The EU Is moving towards digital ID, obstensibly to ban children from social media.

 

Ursula von der Leyen. AP.

Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission President, said that the EU would work to ban children from social media. AP. The change would ban anyone under the age of 13 from social media and would require users to prove their age. Children between the ages of 13 and 18 would also have their access gated. Social media companies would also be forced to phase out "addictive" features, like infinite scrolling. 

My Comment:

This is the EU being tyrannical again. Though I do agree that social media can be harmful for kids and adults, the governments of the world aren't making these bans to prevent that harm. It's an excuse to do what they really want, which is digital ID. 

There is, of course, legitimate concerns about the dangers of social media for kids. I generally think that kids shouldn't be on most social networks. Some of this is due to the dangers of child predators, but that really depends on the website. Some sites, like Reddit, Discord and Kik, are notorious for this but most other social media clamps down on that hard. 

I do think there is also something to be said about short form video and infinite scrolling. I don't think watching brain-rot video for six hours is good for anyone and if I could ban short-form video I would. It really is sad to see folks wasting their lives doing nothing but watching TikTok or Reels. At least with other social media, like X, you are actively participating by making your own posts, but short-form video is entirely passive. It's bad for adults, but I do think that kids should absolutely not be watching it. 

But how do you do this without being tyrannical? I don't think there is a good solution tot his that wouldn't result in worse results than the damages that these websites cause. The best thing I have heard is an opt-out system that would lock the more damaging features behind some kinds of warnings. It would be bypassable for some kids, but it's way better than a digital ID. 

I don't think the EU cares about that, because like I said, they want digital ID. They don't like the idea that folks can have anonymous accounts on places like X because it allows people to speak out against them without fear of retaliation. Indeed, that's a major reason why I have been opposed to any kind of hard age verification for even adult websites because it's obviously not going to stay there and it will eventually be used to ensure that the government knows exactly who is posting what at anytime. Given that President Trump would absolutely not have been elected twice (well three times) without anonymous accounts, it's a clear threat to Americans.

And don't think that this kind of thing is a EU only thing. Many other countries have made these kinds of restrictions and quite a few US states have done similar things. And even the House passed the KIDS act, which is likely to fail because the Senate doesn't think it's strict enough! It's insane to me that any Republican supports this nonsense, given how badly it would be to shoot themselves in the foot, but more Republicans support it than Democrats. It really is a bipartisan issue to cancel anonymity on the internet. 

1 in 3 adults aged 18-34 now live at home with their parents.

 

USA Today/Getty.

25 million young Americans aged 18-34 now live at home with their parents. USA Today. That means 1 in 3 adults in the age range live at home, which is a record number. The number was under 30% for most of the early part of the century but the number has increased after the pandemic. However, the numbers today appear to be based on high costs of housing, including both owning and renting. The numbers suggest that it isn't an employment issue as 7 in 10 people that are living at home are employed. The high prices have raised the average age of first time home buyers to over 40. Another issue is the lack of marriages among this population, as having two incomes makes buying a home more affordable. 

My Comment:

To be fair, the whole idea that folks should kick their kids out of their house at 18 so they can make it on their own is a uniquely American idea and one that wasn't common until last century. In many parts of the world it's expected for children to stay at home until they can afford to leave or they get married, and even many times not then. 

Indeed, part of this might be cultural. Given the massive change in demographics due to immigration, both legal and otherwise, it's not surprising that those folks would do things differently. Indeed, I know a Hispanic man from work who had quite a few arguments with his mother who wanted him to stay at home, despite the fact that he had a decent paying job and could easily afford an apartment. He eventually did move out, but it does show that different cultures have different priorities. 

But there have always been a lot of people that have stayed home for various reasons. Sometimes it's because they just aren't capable of living on their own, sometimes it's because they have a "failure to launch", sometimes it's a temporary thing due to unfortunate circumstances. And many folks just stay home during college as a way to save money, indeed, I did that myself and it was a pretty good deal for the first two years. 

With that being said, much of this really is due to the greatly expensive real estate prices. Prices for housing have skyrocketed. My rent price has gone up every year I have lived there to the point where it's more than double than my first apartment. 

And buying a house? Forget about it. I know I have beaten this horse to death on here, but I have a huge amount of money saved up and live in a cheaper part of the country and I can't get a mortgage that is less than my current, heat and water included, rent, even ignoring things like the higher costs for insurance, utilities and HOA fees. You can buy a crack house or a teardown, but who can afford to pay 30,000 to 50,000 for repairs on top of the cost of the house? 

They also made a good point about marriage. Dating is fundamentally broken in this country right now, and to detail that would take an entire post by itself. Why isn't relevant to this post, but it is true that young men and woman aren't getting together and that means they can't pool their resources to buy a house. 

Of course, I will say that these two things feed on each other. It's hard to form relationships when you still live at home with your parents. Some of it is due to a lack of privacy, and the idea that if you are living at home you aren't datable, but even if you can overcome that, it's difficult. 

So what is the solution to this? Get those housing prices down. And how do we do that? We deport illegal immigrants. Joe Biden let in around 30 million people and there is zero reason for any of those people to be here. Indeed, in places where there was major deportation operations, rent prices did indeed went down. 

Some have argued that the problem is supply based. They want more housing. But the problem is that a lot of new houses are being built, they are just expensive McMansions that nobody but baby boomers can afford. Starter homes are 100 years old now and the supply isn't anywhere near the demand, but builders won't build them, both because they aren't that profitable, and because folks don't want to live next to starter homes, largely due to the immigration and crime issues. 

If there is any good news is that this is a problem with an expiration date, assuming that we don't get another Democrat in office to let in another 30 million immigrants. The older generations, the last remaining Greatest Generation, the Silents and, especially, the Baby Boomers are already in the process of dying off. Given how large a cohort the Boomers are, once they are gone there is going to be glut of real estate available, and that means real estate prices will collapse. 

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham shockingly dies of a sudden illness.

 

Senator Lindsey Graham. NBC News/AFP/Getty.

Senator Lindsey Graham died suddenly after a sudden illness, sending shockwaves through the political world. NBC News. Graham, 71, died after paramedics arrived at his Capital Hill home, after reports of a man having a cardiac arrest. Graham was not ill before the incident and was scheduled to appear on "Meet the Press" today. Graham was a major Republican figure and a major ally to President Donald Trump, who mourned his death on Truth Social. Graham was running for a sixth term, and had already won his primary race. Republican South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster will appoint someone to fill out the rest of Graham's term and a supplemental election will be held to replace him for the 2028 election. Graham was a very powerful senator and was part of the hawkish wing of the Republican Party. 

My Comment:

This is very shocking news as there was no indication that Graham was even unhealthy. Like the NBC article said, he was supposed to be on "Meet the Press" this morning, but instead he has passed on. Though at his age, a sudden death isn't totally unexpected, it is shocking that it happened like this. Indeed, Graham had just retuned from a trip to Ukraine, and, in retrospect, it's probably fortunate that it didn't happen there. Perhaps it was the stress of travel?

As for the man himself, I have complicated feelings about him. In many ways, Graham was the Republican I disagreed with most on foreign policy. He always seemed to hate Russia, and always came off as someone who was stuck in the cold war. He always had a neocon's view of foreign policy, and as far as I was concerned that view died on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Indeed, I have often blamed the beliefs of people like Graham for the fact that our relationship with Russia is so bad. It never had to be that way, after the fall of Communism, we absolutely should have allied with Russia, not Europe, and it was people like Graham that prevented that from happening. I could forgive some of the warmongering against Iran, after all, unlike Russia, they never gave up the stupid ideology that ruined their country, but I could never forgive or even understand the idea that Russia should be our enemy. 

But I also understand that Graham was a loyal soldier, both literally and figuratively. He was a retired Colonel in the Air Force and that deserves some respect. But it was his loyalty to Trump that ended up somewhat winning me over on Graham. Like I said, I hated his Russia policy, but I do have to respect the work he put in to help get Republican priorities passed.

Indeed, Graham was a critical ally and did a lot to help Trump. He was critical in getting a lot of the legislation passed that I liked in Trump's 1st and 2nd term. He absolutely wasn't always like this, I remember just how deranged he sounded during the 2016's cycle's debates, but he saw which way the winds were blowing and he decided to get on board with MAGA. You can call that political opportunism or pragmatism, but I do think that it's worth it to forgive people that show they have changed, and I think Graham actually did. So I think it's pretty appropriate to forgive Graham for the things I disagree with and morn the fact that he's gone. 

I also think that Graham was a useful asset for the Republicans, and, much like Charlie Kirk, not one that is easy to replace. He was a good fundraiser and acted as a decent bridge between the MAGA upstarts and the old guard Republicans. He was also halfway decent in media appearances, which is a criminally undervalued skill. Like Kirk, I fear that we won't really realize how much of an impact Graham had until he's been gone for awhile.

Graham was an extremely powerful Senator and was the head of the Budget Committee, and with his death, it seems as though we will be getting some fresh blood there. We will also see some changes with the Judiciary Committee, where he was powerful as well. With Graham dead and John Cornyn voted out, it's likely that Mike Lee will be the senior GOP senator on that committee, which may tilt it in a more libertarian direction. 

The death also brings up the fact that Graham wasn't the only Republican senator facing major health issues. 81 year old Mitch McConnell appears to be on his way out as well, given his current stay in the hospital. Indeed, when I saw the news this morning about Graham I had assumed it was a typo and that it was McConnell that died instead. 

Either way, it does seem that the Boomer and Silent generations hold on power in the Senate is slipping. I mentioned Mike Lee previously, and it's important to note that he's Gen X, and I think we are going to start seeing more folks in the Senate of that generation, compared to the large number of Baby Boomers that are there now. This is probably a good thing as the biggest criticism I have of the current Republican Party, even more so than the Russia issue, is that the party is completely out of touch with Millennials and Zoomers. Though it was tragic that this was the way it had to happen. 

A village in Mexico was left to fend for themselves as the country focused on the World Cup.

 

A local citizen vigilante group in Guajes de Ayala, Mexico. AP.

A village in Mexico was left to fend for themselves from a cartel group as the country focused on the World Cup. AP. The area, Guajes de Ayala, has been under siege from the La Nueva Familia Michoacana cartel. The village, located in Guerro state begged for help from the government as a battle erupted between the Cartel and local anti-Cartel vigilantes. The battle involved heavily armed fighters from both sides and was notable for the extensive use of drones. Mexico denied that there was a battle happening and said they would send troops to investigate. Over 100,000 troops and police were redeployed to World Cup sites for security for the event, which ended it's leg in Mexico on Sunday.

My Comment:

The Mexican Drug War continues, mostly unnoticed by national media. This story though was fairly significant for a couple of reasons. These kinds of battles are fairly frequent but it's the World Cup angle that is getting the attention in this case. 

And I do think that this is a major reason why this battle happened. With 100,000 troops and police deployed for security that means that there wasn't a response force to do anything about this attack. The battle could have been prevented or mitigated if the military had responded, but they didn't and I think the people in this region do have a right to be angry about it. 

It's also pretty important to note that the battle was between the La Nueva Familia Michoacana Cartel and civilians. This wasn't one cartel fighting another, and it wasn't the government fighting the cartels, it was normal folks taking up arms to defend their homes from the Cartel. 

However, it's important to note that some of these vigilante groups end up being proxies for other Cartels. At the very least, I would be surprised if these fighters weren't at least armed by other Cartels that are rivals to La Nueva Familia. I don't think that this group is a true proxy, but there is always a chance that they could fall into service to the Cartels. 

The other notable thing is that both sides in the conflict are using drone warfare, and not just for reconnaissance. These drones are off-the-shelf drones, mostly of Chinese origin, and have been modified to drop IED's, bombs and grenades. 

To clarify, these aren't the dreaded FPV drones that are causing so much carnage on both sides of the Ukraine conflict or the high powered and high tech military drones that America has used for the past 20 years. Instead these are home made jobs, made with off the shelf drones and 3d printed parts. It's low tech, to be sure, but it honestly reminds me of how ISIS used drones during the Syrian Civil War. 

Regardless, it shows how much warfare has changed. If a Mexican Cartel and a Mexican group of civilian vigilantes can get their hands on offensive drones, almost anyone can. This does not bode well for the United States as it's very possible that we could see a major terror attack utilizing drones at some point. Indeed, I am surprised it hasn't happened already. 

As for the Drug War itself, it's clear that nothing much has changed. I don't see any real chance that these Cartels will be defeated by the Government, especially given my low opinion of Claudia Sheinbaum's government. Supposedly violence is going down in Mexico but I also don't believe that her government has the stones to deal with the Cartels properly. But I do think this incident should be considered an embarrassment for her government.   

"Trump Accounts" that provide IRA style accounts for children, go live.

 

CNN/Getty.

The "Trump Accounts" effort has gone live, giving parents the chance to create Investment Retirement Accounts for their children. CNN. The accounts are available for all children under the age of 18. However, the government has decided to give $1000 for infants born between January 1st 2025 and December 31st 2028. In addition to the government money, parents, relatives and friends can contribute to the accounts, along with employers. Private citizens have also given money to the fund to allow even more seed money to certain low or mid income families. Charitable and Government contributions are unlimited, but only $5000 a year can be contributed by others. Returns for the accounts will depend on how the stock market does. Once the child becomes 18, the accounts are treated as IRA accounts, with the appropriate penalties and taxes. However, if the holder of the account uses the money for college, buying a home, birthing or adopting a child, emergency expenses and even medical bills. If no contributions are made beyond the $1000 in government an infant could expect to see $3000 to $5500 depending on the stock market. 

My Comment:

I don't often use CNN as a source, but this was a good summary of how the Trump accounts work. Credit where credit is due. It's a good resource and if you want to know more about how to sign up for these accounts you should take a look. 

I think that these accounts are a good idea and you would have to be crazy to not do this if you have an infant born during the eligibility period. Even if the only money you contribute is the government issued $1000, you would give that child at least a little seed money to start their lives off. I know I would have been happy to have $3000 to $5500 to my name when I graduated high school. 

And there's a good chance that even if you don't contribute any money, you could get more money from the rich donors that are contributing to the fund. If you make too much money you might not get any from the philanthropists, but chances are you would get some money out of it. And any money you would get for your kids would be totally free. 

Plus, you and your friends and family could contribute as well. Employers could as well as an easy benefit they could offer, though I don't know how any contributions have been set up yet. If you were somehow able to max out the contributions at $5000 a year, your kid could end up with as much as $230,000, assuming a 10% return. That might be optimistic but that much money would pay for college or set up a real path to wealth for a child if they just keep that money in their IRA.

Do these accounts make sense for any other kids? Possibly. There are other kids IRA accounts they could use that could avoid some of the penalties or get higher returns. But I think the possibility of the rich donors giving a boost to these accounts is an obvious advantage if you aren't wealthy. If you are wealthy, the other options might be better, but the best solution might be a combination of both. 

I do fear that there are going to be a lot of liberal parents that aren't going to take advantage of these accounts. Part of me thinks this is funny because it's a stupid reason to not take free money. But I do wish that these folks could decide to do what is best for their kids and ignore the fact that President Trump likes to name things after himself.