deployment. Fox News. The Lincoln has been deployed for 260 days in support for the Iran conflict  and has faced allegations of plumbing issues, supply shortages and even crew members threatening to jump off the ship. However, the Pentagon says that the Lincoln's mental health issues are among the lowest in the carrier fleet. CENTCOM commander Admiral Brad Cooper said that many of the issues that had been reported, like the plumbing issues and food quality, have been fixed for some time. Long sea deployments are challenging, Cooper claims, but credited the ships petty officers for focusing on mental health. The Lincoln is now heading back to port and will be replaced by the USS George Washington. 

My Comment:

For context, in World War II, the USS Essex was deployed for 495 days and participated in several massive battles, including the battles of the Philippines Sea, Leyte Gulf, Iwo Jima, Okinawa and Operation Ten-Go, the Japanese attack that ended with the destruction of the Yamato, the biggest battleship ever made. Other carriers and other US Navy ships faced similar lengths of deployment overseas.

Marines and Soldiers might be confused by the complaints as well. In Vietnam the US Army required a 12 month deployment while the Marines faced a 13 month one. And in Iraq and Afghanistan? The Army still required a 9 to 12 month deployment while the Marines often did 6 to 9 months. And unlike the Lincoln, they faced enemy fire and extremely poor conditions. I know if I had the choice of where to serve, I'd rather be a Sailor on the Lincoln over a Marine or Soldier any day of the week. 

That isn't to denigrate or downplay the service of the Sailors and Marines, they have conducted their deployment with honor and do have my praise. But context is important and it's clear that folks are exaggerating just how bad things are. Indeed, the people deployed on the Lincoln are mostly likely just griping. 

Did the Lincoln have issues during this deployment? Of course. From what I understand the plumbing issues were serious and the did have to operate at a high during the Iran conflict. And by modern standards the deployment is long, 9 months at sea is longer than the modern US Navy is used to. Though the ship never came under fire, carrier work is dangerous and so is just going to sea. The air wing especially had a high tempo deployment and I bet they need a break. 

Are there mental health problems on this deployment? Sure, but that's true for every military deployment. Indeed, folks go postal or harm themselves during leave and on base as well. Are they worse than normal because of the long deployment? CENTCOM says otherwise and it's very possible they are right. 

I think the real difference now is that Sailors and Marines are able to contact home very easily. I guarantee that the USS Essex had similar issues during it's 495 day deployment but the general public never heard about it because they didn't have any way to contact home other than highly censored mail. Now anyone on the Lincoln can call their parents and gripe and many of those parents don't really know the reality of deployments. 

Has the Trump administration handled this well? Not really. Trump put his foot in his mouth, as he is wont to do, by saying the deployment should be even longer, which the media, of course, latched onto. I kind of see his point, I doubt that the USS George Washington would be pulled out of the Pacific if it wasn't for this bad press, but it's not something he needed to say. 

I do think there is something to be said for the fact that we only really have three carriers deployed right now, the Lincoln, the Washington and the Bush. The other eight are in port, either being repaired, upgraded, refueling or in training. I know that having large numbers of ships down for those reasons, but that seems like a lot. Usually we have 2-4 deployed but given the active conflict with Iran, you would think that more of them would be deployed. 

DSA candidate Francesca Hong loses against more centrist Democrat David Crowley in Wisconsin Democrat governor primary.

 

David Crowley (background) with Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers (foreground). Fox News/AP.

DSA candidate Francesca Hong lost in a shocking upset against center left Democratic candidate David Crowley. Fox News. Crowley won by .4% and will face Republican Tom Tiffany in November. Crowley had dropped out but came back into the race as a "never-Hong" candidate and got the endorsement of Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers. Hong was polling 20 points ahead of Crowley and other candidates in the field, but suffered several major setbacks in her campaign, most notably not getting endorsements from prominent leftists like AOC and Bernie Sanders. She also had several controversies over her social media statements, such as wanting to cancel Thanksgiving or defunding the police. 

My Comment:

I'm pretty conflicted about this one. Francesca Hong was almost beyond parody in how bad she was as a candidate and I didn't want even a chance of her winning. She's a DSA commie that would destroy the great state of Wisconsin assuming she got any kind of power. But I also think she would have been a lot easier for Tom Tiffany to defeat. 

A big question of this race is how bad the polling was. They actually got Hong's level of support correctly, but they had absolutely no idea how popular Crowley was going to be. He barely won, but you would have thought that they could have detected the support gathering around him and at least given him a decent chance of winning. That didn't happen and it shows that polling is having a terrible moment. They missed several other primary races, most notably the Senate one in Michigan, and it makes the 2026 midterms very hard to predict. 

It does make me wonder if I shouldn't have tried the "pied piper" strategy in Wisconsin. I voted yesterday for Tom Tiffany, but it was barely a contested primary and most of the other races in my district were uncontested. Perhaps I should have voted for Hong because she was easier to beat? But I also know that the potential for that backfiring is high, how many Democrats pushed Donald Trump in 2016, and look how that turned out for them?

As for Hong herself, she's everything wrong with the Democratic Party right now. She cares more about hating Israel than anything else and her actual policy positions (which were so toxic she had to back off of them) were so bad that it's insanity. Which makes sense because Hong was actually hospitalized for her bipolar disorder when she was 18. Indeed, she has all the worst qualities of the Democrat's younger voters and I am very glad that she is gone now. 

Crowley seems like he's a lot more moderate and will likely be Tony Evers 2.0. That's not as bad as it sounds. Evers is probably the best of the Democrats Midwestern Governors, not because he's good, but because he's such a non-entity that he had little chance to screw up the state. Crowley seems to strike me as the same type, someone that could be elected, but wouldn't be able to get much done if he gets in, especially if Republicans retain control of at least one house of the state legislature. That's extremely likely so Crowley getting elected is more status quo antebellum than any kind of actual change. 

But I should not that it's not a sure thing that Crowley will win. Tiffany is a strong candidate and I tend to think the idea of a "blue wave" in 2026 is overstated at best. The main difference is that Tiffany might be the candidate that "scares the normies" now that Hong is out of the race. Tiffany is pretty MAGA and how big of a deal that is will be the main question of 2026. I'm not going to go as far as the polling agencies (because they beclowned themselves enough in this race that I don't trust them at all), but I think Wisconsin is now a true toss up, and it's probably going to be a coin flip as to which party wins in Wisconsin. 

Analyzing the new defense pact between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

 

The leadership of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. AP. 

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have joined a new defensive pact. AP. The Mecca Joint Defense Agreement would treat an attack on any member as an attack on all members. The members say that the pact isn't directed at any specific country, but many feel it could be directed at Iran. The alliance is powerful, Turkey has huge conventional military, Saudi Arabia has a lot of soft power in the region and is rich, while Pakistan has nuclear weapons and an experienced military. However, the agreement is not as strong as a formal alliance like NATO. 

My Comment:

This news broke a few days ago, but the news cycle is slow today and there isn't much else to talk about besides primary election results. And it is a huge story, this is a large alliance and could have serious implications down the line. 

This is a very powerful alliance, and I think only one country could realistically challenge it, and that's the United States. All three of these countries have huge amounts of troops, large professional militaries and some limited power projection. And, of course, they have nuclear weapons. 

The alliance faces major logistical issues though. None of these countries share a border and Turkey and Pakistan aren't even in the same region. They could support each other in a war against Iran, obviously, since all of them are in striking range of Iran, but what if they get into a conflict with another country? I think they would have extreme difficulty in accomplishing much. 

And honestly, I think that Iran is the least likely country to trigger this alliance right now. Iran has largely been degraded in terms of military power and could not afford to launch a war against Saudi Arabia or Pakistan any time soon. I guess they could continue to launch attacks against US bases in Saudi Arabia and that could trigger the pact, but I honestly don't see the Saudis calling people into the war given they haven't really joined it in the first place. 

The real threats to a larger regional war are India and, to a much lesser degree, Israel. Pakistan and India have had several conflicts in the last decade and all of the conditions that led to that conflict (terrorism, border disputes, religious differences) still exists. Should a conflict break out, it's very possible that Pakistan could call their allies into the conflict, leading to a larger regional war. 

However, this scenario would be the most difficult for the Saudis and the Turks to help out. They don't really have a land route to send troops, so they would have to go by see. Even assuming they had the shipping capability, they would have to somehow evade Indian attacks on their supply convoys. And given that Turkey and Saudi Arabia have closer ties to India than Pakistan, obviously, it's possible the alliance could fall apart.

And Israel? A war between Turkey and Israel isn't as unlikely as you think. There has been tensions over Turkey's actions in Syria and there is evidence that Israel no longer considers Iran to be their number one rival. But a conflict between Turkey and Israel, perhaps in Syria, would be difficult for the other members to help out with. The Pakistanis are too far away, and while the Saudis could help, they have closer ties to Israel. 

Regardless, I don't think too much will come from this pact, barring a major war between India and Pakistan. It's mostly symbolic in nature and is probably more about keeping Iran from dragging them into the war than anything else. 

Teenagers faced a tight job market in 2026.

 

A teenager that was able to find a job. Fortune.

Teenagers faced a tight job market in 2026. Fortune. Around 790,000 jobs opened up for teenagers in May, June and July this year, down from 801,000 last year. Teenagers are popular hires for low skill jobs, but competition this year has been fierce. Teenagers report "ghosting" for applications and larger numbers of rejections for even low skill jobs. Some teenagers have resorted to going door to door, handing their resumes in person and even starting their own businesses. 

My Comment:

This is a disturbing trend and it shows that teens are one of the bigger losers of a changing economy. Teens should be able to work basically at will and it builds character to have a first job before they hit 20. If that doesn't happen, than a lot of teens are going to miss out and growing up. 

Teens working is also a good way for them to help pay for college or even help their parents if they are having a tough time. With college prices out of control, it's disturbing that a lot of teens can't even attempt to help pay for it because they can't find steady work. And it's even worse for kids not going to college, they simply can't find work. 

So why is this happening. A lot of it is automation, including AI. You can see this in fast food. The McDonalds around here largely have reduced their staff and installed order kiosks. Though I haven't seen any AI order bots yet, they have rolled out in some places. This means instead of a half dozen teens and a manager, there are usually only two or three employees. Indeed, this is why I tend to go to Culvers, a regional burger chain, because they don't do this, every time I go they have half a dozen employees at the counters, one or two at the drive through window and one or two running burgers out to cars. Plus, the service and quality is dramatically better. 

There were always going to be winners and losers of the AI revolution and teenagers as a group seem to be one of them. McJobs were a great job for kids as it's hard enough that they develop, but not so hard that teens can't handle it. But a lot of these jobs are gone. 

Another problem is, of course, immigration. Many of the jobs that were once dominated by teenagers have been taken by immigrants instead, be they legal or illegal. Most articles downplay this, for obvious reasons, but you can't tell me that bringing in 10 million immigrants during Biden's term didn't tighten up the job market. Deportation is helping this, slowly, but it hasn't been enough to overturn the trend. 

Some of this is on the teenagers themselves. A lot of them aren't even trying to find jobs. Boomers tend to think that this is because the Zoomers and Generation Alpha are all lazy, and there might be a little truth to it, but I think it has more to do with them just being discouraged. 

And I think modern HR practices are a big problem too. There's so many jobs posted that HR managers don't even pretend they are going to hire for, many of which end up going to H1B visas. And the new AI guided HR also tends to filter out low skill workers like teens. This makes it feel like the game is rigged against teenagers, and it's hard to argue otherwise. 

I don't think this is going to get better any time soon. AI and automation is getting worse, not better. And even though immigration enforcement is working a little, it's not fast enough to actually do much. And neither party really seems to care about what is happening with teenagers and young adults, if you aren't over the age of 65, they don't care about you at all. 

Bipartisan opposition to Flock cameras has led to communities abandoning the controversial technology.

 

A Flock camera. Politico/AP. 

Bipartisan opposition to Flock cameras has led to communities abandoning the controversial technology. Politico. In July alone, 20 communities have ended the use of the cameras, which track vehicles and record their license plates with AI. Both Republicans and Democrats have criticized the cameras saying that the potential for abuse by the government is too high, though they disagree who the targets would be. Flock says their cameras don't violate civil liberties and help solve crimes, but some local leaders have said the cameras were not as useful as sold. Efforts to expand Flock devices beyond fixed locations, such as by using drones, have increased the backlash. 

My Comment:

The opposition to Flock cameras has to be one of the most bipartisan things I have seen in America today. Nobody seems to like these devices and it's one of the few things that both Republicans and Democrats (and Libertarians) agree about. Everyone hates these cameras. 

Why? I think most people understand they could be used against them. Republicans fear that their travel habits could expose to the government things like trips to church or the gun range. They also fear that such cameras could restrict their freedom of movement if a civil war were to happen. 

The Democrats fear that these cameras could track people leaving the state for an abortion or track folks like Antifa. They also fear that it could be used to track and deport illegal immigrants, despite the fact that the federal government does not use these cameras in the DHS. 

And both sides are right. There was a case in my state where a man was traveling to Michigan and was tracked by these cameras. This was used as a pretext to pull over and arrest him as they claimed traveling to Michigan was probable cause for a stop. He got arrested for marijuana possession, which is legal in Michigan but illegal in Wisconsin. 

And that's just government over reach, these cameras are being abused in other ways. There have been many cases where folks have been tracking their spouses or exes with these cameras. There is no law enforcement excuse there. 

What does get me about Flock is how it seems to have been a final straw when it comes to Americans. Folks hate these things and are aggressively vandalizing and taking them down wherever they show up. Folks are showing up to city council meetings and are successfully lobbying to get these cameras taken down. And there is even talk of jury nullification for the folks taking down the cameras! 

I've got mixed feelings about that. I do view these cameras as a civil rights violation, if they are allowed to continue, do we even have a 4th Amendment right? I know it's generally accepted that you don't have a right to privacy while in public but I doubt the founding fathers would have wanted the government to be able to track your every move. So I am glad that these cameras are getting a backlash. 

But why not everything else? Flock cameras are hardly the only thing recording me when I go to work. There's ring cameras on my neighbors houses, people filming while I drive by, regular surveillance cameras on the highway and my phone is tracking me too. And sure, it's not the government doing those things, but then you get things like Digital ID which has bipartisan support. So if the government tracks your movement, it's a problem, but if they track you online it's suddenly ok? 

Still, I am glad that there is a backlash. America is in the position where we seem to take two steps back for every one step forward and I think people are sick and tired of the way the government is behaving at the local level. It doesn't have to be this way and the opposition to flock cameras is refreshing. 

However, will things actually change? Who knows? For every city that abandons Flock, a few more pick it up. I think it's probably going to require legislation or a major court case in order to actually stop these cameras, and I don't know if there is the political will or a legal argument that will actually end this.