Houthi Rebels say they won't target anyone but the Saudis, warn other countries from joining the war.

 

Houthi supporters in Sanaa. AP.

The Houthi Rebels have said that they won't target anyone but the Saudis but warned other countries against getting involved in the conflict. AP. Washington had reached out to the Houthis and an agreement was made that neither side would attack each other. The Houthis said they would not attack any other countries ships transiting the Red Sea. Oman had hosted the meeting between the United States and the Houthis. The Houthis are demanding that the Saudis end their blockade against rebel areas that they have imposed during the civil war. The Houthis have had some success lately against the Yemeni government and have launched major attacks against Saudi Arabia. 

My Comment:

After years of stalemate the situation in Yemen seems to have escalated dramatically. The Houthis have taken most of the territory on the Red Sea and have even launched major attacks on Saudi targets. Indeed, right now the attacks on Saudi oil production is a major reason why gas prices exploded last week. 

The situation is an embarrassment for the Saudis as they have never been able to deal with the Houthis. The fact that not only are the Saudi allies in Yemen getting devastated this last couple of weeks. And they have not been able to defeat Houthi attacks on their homeland. It's part of the reason why the oil markets were panicking, they just couldn't deal with the Houthis and their attacks. 

The Saudis aren't putting boots on the ground but they are training the Yemeni forces opposed to the Houthis. They are also launching heavy air strikes in support of these forces. But it hasn't been enough. The Houthis are tough fighters. They have been very resilient to these kinds of attacks and are on the offensive. 

The real fear was that other countries were going to be dragged into this conflict. Indeed, I had feared that Trump's return from Camp David early this weekend had more to do with Yemen than Iran. Thankfully I appear to have been wrong. The Houthis are, as of this writing, saying they don't want to fight anyone but the Saudis. And the United States and Israel don't seem to be willing to back up their Saudi allies. 

Could it happen in the future? Of course. But I don't think either side really wants to be involved in Yemen. The United States and Israeli military are a lot more competent than the Saudis and the Houthis don't particularly want to face that kind of firepower. And nobody wants to be dragged into another conflict while the Iran conflict is still raging. 

The problem is that these attacks on Saudi oil facilities is not helping oil prices, which are already high due to the Iran conflict and the Russia-Ukraine War. This report might calm things down a bit, but I am guessing lower fears over Yemen will be outweighed by the bad news from Russia this weekend where Ukraine launched major attacks on their oil facilities as well. And the Iran conflict still lingers on. 

US and Denmark make breakthrough deal on Greenland.

 

Nuuk Greenland. Reuters. 

The United States and Denmark have made a breakthrough deal on Greenland. Reuters. The deal will expand the US military presence on the island far beyond a previous 1951 agreement. The agreement, which has no end date and would apply even if Greenland would gain independence from Denmark, also prevents foreign adversaries from building military bases there. The United States already has a small Space Force base, formally known as Thule, in Greenland. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says that the new agreement answers all of America's security concerns with the island. President Trump had said in the past that he wanted to acquire Greenland, though those efforts will likely be dropped with the new deal. 

My Comment:

Looks like Trump's months of saber rattling last year paid off, Greenland is now under de facto US military control. Though we already had a lot of power over the island militarily, this new deal goes a lot further and will likely result in new bases being built beyond whatever they are calling Thule now (Pituffik Space Base). 

Though the specifics of this deal are still unknown what is known is that US dominance over Greenland in terms of the military will now last for the foreseeable future, even if Greenland leaves Denmark. Given how critical the island is for the military defense of the United States and how unreliable our allies our, especially in Canada, this is a coup. 

It also ensures that America's adversaries, most notably China and Russia, won't be able to sneak into Greenland either. Though I don't think either nation has the ability or desire to take over Greenland, this will also prevent them from becoming friendly with Greenland and will ensure that they won't be able to get a toehold there any time soon.

This is a pretty big win for the Trump administration and I think it's one that following administrations, be they Republican or otherwise, will appreciate regardless. Like I said, Greenland is critical for US defense given how useful it is as an early warning base. It also sits on major trade routes, and has a lot of mineral resources. It also has about as much oil as the United States has left, though that's more of a long term opportunity given the obvious difficulty drilling for it in Artic conditions would imply. 

I do think this is another example of Trump's more aggressive foreign policy being useful. By demanding Greenland itself, Trump was able to secure a deal where he got everything he wanted in the first place. And I don't think this deal would have happened if it wasn't for the fact that Trump was saber rattling. 

98% of jobs created last month went to women...

 

File photo of women at work. Fortune/Getty.

98% of jobs created in August went to women. Fortune. The jobs report for August was good, with 162,000 new jobs, far exceeding expectations, but 158,000 of them went to women while only 4000 went to men. Though one month of data can be considered noisy, it does show a trend. Women make up the majority of the workforce now for the third time in history, but unlike the past two times, the Great Recession and the pandemic, the problem is which jobs are being added and who is getting them. Indeed, some industries, most notably leisure and hospitality, had more than 100% growth for women as men lost their jobs in the sector. 

My Comment:

This story is a few days old but it blew up yesterday because Trump decided to weigh in on it. President Trump put out a post on Truth Social touting these numbers and to say that his male supporters are upset is an understatement. To be fair, he was talking about the longer term data that claims that women have gotten half a million new jobs during his 2nd term while men have lost 6000. 

pic.twitter.com/6vMFd79KZB

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) September 7, 2026

It's another example of Trump putting his foot in his mouth. Women mostly hate Trump so pandering to them is pretty useless. But men are Trump's biggest supporters and they last thing they want to hear is that jobs are going to women, not men. Though it's a minor gaffe that folks will probably forget about in a week, it's an entirely avoidable one. 

And I think it has a lot to do with the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Kirk was a lot more important than folks realized and I think this is an example why. Kirk was a younger Millennial and he was able to connect with young men in a way nobody else in the Trump circle was able to do. Had Kirk still been alive I think he would have absolutely advised Trump to not post what he did and he would be steering the administration into focusing on this issue. 

So why is this happening? There's a ton of new jobs getting created, the economy isn't actually bad. It's just those jobs are ones that are in female dominated industry including health care, teaching, local governments and hospitality. The jobs that men want? They aren't showing up to the same degree.

Some of this is due to active discrimination though. HR Departments are still captured by DEI. Though few men would want to be in these industries the fact is that if they do try they often get discriminated against and have difficulty getting hired in the first place. 

Some of it is also due to Trump's success in curtailing immigration, legal and otherwise. Many of the jobs lost were ones that were held by immigrants, legal or otherwise. With 2 million folks, at the very least, being deported or going home willingly, and almost all of them being male, it's going to affect the male working rate. 

 

Judge declares mistrial in Lindsay Clancy case

 

Lindsay Clancy supporters. The Boston Globe. 

A judge has declared a mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case. BBC. Clancy admitted to strangling her three children, aged 5, 3 and 8 months, before cutting herself and throwing herself out the window. She then plead not guilty by reason of mental illness under Massachusetts lack of criminal responsibility law. The case was in extended deliberations and it turned out that one jury stood alone wanting to convict her. Despite last minute efforts by the defense to extend the trial, including an appeal to the State Supreme Court that failed, the judge declared a mistrial as the jury was unable to reach a verdict. Clancy will be held in the same mental hospital she has been held in since committing the murders.

Clancy, her ex-husband Patrick and the three children she killed. BBC.

My Comment:

There are two aspects to this case I find baffling, to say the least. The first is that there were 11 jurors and a whole lot of people that watched this case somehow thought that Clancy was not responsible for her murder of three of her own children. The second is the actual courtroom drama itself. The first issue is the more important one but the second is where I am going to start. 

To begin, there were quite a few irregularities in this case, to say the least. The jury was not sequestered, which I am told is standard in Massachusetts, even for cases of this profile. This case is an good example of why that is a bad thing as it was also pretty clear that the jury was being influenced by outside forces. The jurors were likely able to see the news and social media coverage of this case, even despite jury instructions,  and I think it influenced the final vote and certainly two jurors showed up in court wearing pink, which was adopted by Clancy's supporters for some reason. 

There was also an arrest for jury intimidation as a true crime blogger showed up at the trial and started photographing the jurors. She got charged for this, but who know if that had an impact as well? Certainly it may have affected the jury knowing that their faces could be out there and that their decision would not remain anonymous. 

But what really got me is that the lone hold out was semi-doxed by the court. We know he alone wanted a conviction and that he was a man. Normally that stuff stays locked down tight and when a jury is deadlocked we only know that it is deadlocked, not the vote and who did it. I fear now, with this information out there, that his life is going to be ruined if his name actually gets out there. I think he was extremely brave to continue to stand up for his take on the case even knowing that it could end up backfiring on him and his courage did restore a bit of faith in jury trials that otherwise would have been destroyed by this case.

Much of the problem might be Massachusetts insanity law. Under their lack of criminal responsibility standard, the defense is one that has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution. This is the exact opposite of most states where insanity is an affirmative defense, one that has to be proven by the defense. It seems to me that the jury may have gotten hung up on this and read too much into the standard (raising it to "beyond any doubt").

In my view, Clancy was mentally ill, but not insane. She knew what she was doing was wrong, she planned it and even called her husband in the middle of the murders so she would have more time to kill her last kid. I don't believe she was suffering from PPD or PPP, just standard depression, and she was in control over her actions the whole time. But under Massachusetts law you have to prove all that beyond a reasonable doubt. Without watching the trial it's hard to figure out if the prosecution screwed up, or if the jury really was affected by the media and social media firestorm that was this case.

Regardless, this case would not have been important at all without the frankly shameful actions by the supporters of Lindsay Clancy. There are many child murders in this country, sad as it is to say, and many trials where the insanity defense is brought up, but they don't blow up. This blew up because Clancy got support online somehow.  The fact that she had any supporters at all is shocking and something I have been having an existential crisis over. It's not something that should have ever happened.

You can make an argument that Clancy was insane during her crime and by Massachusetts law she should go to a mental hospital instead of prison. I don't agree with that, but I can see the argument. But that's not what a lot of Clancy's supporters were doing. Instead they were making insane claims that she was totally innocent and that every woman has the same feelings and desires that Clancy had, the desire to murder her kids. They were also arguing that no women could be held responsible for their crimes if their hormones were giving them mental issues. Ironically that was the old misogynist argument against giving women rights in the first place, but it's now being used unironically by supposedly feminist women. And the level of hatred, actual hatred, for Patrick Clancy, is beyond the pale. And it seems to mostly come from the fact that he moved on after he divorced the woman who murdered his children and destroyed his family. 

Some of these women were also using it to advocate their own hobby horse issues, saying that post-partum depression and psychosis are major issues that should be covered more and that the medical industry shouldn't hand out prescriptions like crazy (though in this case it was Lindsay Clancy that was prescription shopping with multiple doctors). I'd even agree with most of that, but it's insane to me that they would pick such an awful example to use. Like I said, I don't believe that Clancy had PPD or PPP and, if anything, she should have been regularly taking her meds. 

If women were reacting to this case with support of Clancy (not just emotional, Clancy raised over $1 million for her defense), men's reaction has been different to say the least. I won't speak for my entire gender, but it does seem clear that something broke in this case. It may have been the "women are wonderful" effect. Most men (and women for that matter) tend to put women on a pedestal and end up treating women better than men, it's a demonstrated effect in psychology that is well documented. But I think a lot of men are now thinking this has gone way too far. Because I don't think there is any argument that if this case had been with a male offender and all other facts were the same, he would absolutely go to prison. 

I do think this case is going to further damage relations between men and women. Given that relations are already so bad that the birthrate has collapsed and a huge number of young men are going to be perpetually single for their entire lives if nothing changes, this is a very bad thing. I don't think women really understand just how badly it plays for men to see women chanting support for a family annihilator, let alone blaming the husband for her crime. 

Indeed, I have seen some anecdotal evidence that this case has already destroyed some relationships and it's not hard to understand why. No one is going to want to stay with someone who thinks its at all justified or excusable to murder three children, and men are, quite logically, breaking up with people who do think that way. 

The one question I am seeing from young men over and over is "what happened to women, why are they like this?" It's not one I have an easy answer for either. It's clearly not all women, there were obviously a lot of women just as baffled as I was that this case blew up the way it did and think that Clancy should either spend the rest of her life in prison or be sent to the gallows, but there is a large faction of women who supported Clancy. And it's not even a left v right issue, there were voices on the right, even discounting clearly insane ones like Candace Owens, who were supporting Clancy too. 

If I have any answer at all it might be the proliferation of algorithm-based short form video. This case blew up on TikTok and I have always said that the short form video they specialize in is extremely potent propaganda, as the videos are short enough to be effective but not long enough where you actually have to think. And the algorithm makes it even worse as it is only going to show you stuff that you already agree with. And given the consensus based thinking that a lot of women (and more than a few men) suffer from, it's incredibly easy to get folks to agree with things that would otherwise be laughed at when you don't actually get exposed to opposing viewpoints.   

And it absolutely scares me that there may be copycat cases because of this trial blowing up the way it did. Even today news broke about another mother that murdered her son. In that case a mother killed her two year old child and attempted suicide only a few hours after having a discussion with her friends about Lindsay Clancy. I have said for a long time that social contagion is a thing, it's why I am always reluctant to cover mass shootings unless there is a good reason to do so, and I think the coverage in this case may lead to further copycat murders. 

 

Bernie Sanders floats banning super intelligent AI.

 

Senator Bernie Sanders. Politico/Getty.

Senator Bernie Sanders has floated legislation that would ban super intelligent AI. Politico. The ban would punish anyone who developed a super intelligent AI with 20 years in prison. Critics say such a ban would handicap the United States against China. Sanders has also called for a moratorium on data center construction. Such legislation would face strong headwinds in Congress and might be ruled illegal by the courts. However, the ban and moratorium might be popular with voters deeply skeptical of AI. 

My Comment:

There's very little chance of this passing. Not only would the tech companies not go along with it, the executive branch would have a fit as well. There is zero chance that the United States would simply wave the white flag to China and allow them to develop advance AI while leaving ourselves without similar technology. It would essentially be suicide. I think there is less than a 1% chance of this legislation happening and even if it did, I think the courts and the executive branch would prevent it form going into effect. 

Not that I think a true super intelligence, in the way sci fi people define it, is likely any time soon. AI can, and already does, some things better than humans, but they are not sentient and still make major mistakes. Such a thing might be possible in the far future, but I am skeptical in the short term at the very least. I generally think it's another example of the Whig view of history, where people assume that society will keep advancing and there will never be any regression. I think we absolutely could end up with hurdles that will take decades or even centuries to overcome when it comes to AI super intelligence, if they ever get solved at all

Do I think there are dangers to advanced AI? Sure, there are dangers with every technology. Many of them are not predictable before the technology is released. But the AI safety "sci-fi tech uprising" that ends humanity? That's not one of them. AI could do a lot of things, many of them bad, but I don't see them gaining actual sapience, which would be required for malice. 

Regardless, Sanders is a savvy political operator and I don't think this is about super intelligent AI. Sanders is a communist (ok, a socialist), and his objection isn't that AI may go rogue and kill us all, it's that companies are making a profit. He's just exploiting popular sentiment that is critical of AI. 

So why are people critical of AI? I don't think it has a thing to do with AI safety. Much of it is simply fear of change. There are always winners and losers when a new technology is rolled out. Horses lost out when the automobile was invented, industrial workers lost out when robotic automation became common and now a lot of entry level white collar jobs are going to disappear as well, and many already have. It's pretty natural to be opposed to a chance when it does in fact harm people, but that also usually doesn't do a thing to stop progress. 

The other problem is that the current tech barons don't understand the concept of noblesse oblige. The old robber barons of history were also centers of progress and made their millions by changing the world. But unlike the tech barons, they understood that in order to keep the loyalty of the people, they had to give something back. So they built museums, parks, colleges and charities. 

Today's tech barons? They don't do any of that, at least not for Americans. Many of them send their billions to the third world, not really caring if they have a positive effect or not (a good example is the mosquito nets they buy being used for overfishing). Even Elon Musk, who is probably the most benevolent of the tech barons, hardly gives anything back to the people, most of his spending is political. To be fair, he does give folks access to Starlink during disasters, but that's the exception that proves the rule. 

In that, I guess I have to grudgingly admit that Sanders might have a bit of a point. If we want AI (and I think we should), I do think that these tech barons have to shape up. Sander's solution is idiotic of course, but I would argue that the tech barons should indeed be giving back to the people out of naked self interest if nothing else. I don't think people would be anywhere near as opposed to AI and data centers if the tech companies cut a check to improve their lives.  

Border crisis in Ceuta Spain continues with thousands of civilians protesting

 

Protesters in Ceuta Spain. AP.

Thousands showed up to protest in Ceuta Spain due to ongoing concerns about the massive migrant invasion that occurred in July. AP. 72,000 migrants, mostly from Morocco, crossed the border last July and most of them returned, but at least 5000 of them stayed, though local Ceuta authorities claim higher numbers. September 2nd is a holiday in Ceuta that celebrates the founding of the city, but this year 50,000 citizens protested their government's response to the crisis. Protests were also reported in other Spanish cities on the mainland. The invasion has caused major social disruption and drained resources. Madrid has earmarked money for the city, but is blaming the crisis on Russia and Israel. 

The crisis has led to a major increase in sexual assaults, with around one a day being reported to authorities since the invasion. BBC. 23 cases have been reported against adults and 9 against children. Many of the victims are female members of the invasion and the perpetrators have been both Moroccans and Europeans. 

My Comment:

As bad as the situation in Ceuta is, it could have been a lot worse. Most of the invaders returned home after a few days. Had they stayed it would have been apocalyptic. Ceuta has a population of about 80,000 people and there is no way that the city could take care of 72,000 new people, many of which are hostile. They are having extreme difficulty dealing with the 5,000 to 10,000 that are left as is. 

It's actually absurd that any of these people are still in Ceuta. It would be fairly trivial to deport them, just walk them over to the border, open the gates and lock it behind them once they are through. You wouldn't even need to use violence for the most part, just regular herding tactics. And riot police would probably be enough to clear out the camps in the beaches. There would, of course, be a lot of stragglers, but it would solve 90% of the problem. 

But Spain's leftist government refuses to do that. Part of it would be the bad optics because the international press would find some picture of a younger underaged invader being pushed around and they would accuse everyone of fascism. The rest is that they don't actually want these people to leave. They want them to come to Spain so they can lower wages. Plus they have the old anti-colonialist prejudices where they think that people from other countries are automatically better than the folks that they are supposed to represent. 

The results have been predictable. A sexual assault a day. Ironically, many of the victims are the female invaders themselves. It's not particularly surprising given the lack of policing on these beaches. But every single one of these crimes are presumably preventable (there could be a case or two of Spanish citizens attacking each other, to be fair). 

Regardless, this issue isn't going away any time soon, and I think the Spanish people are right to be upset. Like I said, it wouldn't be that difficult to get these people out of there but the Spanish government is not doing so. Until that changes I expect there to be more protests. 

The Department of Justice has shut down 270 CDL schools

 

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. New York Post.

The Department of Justice has shut down 270 CDL schools for graduating truck drivers who could not speak English or offering subpar training facilities. New York Post. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said that illegal immigrants and folks that can't speak English should drive big rig trucks. They shut down 110 schools that had graduated 5,000 drivers who could not speak English at all, which is a dangerous thing if they cannot understand road signs. 160 more were shut down for inadequate training facility, many of which only consisted of a single truck or a small parking lot. 239 people have died in crashes caused by CDL holders that did not speak English with California being the most common state to issue the CDL's. Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin was a former truck driver and he said that standards had massively dropped since he got his CDL. 

My Comment:

This is one of the lesser known changes that have been put into place since President Trump was elected and I have to say it's a welcome one. I work in an industry where I deal with CDL holders every day and it's unquestionable that the standards for truck drivers dropped like a rock right around the time that the Biden administration took over. 

So often before Trump's 2nd term, I was using my phone to translate to drivers that didn't speak English well or at all, and sometimes even then, it was impossible to communicate with them. Not to mention the drivers that could barely back their trailer into a spot or slide their tandems. Some of these issues were forgivable during 2020 during the bad days of the pandemic when we had a genuine lack of drivers, but there was no excuse for the lower standards continuing in 2021 and beyond. 

The change after Trump was sworn in was dramatic to say the least. I haven't had to use my translate app on my phone for a truck driver for more than a year now. When I see a truck driver now, I can usually assume that the person is someone who can actually speak to me and I am pretty sure is allowed to be in the country. That's a huge positive for me and it's a good thing for everyone else. 

Why? Well, you need to be able to read English to drive a truck. You need to know what road signs say in order to drive and navigate safely. Imagine driving and not recognizing a road closed sign or what a stop sign is? But there were thousands of drivers on our roads doing exactly that, and it led to quite a few deaths, all of which were preventable. 

These schools were facilitating all that. They were scamming America and they were run by the same people that were getting the fake CDL's. These were license mills and they were giving their buddies CDL's so they could get jobs and I am sure they were taking kickbacks as well. The fact that the drivers were untrained and unsuited for American roads didn't bother them a bit. Closing them down is a major victory and more than justifies my vote for Donald Trump. 

How bad is the Patriot missile shortage?

 

A Patriot Missile battery in Poland. AP.

The United States and Europe is reportedly suffering from a lack of Patriot missiles. AP. Patriot missiles are the only known weapon system that can intercept Russian ballistic missiles, and the lack of missiles in Ukraine may prove to be a turning point in the war. Ukraine was given many missiles but have used the vast majority of them up. In addition, as many as 1500 missiles were used in the Iran conflict. However, the Pentagon has disputed those numbers. Missile production has increased, including a new plant opening in Europe, and there is some hope that France and Italy's untested SAMP/T NG system could make up for shortfalls, but the weapons have never been tested in combat and have a lower range than the Patriots. 

My Comment:

This is kind of irresponsible reporting by the Associated Press, but rumors of a lack of Patriots have been ongoing for months now. At the very least, it's incredibly clear that there aren't any more missiles for Ukraine at the very least, but are things as bad as this report says?

Well, there's good news and bad news about that. The good news is that I think these reports are exaggerated. We did use quite a bit of our Patriots in the Iran conflict and gave away far too many to Ukraine, but I seriously doubt that we went through 1500 missiles during the Iran conflict. 

The bad news is that even if we had full stocks we would be in trouble. Why? Because modern warfare has changed quite a deal and the Ukraine war has been a perfect laboratory for Russia to experiment with how to defeat the system. 

A major problem with Patriots is that they now have to be volley fired to intercept Russian missiles. Russian ballistic missiles now have decoy packages that require more than one missile being used if they want to have a viable chance of shooting them down. And that's not counting Russian hypersonic missiles, which are almost impossible for Patriots to intercept period. 

And that's not counting Russia's advances in air power. Russia hardly has to worry about their jets being intercepted by Patriots as they drop their glide bombs, like the FAB series, far behind enemy lines. Though Patriots are the best weapons we have in terms of air defense, they aren't quite good enough anymore. 

Does it matter? I don't really think so in the short term, unless the Iran conflict goes hot again. Right now the conflict is frozen, so we should be able to slowly build up our weapons. But I also think that the idea of an actual conflict between Russia and NATO are overblown. Yes, I know that the meeting with the CIA director yesterday was supposedly warning Russia off of some kind of attack, but even that seems far fetched to me. Like I said yesterday, the idea that Russia would start something with NATO while it is winning in Ukraine seems like madness to me, and Russia is one of the more rational actors on the world stage. And if there is somehow a conflict between Russia and NATO, the world will have a lot bigger problems than the lack of a few interceptor missiles. 

Senator Josh Hawley has opened an investigation into Flock license plate readers.

 

A Flock camera in Beverly Hills California. Fox News/Getty.

Senator Josh Hawley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism, has opened an investigation into the controversial Flock license plate readers. Fox News. Hawley said that Flock has 120,000 cameras in 49 states and they scan 20 billion vehicles every month. Hawley wants to know what Flock is doing with that data. The cameras have become very controversial due to concerns about the 4th amendment, that bans unreasonable search and seizure. Hawley said that people do not give up that right when they are in public if the government is building a record of civilian movements. 

My Comment:

It's hard to get excited about this, there are few things in the world more useless than a Congressional investigation. I have zero doubt that nothing much will come out of Hawley's investigation, it's going to mostly be theater.

But it does show that the tide might be turning against these cameras. Very few people like these cameras and nobody wants the government to build a database that tracks what you do and where you go. Even if that wasn't a violation of the 4th amendment, which it totally is, it's downright creepy too. I don't think there are very many people that want to see their actions in a database somewhere.

The potential for abuse is rather extreme. Both the left and the right know that if the other side takes power forever they could use those cameras to track their enemies, making it a lot easier to send them to prison or the morgue if they didn't approve of what they had to say. It would make organizing any kind of resistance to the government almost impossible. And it could be abused in other ways, like insurance companies using them to increase your rates if you slam on your breaks to hard or something. 

And some folks will say that "your phone tracks you and you are probably recorded every day via ring cameras and regular security cameras". That is true to an extent but there is at least one major difference between those problems and these Flock cameras. If the government wants to track you via these methods, they have to go to a judge and get a warrant. They can't just track you arbitrarily. 

I do think there is political implications to this though. Polling has been scarce but Flock cameras usually end up with lower end approval ratings and it is an issue that could be used to gain support. The cameras do have some supporters, almost every issue does, but it's possible Hawley is positioning the Republican party as the anti-Flock party. Given that opposition of these cameras is bipartisan, 

Despite reports of many communities banning Flock and ending contracts with the company, the company is still expanding. These cameras are everywhere now and I have spotted more than a few in my own communities. Getting rid of them still seems like a tall order. 

CIA Director John Ratcliffe makes clandestine meeting with Russia.

 

A C-17 Globemaster landing in Latvia, believed to be carrying CIA Director John Ratcliffe. Reuters. 

CIA Director John Ratcliffe made a clandestine meeting with Russia today. Reuters. This is the first visit to Moscow by a CIA Director since William Burns did in 2021, just before the Russia-Ukraine war broke out. Neither the CIA or the Kremlin provided any details of how the meeting went or what the purpose of the meeting was. The visit was planned for several days as Ukraine was asked to not strike Moscow or the general region while Ratcliffe was there. The meeting comes during a crucial moment in the Ukraine conflict and right after President Trump launched an "economic D-Day" on Russia's ally, Iran. 

My Comment:

There is very little information about this is about and it's leading to quite a bit of rank speculation. The facts are as I stated above, it was a secret meeting that was in the works for a few days, nobody is admitting what it is about and it comes at a critical time, both in the Ukraine conflict and the Iran conflict. 

My general reaction is confusion, but I do say that at least both sides are talking. The optimistic take is that this is an effort to warm relations and end both the Ukraine and Iran wars. Russia is obviously a huge player in both and it's possible that this is the start of a major diplomatic effort to end the fighting. 

The more pessimistic take is that Russia was planning something and this was a diplomatic warning to not do whatever they were planning. That was the purpose for the last high level diplomatic meeting from a CIA director in Russia, it was the Biden Administration's failed attempt to avert the Ukraine conflict, so it's not like there isn't a precedence.  

Some people on social media have said that this meeting was to head off a provocation from Russia in the Ukraine conflict, to test NATO's mettle. This makes little sense to me, Russia has little reason to do so. Ukraine's position is not good, largely due to the lack of Patriot missiles, and there has been some positive developments on the battlefields as well for Russia. In short, I don't see Russia being desperate enough to escalate. 

A more likely explanation is that this had to do with Iran. The optimistic scenario is that the US wanted Russian help to try and reach a diplomatic deal with Iran to end the conflict. Russia does have some sway over Iran and could be a useful partner. 

The more pessimistic and realistic option is that this was more about sanctioning Iran and warning Russia that the could be hit by these sanctions. If I had to guess for the purpose of this meeting, I would say this is the most likely scenario. Trump does want the Iran conflict to end, and a diplomatic message to Russia is an appropriate action to these sanctions. However, I should point out that the pessimistic and optimistic explanations related to Iran are not mutually exclusive.  

Finally, it's possible that the meeting had little to do with Ukraine or Iran. The main thing I could think of is that this is some kind of hostage negotiation. Russia still holds some Americans in prison for various crimes, some legit and some not so much. President Trump has made getting folks released a major priority so it could be that instead. 

Of course, it's possible that more than one of these scenarios could be happening at the same time, and I would expect that to be the case. After all, even if the meeting was about Iran, Ukraine would come up too. 

Either way, we don't really know what is happening right now and the best I can say is "at least they are talking". My gut says that it's probably related to Iranian sanctions and it's probably not as significant as folks are taking it. But either way, it's a mystery as of this writing. 

The Trump administration is, again, trying to impose a $100,000 fee for H1B visas.

 

Reuters. 

The Trump administration is again trying to impose a $100,000 fee for the controversial H1B visas. Reuters. President Trump attempted to impose the fee last year, but a judge ruled it was unconstitutional as the court considered it a tax. The new effort would allow a notice and comment rulemaking demanded by the judge and would be framed as recovering costs for the Department of Homeland Security. 344,000 people were approved for H1B visas so far this year, down dramatically from a peak in 2023 with 794,000 visas sought. It is unclear if the new rule will survive lawsuits. 

My Comment:

I still say that the entire H1B visa program should be scrapped. I don't believe that any of the jobs that are held by H1B visa holders are so impossible to staff that an American couldn't be found to work them. Indeed, in many cases, Americans would love to work those jobs, especially in the tech sector. And in the few cases that there aren't we could use the other visa programs, like the O-1A, O-1B and EB-1A visas. 

But this is probably the only way we are going to get any reform on this issue, unfortunately. In theory, this would cut down the most excessive abuses in the H1B program, you wouldn't see jobs like a gas station cashier or hotel worker going to H1B visa holders. $100,000 is not chump change and would ensure that the employers couldn't staff these jobs with foreigners. 

The problem is that it's unclear what the courts are going to say. Congress does have jurisdiction over taxation. Is this new effort a tax? I am sure a left wing judge would argue so, but I would say no. The Federal government is allowed to collect fees and doing so with these visas would at least help fund immigration. But who knows what the courts will do?

What is frustrating is that the Democrats effort at lawfare have been effective. I don't really think it matters too much if the rule is just or now, the Democrats will judge shop until they find another one that will rule this new effort unconstitutional as well. And it won't get fixed until it reaches the Supreme Court. 

Regardless, even if this new rule only goes into effect for a few months, anything that reduces the number of H1B visa holders is a good thing. Like I said, these jobs should be going to Americans. There's zero reason for someone from India to take a job that an American would be very happy to have if the wage was fair. 

Syria and Israel hold high level talks after airstrikes.

 

A Syrian Soldier manning a machine gun at the disused Abu Duhar airbase. AFP.

Syria and Israel held high level talks after Israel bombed a disused airbase in Northern Syria. AFP. Israel bombed the Abu Duhar airbase in Northern Syria in an effort to deny the base from Turkey. Turkey denied it was going to take the airbase. Tensions between Israel and Turkey are high and the strikes are the most recent strike among hundreds since the overthrow of the Bashar al-Assad regime. The talks, which was brokered by the United States and hosted by Jordan. Syria is an ally of Turkey but tensions between Turkey and Israel have left Syria in the crossfire. 

My Comment:

These talks were moderately successful. Israel and Syria seem to have made some progress, but not so much that tensions went down all that much. It does seem that Syria wants a security agreement with Israel, but the absolutely terrible relationship between Turkey and Israel is complicating things dramatically. 

Indeed, the entire incident was based on the fact that Israel attacked an airbase just because they suspected that Turkey was going to use it. If there was any real relationship between Turkey and Israel at all, then that absolutely would not happen. Indeed, we aren't even sure that Turkey was going to actually use the airbase. 

It fits a habit that Israel has fallen into. They often tend to strike first and ask questions later. It's one of the reasons why tensions are high with Turkey and in the region generally. I can understand why they wouldn't want a regional rival take an airbase that could be used to strike Israel's interests, but the evidence that Turkey was going to do so is pretty difficult to prove. 

Why are tensions so high between Turkey and Israel in the first place? It goes back to the October 7th attacks and the Gaza war that resulted. Turkey and Israel traded diplomatic insults since then, with Erdogan calling Netanyahu "Hitler" while Israel recognized the Armenian Genocide. I have to say that i think the Israelis were right, given that Hamas are terrorists and are hardly the "freedom fighters" that Turkey calls them. 

Things have gotten worse, not better, since Iran was humbled in the Iran conflict. There was a power vacuum that resulted from the conflict that both Israel and Turkey have tried to take advantage of. Both countries want to lead the Middle East and both are making major diplomatic push to do so. 

And Syria? They got caught in the crossfire. Syria is the buffer zone between the two countries. Turkey has a lot of influence over the Syrian's new former jihadist government and is arming and training them. But Israel does not want to end the progress it made by simply letting Turkey replace Iran. Israel has a long history of dealing with terror attacks coming from Syrian territory, and does not want Turkey to become the new Hezbollah. 

Regardless, it's not surprising that the Untied States is trying to ease tensions. We are in the unfortunate position of being allied with both Israel and Turkey. Israel was our partner in the Iran conflict and we provide them with billions of dollars in aid. Turkey is the largest member of NATO after the United States and is, arguably, the one with the most competent military.  

The FBI has arrested a woman for a plot to attack the New York State capitol for ISIS

 

FBI photo of the suspect buying bomb supplies from Home Depot. BBC.

The FBI has arrested a woman for a plot to bomb the New York State Capitol building for ISIS. BBC. Jessica Bowie, a 35 year old woman, had converted to Islam five years ago and pledged allegiance to ISIS. Bowie had surveilled the building several times in preparation for her attack. Bowie was going to use a Door Dash bag to smuggle a bomb into the building and she was given fake weapons and bomb making materials from the FBI before she was arrested. Bowie had a large social media presence and had been banned from several platforms for extremist statements. 

My Comment:

The actual chance of an attack happening here was pretty small. Bowie did not strike me as someone that was capable of actually planning an attack on her own and the only real way she would have been a threat is if she found an actual terrorist to pair up with. She did attempt to do that but was sold out by an FBI informant. Once the FBI was involved the chances of her actually doing something went down dramatically. 

It's another example of a stupid terrorist failing horribly. Had she simply bought a gun and waltzed into the Capitol, something bad could have happened. But she had ambitions beyond her abilities and she absolutely could not pull of the complicated bomb plot she wanted by herself. 

I don't believe she had any real ties to ISIS itself. ISIS is a shell of its former self and does not control much territory anymore. They probably would have tried to help this woman if they were able to contact her, but I doubt there were able to. They simply don't have the resources now and most ISIS related attacks these days are like this one, lone wolf nutjobs inspired by their propaganda and actions. 

I would be very interested in figuring out what on earth went wrong with Bowie. A white woman converting to Islam, walking around in a full naqab and then trying to pull off a major terror attack is unusual to say the least. If I were to speculate, I am guessing her life did not turn out the way it wanted and she was desperate for something to belong to, and she fell into Radical Islam. 

Regardless, if she wasn't a woman this wouldn't be notable. Folks that convert a religion become extreme in it so often it has a term, the Zeal of the Convert. Though that is found in many religions, it's especially true for Islam, and it's probably worth finding out why. This does happen fairly frequently after all. 

Fired Ukrainian Defense Minster calls for new elections

 

Former Defense Minster Mykhailo Fedorov. BBC/Reuters.

Fired Defense Minster Mykhailo Fedorov has called for new elections in Ukraine. BBC. Ukraine has been under martial law since Russia invaded in 2022 and President Zelensky has overstayed his term by two years. Fedorov was fired six months after his appointment and is still extremely popular. And though he hasn't said that he wants to run against Zelensky, many people are interpreting the criticism as an announcement. His criticism echoes calls from the United States and Russia for the country to have new elections. Zelensky has long avoided holding elections, citing the difficulty of doing so during a major war. 

My Comment:

I agree that elections would be difficult during an active conflict, at least at the national level. They could certainly hold local or oblast level elections in western Ukraine, which has not been affected by the war anywhere near as much as the other parts of the country. 

But nationally? It would be difficult to say the least. You would need to somehow get absentee ballots to the men on the front line. And there is the simple fact that many Ukrainian citizens have fled the country and you would have to figure out if their votes should be counted and somehow get them ballots too. Plus you would have to wonder if Russia would play along, it's hard to go to the polls if you are worried you are going to get bombed. 

With that being said, I absolutely think that Ukraine should deal with it regardless. I don't know how you can call Ukraine's current government legitimate if it's got a de jure ban on elections. Under current Ukraine law, if the country is in martial law, elections cannot be held. They just keep extending the emergency and prevent any elections. 

Keep in mind that Russia has been able to conduct elections. They might not have been the most legitimate elections in the world, but they are probably at the same level as the ones here in the United States. And Russia had many of the same issues and they were able to hold elections in 2024. We had elections in 2020 during the pandemic and also during World War II. Though I agree that elections would be difficult, both legally and logistically, they should be done regardless and I don't really buy Ukraine's excuses here. 

Regardless, I do think that this could be a bad sign for the Zelensky government. Though I tend to think this is more about Fedorov trying to make a bigger name for himself, and perhaps getting his Defense Minster post back, it is a sign that cracks are starting to form for Zelensky. Folks there aren't blindly worshiping Zelensky anymore and it's clear that his government has some major flaws. Fedorov is right, elections should be held and corruption is a massive problem for Ukraine. 

Finally, I think this is a case of too-little too-late. The problem with having elections now is that Ukraine's air defenses have crumbled. Ukraine has used up all their Patriot missiles and those are the only weapons they have that can credibly counter Russia and North Korea's ballistic missiles. This is very different from earlier stages of the war, especially in 2024 when Zelensky's term expired. But now, things would be a lot more difficult and it would require at least some kind of cease fire with Russia to pull off. 

Polling firm admits that polls in Wisconsin Democratic Primary and LA Mayor race were totally fake.

 

File photo of Francesca Hong. Fox News.

A polling firm called Median Strategies have admitted that two polls in the Wisconsin Democrat Primary and the LA Mayor race were fake as a "social experiment". Fox News. The polls had Francesca Hong in Wisconsin and Karen Bass far ahead of their opponents. However, the polling outlet said it was an experiment to see how false information could spread and then shut down their doors. Both polls ended up bein inaccurate, as Hong lost her race in the primary while Bass won by a much slimer margin. 

My Comment:

This is one of the more irresponsible things a polling outfit has done. Putting out entirely false polls is, quite frankly, disgusting. And it calls into question the very concept of polling. If there are outfits out there fabricating data, do we really have any idea of how is winning and losing our political races?

Calling it a social experiment is nonsense as well. And it is funny that the experiment failed in the Wisconsin Governor's race. From what I understand, that poll was largely ignored as larger and more reliable outlets dominated the news. 

Regardless, there were absolutely other ways to demonstrate that false information is a problem without contributing to it. Indeed, that's exactly what they did. These polls probably didn't have too much of an effect, as the Wisconsin one was ignored and the LA one only got a little coverage. But it's pretty easy to think that it could have affected things, especially in a race as close as the Wisconsin Democrat primary was this year. 

But I also think that the "experiment" excuse is probably false. This was probably a scam of some kind. What is likely is that the firm was just lazy and didn't want to do the actual work. By faking the polling results they could get attention and funding, but it fell apart when the LA Times investigated the whole thing. 

It's also possible that this was a scam based on prediction markets like Polymarket or Khalshi. Large amounts of money is bet on the results of these races and by putting out false info they could affect the odds and get a bigger payout. Given that bets can be on just about anything, even overstating a poll could cause a lot of people to place bets that they otherwise would not, so faking numbers might have been a way to increase the payouts of opposing bets. 

If this sounds like a good argument to ban these kinds of prediction markets, I would agree. I hate the incentives that the existence of these prediction markets creates and we have already seen the effects. And this could be another example, and it shows it goes far beyond just sports betting. 

Regardless, this story is going to further erode confidence in American polling this cycle. We have already seen some massive upsets, even beyond the Wisconsin race. The Michigan Senate race is another example and even tonight we saw something similar in Florida's Senate Race for the Democrats. People have already lost faith in the polls and having an outlet out and out faking results is not going to help things. 

President Donald Trump seems to be reaching out to North Korea for a diplomatic win.

President Trump shakes Kim Jong Un's hand on a TV in South Korea. Reuters. 

President Donald Trump seems to be reaching out to North Korea in search of a diplomatic win. Reuters. Trump made a major diplomatic push during his first term to try and warm relations with North Korea, which remains a pariah state. However, Trump appears to be renewing focus on North Korea now. He has scaled back US participation in a major military drill with South Korea, due in part to their refusal to help with the Iran conflict. Trump and Kim Jong Un do have a respectful relationship and both men claim to understand each other. North Korea is in a better negotiating position, due to an economic boom from participating in the Russia-Ukraine war. 

My Comment:

I speculated yesterday that Trump's canceling of the exercise with South Korea had less to due with South Korea and more to do with North Korea. Given Trumps statements about Kim Jong Un, I think that is the case. South Korea did anger the United States by not helping in Iran, given that they too have an interest in keeping the oil from the Middle East flowing, but it's really not about them, that much. 

The cynics are saying that this is just a ploy to get some positive media coverage for Trump ahead of the midterms. There is probably some truth to this, a diplomatic win would probably be helpful for Republican chances in November. But I also don't think that's the only factor. Trump wanted a deal during his first term, and if 2020 had gone different, he probably would have gotten one. He also seems to genuinely like Kim Jong Un, and he has a good relationship with him. 

Kim Jong Un has good motivation to at least talk to Trump. Doing so would be a win for him too, largely because it would give him quite a bit of prestige and legitimacy. It would also bring some predictability to the relationship between the United States and North Korea, which is a major concern. 

The problem is that North Korea really is in a good position right now. Their participation in the Ukraine war has been an absolute economic boom for them, funneling billions of dollars into their economy. They have sold billions of dollars worth artillery shells and missiles and are getting paid for every soldier they deploy in Russia to help defend the country from Ukrainian attacks. 

This means that Trump and Kim Jong Un will probably meet each other as equals and any diplomatic deal will have to be limited in nature. Getting rid of North Korea's nuclear weapons are not a realistic goal for Trump if they do meet. However, a test ban, an official de jure end to the Korean war and/or a ban on missile tests in exchange for sanctions relief could be a real possibility. 

I do think that this is a positive thing. Korea has been a tinderbox for far too long and ratcheting down the temperature again would be useful. Indeed, it was something that should have been done during the Biden administration, but Korea was just yet another issue that Joe Biden was out to lunch on. I don't think a major deal is likely, but any kind of talk is a positive. 

 

Pentagon downplays reports of bad conditions on USS Abraham Lincoln.

 

The USS Abraham Lincoln. Fox News/Reuters.

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

My Comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

My Comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

My Comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teenagers faced a tight job market in 2026.

 

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

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

My Comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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