My reaction to Iran’s “10 point plan” was different from that of the “unnamed official” that Axios said was “maximalist”. Demanding an end of economic sanctions and reparations for damages, Iran’s offer was more than that. My interpretation was that it was an insult bid.
Here’s how an insult bid works.
Seller: I want $1,000 for it.
Buyer: How about $500?
Seller: $900.
Buyer: How about 50 cents?
In commercial settings, an insult bid usually signals negotiations are over. Given his career experience I strongly suspect that President Trump understands them that way. His response (raise the asking price) supports that. In diplomacy it can sometimes be posturing but it often serves the same function. That is supported by reports that Iran has cut off negotiations.
I have never known it to be a good sign. It suggests to me not only that Iran is not ready to concede but that at least one side may be misjudging its leverage in the negotiations and therefore the range of outcomes actually available to it.
The Trump Labor Department to its credit has taken steps to make it easier and less costly for farmers to hire seasonal guest workers on H-2A visas. Last fall the department relaxed a Biden wage mandate that required farmers to pay guest workers on average $17.74 an hour—and as much as $19.97 an hour in California—in addition to providing housing and transportation.
The United Farm Workers (UFW) sued, arguing that easing the wage mandates for guest workers will undercut pay and demand for American workers. Vice President JD Vance makes a similar argument in support of reducing legal immigration.
and
Restrictionists say farmers could attract more U.S. workers if they increased wages. DOL disagrees: High wage mandates have “not resulted in a meaningful increase in new entrants of U.S. workers to temporary or seasonal agricultural jobs.” Farmers received applications from U.S. workers for only 182 of 415,000 positions advertised in the last fiscal year.
I see no way that we could spend the last 35 years declaiming that everyone needed college educations, that the future belonged to knowledge workers, subsidizing higher education, and discouraging manual labor without its decreasing how appealing American workers find such jobs. Those jobs were performed overwhelmingly by native-born workers relatively recently. It is something that has been happening for a long time and cannot be reversed immediately. While working conditions, seasonality, and geography plainly matter, they cannot by themselves explain the near-total collapse of domestic applications; that points to a deeper shift in perceived status and life trajectory. Or the timing, which coincides nearly perfectly with the sharp decline in native-born manual laborers. In multiple regions and across decades, the pattern has been consistent: when native-born agricultural workers attempted to organize, they were rapidly replaced often within a single season by more vulnerable labor pools. The difference is the enduring and persistent propaganda program in which we have engaged, misguidedly in my opinion.
Higher wages might increase the number of applicants at the margins but their very low number strongly suggests something else at work.
We also need to recognize that there are some economic activities in which we have no absolute advantage, which are unsustainably costly to do here, and which should not be performed domestically. From my point of view that implies closer, friendlier relations with neighboring countries, particularly Mexico.
It also highlights something I have advocated repeatedly: the need for a true guest worker program especially for Mexican workers without paths to citizenship or other embroidery.
A stable and genuinely sovereign Ukraine remains in Europe’s interest. But if Europe wants to support Ukraine as a future member of the West rather than merely as a glacis against Russia, its policy has to change.
That starts with honesty. Europe should admit that self-preservation is now a central motive of its support. It should also stop treating military endurance as the only measure that matters. Aid should be tied to battlefield needs and to institutional development: legislative function, transparency, anticorruption enforcement, competence rather than the blind celebration of supposed political savvy, limits on arbitrary power, and a clear understanding that wartime necessity cannot become a permanent political principle.
but even more to a comment in the ensuing thread of that op-ed by Yuri Victor Vizitei which I will quote in full:
This piece is part of the political struggle within Ukraine and I would caution an uninformed reader to make any assumptions or come to any conclusions.
“The most significant controversy surrounding Rodnyansky is his very public break with President Zelensky following Ukraine’s largest corruption scandal since the war began. In November 2025, Ukraine’s independent anti-corruption agencies (NABU and SAPO) unveiled “Operation Midas” — a $100 million bribery and money-laundering scheme centered on Energoatom, Ukraine’s state nuclear power operator. The scheme’s alleged architect, Timur Mindich, was a co-owner of Kvartal 95 Studio — the media company Zelensky co-founded before his presidency.”
The problem is that NO ONE high enough in business or politics in post Soviet space is “clean” of some level of corruption. It’s more often a struggle between camps, not right or wrong. This is a direct failure of the West to “clean” the post USSR space of left over Soviet influencers. We didn’t want to invest any money in it, and didn’t see them as a risk. SO we didn’t execute on a Marshall plan equivalent as we should have. That gave us Putin and unending corruption.
We should see Ukraine today as the bulwark against Putin and Russia. As well as a potent future EU member, but only after the shooting war. Trying to sort out politics in Ukraine now is fool’s errand. It’s not that Mr. Rodnyansky is wrong or right. It’s just that we can’t know all of the history and realities involved here.
What I want to draw attention to is corruption. It is endemic in Ukraine’s system. It won’t vanish with less connection with Russia. It shouldn’t simply be dismissed. It is structural not episodic therefore it must be mitigated rather than just wished away. Failing to recognize that is our mistake not the Ukrainians’.
That means that we must be vigilant in our oversight of how the aid we provide to Ukraine is used and that cannot easily be done from 5,000 miles distance which implies more direct, embedded oversight and conditionality than we have been comfortable with.. If the objective, Ukrainian independence, is to be achieved, that is something we cannot avoid or delay in doing.
It’s good news that the WSO from the F-15 downed by Iranian fire has been rescued. Hopefully, his injuries are not too severe.
I have continued to follow the U. S.-Israeli war on Iran as closely as I could through open sources, particularly the Institute for the Study of War, and the usual limitations that entails. To the best of my ability to determine the following is the present status of the war:
The U. S. is not losing the war in operational terms.
The number of Iranian counter-attacks have largely plateaued and they have not been particularly effective.
The Iranians can probably maintain their present level of counter-attack for an extended period.
The Iranian regime is unlikely to surrender.
Taken together, these conditions suggest a conflict in which the U.S. is neither losing nor on a clear path to winning, and in which the definition of ‘victory’ remains unclear. I continue to think that the war is illegal and imprudent. That does not imply that I want the Iranian theocracy and/or the IRGC to win.
Where is Ambrose Bierce now that we really need him?
Artificial Intelligence, n.: Intelligence that would be sent back to the kitchen if it were food and delivered to your table in a restaurant.
Authenticity, n.: A carefully curated simulation of spontaneity.
Bipartisan, adj.: Approved by members of opposing parties who agree it will not cost them their seats.
Blockchain n.: A solution whose problem has not yet been located.
Climate, n.: Long-term consequences crafted by short-term, instant-gratification thinkers.
Democracy, n.: Governance by the uninformed, for the unqualified.
Education, n.: The systematic suppression of facts to protect fragile minds from reality.
Enshittification, n.: The swift, inevitable decline in quality of online platforms once users are hooked.
Influencer, n. One who is paid handsomely to pretend they discovered oat milk, sunrise, or having opinions.
Stakeholder, n.: Anyone who will be blamed if the outcome is poor and credited if it is good.
Stakeholder Capitalism, n.: An ingenious system whereby corporations lecture you about morality, climate, and equity while maximizing shareholder value through Chinese supply chains and addictive dopamine loops.
Work-Life Balance n.: A mythological state, like Atlantis, frequently referenced and never reached.
I do not claim that all or, indeed, any of those are original.
Soliciting suggestions for additional entries.
Updated
Slop, n.: poorly crafted uninteresting content created by artificial intelligence rather than poorly crafted, uninteresting content slapped together by human beings
Viral, adj.: Content that spreads infectiously, like a virus, and has the same effect on the stomach.
Em dash, n.: A hyphen that has been told it is special.
Update 2
Affordable housing, n.: Housing paid for by someone else.
Ally, n.: An ally is someone who supports your cause right up until the moment their own interests are better served by not doing so.
A recent Quinnipiac poll found that 55% of Americans think AI will do more harm than good, 70% think AI will lead to fewer jobs, and only 5% think AI development is being led by people and organizations that represent their interests.
It included an explanation for the skepticism:
The American people understand that AI and robotics will transform our world. They want to make certain that this technological revolution makes life better, not worse, for them and their families. They know that fundamental questions must be answered before we rush forward. They don’t trust the AI oligarchs.
and it included a proposal for slowing down the adoption of AI:
Congress must act. That is why I have introduced legislation, with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, to impose a federal moratorium on the construction of new AI data centers until strong national safeguards are in place.
Sen. Sanders is correct that there are substantial risks associated with the development of AI and even more to its adoption including the loss of jobs and increased income inequality. But recognizing risk does not make every proposed remedy effective.
The development of AI is not solely a U. S. phenomenon. Although the U. S. presently holds the leadership position in the race to develop AI, dozens of countries including China, France, and Japan have active AI development projects. What Sen. Sanders’s proposal doesn’t include is how he plans to prevent China from proceeding with the development of AI or stop American companies from using Chinese AI.
Given that omission Sen. Sanders’s proposal would less slow the development or adoption of AI than it would impede American control, capability, and leverage. It would have little impact on the loss of jobs due to AI. To whatever degree that will happen, it will happen.
A domestic moratorium in a competitive global technology race is not “slowing AI”. It is unilateral disarmament.
The prudent policy action is selective export controls and encouraging the construction of domestic data centers rather than discouraging them.
My immediate reaction to this study was that if only sharks had more after school activities they wouldn’t be showing such predatory behavior. Here’s the study’s abstract:
Pharmaceuticals and illicit drugs are increasingly recognized as contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) in marine environments, particularly in areas undergoing rapid urbanization and tourism-driven development. Potential exposure to such contaminants, however, remains largely unexplored in The Bahamas. This study provides the first investigation into the occurrence of selected CECs (acetaminophen, benzoylecgonine, caffeine, carbamazepine, ciprofloxacin, citalopram, clindamycin, cocaine, diclofenac, fipronil, fluoxetine, nimesulide, piroxicam, sertraline, sulfamethoxazole, triclosan, trimethoprim, and tramadol) and their potential associations with physiological systemic health markers (triglycerides, total cholesterol, urea, phosphorus, and lactate) in the serum of five shark species sampled from nearshore habitats in Eleuthera Island, namely Galeocerdo cuvier (Tiger Shark), Carcharhinus limbatus (Blacktip Shark), Carcharhinus perezi (Caribbean Reef Shark), Ginglymostoma cirratum (Atlantic Nurse Shark), and Negaprion brevirostris (Lemon Shark). Serum samples were analyzed for CECs employing LC–MS/MS and for physiological markers by UV-Vis spectrophotometry. Four of the investigated CECs (diclofenac, cocaine, acetaminophen, and caffeine) were detected at varying concentrations in Caribbean Reef sharks, Atlantic Nurse sharks, and Lemon sharks, demonstrating their local environmental occurrence and bioavailability. Furthermore, sharks with detectable CECs exhibited triglyceride, urea, and lactate alterations in comparison to those where these contaminants were not detected. This represents the first report concerning CECs and potentially associated physiological responses in sharks from The Bahamas, pointing to the urgent need to address marine pollution in ecosystems often perceived as pristine.
Yes, I’m aware that’s not the point of the study. That it appeared in Environmental Pollution was my first hint. Still, it’s interesting.
Now that I have a system for doing it I’m going to post these ratings periodically.
As you can see the outliers are Gorsuch and Jackson. The justices with the strongest partisan/ideological bias are Thomas and Alito, followed by Kagan and Sotomayor. The most consensus-oriented justices are Barrett and Roberts.
Last night I listened to President Trump’s address to the nation on the Iran War. Delivered in his typical stream of consciousness shotgun style with his vestigial Atlantic seaboard prep school honk at nineteen minutes it was mercifully short.
In the address he spoke about the reasons for the war, returning multiple times to the urgency of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and its status, speaking in exaggerated terms of the excellence with which our military has carried out its missions. Much the same speech could have been delivered at the very outset of the war and at that time it might have bolstered American support for it. At this point I suspect that most Americans have already made up their minds both about President Trump and the war against Iran.
What I noticed most about the speech was not its content but its delivery. Not just its uncharacteristic brevity but its terseness. It lacked the ad libs that frequently punctuate the president’s speeches and it largely stuck to the subject of the war with Iran without notable digressions.
I was struck by how labored his delivery sounded—something I don’t recall noticing before. Whether that reflects the moment or something more persistent, it stood out. He seemed out of breath throughout.
For a broader sampling of reactions at James Joyner has a useful round-up of media commentary at Outside the Beltway.
President Trump’s recent executive order directing the creation of a national voter list and conditioning the delivery of mail-in ballots on that list presents three distinct problems: feasibility, operational impact, and legality.
By way of background, I have more than twenty years’ experience as a judge of election in Chicago and have participated in the design of an electronic voting system. I am also familiar with U.S. Postal Service sorting operations through direct exposure to the design of their systems.
First, feasibility. Voter rolls are not static; they change continuously. Registrations are added, removed, and updated on a daily basis across thousands of jurisdictions. Any “national list” would be obsolete almost immediately upon compilation. Moreover, no federal system currently exists to aggregate, reconcile, and maintain these lists. Building such a system would be a substantial undertaking—almost certainly exceeding the 90 days contemplated by the order—and no funding has been identified.
Second, operational impact. The Postal Service’s sorting systems are designed for rapid routing and delivery, not for eligibility screening. While it may be theoretically possible to modify them, doing so within the required timeframe is highly unlikely. The alternative—manual sorting—would impose a labor burden for which the Postal Service has neither the staffing nor the capacity. At scale, this would risk disrupting normal mail operations.
Finally, legality. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution assigns the regulation of federal elections to the states, subject to alteration by Congress—not by executive action alone. Whether this order exceeds executive authority is a question that will almost certainly be addressed in court.
For these reasons, even before considering its legal status, the order appears impractical to implement within the constraints imposed.
