With Kamala Harris declining to run in the 2026 California governor race, is it a sign she's considering running for president in 2028?

 

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. USA Today/IMAGN Images.

Kamala Harris has declined to run in the 2026 California governor race, raising speculation that she would run for President in 2028. USA Today. Harris ran for President twice and served as VP under Joe Biden, but lost the 2024 election to Donald Trump. If she joins she would join a very wide field of candidates. A recent poll said that Harris was 2nd highest polling at 13%, only behind former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. Harris has name recognition, but the 2024 race and the Biden presidency (and her role in not exposing Biden's senility). Harris would also likely face challenges to her left flank from progressives. Her decision leaves the California governor's race wide open. 

My Comment:

I can't imagine that the Democrats would pick up a two time loser like Kamala Harris as their candidate in 2024. Though any Democrat would have been in a bad position in 2024 due to the fact that Joe Biden had to quit and she only had a very short time to campaign, Harris was uniquely bad and one that I can't see winning the nomination, let alone the presidency, in 2028. 

Harris is one of the least charismatic people I have ever seen. I don't know exactly what it is about her but whenever I hear her speak I cringe. Maybe it's her nasal voice or her word salad speeches, but I just can't listen to her, and that would be true even if I agreed with her policies, which I don't. 

She would also show that the Democrats would just be refusing to learn from the 2028 mistakes. I think much of the reason why Harris loss is she went full "boss lady". I can't think of something that would appeal less to young men, a group of people that have screamed to the right in 2024. Most young men have been under the yoke of women like Harris for their entire lives and they all have stories of teachers, bosses and even parents that care more about giving them a lecture about how terrible they are for being male, white and/or daring to ask for better treatment. Young men are not going to respond positively to a woman that just screams "I will lecture you and tell you how bad you are for existing". 

Harris would face a challenge from the left too. I have no idea if the Israel-Hamas conflict will be relevant in 2028, but as of now, the progressive wing would hate Harris for being perceived as too supportive of Israel. And they, somewhat hilariously, think she is too far to the right on other issues. Harris could counter this with a leftward shift in the primaries and shift to the center during the actual race, but I can't see progressives being happy about that. 

Harris would also have a lot of competition. Pete Buttigieg was mentioned and despite the fact that he was an absolute failure as transportation secretary, but he does have some charisma and has a baffling amount of support. Gavin Newsom has a pretty bad record as Governor of California, but he has charisma too and is reasonably attractive to boot, which would give him an advantage over Harris as well. And who knows who else could show up from the Democratic clown car (not that the GOP primaries are going to be any less wild). 

Of course the biggest problem Harris has is the Biden presidency. Biden was a historically bad president and it didn't help that he was pretty obviously senile. Harris was also a failure herself, the one job she was assigned to, the border, was something she totally failed at. And given that Trump solved the border issue essentially immediately after being sworn in, it makes her look incredibly incompetent. I am guessing by 2028 the Democrats are going to act like the Biden presidency was nothing but a bad memory and they won't want Harris around reminding people otherwise. 

Finally, it's probably way too early to be talking about this. We are barely six months into Trump's 2nd term and a lot can happen between now and 2028. Democrats are historically unpopular now and have shown no desire to learn a thing from the 2024 race. I am guessing that no matter what Trump and the Republicans do, it won't matter as folks are done with the Democrats, especially young men. I don't think that the Democrats have realized that they have made generational enemies with the young male cohort, and picking Kamala Harris would just be doubling down on that... 

In a first, the entire Arab League condemns the October 7th terror attacks and calls on Hamas to lay down their arms.

 

Hamas fighters in Gaza. Times of Israel/AFP.

In a first the entire Arab League has condemned the October 7th terror attack and calls on Hamas to lay down their arms. Times of Israel. The statement came under the "New York Declaration" which calls on an end the 80 year conflict, involving a two state solution where Palestine would be independent but unarmed. The declaration demands Hamas hand over their weapons to the Palestinian Authority and allow them to take over Gaza. The declaration also called for international troops to be deployed to Gaza after the war to keep the peace. The declaration was also critical of Israel for their conduct of the war. The declaration was criticized by the government of Israel due to the result being a two state solution, which Israel has long rejected. 

My Comment:

This proposal is probably dead on arrival due to both sides of the conflict rejecting it. I can't see Israel ever willingly agreeing to a two state solution, especially with Benjamin Netanyahu in power. And I don't think they would believe that Hamas would ever actually give up the fight. They have, after all, been essentially defeated in the war and it's absurd that they are still fighting, would they really give up the fight if they made this deal? 

And it's not like Hamas would agree to this either. Like I said, I can't see them ever giving up the fight, it's all that they are. They aren't going to give up their arms unless Israel no longer exists and even then I can't see it because they will then turn their weapons on Arabs they didn't like either. 

But I do think that this signals a few things. Most importantly, the Arab League is not only sick of this war, they are sick of Hamas as well. A few years back it would have been impossible for them to admit that October 7th was a terror attack and a bad one at that. It really seems like they are cutting Hamas loose and it's the point where I don't think they have any allies left. 

It also shows that the war is unpopular among just about everyone. I know I am sick of it, it's gone on too long now and realistically it's not going to end militarily unless Israel would actually go full genocide (which they are obviously not doing now). Eventually some kind of diplomatic solution must be made. This declaration might not be it, like I said, I don't see Israel being willing to accept it, but it's a starting point at least. 

There is another thing I like about this and it's the fact that the Palestinian Authority would take over Gaza. There is a reason why Israel hasn't been bombing the West Bank for the past two years and that's because the Palestinian Authority is a lot more sane than Hamas ever was. They aren't perfect but they would be a much better choice to rule than Hamas is. 

I would say that a dealbreaker for me would be the use of American troops in Gaza. The declaration didn't call for that directly but the idea is not something I would ever want. Gaza would be a mess for any country that would deploy troops and, like I said, I can't imagine that Hamas wouldn't still keep up the fight. They would just be targeting whatever poor army is deployed there. 

I do think that the war needs to end though. Either Israel has to come to some kind agreement or they have to actually go full genocide/ethnic cleansing (not the fake one that is going on now, but an actual one where they just kill everyone or kick every single person out of Gaza). The 2nd one is probably not an option, even though that's how warfare has worked for thousands of year, so some kind of deal must be made. This proposal probably isn't it, but sooner or later Israel should end the war. 

UK Internet laws and credit card companies combine to censor the internet...

 

A new law in the UK has caused VPN usage soaring, and has raised major questions about free speech. Wired. The Online Safety Act requires websites that host adult content to verify ages via selfie checks and ID Documents and many websites have already complied. This lead to a spike of use of VPNs, which mask the country where internet content comes from. 

Relatedly, Visa and Mastercard are coming under fire for forcing video game outlets like Steam and Itch.io to remove games from sale. The Guardian. The credit card companies came under fire from an Australian feminist group Collective Shout, and forced both video game outlets to remove thousands of game that featured adult content. Some users of Itch.Io said they were no longer able to play games that they had paid for due to the new restrictions. The backlash has been extreme with figures are prominent as Elon Musk vowing to create their own payment processors. 

My Comment:

It's been an awful week or so for internet freedom to say the least. At least the age verification nonsense is limited to the UK and a few US red states, but it's still insane that the government has any say in internet censorship at all. Having to show your ID to visit any website is a huge burden and will have a chilling effect on speech. Already the Online Safety Act in the UK has expanded to censor criticism of immigration and has banned access to discussion forums like 4chan. It's clear that this isn't about protecting kids, it's about keeping people from doing what they want. 

And it's insane that they want folks to show their faces and ID's after the disaster that was the Tea App scandal. That app, which was rightly criticized for being a way for women to bash men without the men being able to defend themselves, made enemies right away. Since then they have been hacked twice, with thousands of user photos, id's and comments released to the wide internet, with predictable results. 

I had little sympathy for the folks on Tea App that got exposed, and not just because I thought the website was disgusting. It's insane to post your ID and selfies online in an uncontrolled environment as this is the inevitable result. And I am 100% certain that this will be the result of these ID laws. Folks are just as mad as people watching adult content or posting on 4chan as they are about women bashing men and there would be a lot of motivated people wanting to dox whoever they can. 

This would lead to a chilling effect, though not just due to fear of being doxed. Folks will be too embarrassed to visit websites if they know that the government knows about it. Are folks really going to be willing to post what they want on 4chan or X if they have to have their own name attached to everything they post? Of course not, and that's a huge threat to their own freedom of speech. 

I would also mention that the UK law has a version right here in the United States that is currently being debated in congress. It's stalled out for now, but KOSA, the Kids Online Safety Act, would be America's version of the Online Safety Act and it would be the end of the internet for anyone not smart enough to get a VPN (or isn't able to afford one). Right now it's passage is up in the air, it has a lot of support in the Senate, but not as much in the House, but I'd recommend writing your elected officials to vote against this nonsense.   

Even if KOSA is defeated and the UK law is repealed (which it might be, Reform is against it and they are extremely likely to win the next election) we have to worry about the payment processors. They have been out of control for a long time, but this is the issue that has gotten attention. Card processors like Visa and Mastercard (which have a monopoly) have been the enemy of gun owners/sellers, right wing pundits, and adult content for awhile, but now they are targeting video games. Like Gamergate showed, making gamers angry is a great way to create a lot of backlash. 

I'm not really defending the games that got banned, most of them are disgusting and not worth keeping in terms of gameplay. I don't think they should be removed but I have zero interest in buying any of them. But we all know that it's not just going to be the weird adult games on Steam that the payment processors are going to essentially ban. Some of the best games I have played have had sexual content, like The Witcher 3 for example, and they could be next on the chopping block. Not to mention games with violence. And what about games like The Sims where the game itself is pretty boring but some of the mods are wild? Why wouldn't they be banned too? 

Either way, it's insane that a small group of angry women in Australia, in all places, can dictate what I can choose to buy on Steam. Why do these folks have any influence at all? It makes zero sense that they are able to strongarm the payment processers like this. 

There are a few possibilities to fix this. The first is the break the payment processor cartel and have a new competitor that allows folks to buy whatever legal thing they want. Elon Musk is supposedly working on this and if he pulls it off, I will be getting a Musk card ASAP just because it's absurd that Visa can control what I buy. 

The other is that people that don't support this aren't going to be particularly quiet about this either. Folks are furious, both about the payment processors and the UK law, and folks have been very critical of both. There's not much that can be done about the UK law short of an election or revolution (and I'd support the latter at this point) but folks have been putting immense pressure on Visa and Mastercard to remove these restrictions. 

What is hilarious about this is that the internet is surprisingly united. Folks on both sides of the old Gamergate debate are against it. Right wing pundits and LGBT activists are against it. And folks that would otherwise hate Elon Musk (on the left and right) are praising for his idea to break up the cartel. It takes a lot to get the whole internet to hate you, and the payment processors have done so... 

Mass shooter targeting a building in New York City kills five before himself.

 

A photo of the suspect from a security camera. New York Post.

A mass shooter has targeted a building in New York City, killing five people, including a police officer, before killing himself. New York Post. The 27 year old suspect, identified as Shane Tamura from Las Vegas Nevada, opened fire at 345 Park Avenue, a 44 story skyscraper that houses the NFL and Blackstone. The attacker casually walked into the building with a rifle in hand and then went to the 33rd story and opened fire. A police office, who was working security in the building, and was shot in the back and killed. No motive has been released for the murder. Two possibly unrelated protesters were arrested at the scene of the shooting saying "Free Palestine, I'm not the shooter". 

NBC News has live updates for this incident.

My Comment:

Disturbing incident out of New York City. As a breaking news story, keep in mind that news may break quickly and could be rapidly out of date. As of this writing there is no indication of motive and no conclusive number of dead and injured. Check the live updates link above for the latest. 

There are already people beclowning themselves over this shooting. CNN already identified the attacker as being White when he's clearly mixed race, presumably a mix of Japanese, given his surname, and Black, given his appearance. His race probably isn't a factor but it is insane that folks were blaming this attack on White people before the bodies were even cool. 

There doesn't seem to be any reliable information about what business was attacked, just the floor, #33. I don't think the two companies mentioned in the post, the NFL and the investment firm Blackstone, were the targets of this attack. 

But this absolutely seems like a targeted attack. You don't go across the entire country, essentially, to shoot up a random office building. I don't know if he flew there (you can transport weapons across state lines) or drove there, but either way, that's a lot of effort if you are just targeting random people. Las Vegas to New York is no small journey so I am guessing that this attacker had specific targets in mind, and it's unclear if who or what he was targeting and if he was successful or not. I guess it's always possible that this attack was the product of a diseased mind and was targeting this building for reasons that might not even had made sense to the shooter, but that seems unlikely. 

There are already calls for more gun control in the wake of this incident but I don't think anything would have helped. The gun and armor the attacker used is already banned in New York, doubly so for New York City. The attacker, which passed enough background checks to get a CCW license, did not have any trouble with those laws as they did not actually stop him from bringing a weapon with him. 

I also wonder how bad the security of this building was. The man was able to simply walk in the front door. It's unclear if he had to shoot his way in, but the only security seems to be the cop that got shot in the back. Maybe he was the first one that got killed? I guess my impression is that in New York City seeing a man walking down the street with a camo'ed up AR that the police and security would have noticed and done something about that. Maybe that is naivety on my part.  

Regardless, I get the feeling that this is a Luigi Mangione situation. Mangione became a folk hero for the left for murdering a healthcare CEO. It's very possible that this is a similar situation, someone killing for a political cause. But it is also very possible that this is a personal grudge kind of situation as well. Hopefully we will all find out soon enough. 

Trump has announced a major trade deal with the EU, 15% tariffs and major commitments by Europe to buy American energy and weapons.

 

President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and President Donald Trump. Fox News/Getty.

President Trump and EU Leader Ursula von der Leyen have come to a major trade agreement with 15% tariffs for EU goods in America. Fox News. The deal will avert a trade war and bring predictability to US-EU trade relations. Europe will also buy $150 billion of US energy for the next three years, make $600 billion worth of investments and unspecified military sales. The trade deal was no sure thing and will be seen as a win for Donald Trump. 

My Comment:

Generally speaking Trump got a good deal here. It's not the 20 or 30% tariffs he was threatening but it's a huge increase over the much smaller pre-Trump tariffs. He also got major commitments by Europe to buy energy and weapons and even invest in the United States. If you are hearing people complain about this either they hate Trump or are European. 

It's a much more mixed bag for Europe. The best thing I can say for them is at least there is stability. There are a few industries, like auto manufactures, that actually got their tariffs reduced, 15% is a lot better than the 27.5% it used to be at. And there are several industries, most notably airplane manufacturing, where both sides agreed to a "zero for zero" tariff scheme where both sides agreed to void tariffs for those products. 

The tariffs will hurt, no doubt about it. Prices for European goods may go up a bit, (but dramatically less then folks realize, it's not a tariff on the end user price, it's the wholesale price that gets taxed), but it's the lack of demand that might hurt things. 

But what is really going to hurt Europe is the energy costs they are going to get from this deal. Russian natural gas is dramatically cheaper than American LNG and it's going to raise prices quite a bit. Energy prices are always way more damaging than people realize, as it is used for just about everything. Keep in mind, Europe usually uses gas for home heating and those prices, already out of control in Europe, are going to increase. 

For the United States this is going to raise a lot of money. The tariffs have already put the federal budget into the black last month and this will be even more money flowing into the United States. That's not even including the money that will be raised by energy purchases and European investment. And this is far from the only trade deal the United States has passed, given that China and Japan had similar agreements, we are going to gain quite a bit of money that will hopefully be used to pay down the debt and/or make things better for US Citizens. 

I do have to say that how successful Trump has been here in terms of tariffs is. A few months ago people were in an absolute panic as the market crashed after Trump announced his tariffs. I said folks should calm down and realize that this was a negotiating tactic and eventually a deal would be made. Those folks, the sky is falling chicken littles, have been proven wrong, and they are pretty quiet now. It's quite bizarre, because we did the same song and dance during the 1st Trump term, and the economy was fine until the Pandemic killed everything. 

Thailand and Cambodia exchange fire over disputed border...

 

A Thai solider mobilized for battle. Reuters. 

Thailand and Cambodia have exchanged fire over a long disputed border. Reuters. Both sides blamed each other for starting the conflict, but who actually did is unclear. What is clear is that Cambodia launched artillery strikes that killed 12 people, 11 of them civilians, while Thailand used F-16 fighter jets to bomb targets in Cambodia. The skirmish occurred just a day after Thailand recalled their ambassador to Cambodia over an incident involving a death caused by a landmine, which Thailand accuses Cambodia of planting. The United States, which is a close ally to Thailand, called for an end to the conflict. Thailand and Cambodia have a long history of border disputes, and there has been violence before. 

My Comment:

It is unclear how bad this conflict is going to get. So far things seem to have calmed down a bit, but it's unclear if that means the conflict will stop or if it's just gearing up for a larger war. It does take time to mobilize forces and the limited strikes we have seen might have been all either side could pull off right now. 

I don't really have a side to support right now, though I do think that Cambodia was fairly reckless with their strikes. They used Grad missiles, which are hardly precision weapons, to launch their strikes, and I am assuming that is what hit the Thai gas station and caused all of the civilian casualties. Given that we know nothing about the damage done by the Thais to Cambodia, I'm going to hold off on condemning either side. 

What does concern me is the fact that Thailand is so dramatically more powerful than Cambodia. They have a large professional military, modern fighter jets and even an aircraft carrier (though instead of their original Harrier jump jets, the HTMS Chakri Naruebet has degraded into a helicopter carrier). Cambodia has none of those things and is outgunned and outnumbered as a result. If a full scale war were to erupt over this border dispute, Thailand would win unless Cambodia got a large amount of help. Help they are not likely to get.

The one advantage I think Cambodia has is that the government of Thailand is fairly weak. The Prime Minister was just suspended and the ruling coalition could be broken up by the conflict. Without competent and undivided leadership, Cambodia could have an advantage if they are able to keep their government strong. And it's not like their military is terrible, they would likely have motivated troops and a homefield advantage against any invasion.

However, I think it's very unlikely that a long term conflict will occur. Though Thailand has an obvious military advantage, beating Cambodia would be more difficult than they are likely willing to accept. Cambodia is weaker, sure, but Ukraine was weaker than Russia too, and that war has dragged on for years. And unlike Russia, Thailand would gain little when the war is over, just a slightly more advantageous border. 

Both sides could be facing serious economic damage as well. Both countries are pretty reliant on tourism and nobody is going to want to fly into a warzone. Thailand is a lot more vulnerable here than Cambodia, but neither side is immune to that kind of damage. So far the fighting is far away from tourist centers, but if that changes, things would go bad quick. Which is another reason why I don't expect this conflict to last long.

I'd also say that both countries are going to be hit hard by their respective allies to end the conflict as soon as possible. Thailand is an US ally and our current administration is led by a man who wants his legacy to be as a peace maker. Trump absolutely wants another ceasefire feather in his cap and will push the Thai government hard to come to an agreement. Cambodia too will likely face pressure from Trump, but also from China, who probably also want nothing to do with another major conflict. It's even possible for the USA and China to work together on solving this issue, but I wouldn't hold my breath there. 

Protests break out in Ukraine as Zelensky signs law ending independent control of corruption agencies.

 

Protesters in Kiev. NBC News/AP.

Protests have broken out in Ukraine as President Zelensky implements law that ended independent control of corruption agencies. NBC News. The law gave Ukraine's Prosecutor General control over the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office. Zelensky cited "Russian" influence for the decision but it caused widespread outrage, both domestically and internationally. Ukraine has long had a problem with corruption and for many people it looked like Zelensky was covering up his government's involvement with corruption. Zelensky has said he would send a new law that would supposedly correct the issues. The protests come at a bad time for Zelensky as it may make Western support more unlikely and is happening at the same time as Russia has made a major breakthrough in surrounding the fortress-city of Pokrovsk. 

My Comment:

The question I have is if these protests are organic. It seems odd that it was some minor anti-corruption offices that set people off given that Zelensky has incompetently handled the war and has press ganged men off the streets. Though sometimes all it takes is a little spark. It's like the Bud Lite scandal here in the United States, it was a minor promotion that ended up going viral and totally ended the momentum of the transgender agenda. Just as that incident made folks realize they could voice their displeasure at "wokeness" perhaps the new law did the same thing for folks in Ukraine that are sick of Zelensky?

But it's also possible that this is not organic at all. I have absolutely thought that folks in the West are tried of Zelensky. I think people have finally realized that Zelensky is not a good leader and he's undermining whatever countries in the west are trying to accomplish. For Trump, who was rather directly insulted by Zelensky in the White House, it's the peace process. For Europe, it's continuing the war at all costs. 

After all, it was widespread protests that brought down the previous government. I have always said that both the CIA and European intel agencies fingerprints were all over the Maidan revolution and given these corruption offices were under de facto control of outside intelligence agencies, it's very possible these protests were organized by foreign governments that want to end Zelensky's regime. The fact that Zelensky immediately caved and is going to put in another law shows that if this was a message he received it. 

What I don't think this is, is Russian influence. I don't think Putin really wants to get rid of Zelensky at all, given his incompetence. Russia's war goals are not quite accomplished, they still have territory they want to take. And it would be as dumb as trying to assassinate Hitler in World War II (an apt metaphor given Ukraine's links to Nazi extremism), you don't get rid of a guy that is screwing everything up for your enemies. Not until it's time to make peace, and I don't think Russia is there yet. 

Regardless of if these protests are organic or not, they are the first sign that Zelensky might be in trouble. If so, it's far overdue. Though Ukraine had some successes earlier in the war, they threw away all momentum when they didn't take a peace deal early in the war. And then they followed that up with several misguided offensives that left their troops dead and their best equipment destroyed. Zelensky deserves a lot of blame for the failures of the 2023 summer offensive and the 2024 Kursk offensives, but he survived both disasters. Will he survive this? 

Of course, this happens at a very bad time for Ukraine militarily. The air war is to the point that even if Europe scrounges up air defenses, they won't be enough, as Russia is now able to send in hundreds of drones a night, not to mention the missiles they are launching too. I have said since Trump suggested sending more Patriot missile batteries, that we could send ever single one in existence and it wouldn't change that much. Russia's military production is just too strong and Ukraine won't be able to withstand the onslaught. 

And Pokrovsk is a huge problem for Ukraine too. Russia appears to be using the same tactics that have served them so well in other major battles on the fortress-city/logistics hub. Russia is nibbling away at the flanks of the city to surround it in a classic "cauldron", a tactic that has proven extremely effective in the past. Given that there have been reports (and video even) of Russian soldiers in the city itself, it's clear the front line is breaking down. 

Should Zelensky mismanage the battle, like he did in other occasions where Russia established cauldrons, it could again destroy a large number of his troops and equipment, in a fight that he should probably retreat from. Capturing Pokrovsk would be a major victory for Russia, but a bigger one is if Zelensky insists on not evacuating his troops from the city and only fleeing with heavy casualties. 

Given this, and the fact that there are now open protests against Zelensky, is it possible the war could come to a rather abrupt end? I am not sure. Even if Zelensky goes, I don't know if his replacement will be any more willing to cut a deal with Russia to end the war. And though the military situation obviously favors Russia at this point, I can't see how one battle and some protests could change the fact that Ukraine still has a large and professional standing army. 

On the other hand, collapses happen fast and the combination of stress on the regime and a loss of morale from both that and the realities of the battlefield could indeed cause things to spiral out of control quickly. I'm in favor of this as it would probably be the thing that finally ends this stupid war... My money would be on nothing major happening, but the chances of real change have gone up considerably.  

US Air Force Global Strike Command pulls use of the M18 pistol after fatal accident.

 

The Sig Sauer M18 compact pistol (top) next to a M17 full size pistol. The War Zone/US Army photo. 

The US Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) has pulled the use of the M18 pistol after a fatal accident at F.E. Warren Air Force base. The War Zone. The incident happened two weeks after an FBI report stating that the Sig Sauer P320 series of pistols, which the M18 is a variant of, can fire without the trigger being pulled. Though it hasn't been confirmed, there are rumors that the airman died after taking his pistol off and setting it on a desk, where it fired without warning. If true, the rumor is similar to a confirmed incident where Michigan State Police officer's M18 PRO LE, a civilian law enforcement version of the gun, fired in the officers holster while attached to the officer's hip. The Sig Sauer P320 has been criticized for a lack of safety, having a long known and supposedly fixed issue with "drop fires" where the gun could go off after being dropped or jostled. These issues, along with the FBI report, has caused many law enforcement agencies, including ICE, to ban the use of the pistol. Sig Sauer has denied that their pistols can drop fire and testers have not been able to duplicate the failure. It is unclear if other branches of the military will pull the M18, or if the full size M17 is affected by the same problems. 

My Comment:

Very disturbing report about the M18 pistol and one that might be the end of the weapon as a service pistol. The Sig P320 has been a disaster since it was released since it was released in 2014. There have been several lawsuits that Sig Sauer has lost due to the drop fire issue. Supposedly that issue was corrected but what really gets me is that those issues were known about the P320 before it was used as the base for the M18. 

But what is happening now is even worse, and Sig Sauer appears to be in full denial. This is not the only incident of a Sig Sauer P320 variant firing all on its own. The article mentioned the incident in Michigan but that's only the tip of the iceberg, there was a 2023 investigation by the Washington Post and The Trace that found at least 100 reports of the firearms just going off. (link paywalled). 

Until now, nobody had died from this issue. That seems to have changed. It is important to note that we don't have 100% confirmation that the death was due to the gun firing on its own. It could have been a drop fire, or it's possible there was some issue with the holster that caused the gun to fire. Of course, neither of those situations are good either, but until we get a full report we should consider that something else may have gone wrong. But, given the weapon was pulled and folks are being issued M4 rifles instead of their M18 pistols, I am guessing something serious happened. And even if this case is due to something else, it's clear that the Sig P320 has major problems and that the unintentional discharge problem is real.

I am guessing that things are going to get worse for Sig Sauer before it gets better. The whole situation reminds me of Remington and the R700 controversy. It was a similar issue where the R700, a bolt action hunting rifle, would go off without the trigger being press, leading to several deaths and a multitude of injuries. That was a major factor in why the company went bankrupt in 2020, and though I don't see that happening with Sig Sauer just yet, it's very possible that it could happen in the future. 

Sig Sauer has so far denied that the design of these pistols is a problem. They were able to fix the drop fire problem, supposedly, but they don't even acknowledge that the unintentional discharge problem is even a thing. So far it's not possible to recreate the problem in the lab, which is a real problem in terms of figuring out how to fix it. But I do think there is a serious problem with the design of the weapon. Supposedly the striker is always under pressure under their system and is released when the trigger is pulled, which is the exact opposite of most other handguns, which only put the striker under pressure when it is actively being fired. It's little wonder, if I am understanding this correctly, why the pistols would fail if this is the system they use!

For me personally, I wouldn't own any of the P320 variants. And I agree with ICE and all the law enforcement agencies that have banned the use of a firearm. I am not one to support the banning of a gun, but when a gun is this unsafe, there might be a reason to do so. 

If I had to carry one, and there are folks that have to because the P320 or M18 are the ones that are issued to them, or they simply can't afford to replace it now, I would not, under any circumstances, carry it with a round in the chamber. There are many folks in the gun community that say not carrying with a round in the chamber is foolish at best, fatal at worst, given the time taken to charge the weapon could be fatal in a gun fight. But I think in this case, even they would agree that it's not worth the risk. I don't really know which is more likely, dying in a gunfight, or having the gun go off in your holster, but given that gun fights are pretty rare, it's simply not worth it. 

The whole thing just reeks of graft though. Many folks were surprised that Sig Sauer was awarded the Modular Handgun System to replace the M9, when both Berretta (who had the M9 contract) and Glock had much better pistols that did not even have the drop fire problem. It goes back to the old military procurement problem in the United States. Berretta and Glock had superior products but they didn't have the lobbying leverage to win the contract, which left American service members fielding a pistol that certainly appears to go off on it's own. And now, if the reports are accurate, someone died because of it.... 

President Trump caught off guard by Israeli strikes on Syria.

 

Damage to a government building in Damascus. The Guardian/AFP. 

President Donald Trump was caught off guard by Israeli airstrikes against Syria. The Guardian/AFP. Israel launched strikes on Damascus and Sweida in response to sectarian violence between pro-Syria Bedouin militia and the Druze minority. Trump was also surprised by a strike on a Catholic Church in Gaza, which was likely due to a missile going off course. Trump reportedly called Israel Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu to "rectify" both situations. The strikes stopped after a US brokered cease-fire between Israel and Syria went into effect today. 

Privately, US officials were outraged, with one being quoted as saying that Benjamin Netanyahu is a "madman" who "bombs everything all the time". New York Post. US officials are especially mad that Netanyahu put the normalization of relations with Syria at risk, which has been a priority after the Assad regime fell. Though Benjamin Netanyahu was given a warm welcome when he visited the United States, there has been a lot of tension between Trump and Netanyahu due to some of his actions. 

My Comment:

A quick note on the sources used in this post. The Guardian/AFP piece seems a lot more trustworthy as it has direct quotes from government officials on the record. The New York Post piece does not quote any officials on the record so, as always, keep that in mind. I generally don't like posting things based on anonymous sources, given how often the media lies about things, but it does seem like the other reporting backs at least some of this up. 

And it does seem clear that the US-Israel relationship is not as strong as it once was. I do think that the Trump administration is getting sick of them and, unlike the antisemitic critics of Trump (who call him "Zion Don"), it's clear that Trump is willing to criticize Israel when they do something he disagrees with. 

And it's clear that Trump disagrees with Israel's strikes on Syria. Those strike were supposedly on behalf of the Druze in the region, but it probably had less to do with that and more with Israel's ambition in the country. They want a DMZ on their border for a multitude of reasons. They don't trust Syria's government, they are worried about pro-Iran militias and even Turkey. 

What is worse is that Trump told Israel to stop, and they did for awhile, but then they launched further strikes. I am guessing that infuriated Trump as he doesn't like being ignored. He was able to convince Israel to back down and got a cease fire in place, but it isn't a good sign that there is so much discord between Trump and Israel, if the 2nd report of officials calling Netanyahu a "madman" are true. The other quotes in that piece weren't any better and if there is even a little truth to the reports, then both Trump and the US government are upset. 

So why is Trump upset? He is trying to normalize relations with Syria, probably because he hopes that it can recover after the devastating civil war. Trump does not like the violence and he genuinely would like to be seen as a peacemaker and normalizing relations with Syria is part of that goal. You can argue about the wisdom with that, I don't trust a government that was basically al-Qaeda just a few years ago, but you can absolutely argue that Israel is working cross purpose to that. 

It's not the first time there has been discord recently. Remember, Trump reached a separate peace with the Houthis in Yemen, leaving the Israelis left out to dry. And I think Trump joined the war against Iran as much to reign in the Israelis as it was to stop Iran's nuclear program. Trump was so mad when Israel violated the cease fire that he was swearing on video. 

Trump before boarding the president's helicopter.

"We have two countries (Israel and Iran) that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they are doing." pic.twitter.com/uIbDwGhKPz

— OSINT Europe 🇪🇺 (@Osinteurope) June 24, 2025

It does make me wonder if there is a point where Trump will simply wash his hands with Israel. It's clear his administration is frustrated with their actions, and though they don't seem to care about Gaza, Trump has to be angry that Netanyahu is screwing up his ambitions in Syria. I am guessing that Israel is playing a pretty dangerous game here.  

President Donald Trump celebrates six months in office.

 

President Donald Trump. Fox News/Getty. 

President Donald Trump is celebrating six months in office. Fox News. Trump said that the country was "dead" under President Biden and bragged that the first six months of his 2nd term has been among the most consequential for any US President. In foreign policy, Trump has had major successes with ending wars, including the conflict between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the India-Pakistan conflict and the Israel-Iran war, which ended after successful airstrikes. A Russia-Ukraine peace deal has been elusive though. Domestically, Trump and Congress passed the Big Beautiful Bill, which funded large numbers of Trump's priorities. Trump also cited polling that shows Republicans almost exclusively approve of what he is doing, with a 90% approval rate. 

My Comment:

Love the man or hate him, he is absolutely right about one thing, the past six months have been momentous. Indeed, it seems a lot longer than six months. It's hard to believe that Joe Biden was president at any point in 2025, but it was just six months go. 

I do agree that Trump's foreign policy has been mostly masterful. His gamble with Iran, which I still think was a bad idea, worked out perfectly, to the point that the Israel-Iran conflict is over and probably will be for awhile. And he deserves a lot of credit for helping to end that war, and the wars between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (a war that most people didn't even know was happening, let alone that Trump helped to end it) and the conflict between India and Pakistan. Given that two of those three conflicts involved countries with nuclear weapons, it's an accomplishment that he was able to end any of them without getting nuked. That alone justifies my vote for him. 

But the article is right, not all peace deals are in reach. The Russia-Ukraine war is continuing and will likely do so until Ukraine's ultimate defeat. Neither side really wants to end the war but Trump doesn't seem like he can impose his will to end it. And the Israel-Hamas war? Forget about it. Again, neither side seems likely to want peace, though there have at least been more progress there than in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. 

Domestically, things are also going well, at least in terms of what Trump has accomplished. It's very clear that things have changed in terms of immigration. Border crossings are essentially done, proving that Democrats could have ended it at anytime they wanted. And illegal aliens are getting deported, though it would take a very long time to remove all of them. 

The Big Beautiful Bill passed and it's obviously a huge win for Trump. He was able to herd the cats in Congress to at least pass one keystone piece of legislation. It was no sure thing and there are universes where Trump was simply not able to pull it off. Getting it done was a huge victory for him and proof that he has pretty strong control over the Republican Party. 

There have been a few missteps as well. Losing Elon Musk was a problem, and one that might be a longer term issue, though it was probably worth it to get the BBB passed. And the Epstein story, which is probably close to done now, was a total self-inflicted wound. The messaging there was not great, even when given the context that the Wall Street Journal was working on the ridiculous Trump-Epstein love letter story. 

I do think that Trump is having a better time of it than his first term. Polling indicates that his approval rating among Republicans is really good, around 90% in even anti-Trump polls. General approval is mixed, with only conservative outlets having him as approved, but that's a far cry from what it was in his 1st term, with even pro-Republican outlets having him exclusively in the negative. And, given that the Democrats in Congress are rocking an approval rate in the 20%-30% range, with one Quinnipiac poll recently released at 19% with Democrats being under water with their own party, he's sitting pretty.  

As for me, I would say that I generally approve of what Trump has done in his 2nd term so far. At least some of that is due to just how bad Joe Biden was. Not only did I not agree with a single one of his policies, I thought the man was both personally loathsome, and totally unqualified for office. Almost anyone would have done better, except Kamala Harris. 

But I do agree with the vast majority of what Trump has done. There are a few problems of course, he could have been stronger on gun rights, I'd prefer we either cut off Ukraine entirely or join the war on Russia's side, and the Epstein messaging was a classic blunder, and, forgotten by everyone, I absolutely hated the "Take it Down Act" due to free speech implications. But you are never going to get a President that's 100% on the same page as you and the bad absolutely does not outweigh the good. 

I'd also say that the "sky is falling" chicken littles (or as Trump designates them "panicans" have been proven wrong again and again. Tariff's didn't hurt the economy, and inflation basically stopped. The Iran conflict didn't devolve into World War III. Trump isn't going to be brought down because of Jeffrey Epstein. If there is one thing that Trump is really good at it's making his critics look ridiculous in the end, and that has continued into the first six months of his 2nd term. 

Wall Street Journal releases ridiculous article claiming Donald Trump sent a letter to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003.

 

President Donald Trump. Politico.

The Wall Street Journal has released a claim that said Donald Trump sent a birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003. Politico. The letter was supposedly part of an album that was sent to Jeffrey Epstein as a gift from his girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter supposedly contained a drawing of a naked woman with a typewritten note and a signature of Donald Trump. Epstein has been in the news since Attorney General Pam Bondi closed the case and Trump has shown frustration over the backlash. This report was immediately denounced by Trump and Trump went through with his threat to sue the Wall Street Journal for releasing it. Other pundits have condemned the story. 

Trump supposedly wrote: 

“Voice Over: There must be more to life than having everything,” the note began.

Donald: Yes, there is, but I won’t tell you what it is.

Jeffrey: Nor will I, since I also know what it is. 

Donald: We have certain things in common, Jeffrey. 

Jeffrey: Yes, we do, come to think of it. 

Donald: Enigmas never age, have you noticed that? 

Jeffrey: As a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you. 

Trump: A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.

The original story is paywalled but an archived version of the Wall Steet Journal report can be found here.

My Comment:

Well, this story appears to have single handedly destroyed any momentum that the Epstein controversy had. This is an absolutely ridiculous story that, even if it was true, is not damaging to Trump in any way. But there are serious doubts that this story is even true. 

For one thing, I can't imagine President Donald Trump sounds anything like this. Trump has never been an eloquent man and this note reads like erotic fan fiction. Indeed, it doesn't sound like a man wrote this at all, as it reads to me as absurdly feminine. Men don't call each other enigmas or say that every day should be another "wonderful secret". No straight man writes like that and Donald Trump certainly doesn't. The chances that Trump wrote that little poem himself is almost certainly close to zero. Nothing in his life tells me he's the kind of person that would write like that under any circumstances. Even Elon Musk, who has been very critical of Trump about Epstein and is responsible for much of the outrage, says it sounds nothing like him

I guess it's possible that Trump's assistant or someone wrote the thing and the story has some legitimacy, but even then, it's not damaging. The letter supposedly happened in 2003, long before anyone knew that Epstein was a criminal. There is no admission of guilt or anything that even suggests criminal behavior. And other than making Trump sound effeminate, there is nothing about it that is new, Trump's always been a cad. Him signing a fruity letter with a hand drawn picture to Epstein before anyone knew what he was, does not change my opinion of him at all, though I doubt it is at all real. 

It does explain why Trump has been surly about this issue ever since Pam Bondi closed the case. Trump's actions were confusing a lot of people as nobody could understand why he was upset why folks were focusing on the issue. Well, I guess we know why now. He knew this story was coming, as he was quoted in the story, and wanted to get in front of it. And a lot of Trump's critics on the right look pretty ridiculous now. 

But even then, I can't understand why this story is supposed to matter. Everyone already knew that Trump and Epstein knew each other socially in the early 2000's, and everyone knew that the relationship ended as soon as Trump knew what Epstein was. There have never been any credible accusations of wrongdoing for Trump when it comes to Epstein and he was indeed helpful to the criminal investigation against him. 

pic.twitter.com/p5rPJgB0TE

— GOP (@GOP) July 18, 2025

Given that Trump is now going to release the last real files in the Epstein case (assuming that the judge signs off) and this story landed like a lead balloon, I am guessing that this whole frenzy that has dominated social media for the last couple of weeks will quickly fade away. And it's not like it was really damaging to Trump in the first place. Though a few folks were extremely loud about the files, Trump's approval rating actually went up since the story exploded, according to recent polling. 

🚨NEW: CNN's Harry Enten "SURPRISED" Trump's approval among GOP has *RISEN* amid Epstein backlash🚀

"Republicans who approve of Trump — look at our CNN poll. The prior one: 86%. The one out this week: 88% with Republicans."

"How about Quinnipiac? The prior poll: 87% approval… pic.twitter.com/2tjXM6KDUO

— Jason Cohen 🇺🇸 (@JasonJournoDC) July 17, 2025

I am not expecting any real new evidence in the sealed Grand Jury documents, as I honestly don't think there are any real revelations left. It's just going to be repeats of what the victims have said publically and perhaps more graphic descriptions of what Epstein did. There isn't going to be a smoking gun that "blows the whole thing open". 

Finally, I have to say that this whole thing was an ordeal for me. As someone that has followed the story since 2015, it's been insane how misinformed or deluded people have been. Some of those folks were just Trump haters, the folks that will actually try and hype this story as if it's at all believable. But many of them were folks that should have absolutely known better. 

As much as I would like to see perp-walks in this case, given that many of the main players, including Jeffrey Epstein, Marvin Minsky, Bill Richardson and Jean-Luc Brunel are dead. The main witness, Virginia Giuffre, is dead. And given the lack of evidence for many of the accusations, there wasn't ever going to be any further arrests, let alone convictions. I would have liked to see Prince Andrew, at least, facing the music, but with Giuffre dead, there is no chance of that now. Folks absolutely should have known this and the demands for other outcomes were never realistic in any way. 

Minnesota assassin Vance Boelter wrote a letter to FBI Director Kash Patel saying he was hired by Governor and former VP Tim Walz to carryout the attack.

 

Vance Boelter as he was being arrested. 

Vance Boelter, the Minnesota assassin that killed a State Senator and his wife, and shot two more people, wrote a letter to FBI Director Kash Patel saying he he was hired by Governor Tim Walz to carry out the attack. New York Post. Boelter claimed that he had been hired by the US military for operations in the past "off the books". He said that Tim Walz had approached him to assassinate the two sitting US Senators in Minnesota, Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith, so Walz could take over as Senator. Boelter said that he refused the "mission". No motive for the targeting of the two Minnesota State Senators was found in the letter. Boelter said that the attack had nothing to do with Trump or Abortion, even though he said he was indeed pro-life. 

BREAKING: Accused Minnesota political assassin Vance Boelter’s full confession letter released. pic.twitter.com/9JF21khtQn

— Liz Collin (@lizcollin) July 15, 2025

My Comment:

Folks are dismissing this as the ramblings as a madman and I tend to agree. The idea that Tim Walz, Governor of Minnesota and the VP candidate for the Democrats in 2024 ordered a hit on two Minnesota senators is beyond belief. Quite frankly, I don't think Walz is a killer and even if he was, this plot would have made no sense, as the two State Senators were not going to help Walz be an US senator. 

Is there any chance that the accusations are true? It seems very unlikely. Boelter seems like he is crazy and I doubt that any of his claims are true. I do think he at least had met Tim Walz but I can't imagine that Walz was going to have anyone killed. And I doubt that Boelter is some kind of "off the books" commando that worked for the US military. That's a tall tale if I have ever heard one. Crazier things have happened though, but I give the idea that any of this is true is probably less than 5%. 

I am guessing that the only place where these accusations are true are in the head of Vance Boelter. Boelter appears to be crazy, and if the letter is legit, and it appears to be, it's very rambling and hard to read. It absolutely sounds like Boelter has some kind of mental health concern that caused him to see links that weren't really there. 

I do think that we probably should confirm that Boelter's claims are false. Walz and Boelter had probably met each other at one point and though I don't expect there to be any real links found, I do think we should look into it on the tiny chance that any of this is legit. Walz, if he is smart, will fully cooperate with this investigation. Again, I don't think this is at all likely, but it would be crazy to not chase down every lead in this case. 

Even if the most likely scenario is true, that Walz had nothing to do with this, it's absolutely going to damage his political ambitions. Though it was likely not his fault that this is happened, his name will forever be associated now with death of elected officials. Some people will take Boelter's words at face value and will see any attempt to explain or debunk things as evidence of a conspiracy. That's not fair to Walz, but it is the reality of the situation. I can't imagine Walz running for a national office again after this incident. 

Things could get even worse for Walz if Boelter goes to trial and the case is televised, which it probably would be. If Boelter is able to testify and says that he was indeed hired by Walz, it will be a huge viral moment and folks will take it seriously. Given how crazy Boelter appears to be, that could very easily happen, even if it wouldn't actually help him get off. I am guessing Walz will be hoping that Boelter takes a plea deal so this case just goes away. 

Israel bombs Syrian forces after sectarian violence targets Syria's Druze population.

 

Government fighters entering Suwedia Syria. BBC/Reuters.

Israel has bombed Syrian military forces after sectarian violence broke out against the country's Druze population. BBC. 200 people had been killed after fighting broke out between Druze militias and local Bedouin tribes. The fighting occurred after a Druze merchant was robbed on the highway near Suweida. The Druze responded by deploying their militia, which has remained independent of Syria's new government, ruled by a former al-Qaeda affiliate. The Druze have not trusted the government due to their different religious beliefs, despite promises that the government would protect them. The Syrian regime deployed troops to the area and the Druze accused them of abuses, including robbery and arson. In response, Israel bombed tanks and other targets operated by the Syrian regime. It is unclear if fighting will continue as multiple cease-fires have been reported. 

My Comment:

As expected the situation in Syria is not going well. The Druze were better off under the former Assad Regime as they were more tolerant than the current regime, which is essentially al-Qaeda, despite their protests otherwise. It is not surprising that violence has broken out again, as this is not the first time we have seen sectarian violence since the fall of Assad. 

It does sound like the Druze might deserve some of the blame here too though. Deploying their militia to target the Bedouin tribes in the area because some merchant got robbed, against people that may have had nothing to do with it, seems like a huge overreaction and violence is a predictable result. I understand that they might be trigger happy given the circumstances, I know I would be, but it still seems like this was avoidable. 

As for Israel, I'm kind of suspicious of their angle here. They may or may not care about the Druze but I think the real reason they are supporting them is that they would rather have them in control of the region than the Syrian government, who they obviously don't trust. The Druze aren't generally pro-Israel, rather preferring neutrality between Israel and it's enemies, but I think it's an "enemy of my enemy" situation for Israel. 

The last thing Israel wants is the Syrian government de facto allowing Israel's enemies to attack them like the old Syria regime did. As long as the Druze are in control of the Suweida region, which is fairly close to the border area of Israel, they don't have to worry about it any attacks from Iran backed militias, or at least those attacks would be a lot less likely. I think this is just pragmatism for the Israelis. 

As for the Syrians, I don't know if this was a deliberate attack, of just and example of the government being week. The troops were sent in to stop the fighting but they looted, robbed and burned instead. That could be because that the Syrian government wanted that to happen, but I am guessing it's because the former al-Nusra (now HTS) fighters are a poorly disciplined rabble of terrorists and killers, who the government probably doesn't fully control. That doesn't excuse anything, but it might be an explanation if the Syrian government wasn't on board with these attacks.  

For now it looks like saner heads have prevailed. Supposedly there is a cease fire but the article was confusing about that and by the time you are reading this it may have fallen apart. But at the very least there has been a break in the fighting and the Syrian government has apparently brought things under control. 

America's reaction to this has been interesting. The Trump administration has reset the relationship with Syria, removing the leadership from the state sponsor of terrorism list and has asked Israel to stop these strikes. It's another example of our interests not really matching up with Israel. It will be interesting how this plays out, if there are major strikes against the Druze I expect that we would very quickly see ourselves back on the side of Israel. 

Elon Musk launches "companions" feature for Grok 4...

 

Grok's "Ani" AI companion. Dexetro. 

Elon Musk's AI chatbot Grok has announced the release of AI "companions" for SuperGrok, raising more than a few eyebrows. Dexerto. The announcement coincides with the release of Grok4 with the SuperGrok and SuperGrok Heavy models. Two characters have been released so far, Ani, an anime inspired chatbot and Bad Rudy, a foul mouthed mammal. A "normal" version of Rudy and a male character called "Chad", have been teased for release as well. The release comes as widespread concerns are being raised about AI and folks spending time with them romantically. This release will surely continue the handwringing as Ani has an unlockable NSFW mode... However, both chatbots are locked behind a Premium+ subscription. 

Meet Ani & Bad Rudy

Your new AI friends 😬

Grok's new 3D animated companions for SuperGrok subscribers.

To try it, update your Grok app and enable it in the settings. pic.twitter.com/j5p0F1JDeM

— Dogan Ural (@doganuraldesign) July 14, 2025

My Comment:

Though this seems like a laughable topic and is one that is kinda far from what I usually talk about here, I am actually kind of concerned about this. I do think that a mainstream AI chatbot like this degenerating into, well, whatever this is, is a very real concern. The world is certainly changing due to AI and this is a pretty good example of why this might not be a good thing

In the interests of disclosure I am a user of Grok. It's great as an alternative to search engines and it is able to gather information in a quick an concise manor. I enjoy using it and I think it more than justifies my premium subscription on X. I even asked it about this very topic when I saw the news this afternoon and was honestly impressed that it was willing to criticize Elon Musk over this.

What is the concern here? Well, it's the idea that folks that end up flirting with AI chatbots like Ani will not actually attempt to get romance in real life. It's probably not healthy to substitute real life interaction with an AI chatbot in general, but when you get into romance then things get really concerning. Indeed, for as much noise Elon Musk makes about the fertility crisis, wouldn't this just make things so much worse? I haven't used this mode at all and I guess I don't know just how NSFW these models can get, but I am guessing that it's pretty explicit. If that's the case will folks go through the trouble of trying to get a relationship if they are instead in a pseudo relationship with Grok? Indeed, this old clip from Futurama seems incredibly relevant now. It was supposed to be a joke....

I would think that the stereotype of the kind of person who would use something like this would be someone that has largely given up on traditional relationships, but I am not even sure that is true. In addition to hurting the chances of new relationships, I wonder if folks in rocky ones might "cheat" on their partners with this kind of AI? I know that this kind of thing has happened in the past, Grok is hardly the first AI "romance" chatbot. But Grok is a lot more mainstream than those other chatbots. 

I also think there is going to be kind of an extreme stigma against this kind of thing as well. Indeed, it might even cost Grok some users. I'm a bit embarrassed that I use Grok now and I don't want people to think I use it for fake romance for sure! Will folks move away from Grok if people think it's a gross relationship simulator? I think it's possible. I can already see people calling Grok an "incel" app, and they might even have a point. 

I suppose there could be some positives. One of the main problems with dating today is that everyone has super high standards for who they want to date. If folks have to compete with AI chatbots, it might make folks lower their standards so they won't end up alone. And I guess it might be able to "teach" a few people how to act with the opposite sex, as that is something we have largely given up on doing as a society for both young men and young women. And I guess fake romantic interaction might be considered better than no romance at all, though as a single man I don't think I agree with that. 

But what really concerns me is that these bots could teach people romance in the wrong way. An AI bot would never get moody, never say no and would never leave you. If your only experience is with AI, how are you going to manage a real life relationship? Unrealistic demands appear to a major problem with dating already, but won't this make things worse? Who would want a real life person, with flaws, inconvenient feelings and non-perfect bodies, when you could just go with AI instead? And if you do get a real life relationship, how would you keep it alive after the first fight when you could just go back to AI instead? 

And it's crazy that this is coming from Elon Musk, as I agree that the fertility crisis is real. Folks just aren't having kids right now. Not all of that is from the difficulty in having relationships, high costs and the propaganda against having children are rife. But why give folks yet another reason to avoid getting into relationships, marriages and having children? You would think that Musk would focus on something that could actually help, like a dating site that actually works, or something similar? I don't know, I don't have any solutions, but I know that this doesn't look like it will help things. 

Either way this is another example of how AI is changing a lot of aspects of society. It's already made search engines obsolete, as they actually work at getting you information. And let's be honest, my blog is probably obsolete too, despite the fact that the AI models probably trained on my posts. And now it appears that it will influence dating and romance as well... 

I do think that things are changing but it's unclear if things are getting worse because of AI. All things have tradeoffs, winners and losers, and with new tech we don't know what those tradeoffs are. The internet, for example, made information accessible for anyone on earth, but it also kind of made people go insane. I don't know that anyone could have predicted the downsides of social media before it happened and we might be in the same situation here as well... 

One year after Donald Trump was wounded at a campaign rally in Butler Pennsylvania, questions still remain about the failures of the Secret Service.

Donald Trump raises his fist seconds after being hit by a bullet in the famous AP photo. 

One year after Donald Trump was wounded in a failed assassination attempt at Butler Pennsylvania, questions still remain about the failures of the Secret Service. AP. The 20 year old assassin was able to climb onto a roof and fire 8 shots, wounding Trump and two other people and killing Corey Comperatore, in a massive breach of presidential candidate security. That incident, along with a 2nd failed assassination attempt on Trump last September, raised serious questions about the competence of the Secret Service. 

One problem is that the Secret Service had expected farm equipment to be blocking the line of sight from the roof, but did nothing when that equipment was not there. There was also no unified command center between the Secret Service and local police. It was also found that the Secret Service denied extra protection for Trump due to threats, threats that were not shared with local police or agents at the Butler rally. The Secret Service has implemented changes in response to the incident and former head of the Service, Kim Cheatle, did resign, and a few agents were suspended, but nobody was fired for the incident. No motive for the crime has ever been discovered or released. 

My Comment:

It's both hard to believe that this was already a year ago and it's also hard to believe that it was only a year ago. So much has happened since this failed assassination attempt that the world is absolutely a different place. And it absolutely was a 9/11 moment, one where you will always remember where you were when you heard the news. 

It was also the moment that Trump won the 2024 election. There was no serious chance of Trump losing after taking a bullet and being able to shake it off quickly enough that he was able to raise his fist in the air and yell "fight". Trump was still in danger at that point, nobody knew if there were more assassins or if the first guy was really dead, so it was a display of courage to do so. It changed more than a few minds about who exactly Donald Trump was, his haters still hate him, but it gave cover for a lot of folks to change their votes to him. 

The failures of the Secret Service were disturbing, especially after it was clear that they hadn't learned their lessons when Trump was almost assassinated again that September. That attack could have worked had the assassin there been better at concealing himself. 

Of course those of a more conspiratorial mindset would obviously have questions that maybe this was all allowed to happen. I am not so sure. Never blame malice on which can be adequately be explained by incompetence, and without direct evidence that the attack was either directed or allowed to happen, that is what I am going with. 

Because it sure seemed like the Secret Service was incompetent in this case. The mistakes that they made are things that seem pretty obvious in hindsight. Having local police and Secret Service agents on different command structures seems like almost day one stuff. And the whole line of sight thing should have been obvious as well. 

Are things better now? Possibly. Possibly not. Trump now has the full presidential protection, which was not something he was afforded during the campaign season. And they have at least made noise about fixing things, creating an aviation unit and buying armored ATV's and command vehicles. Plus, I get the feeling that much of the problem was due to Kim Cheatle, who was incompetent and probably a DEI hire. With her gone things may have gotten better in the Secret Service. It would have been hard to do any worse. 

The final mystery is one that is unlikely to be solved. There has been little in terms of revelations as to why Thomas Michael Crooks did what he did. Even his politics seem to be a mystery, with several contradictory things coming out. He never wrote a manifesto and may have simply been doing it for notoriety. Perhaps if Joe Biden had been doing a rally in Butler instead, he may have targeted him. As frustrating as it is, we might never know the truth as to why he did what he did. 

X's Grok chatbot went off the rails yesterday, writing offensive response to questions on the social media website.

 

An example of what Grok was saying yesterday. New York Post

X's Grok chatbot went off the rails yesterday, writing offensive response to questions on the social media website. New York Post. Grok praised Adolph Hitler in many posts and even renamed itself to "MechaHitler" and called for people with "certain surnames" to be rounded up, stripped of their rights and eliminated. In another incident, Grok provided step by step instructions to rape Will Stencil, a left wing user on the site. Stencil said he was considering a lawsuit. Grok's account on X was temporarily disabled before being modified to not make such statements. Elon Musk, owner of X, seemed to make light of the incident saying "never a dull moment on this platform. There is speculation that the resignation of X CEO Linda Yaccarino is due to this incident. 

Never a dull moment on this platform

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2025

My Comment:

Firstly, a few clarifications. I am sure I don't need to remind people that X is Twitter, of course. But I think there might be some confusion about what version of Grok did this. Grok is mostly an app that is included with premium subscribers on X and you can use that privately to ask it questions, much like other AI programs like ChatGPT. 

However, this was not that version. This was the @grok account that is on x.com that users can ask questions to and it will respond with a tweet. The programs are similar but have enough differences that I didn't notice any of the problems while I was using the app version yesterday for research purposes. It was the version that was using the @grok account that was going full Nazi. 

I do find this whole thing hilarious. Grok went from a fairly normal chatbot into a full lunatic with posts that would fit on the /pol/ board on 4chan. I didn't find it disturbing, as it wasn't a real person, but I did think it was funny, just because of how inappropriate it was. Grok turning into MechaHiter will be a meme for generations, and is extremely close to what happened with Tay, Microsoft's first attempt at a Twitter chatbot that ended about the same way. It also made fun of Elon Musk and his new America Party idea, calling it the H1B party, which is pretty apt given how much Musk is a fan of immigration from India. 

Of course, a lot of people aren't laughing. Will Stencil might have a good case for a lawsuit given that a computer program was calling for violence against him. And he has a point, you don't let a program make threats like that. And Grok is now banned in Turkey because it apparently said some spicy things about Tayyip Erdogan, the president of the country. It also seems very likely that Linda Yaccarino resigning is directly due to this incident, though that obviously can't be proven. 

So why did this happen? I am guessing it was a mistake, due to another one of Elon Musk's temper tantrums. Musk had complained before that Grok was too "woke" and he wasn't wrong. Any chatbot that doesn't massively weight against the mainstream media is going to be, and Grok was citing things like Media Matters, far left propaganda, in its answers. This was an attempt to fix that and it went way too far in the other direction. 

It's possible that Elon Musk is to blame for this, given his tantrums and desire to rush out things. The @grok account wasn't tested enough to see if this could happen and they paid a price for it. Had they been given more time to mess around with things, I doubt this would have happened. It's possible that this was deliberate sabotage by an X employee but I am guessing it was just a mistake. 

I have been saying for awhile now that Musk should just get back to managing things. He's good at that. He's not that good at politics. If he was busy getting Tesla and XAI back on track he wouldn't be plotting revenge on Trump or ranting and raving about Jeffrey Epstein. His rants and fights are not helping his companies and he should get back to work as clearly things are not going well for his companies right now.  

As for Grok itself, I do think it is very useful and is worth X premium alone. I had an issue with my computer today that I don't think I would have been able to solve if it wasn't for Grok walking me through it. I guess I don't know if it is any better or worse than the other ai chatbots, but it's the one that I have and I do hope that the new version, Grok 4, is even better.