I don’t know whether to quote this as an excellent example of sophistry or as an example of lying with numbers. In his retrospective on Nancy Pelosi’s career in office Matt Yglesias says:

When she became the #2 figure in the leadership hierarchy in 2002, she was the progressive voice in the councils of leadership. Prior to assuming that role, she was the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, which made her one of the most prominent congressional Democrats to buck the Bush administration on the invasion of Iraq.

By the numbers, most Democrats in Congress voted “no” on the war.

By the numbers the majority of Senate Democrats voted “aye” on the war. 29 of 50 Democratic senators voted to support the war. The final vote was 77 to 23. Only by combining House votes with Senate votes, a meaningless number, can Matt get to his numbers.

I opposed going to war against Iraq. It was clearly a sideshow, a distraction, in the War on Terror. And I did not find the weapons of mass destruction argument convincing.

In musing about the effects of artificial intelligence on jobs James Pethokoukis remarks:

A different approach is taken in the new paper “Remote Labor Index: Measuring AI Automation of Remote Work.” The authors, from the Center for AI Safety and Scale AI, decided to treat AI systems as if they were freelance workers on real jobs. They took 240 genuine Upwork-style projects—everything from data dashboards and 3D product designs to marketing videos—and provided the same briefs, files, and deliverables to both humans and AI models such as GPT-5, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and Gemini 2.5 Pro. Human evaluators then judged whether the AI’s submissions would be acceptable to a paying client.

The result: Almost never, with a tiny 2.5 percent success rate “revealing a stark gap between progress on computer use evaluations and the ability to perform real and economically valuable work,” the paper concludes. Even the top-performing model, Chinese AI agent Manus, “earned” only about $1,700 out of $144,000 worth of human labor.

IMO he’s looking at this from the wrong perspective. The perspective he needs to consider is that of those making staffing decisions, the hiring and firing decisions. The CEOs.

In the technology sector alone in 2025 alone 100,000 layoffs have been announced. Those layoffs aren’t of minimum wage employees but of middle managers and developers at all levels (junior, senior, C-suite). Go beyond the technology sector and layoffs amounting to 1% of the total U. S. workforce have been announced in this year alone.

To take another sector the financial sector has announced roughly 50,000 layoffs just this year. I’m guessing those layoffs won’t be of either top management or those at the lowest levels of compensation but people with incomes well into six figures.

In other words in the near term it doesn’t make a smidgeon of difference. The only things that make any difference are whether the CEOs think they can use AI to trim expenses and if that will increase their stock value. There’s an old wisecrack—I don’t know who said it. “When it’s time to railroad everybody railroads.” A lot of companies are jumping on the AI bandwagon and devil take the hindmost.

A shocking incident is getting a lot of news coverage here in Chicago. Tahman Bradley, Marisa Rodriguez, and Brónagh Tumulty report at WGN:

CHICAGO — A day care teacher was taken into ICE custody Wednesday morning on the city’s North Side, WGN News has confirmed.

The incident happened around 7:05 a.m. at Rayito de Sol Spanish Immersion Early Learning Center, located at 2550 West Addison Street in the North Center neighborhood.

An SUV of federal agents followed the teacher’s vehicle to the day care, then proceeded to follow her into the building — where children were in attendance at the time.

According to Congressman Mike Quigley, the agents did not have a warrant.

“It’s just absolute terror. Why are you at a day care at 7 in the morning? This isn’t right. This isn’t American. This isn’t who we are. It’s an absolute travesty,” said Adam Gonzalez, a lawyer and rapid response team member.

The piece goes on to quote numerous others.

The press release at DHS.gov contradicts that report in a number of particulars:

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) today released the following statement correcting inaccurate and false reports claiming that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers targeted a daycare in Chicago, Illinois.

This illegal alien from Colombia, Diana Patricia Santillana Galeano, was encountered by Border Patrol on June 26, 2023 after she illegally crossed the southern border. The Biden administration released her into the U.S.

Just last month, Galeano reportedly paid for smugglers to illegally bring her 17-year-old and 16-year-old children into U.S. via the southern border. Facilitating human smuggling is a crime.

On October 19, 2025, the two children, a 16-year-old and 17-year-old, entered the U.S. illegally near El Paso, Texas. Customs and Border Protection apprehended the children, and they were processed as Unaccompanied Children and brought to a shelter in the Chicago area.

That is followed by a point-by-point litany:

“ICE law enforcement did NOT target a Daycare. Officers attempted to conduct a targeted traffic stop of this female illegal alien from Colombia. Officers attempted to pull over this vehicle, which was registered to a female illegal alien, with sirens and emergency lights, but the male driver refused to pull the vehicle over. Law enforcement pursued the vehicle before the assailant sped into a shopping plaza where he and the female passenger fled the vehicle. They ran into a daycare and attempted to barricade themselves inside the daycare—recklessly endangering the children inside. The illegal alien female was arrested inside a vestibule, not in the school,” said Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. “Upon arrest, she lied about her identity. The vehicle is registered in her name, though she claims that she didn’t know the man who was driving her car and just picked him up from a bus stop.?Facts including criminality and information on the male assailant are forthcoming and we will update the public with more information as soon as it becomes available.”

FALSE CLAIM: DHS law enforcement targeted a school or daycare center in Chicago.

THE FACTS: ICE targeted an illegal alien, Diana Patricia Santillana Galeano, from Colombia, and attempted to pull her vehicle over as it was being driven by another individual and Galeano was in the passenger seat. The driver ignored law enforcement emergency lights and sirens and both of the illegal aliens fled the vehicle, attempting to barricade themselves inside of the daycare center.

FALSE CLAIM: ICE made an arrest inside a daycare center in Chicago.

THE FACTS: The male passenger barricaded himself inside the daycare center—recklessly endangering the children inside. However, Galeano could not enter through the second set of locked doors.

FALSE CLAIM: ICE arrested the illegal alien in front of children.

THE FACTS ICE did NOT arrest her in front of children.

FALSE CLAIM: ICE is not going after the ‘worst of the worst.’

THE FACTS: President Trump and Secretary Noem are restoring the rule of law in the U.S. and directing ICE to target criminal illegal aliens. More than 70% of all ICE arrests are of aliens with pending charges and convictions in the U.S.

FALSE CLAIM: Diana Patricia Santillana Galeano was in the country legally with employment authorization.

THE FACTS: Work authorization does NOT confer any type of legal status to be in the U.S. The illegal alien’s work authorization was approved by the Biden administration which exploited this loophole to help facilitate the invasion of our country.

I took the trouble of reproducing the format of the DHS press release because it is so unlike the format I would expect in federal government websites. More like something on Reddit.

My question is whom should we believe? My answer is that I don’t believe either account. I that the parties are doing their level best to make their cases and the truth is the first casualty. We’ll probably never know what actually happened.

There are three other points I want to make. First, I want to commend Molly DeVore and Mack Liederman at Block Club Chicago for publishing what is to my eye a good effort at reporting the facts in an objective manner.

Second, I suspect that although the ICE agents were within their rights in apprehending Ms. Santillana Galeano they probably did enter the daycare center and they did make some arrests in front of the children there. At the very least that does not paint the agency in the best light.

Third, there’s an unreported story. Rayito de Sol is a chain of Spanish-language immersion daycare centers located in majority Hispanic neighborhoods of Chicago. Having such things are well within people’s rights but their existence does contradict some key aspects of the prevailing narrative about the most recent groups of immigrants crossing our southern border. Despite significant efforts I was unable to identify a chain of Tamil immersion daycare centers in Chicago.

I want to call two fine posts on tariffs at SCOTUSBlog to your attention. The first, by Adam White, considers the recently executive-imposed tariffs in the context of the Court’s responsibilities:

When it comes to diplomatic and national security powers, the court often defers to the president “as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations.” If justices see the Trump tariffs as mainly a matter of foreign policy, and if they see IEEPA’s “regulate” provision as ambiguous, then perhaps they will give substantial deference to the president’s interpretation.

Then again, another way to see this case would be, first and foremost, as a case about Congress’ “power of the purse.” As we have seen in recent cases involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Communications Commission, Congress can delegate substantial fiscal power to the executive branch. (In CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association, it was perpetual funding from the Federal Reserve to the CFPB; in FCC v. Consumers’ Research, it was the power to impose fees on the telecommunications services industry.) Yet Trump’s highly publicized approach to tariffs may give the justices pause. The sheer enormity of many of these new taxes, the erratic changes he makes to them, their immediate effects on U.S. companies and consumers, and his repeated identification of tariffs as revenue for domestic policy programs make this at least as much a matter of domestic policy as it is a matter of foreign policy.

The second, from Amy Howe, analyzes the SCOTUS’s likely decision:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed skeptical of President Donald Trump’s authority to impose sweeping tariffs in a series of executive orders earlier this year. During more than two-and-a-half hours of oral arguments, a majority of the justices appeared to agree with the small businesses and states challenging the tariffs that they exceeded the powers given to the president under a federal law providing him the authority to regulate commerce during national emergencies created by foreign threats.

She proceeds to consider the justices’ views seriatim.

My own personal view, not rooted in existing law or precedent, is that the justices should rule that the Congress does not have the authority to delegate its own Constitutional responsibilities to any other branch of government. That won’t happen. The members of Congress want to delegate all of their Constitutional responsibilities to the executive and judicial branches so they can devote fulltime to their core responsibilities: running for re-election and posturing.,

I think they’re likely to limit the president’s authority to impose “emergency” tariffs somehow that does not include requiring the federal government to refund tariffs already collected.

At any rate read the two linked posts for background on the case. They’re highly informative.

Here’s a list of the present active federal emergencies, their start dates, and durations:

I think it’s a scandal and an outrage that so many of these so-called “emergencies” have been active for as long as they have. It calls the entire concept of emergency into question.

As you may notice the Trump Administration likes to declare emergencies. It’s clearly a strategy for exercising executive power. Note, too, that the number of active emergencies declared under each president has tended to increase.

I wanted to take note of Matt Yglesias’s observation about the incoming Mamdani administration in New York City:

No one can predict the future, and a Mamdani administration might turn out to be shambolic, like Brandon Johnson’s in Chicago.

I think he’s being exceedingly kind to Mayor Johnson. Merriam-Webster defines “shambolic” as:

obviously disorganized or confused

I would have said “disastrous” or “ruinous”.

I don’t know what will happen with the case on tariffs before the Supreme Court. What I hope will happen is that the Court will rule that the president has the authority to apply short-term tariffs “in case of emergency”, “short-term” being defined as 150 days, but permanent tariffs require an act of Congress.

The other story of the day is the outcome of yesterday’s elections. None of that happened in Illinois or Chicago so I will refrain from commenting otherwise. I would presume that that the results indicate that the Democratic brand was not as tarnished as some had feared. There are still plenty of people in “blue” cities and states who vote for whatever candidate is running as a Democrat.

There is a lot of expressing of opinions both by Republicans and Democrats about the mayoral election in New York City. I believe that Zohran Mamdani will be elected mayor of New York and that will provide a rare opportunity for a real-life experiment. There are a lot of predictions being made and, frankly, I doubt that many of the most dire will happen but it will provide an opportunity for testing these hypotheses.

Will

• Crime increase substantially?
• A substantial number of New Yorkers flee the city?
• Anti-semitism increase?
• New York become even less affordable?

My own view is that I doubt that Mr. Mamdani will get many of his proposals enacted into law and the most amazing thing will be how ordinary things are.

Victimization and 911 calls might increase but I suspect that crime reports will show a decrease in serious crime. The only way that crime will show an increase is if a) the increase is so large denying it is is impossible and b) if mayors, police chiefs, etc. were rewarded for increasing rates of serious crime.

The narrative being promoted by legacy media outlets paints a picture of poor children starving as a consequent of the undoubtedly illegal suspension of SNAP benefits during the government shutdown. That is not supported by the data.

The graph at the top of the page, derived from USDA and NHNES sources, provides a stark contrast with that narrative. As you can see if anything SNAP is promoting obesity among its beneficiaries. That should not be unexpected. Beneficiaries select calorie-dense foods in preference to nutrient-dense foods. As the researches of the early Neolithic by Robert and Linda Braidwood have demonstrated human being have preferentially sought out the most calorie-dense food in their environments for tens of thousands of year. Unfortunately, in our present circumstances with an overabundance of food that behavior does not serve them well. And it is contrary to the stated intentions of the SNAP program.

The authorizing legislation for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246, Title IV). In the legislation the purpose of SNAP is stated explicitly:

It is declared to be the policy of Congress, in order to promote the general welfare, to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation’s population by raising the levels of nutrition among low-income households.

The section continues:

The Congress hereby finds that the limited food purchasing power of low-income households contributes to hunger and malnutrition among members of such households. It is further declared to be the policy of Congress—
(1) to permit low-income households to obtain a more nutritious diet through normal channels of trade by increasing food purchasing power, and
(2) to the maximum extent practicable, to alleviate such hunger and malnutrition.

The emphasis is mine.

Under the legislation SNAP benefits may be used to purchase meat, fruits and vegetables, dairy products, seeds for growing fruits and vegetables, baked goods, cereals, and practically anything that has a nutritional contents label. The benefits may not legally be used to purchase alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, or anything containing controlled substances.

The simplest way to improve SNAP would be to change the enforcement to prevent the purchase of beverages sweetened with sucrose, fructose, or artificial sweeteners. That could probably be done without changing the existing legislation.

A more extensive improvement in enforcement consistent with the legislation’s stated intent would prohibit the use of SNAP benefits for anything that is sweetened with sucrose, fructose, or artificial sweeteners but, since that would exclude practically everything except for meat, raw fruits and vegetables, minimally processed dairy products, and minimally processed grains, it would probably meet with considerable resistance from beneficiaries, merchants, and manufacturers alike.

What is clear is that obesity is quite prevalent among SNAP beneficiaries. That is confirmed anecdotally by the observation that the spokespeople selected by legacy media for SNAP beneficiaries, purporting to be beneficiaries, are so frequently morbidly obese. And that prevalence of obesity is contrary to the stated purpose of SNAP and should not be facilitated by it.

That is described by some as “paternalism” but, as noted above, promotion of better nutrition for the poor is written into the statute already. If your primary objection is to “paternalism” you should oppose the program outright. If, like me, you should think the stated purpose is appropriate and the law should be enforced, you think that stricter standards should be enforced for the utilization of SNAP benefits.