Data Comparisons

Looks like Trump (we) struck Iran.

498 Comments

https://www.nbcnews.com/world/middle-east/live-blog/israel-iran-conflict-rcna214241

U.S. ATTACKS IRAN: President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social on Saturday that the U.S. “completed a successful attack.”

Open thread.

498 thoughts on “Looks like Trump (we) struck Iran.”

  1. B-2s on the move, maybe. I cannot independently confirm this, but it has been reposted by a reliable source. Departure at about 1 am:
    “BREAKING: U.S. Air Force B-2 stealth bombers appear to have taken off from their base in Missouri. These are the exact aircraft needed to hit the heavily fortified Iranian Fordow Nuclear Site.
    Eight tankers are in flight, headed the same direction, refueling the B-2 bombers over Kansas.”
    https://x.com/hntrbrkmedia/status/1936287708105654616?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ

    I can confirm that there were four KC-135 Stratotankers flying in formation south of Dodge City at about 1:30 AM.
    Track screenshot:
    https://x.com/rklier21/status/1936296868306112621?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ

  2. angech,
    Nice idea…. sounds like the story like for a comedy movie.

    OTOH, religious lunatics are unlikely to be so easily swayed. They seem to really believe every crazy idea in their particular religion. Good to keep in mind the crew in Iran executed tens of thousands without trial for political/religious reasons when they took over from the Shah.

  3. I was asleep at the switch and not following it, but this is probably related to the four tankers I saw heading west over Kansas last night purportedly accompanying B2 bombers and their fighter escorts. There are currently three tankers coming in from the Pacific Ocean near San Francisco. If the tankers I saw last night were escorting the warbirds till they reached out into the Pacific Ocean they would now be returning, and another group of tankers (perhaps from Hawaii) would have picked the warbirds up somewhere out over the Pacific.
    Track screenshot:
    https://x.com/rklier21/status/1936382105526669447?s=61

  4. mike m
    with regardd to testing you are probably correct. If you understand the fission bomb process, and where precision in its construction is mandatory and have the tools, it probably is unnecessary to test.

  5. I read the B-2’s can’t takeoff with a full load of MOP’s (2?) and a full tank of gas so they need refueled in the air pretty quickly.

    The US is sending all the signals an attack is imminent. Whether this is a bluff or not is unknown. I’d guess the chance of an attack is over 50% and the decision has already been made. Iran isn’t budging.

    I don’t recall anyone ever conceding to an ultimatum recently, it’s human nature not to. Bravado. The ultimatum purpose seems to be more domestic, to be seen as giving the opponent full opportunity to reverse course.

    Trump may have decided to attack and then the Pentagon told him it will take two weeks to get forces in place for all contingencies.

  7. Tom Scharf,

    If the US uses bunker busters, I expect Israel will co-ordinate with decapitation strikes just before the bunker busters….. lack of leadership means more confusion and a less effective defense. I sure hope the Mullahs agree to end their nuclear program over the next 12 days, but it sounds like they would prefer their virgins in Heaven over giving up on nuclear weapons. It seems weird to me but I am not a religious lunatic.

  8. Russia: We will never allow Ukraine to join NATO.

    USA: We will never allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.

    I am trying to see a clear difference between those two positions.

  10. Tom Scharf wrote: “I read the B-2’s can’t takeoff with a full load of MOP’s (2?) and a full tank of gas so they need refueled in the air pretty quickly.”

    B-2 specs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_B-2_Spirit#Specifications_(B-2A_Block_30)
    Empty weight: 158,000 lb
    Fuel capacity: 167,000 lb
    Max takeoff weight:376,000 lb
    So that leaves 51,000 lb for payload
    Two 30,000 lb bombs would mean taking off with 94% of max fuel capacity. Range is given as 6900 miles, so it can go a long way with that much fuel.

    Further down it says the B-2 can carry 2 GBU-47 MOP’s.

  11. I get queasy about talk of assassinating another countries top civilian leaders. Isn’t that taboo? Has it ever been done, even in a declared war?

    I have no problem with Trump using his presidential powers to take out Iran’s nuclear weapon capacity. I would have a problem with Trump targeting civilians, unless approved by Congress.

  12. “The US will not target civilians like Russia does.”

    The people under US bombers in WWII would beg to differ, ha ha.

    For the amount of ordinance Russia has fired in Ukraine the civilian casualties is “relatively” low. It’s about 10:1 military to civilian casualties depending on who’s counting. WWII had civilians make up about 60% of all casualties.

    Realistically civilian casualties is also highly dependent on the type of war that is waged. In Ukraine you routinely see soldiers wearing highly visible red / blue armbands over their uniforms. No doubt this is mostly to stop friendly fire but both sides have made efforts to keep the war between armies. Most of the effort is isolated to front lines. Modern Russian missiles are accurate enough that they likely hit what they are aiming at. It’s unclear what some of these city attacks are really targeting.

    If Ukraine executed the war like Gaza then the civilian casualties would be way higher.

  13. Steve, another difference in stance

    US positions
    Ukraine: first hostilities end, then negotiations
    Iran: first negotiation, then hostilities end

  14. The B-2 payload weight is normally listed as 40K lbs. The exact mix of ordinance / bomb bay physical capacity is pretty obscure. I didn’t really find definitive numbers on this.

    I suppose the length of the takeoff runway is also a factor.

  15. Mike M,
    I doubt the range is 6,900 miles at maximum takeoff weight. As a first approximation: fuel burn rate is almost (a little less than) proportional to flying weight. The loss of range carrying two bunker busters wouldn’t be that important in the Middle East, if the plane was taking off from Saudi Arabia…. everything would be within about 1,200 miles.

  16. The reason Trump was talking about taking out the Ayatollah is because it was reported that he specifically vetoed Israel taking him out. The usual suspects in the media then spun his response to that issue as him advocating for it. SSDD.

    The US doing it is a different question then whether the US should effectively veto Israel from doing it.

    We did hunt and track down Saddam and the interim government quickly hanged him which surprised nobody. Not the same thing but a shade of gray.

    The main reason IMO to not target political leaders is because it will be returned in kind. Our politicians are pretty exposed. It’s a gentlemen’s agreement. Netanyahu may very well get taken out and I think screaming about that will fall on deaf ears.

    It can also really harden public support in the opposing country. God help Iran if they took out Trump.

    Ayatollah, no. Bin Laden, yes. ISIS, yes. The leader of Yemen, maybe.

    There is an argument that Israel’s campaign against the militias and Iran’s leaders has been effective. Hezbollah is sitting out an Iran / Israel war.

  17. Mike M,
    The Russian and Ukrainians have (so far) not targeted civilian leaders. Israel has targeted military leaders and nuclear weapons experts. Do those experts count as civilians? Donno, but your life expectancy would be higher in Iran if you did research in some other field.

    I guess the question to ask: is there any reason to think Iran would not target Israelis leaders if they could? “Death to Israel” sounds all-inclusive.

    Any effort at “decapitation” would for sure involve dozens (hundreds?) of religious leaders, along with military leaders, of course.

  18. Tom Scharf,
    “God help Iran if they took out Trump.”

    In two words: glowing slag.

    I’d put a decapitation effort by Israel at ~50:50.

  22. FYI: The latest gravity nuclear bomb for the US. B61-13.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb

    It weighs 715 lbs and has a dial a yield up to ~360 kilotons. It’s intended for the B21 Raider which could carry a bunch.

    The US has a crazy number of delivery options for this type of thing, of course don’t forget the nuclear artillery shell. Boys and their toys.

  23. Tom, your post:
    “For the amount of ordinance Russia has fired in Ukraine the civilian casualties is “relatively” low.”
    It’s not the artillery exchanges at the front that is the atrocity. For the past year, Russia has been intentionally sending cruise missiles and drones to terrorize the cities. Here is an article from 4 days ago.
    “Russian bombs hit dozens of civilian targets in Ukraine, killing at least 15”
    https://www.nbcnews.com/world/ukraine/russia-bombs-ukraine-kyiv-civilians-killed-rcna213426
    During the winter months, Russia targets the electrical grid so that the people freeze in their houses.

  24. Well the B-2 stealth bomber relocation I had surmised yesterday has been confirmed:
    ”WASHINGTON, June 21 (Reuters) – The United States is moving B-2 bombers to the Pacific island of Guam, two U.S. officials told Reuters on Saturday, as President Donald Trump weighs whether the United States should take part in Israel’s strikes against Iran.l
    I bet they actually wind up at Diego Garcia.

  25. US airstrikes complete on Iran, I hope they were effective. Let the spin and uncertainty begin.

    I guess those B-2’s didn’t make any pit stops.

  27. Trump: “FORDOW IS GONE.”

    Somehow I’ve learned to not necessarily take Trump’s words as a calm considered assessment of a situation.

  31. So you are Iran, what do you do now?

    They need to save face somehow, but they are also not in a position where escalation is going to work out for them.

    I would say they launch as many missiles as they can at once against Israel, talk the usual smack about great Satan’s, and call it a day. I suspect they have been told what will happen if they do anything but token attacks on US regional assets. The US is ready.

    I also suspect we will not really know the damage done for quite a while, maybe ever. There are probably some big holes in the mountain at Fordow. If they didn’t get the job done then there will be follow up attacks or the Israeli’s will need to try plan B.

  33. I’m not sure what else Iran could do except fire off some more missiles and drones. I don’t think they have further viable military options right now, and their proxies aren’t in any shape to do anything either IIRC.

  34. Lucia,

    LOL, exactly. It’s uncomfortable.
    Although oddly I feel more comfortable now that we (and Israel) hit them. It’s going to take them some time to recover, probably more from Israeli strikes than from our attacks.

  35. Mark
    Do Iran’s proxies want to do anything? For that matter, who are they right now? I don’t think Hezbollah or Hamas can do much.

    I’m not comfortable or happy with us suddenly bombing the bejessus out of a country with whom we are not at war. I don’t like Iran– but that doesn’t mean I’m happy just bombing people.

    But my bigger concern is what’s going to happen now? At a minimum the next few months are unstable.

  36. I mean… is Russia now going to go to war with us? If so, bottles of Champagne should be popping in Kiev.

  37. The Ayatollah is likely primarily interested in domestic matters. He just led the nation into a war with Israel and managed to get the US to bomb them. He needs to thread the needle of looking strong to his public while also not decimating his own country through foolish actions.

    The US has shown the will to take out the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan and he doesn’t really want to be next on that list by poking the bear. The smart play is absorb the hit, stay in power, and keep running to a nuclear bomb.

  38. No, I was referring to Syria, Houthis, and so on. Russia’s not going to war with us I’m sure.
    We differ there somewhat. I am happy that we bombed (and I sincerely hope we bombed the holy hell out of) three of Iran’s nuclear sites. In all the parallel quantum branch universes maybe there are few where Iran having nukes is a good thing. I’d wager not many though. I think the entire world is safer tonight than we were last night, honestly.

  39. Russia is busy in Ukraine. If they couldn’t even give Iran new air defense then they aren’t that interested. There isn’t a natural alignment between Putin and Islamic fundamentalists. Russia has had plenty of their own Islamic terror issues.

    A series of escalations and miscalculations is always possible but low probability. It would even be lower if we didn’t attack Iran though.

  40. I agree Iran having nukes is not a good thing.

    I think the world is likely safer if we really got all their nukes. Did we? We’ll know better in a few weeks.

    Also, it’s safer if others don’t jump in to support them. I doubt Russia will. As you said, busy in Ukraine. Plus… well… war with us would mean they’d like end up giving up Ukraine!

    China? I’m not really seeing that either. But I’m not great at predicting things.

    And regardless…. I really can’t get enthusiastic about just bombing people. That said, I’m also not enthusiastic about the idea that you just negotiate forever, and ever, and ever.

  41. I agree with mark that the world is probably safer now than a few hours ago. I say “probably” to allow for the possibility that the destruction may not have been sufficient.

  43. Well… checking out X. I’m sure I’ll see news– both real and fake.
    Are islamists swarming NYT subway stations? Dunno.

  45. Looks like Trump (we) struck Iran.
    –
    Carter should have done it 30 [whatever] years ago.
    You Americans have long memories too.

  46. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., called Trump’s decision to strike Iran without authorization from Congress “absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.”

    “President Trump misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East,” Jeffries said in a statement.

    Ha ha. It could all go sideways of course but usually you wait a little while before the partisan hackery lest it look like you are disrespecting the military.

  47. Fox News is reporting that they dropped the bunker busters down air shafts at Fordow.

  48. Hannity says 6 MOP’s on Fordow and 30 Tomahawks fired from submarines. As we all know Hannity is an acclaimed military expert but it wouldn’t surprise me if Trump told him.

    I see from quotes Trump is being his usual restrained self in his speech. Sorry, but I can’t make myself watch Trump speak.

  49. Lucia: “I agree Iran having nukes is not a good thing.

    I think the world is likely safer if we really got all their nukes. Did we? We’ll know better in a few weeks. ”

    I agree that Iran having nukes is a very bad thing. However, I doubt very much that this will stop Iran (and their allies) from getting nukes. Almost certainly much of the equipment in Fordow has been moved. Moreover, with AI it is much easier for Iran and its allies to manufacture bombs.

    Unfortunately, we can look forward to numerous terrorist attacks in the US and on American citizens abroad.

    About 1500 years ago there was a saying that the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the church. Almost certainly the number of Muslims supporting terrorism and attacks on Americans will experience huge growth.

  50. jdohio wrote: “Almost certainly much of the equipment in Fordow has been moved.”

    I very much doubt that. Moving thousands of centrifuges would be a huge job. They would have to disconnect all the gas tight plumbing and each centrifuge would have to very carefully packed. And I doubt they could have loaded up all the trucks in secret. So the Israeli’s would have just said “thank you very much” and taken out the trucks.

  51. Mike M: “I very much doubt that. Moving thousands of centrifuges would be a huge job. ”

    I obviously don’t know, but whatever could be done to protect the centrifuges and other equipment has been worked on feverishly. Also, unless there are boots on the ground how would we really know whether the nuclear capability has been wiped out. With huge military lies being normal since the Vietnam war, there is every reason to believe that any initial claims are at best guesses and could very easily be lies.

  52. jdohio,

    Yes, it is hard for us civilians to know how thorough the destruction was. I can believe that the people who blow things up for a living could have a pretty good idea of the result. I can also believe that they could lie about it.

  53. Here is what Grok said:

    I can’t give a precise percentage on the chances that the bunker bombs used by the U.S. in the reported June 21, 2025, strikes destroyed Iran’s nuclear capabilities at Fordow, as the outcome depends on classified military details, the facility’s exact fortifications, and post-strike assessments that aren’t fully public. However, I can break down the key factors based on available information to give you a grounded sense of the likelihood.
    Key Factors Affecting Success:
    Fordow’s Fortifications: Fordow is Iran’s most hardened nuclear site, buried 80–90 meters (260–300 feet) under a mountain, designed to withstand conventional attacks. Its depth and reinforced concrete make it uniquely resistant, with some experts suggesting only multiple, perfectly executed strikes could cause significant damage.

    GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP): The U.S. used the GBU-57, a 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bomb, dropped by B-2 stealth bombers. This bomb can penetrate about 200 feet (61 meters) of earth or 25 feet of high-strength concrete, but Fordow’s depth and mountain cover likely require multiple bombs hitting the same spot sequentially to reach critical infrastructure. Reports indicate six B-2s dropped a dozen GBU-57s on Fordow, which suggests a serious attempt to maximize damage.

    Pre-Strike Doubts: Before the attack, Pentagon officials debated the GBU-57’s effectiveness against Fordow. Some argued it might only collapse tunnels or bury the facility under rubble, not destroy the centrifuges or enriched uranium stockpiles deep inside. Others believed multiple strikes could work, and a White House official later claimed confidence in the bombs’ efficacy. This split suggests uncertainty about complete destruction

    Post-Strike Claims:
    U.S. Claims: President Trump announced the strikes were a “spectacular military success,” claiming Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan were “completely and totally obliterated.” However, these claims lack independent verification, and political rhetoric often exaggerates outcomes.

    Iranian Response: Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization acknowledged an attack on Fordow but insisted its nuclear program would continue, suggesting the facility wasn’t fully destroyed. An X post citing Iranian sources claimed only surface-level access points were hit, with no deep penetration or cascade collapse, though this is unverified and could be propaganda.

    IAEA and Neutral Sources: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) hasn’t reported definitive damage assessments for Fordow post-June 21, 2025. Earlier, it noted no damage to Fordow from Israeli strikes. Without fresh IAEA data, it’s unclear how much functional damage was done.

    Technical Challenges: Even with multiple GBU-57s, success hinges on precise delivery, overcoming potential GPS jamming, and ensuring bombs detonate at the right depth. Fordow’s layout, with possible hidden tunnels, adds complexity. A former DTRA official noted the GBU-57 isn’t a “one and done” solution, and rebuilding could be relatively quick if core systems survive.

    What “Destroyed” Means: “Destroying nuclear capabilities” could mean different things: rendering centrifuges inoperable, dispersing enriched uranium, or merely delaying operations by damaging access points. Completely eliminating Fordow’s capabilities likely requires sustained damage to its underground centrifuge halls and uranium stockpiles, which is harder than sealing tunnels.

    Likelihood Assessment:
    High Chance of Some Damage: The use of a dozen GBU-57s by six B-2s suggests significant effort, likely causing at least surface-level damage, tunnel collapses, or disruption to access points. This could delay operations and impair functionality temporarily.

    Moderate Chance of Critical Damage: Multiple bombs increase the odds of reaching deeper infrastructure, but Fordow’s extreme fortification and pre-strike Pentagon skepticism lower confidence in fully destroying centrifuges or uranium stockpiles. If the strikes hit precisely and sequentially, critical damage is plausible, but not guaranteed.

    Low Chance of Total Destruction: Completely eliminating Fordow’s nuclear capabilities—making it unusable for years—seems unlikely based on its design, the GBU-57’s limitations, and Iran’s claim of continuity. Even successful strikes might only set back the program, as Iran could repair or rebuild.

    Why Exact Chances Are Hard to Pinpoint:
    Lack of Verified Data: No public imagery or IAEA report confirms the extent of damage.

    Classified Variables: Bomb performance, Fordow’s exact layout, and uranium stockpile locations are closely guarded secrets.

    Competing Narratives: U.S. claims of total success clash with Iranian assertions of minimal impact, and both have incentives to distort.

    Bottom Line: The strikes likely caused significant disruption to Fordow, with a moderate chance of damaging critical nuclear infrastructure, but total destruction of Iran’s nuclear capabilities there is doubtful given the facility’s resilience and conflicting reports. Without independent assessments, I’d estimate a 60–70% chance of meaningful damage (delaying the program) but only a 20–30% chance of fully neutralizing Fordow’s nuclear potential. For updates, keep an eye on IAEA reports or credible leaks from defense sources.
    If you want me to dig deeper into any aspect—like the GBU-57’s specs or Iran’s potential to rebuild—let me know!

  55. MikeM :Of course, that is all grok can do.. but it raises very serious issues as to whether the bombing will be effective. There are something like 5 or 10 ways, that the bombing can go sideways. I really doubt there is any way to verify any potential destruction of nuclear capability unless there are boots on the ground.

  56. The more important thing is where the already enriched uranium is, allegedly enough for about 10 bombs. I doubt anybody knows today, even Mossad. That’s about 800 lbs @ 60% enriched. It needs to go to 90% but the IEC apparently found some enriched to 83% last year and Iran won’t say how that happened. Taking that out would really set the program back.

    Certainly if all the enrichment equipment was destroyed then that will slow things down, potentially years. Does it matter if a motivated Iran detonates a bomb in 5 years instead of 2 years? Meh.

    Does it help to motivate Iran to drop the program? Probably, but it can work in the other direction as well. You generally don’t bomb countries that have nuclear ICBM’s.

    We will not know if this was materially effective for a while. Perhaps Iran will shows us soon if it survived, but otherwise it will probably be withheld. Politically effective? Iran dropping the program seems less than 25% IMO. Capitulation under duress isn’t really in the Islamic fundamentalist playbook, Hamas doesn’t care if you destroy all of Gaza.

    Was this risk worth it for the lowish chance that it might pay off? A close call. If it does work then it could lend credibility to future threats to nuclear wannabees.

    Time will tell.

  57. Mike M.
    “Fox News is reporting that they dropped the bunker busters down air shafts at Fordow.”
    –
    Not having a go at Mike M, only Fox News.
    Let’s get rid of the fake/ faux/ Fox News first.
    1. This is not Star Wars and destroying the Death Star,
    Nor the Dam busters.
    Giant bombs capable of destruction 200 to 300 feet deep, or more, are designed to destroy deeply buried targets without any such entry points .
    Whether they exist or not is moot, entry points and Tom Cruise were not needed.
    Great headline, utterly fake.
    Air shafts are needed for underground tunnels and structures. They do not need to be and would not be the size that would allow an 11,000 pound bomb in. They would work with much smaller non vertical pipes with input and exhaust fans to boost input and output when needed.
    Fake news.
    –

  58. I hope we or the Israelis found a way to destroy Iran’s drone factories while we were at it the better to lighten Ukraine’s load.

  59. Iranian officials say the Fordow site was evacuated before the bombing, and there was only minor damage. The first is likely, the second much less likely.

    What I do not understand: How can Iran claim their enrichment to over 60% U235 is for “peaceful purposes”? The claim is absurd on its face. The IAEA found some material at 83%, before Iran blocked their access. That is already weapons grade (although not as efficient as 90%).

    I was mistaken: Israel has not (so far) targeted Iran’s mullahs who control the country. That leaves the door open for a negotiated end of the Iranian nuclear program and an end to bombing. Will the mullahs ever do that? I doubt it; so bombing will likely continue.

    Hegseth and Gen. Caine will have a press conference this morning; that may be more informative than Trump’s announcement was.

  60. John Ferguson,
    The Israelis for sure have targeted ballistic missile and drone production facilities.

  61. Maybe I am a buffoon who fell for a US military sleight-of-hand. Fox News is reporting the following:
    “President Trump sent MULTIPLE decoy bombers west out of the US, while the B-2s that ultimately dropped the bunker busters went East, undetected.”
    The scuttlebutt is that those B2 bombers and their entourage that I followed from Whiteman Air Force Base that flew West across the country was a decoy and the actual bombing sorti left Whiteman in stealth mode and flew east.

  62. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force General Dan Caine will hold an on-camera press briefing in the Pentagon Press Briefing Room on June 22, 2025, at 8 a.m. EDT.

  63. jdohio
    JUNE 21, 2025 AT 9:17 PM
    Here is what Grok said:
    “I can’t give a precise percentage on the chances that the bunker bombs used by the U.S. in the reported June 21, 2025, strikes destroyed Iran’s nuclear capabilities at Fordow”
    –
    Sigh.
    AI is so………artificial.
    We have a facility buried in a mountain with thousands of centrifuges with three known entry exit sites drilled into the mountain.
    Supplied by electricity lines from nearby power stations
    Entrances large enough to drive trucks through.
    The whole world knows where they are and what they look like inside with their runoff blast tunnels.
    Sole strength?
    Hard to get at.
    Weaknesses?
    Hard to get out of.
    Only a couple of ways to get water and electricity in, both using pipes, both vital .
    Now if 200 yards of tunnel at all 3 entrances is collapsed and buried and blocked by the bombs that collapse the mountain (and its air shafts), no one is getting in or out with normal machinery for years.
    If they ever got in the centrifuge equipment and water and electricity connections would be damaged and unusable.
    Not to mention that the material would be so mixed up it would need to be repurified.
    It is 100% likelihood that the capabilities at Fornow have been destroyed in both the conventional and unconventional understanding of what “destroyed” should mean and 100% should mean.
    Why should we bother considering opinions that could not predict a horse race or a stock price without caveats all the way down?

  64. Russell,
    suppose the eastbound B2s were already in the middle east. They would get to the party a whole lot sooner than the westbound flights from Whiteman.

    Surprise?

  65. angech,

    I think the bigger issue is that efforts to repair/re-open the enrichment facilities will invite new bombing (as well as continued destruction of air defenses and other military assets). Major construction work is not practical when you are facing continued bombing.

    Iran needs a face-saving off-ramp to end their weapons program. Something like allowing enrichment at a single above-ground facility to not more than 6% U235 (for civilian power reactors), and combined with continuous IAEA presence at all nuclear related sites (enrichment, spent reactor fuel disposal, etc).

    But since the fundamental goal of the regime is destruction of Israel, abandoning their weapons program, even with a face-saving agreement, may not be acceptable to the mullahs. At which point only regime change offers a possible solution….. one with no guarantees a similar regime will not replace the mullahs.

    The Middle East has been a mess my entire lifetime. So long as Muslim countries in the region refuse to accept the existence of Israel, the mess will not get cleaned up.

  66. John,
    In hindsight, I should have been suspicious about all the fanfare and lack of stealth.

  67. Hegseth should spend a lot more time providing information, and a lot less time kissing Trump’s back-side….. it was just embarrassing.

  68. SteveF,
    It gets to be a problem to those around you when you have a backside which calls out to be kissed.

  69. Tom Scharf.

    Yes, it matters if the Iranian nuke program is set back a few years. Worst case is that, as mark put it, we might need to mow the grass occasionally. As long as we do that, then eventually they will give it up and/or the Islamic Republic will fall.

  70. If we managed to detonate a 15 ton bomb within the facility, then I would think that everything in that facility has been destroyed. The downside of an underground facility is that it confines the blast.

  71. Tom,

    Was this risk worth it for the lowish chance that it might pay off? A close call.

    I don’t understand how you calculate this, what your ‘worth it’ criteria is. To calibrate, how much do you think substantially reducing the probability that Israel gets nuked for one year is ‘worth’?

    I get the sense (and I might be misunderstanding for sure) that you feel that 1. It is inevitable that Iran will eventually obtain nukes and 2. Therefore it is essentially pointless to resist this inevitability. Is this your position?

  72. I should add, up until now I assumed that you were doing the total damage / loss of life calculation. We can say something is ‘worth it’ if it causes fewer of the people we care about to die than the alternatives, or ‘not worth it’ if it causes more of them to die than the alternatives. Is that what you are saying here, that you think that this will lead to greater Israeli casualties than would have otherwise happened? Because I don’t see that at all.

  73. My final remark on this for now — we’re all going to die with probability 1. It’s absolutely inevitable. For many of us here, we’re talking a decade or two tops, less for some. How much effort and how many resources is this time ‘worth’? How much is it worth to you? How much should it be worth to me?

    These rhetorical questions I will not answer, because I don’t believe there are any good answer to these questions. My point in asking is to illuminate that these questions are probably based on a flawed premise. This whole calculus of ‘worth it’ is the wrong way to approach this problem. Life isn’t an optimization problem except in very limited context – if it were, the obvious solution would be mass extermination.

  74. Mark Bofill,
    FWIW, I don’t think it is inevitable that Iran ultimately obtains nuclear weapons. Whether that happens or not depends mainly on politics in Israel and the USA. If the president were someone like Obama for 8 years, then ‘inevitable’ may not be a bad guess. If a series of US presidents say clearly “We will never allow Iran to have nuclear weapons” then it is almost inevitable that Iran will not get nuclear weapons. Iran in a middle-income country with huge vulnerabilities….. read about their politico/economic structure if you have any doubt. The only thing that keeps the regime in power is brutal suppression of the Iranian people by the Revolutionary Guard and their civilian fellow travelers. There may be enough wild-eyed islamic crazies to keep revolution from overthrowing the dictatorship; very difficult to guess from the outside.

  75. Initial satellite images show six holes in the hills above the facility; a group of three in a roughly triangular pattern, and another three in a closely spaced line. It is difficult to estimate the size of the holes, but relative to the roadways that are close by, a guess is maybe 15-20 ft in diameter. The two groups of three can’t be much more than 100 feet across in total. All the four tunnel entrances appear to have collapsed.

  76. Satellite image of Fordow craters:
    Before:
    https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/06/iran-fordo-nuclear-01-airstrikes-106936941.jpg

    After:
    https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/06/02_after-airstrikes_overview-of-fordow-underground-complex_iran_22jun2025_ge1.jpg

    Closeup (this image is upside down relatively):
    https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/06/iran-fordo-nuclear-07-airstrikes-106936956_9c1729.jpg

    I don’t see how anyone can make an assessment from that.

  77. My “meh” assessment is based on the risk of the attack spiraling out of control with counterattacks and miscalculations and a regional war breaking out (… unintended consequences …) versus the lowish probability that this will substantially block or significantly delay (a decade?) a motivated Iran to finish the job of nuclear warheads. This is purely a judgment call of future events that has to be made with great uncertainty.

    My view is that military engagements should have > meh probability of overall success before doing them. I can be wrong and it all may work out great, I certainly hope so.

    There was also a risk of incompetent execution (see Jimmy Carter) which we are thankfully past now.

    I would add that the US appears to have executed this attack very competently, good job. The effect of MOP’s on a mountain installation is a guessing game.

  78. Tom Scharf,

    Agree, no way to estimate how effective the bombs were.

    One puzzle: The support building (white roof) looks untouched.

  79. Tom,

    … versus the lowish probability that this will substantially block or significantly delay (a decade?) a motivated Iran to finish the job of nuclear warheads. This is purely a judgment call of future events that has to be made with great uncertainty.

    My view is that military engagements should have > meh probability of overall success before doing them…

    I couldn’t disagree with you more. But I guess there’s nothing more to say on that subject.
    Shrug.

  81. Yes, I don’t know why both Israel and the US left the support facility untouched. It allegedly has HVAC for the complex. Perhaps they want to keep the air moving if a commando raid was planned, or maybe they just thought it was easily replaced.

  82. The Pentagon slide for Operation Midnight Hammer
    https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/ed8967d87c4e9d8a0d619c27bb8fb5f2

    The description of the attack by the Pentagon after Hegseth’s “Trump is super awesome” opening:
    https://youtu.be/t11MJCEAO98?t=342

    Looks like two MOP’s were dropped on the other underground nuclear site at Natanz. If 12 MOP’s were dropped on Fordow then I only count 6 holes. Maybe each plane had two go down the same hole?

    The US continues to be the world leader in this type of operation. Seven B-2’s and 14 MOP’s indicates a best effort at doing this conventionally. This was launched from the US, aerial refueling, fighter cover. It’s a lot of planning and there was definitely risk here.

  83. Angech “AI is so………artificial”

    Agree 100%. However the only rational position to take now is that both sides are lying. It is a good place to start and identify issues that need to be taken care of and looked at very closely.

  84. JD Ohio
    “ However the only rational position to take now is that both sides are lying. It is a good place to start “
    –
    *****
    Succint .
    –
    I thought the whole point of a Nuclear non proliferation pact was to keep countries like Iran, Israel, Ukraine and North Korea from developing extra potential to blow the world up.
    –
    Technology, time and terrorism will ensure that in time some threats will come to fruition.
    –
    Very happy that one less very credible threat now exists for the time being

  85. Angech: “Very happy that one less very credible threat now exists for the time being”

    I don’t know if there is in fact one less credible threat. It may be but no one knows right now whether the strike was really effective. More importantly, the strike undoubtedly spreads the scope of the Israeli / Iranian war to chemical weapons and drones. Also, increased terrorist strikes in the United States.

    Further, someone upthread stated that if the strikes delayed a nuclear bomb for 5 years, that is a good thing. In a narrow sense, that is a good thing. However, the bigger picture is that if these bombings put the United States in the middle of military conflict to prevent nuclear weapons, we are basically in a forever war.

    The big tactical mistake is to think that the war can be won in a classic military sense. The Muslims hate the Jews, the United States and the West generally. This military strike only in flames the passion even more and will create more allies for the Iranians among the Islamic world.

    . There are about 5 million Israelis and maybe half a billion Muslims in the Middle East. There is no way that in the long term Israel can defeat the Muslims. There has to be some recognition that over time the military solution will be an abject failure and there has to be a political solution to military responses.

  86. “Seven B-2’s and 14 MOP’s indicates a best effort at doing this conventionally.”

    For sure. There were obviously 6 dropped at the Fordow site. That means a bunch (8?) were dropped elsewhere.

    It will be interesting to see how the propaganda is presented over the next few days.

  87. Hi Lucia,

    I made a comment about 4 hours ago that almost surely was unexceptional and it was under moderation and deleted. Could you repost it.

  88. If the USAF can drop two in exactly the same hole, then bunkers for terrorists need to be a lot deeper…. just sayin’.

    My guess: 6 shots at Fordow, all very close to target (eg +/- 10 meters).

    No telling what happened 300 ft below. OTOH, I am pleased I was not there to document the effect.

  89. Gentle suggestion: it would be wise for Iran to swear off enrichment over 6 % U235.

    My guess: They won’t. Clearly many, many mullahs are willing to die over this. I predict great stress in heaven to have enough virgins to accommodate the resulting arrivals.

  90. Perhaps the two MOP’s in a B-2 can be setup with a “follow the leader” configuration so they go down the same hole.

    There is also only one hole in the other site which allegedly had two MOP’s.

  91. According to Grok there are nearly 3,000 centrifuges arranged in cascades to separate out the small amount of Uranium 235 from Uranium 238. I realize I am no expert here but it doesn’t seem hugely difficult to recover some of the centrifuges following the blast and to build new ones at scattered places. Apparently Iran has some enriched Uranium near bomb grade (83%) and what remains to build a new bomb is not that much.

    Additionally, almost certainly the enriched Uranium was moved out of Fordow. Finally from Iran’s strategic view it only needs 1 or 2 bombs to achieve its objective, so building new centrifuges (or obtaining them from allies) shouldn’t be a hugely difficult task.

  92. There are about 3,000 centrifuges at Fordow. In November they announced plans to install 6,000 more. They have had 10,000 running at a time at some point. They manufacture their own centrifuges and have some number in storage as spares.
    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/29/iran-plans-to-install-6000-centrifuges-to-enrich-uranium-iaea-says

    https://www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/weapon-program-background-report/irans-centrifuges-models-status

    I don’t think there is a will to take continuous military action against this program. We shall see. Israel may yet have some tricks up their sleeve.

  93. Put your Tesla to work program
    Elon Musk announced the initiation of long awaited robotaxi service in Austin, Texas where Tesla owners can join into an app program and send their car out to work as a robotaxi when they don’t need it:
    “Elon Musk says Tesla’s fleet will be part Uber, part Airbnb.
    Tesla owners can easily add their vehicles to the autonomous fleet through the app when not using them.
    They’ll earn money—often more than their monthly payment, while Tesla takes a small cut”
    from Grok:
    https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_d78ef6bd-524f-400f-8080-925f6349fb6c

  94. Lots of chatter that Iran removed the enriched uranium before the strike:
    “NYT reports that it is growing evidence that the Iranians, before the US attacks, had removed “400 kilograms, or roughly 880 pounds, of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity”.
    “Rafael Mariano Grossi of the International Atomic Energy Agency said he believed Tehran’s stockpile of near-bomb-grade nuclear material had been moved before the strikes.”
    I asked Grok:
    Could this stuff be used to make a dirty bomb?
    answer yes
    I also asked :
    How heavy a parcel would be needed to conceal a dirty bomb?
    Answer
    Minimal: A small dirty bomb with 1 kg of radioactive material, 1 kg of explosives, minimal shielding (5 kg), and a light container (5 kg) could weigh ~12 kg, concealable in a backpack or small parcel.
    Realistic: A more practical device with 5 kg of radioactive material, 3 kg of explosives, 20 kg of shielding, and a sturdy container (10 kg) might weigh ~38 kg, fitting in a large suitcase or shipping crate.

    If all this is true Iran has enough material to make 80 suitcase size dirty bombs.
    Now that makes me nervous.
    https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_383dd43e-6604-4649-a0a6-efc9c58580e8

  95. Another bomb?
    Unverified report that Harvard is going to capitulate!
    Seems that the strike on Iran has made them realise Trump is not a TACO after all.
    –
    Give it a week, if it works and even the polls might change.

  96. angech,

    More likely Harvard and the Trump administration will negotiate a deal where Harvard stops their blatant discrimination in hiring and admissions (which the Supreme Court told them to do two years ago), and agrees to punish students for unlawful behavior, including abuse of jewish students, while the government restores research funding.

    The reason I think it will turn out this way is because Harvard knows they will likely lose when their lawsuits reach the Supreme Court. After all, Harvard has refused to comply with a clear Supreme Court decision (in fact, their racial discrimination has only become more blatant since they were ordered to stop discriminating) and the justices are probably more than a little unhappy about that. If that happens, many researchers will be forced to leave Harvard and go where they can get Federal funding.

  97. Russell,

    Uranium is not radioactive enough to make an effective dirty bomb. You want spent fuel from a reactor to make a dirty bomb.

  98. It would not surprise me if Saturday’s attack destroyed all the centrifuges at the target sites. They spin at enormous speeds, so they need to be manufactured to exquisite tolerances. So I think it likely that any damage ruins them.

    Sure, they can build more. But it took a quarter century to accumulate what they had. It will take years to even partially replace them.

    They may well have spread their enriched Uranium around to many sites to ensure that some survived. Without centrifuges, that is not much use. But it will give then a head start if they decide to rebuild.

  99. Mike,
    What sort of containment vessel do you use for 60% uranium?
    Can it be sensed remotely, like by satellites?

  100. Russell,

    In terms of radiation shielding, a cardboard box would do a pretty good job. But if storing the metal, some sort of fireproof container would be prudent. I don’t see how it could be detected remotely.

    That would be for small quantities. You don’t want anything close to a critical mass in one place.

  101. Mike,

    Sure, they can build more. But it took a quarter century to accumulate what they had. It will take years to even partially replace them.

    The argument ‘this will just be a setback for Iran’ can be applied to absolutely every military objective imaginable. It’s a silly argument. There is nothing I can think of that one nation can destroy that another nation cannot rebuild.
    So. What.
    It’s just posery hosery, it’s not IMO a legitimate argument. Yes, when nations go to war, the will of the nations involved to endure and rebuild matters a lot. We’ve all watched Ukraine endure, we get this. It doesn’t mean Russia can’t possibly prevail, not by a long shot.

  102. This all assumes Iran wasn’t secretly enriching uranium to weapons grade levels all along. They got caught with 83% enrichment levels at Fordow:
    “Iran’s Position: Iran has stated that any high enrichment levels found were due to “unintended fluctuations” and that discussions with the IAEA were ongoing to clarify the matter.”

    The enriched uranium should be stored in shielded containers that I believe wouldn’t normally be detectable from a far distance. The containers are apparently undetectable from space but an enrichment plant might be detectable from a distance because of dust getting out.

    The removal of enriched uranium from Fordow is also an opportunity to get at it if anyone knew where it was. Enquiring minds are no doubt enquiring.

  103. WSJ: “Iran is moving missile launchers into place for a potential attack on U.S. forces in the Middle East in response to the surprise American strike on three nuclear sites over the weekend, according to U.S. officials.”

    This is a bit of a quandary. These may be liquid fueled systems in eastern Iran that can’t hit Israel but can hit local US bases.

    We can see them doing this and have the ability to take them out with our forces … should we do that? Or should we sit by and watch, absorb the hit, then retaliate?

    This is how you get sucked in. They will probably sit and watch.

  104. The White House says that Trump insisted on being sure the attack would work. They also say that before ordering the attack, they war gamed all plausible Iranian responses and how they would deal with them. I find both claims entirely believable because I am confident that Trump, unlike Bush, is determined not to get sucked into something we can’t get out of.

    So how will the US respond to Iran relocating missile launchers? I don’t know, but the decision was made last week, if not earlier.

  106. Mike M,
    Iran gets a vote in how things proceed. They can choose to escalate at their own peril, but that is their choice and they are fanatical in some ways.

    It’s relevant whether your military actions stand a good chance of accomplishing the stated objectives versus the risk of taking the military action. This is a probability judgment.

    Only a fool would tell Trump they were “sure” this attack would work … and end Iran’s nuclear ambitions … or destroy Fordow … or eliminate the enriched Uranium … or not cause Iran to close the straits of Hormuz .. or not send 500 ballistic missiles into a US base at Qatar … or trigger terrorist sleeper cells in the USA … or get B-2’s shot down with an advanced secret Russian air defense system, etc.

    It may very well have been the right call but history will judge that on the future results not the crystal ball readings of war planners. If somebody is “sure” it is going to work then defining what work means is important.

    I would say it is very likely Iran will not significantly escalate the war because of self preservation and unlikely this will stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions because of their political ideology.

    I would also bet the same war planners would assess it was very likely Hamas would not send a horde of barbarians across the border to murder Israeli civilians because of the anticipated response.

    YMMV.

  107. Tom,

    It’s relevant whether your military actions stand a good chance of accomplishing the stated objectives versus the risk of taking the military action. This is a probability judgment.

    Only a fool would tell Trump they were “sure” this attack would work … and end Iran’s nuclear ambitions

    Indeed, only a fool would tell Trump that this strike would end Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Did some fool tell Trump that this strike would end Iran’s nuclear ambitions? Who claims that was that the ‘stated aim’ of this single strike?

    If you can’t win a fight at one blow, it doesn’t mean you can’t win the fight.

  108. It is not a wiffle ball world, nor is this world a fairy tale where we can be sure the good guys will prevail in the end. There is no formulaic approach or methodology that guarantees success. Strikes and fighting are fraught with risks. So is sending the mullahs planeloads of cash. So is diplomacy. So is doing nothing.

    The U.S. appears to have just pulled off a hell of a fine operation that likely set the Iranian nuclear program back a good ways. Is there certainty of this? Heck no. The odds are a lot better after that strike that Iran has been set back than they were before, I don’t see how anyone can dispute that. May we have to act again? Assuredly. Life and war is like that. It doesn’t mean that wars aren’t worth fighting. Unless one adheres to the Obama Biden school of military and geopolitical strategy I suppose.

  109. Tom Scharf wrote: “Only a fool would tell Trump …”

    Fortunately, Trump has not surrounded himself with fools. Unlike some of his predecessors.

    Only a fool would advise against a needed action because Iran might get mad or they might have a secret super weapon. The possible Iranian responses are all contingencies that can be planned for.

    Responsible tacticians don’t just wring their hands over the possibility that Iran might fire missiles at US bases or try to close the Straight of Hormuz. They assess Iran’s capabilities and possible countermeasures and form a plan for each contingency. If they conclude “we can’t stop THAT”, then there would be a reason for not taking an action which might trigger THAT.

    It seems that we have moved a whole lot of naval firepower into striking distance of Iran. I am pretty sure that has a purpose other than mere saber rattling.

    Does that mean that nothing bad can happen? Of course not. It is always possible that the planners misjudge things. But it won’t be as bad as the Ayatollah getting nukes.

  110. Mike,

    But it won’t be as bad as the Ayatollah getting nukes.

    I second that. I’d like to know what better idea is held by those who argue the strikes were a mistake. What’s their solution?
    Because if the name of the game is that only people who propose a specific plan get grilled, the net result will be no specific plan [would ever] be implemented, and there’s no reason to think that’d be a better outcome.

  111. mark,

    Yep. Increasingly the naysayers rule. That does not bode well for our society.

    OTOH, given the history of our “experts” in this century, I have some sympathy for those who have no faith in the experts. But I see Trump as being on the side of those who are skeptical of the self appointed experts. So I trust him in a way that I would trust very few other politicians (DeSantis, Vance, and that might be it).

    Addition: Rubio is working to earn a place on that short list.

  112. Iran trying to close the Straight of Hormuz would mean most every country in the world would be furious with them and many could react in unpleasant ways.

    Could they try? Sure, since they are ruled by religious fanatics. Would they succeed? I very much doubt it; the USA would sink their ships and pound their military assets. Would it be worth it to Iran? Absolutely not.

  113. Hey, one more thing.
    I don’t disagree at all that the decision makers ought to have the best possible evaluation inputs on probability of success for operations. I disagreed with this:

    My view is that military engagements should have > meh probability of overall success before doing them.

    Sometimes we fight even though we’re likely to fail because a small chance of success is better (cost benefit wise) than none. Sometimes we fight for more complicated reasons. That’d be up to the commanders and the Commander in Chief though. I certainly don’t think the motto of our Armed Forces oughta be ‘We only fight fights we’re sure we can win’.

  114. Mike M,

    The most common problem with ‘experts’ is that they always present themselves as ‘honest brokers’ but are in fact almost always completely dishonest brokers: their expert advice inevitably alines with their desired political outcomes.

  115. I have a fun job this week, I’m playing chauffeur for surfing camp. My older granddaughter is a counselor, but the younger one is still a camper. If anyone had told me when I was growing up in Pittsburgh that there was such a thing as surfing camp and it was populated with teenage girls. I would’ve run away from home then and there.
    Photos;
    https://x.com/rklier21/status/1937229849845989604?s=61

  116. “because I am confident that Trump, unlike Bush, is determined not to get sucked into something we can’t get out of.”

    “It seems that we have moved a whole lot of naval firepower into striking distance of Iran. I am pretty sure that has a purpose other than mere saber rattling.”

    This is how getting sucked into something happens.

    We have had a successions of Administrations including a previously completed one by Donald Trump that assessed this type of strike wasn’t worth it. Something changed. Iran is close to a bomb and it has been weakened by Israel. Now or never. Taking out centrifuges before Iran had 800 lbs of enriched uranium made sense for this goal.

    If Fordow and the enriched uranium survived then hardly anything was materially accomplished. Iran isn’t saying much. Perhaps they can monitor the HVAC activity or something and see if things changed.

  121. mark bofill,
    “I so hope Mamdani is elected Mayor of New York City.”

    The guy is a lunatic, and if elected will harm a lot of people, including kids who attend ever worse schools. Cuomo is no box of chocolates, but would never do the kind of damage to the city that a committed socialist would do. I hope Cuomo wins.

    Blazio did a lot of damage, Mamdani is much worse.

  122. Steve,

    The common people know what they want, and they deserve to get it. It’s just the theory of Democracy.

    No?

    [Edit: I wouldn’t live in such a place to begin with. If I woke up and mysteriously found myself living there, I’d leave promptly.]

    [Edit2: How about justice? It’s the theory of justice and maybe a little of the wrath of God.]

  123. Tom

    Looks like Iran has done a mostly symbolic attack on the Qatar base.

    Well, that was predictable. And I’m sure it was a predicted consequence when we bombed Iran. I’m sure any necessary preparations were made and in place.

    We remain in an unstable period. But perhaps less unstable than I feared earlier.

  125. That is a very strange video. What are all the slow moving lights? What are the flashes? I can conclude nothing.

  126. All the planes were gone, Qatar was notified prior to the assault, and apparently so was the US. Similar to what happened after Iran’s Soleimani was taken out. This is de-escalation Iran style.

    Israel is signaling it is near conclusion so this episode with Iran is probably over for now.

    Hopefully Fordow was destroyed. It’s probably all there or all gone and nobody is saying anything. What does that mean? Who knows?

  127. mark bofill,

    A tiny slice of voters will participate in the Dem primary, and the general election means nothing. So whoever is elected will be the choice of only the most devoted democrats. Sure, more voters could turn out, and probably would, if they understood how bad the guy is. Will they learn their lesson if the socialist wins? Maybe, but I hate to see that lesson learned via damage to the city and everyone who lives there.

  128. The majority we speculate that could stop the socialist could participate but chose not to. They aren’t victims without agency, they are victims of their own complacency, IMHO.

    The voters will deserve whatever happens as far as I can tell. Good luck to them.

  129. It’s kind of funny that when the left elects crazy people the right just sits back and says “watch what happens, we don’t really need to spin this very hard”.

    Chicago’s mayor now has an 80% disapproval rating in a super blue city.

    If NYC elects a Democratic Socialist then the results will speak for themselves. He won’t be fixing much in that city.

  130. It is a bit hard to believe that Mamdami could get elected mayor of NYC. It would be like the voters saying that DiBlasio wasn’t crazy enough. Which is not to say it can’t happen. After all, Chicagoans elected Johnson.

    It is possible that ranked choice voting might save NYC from that fate.

  131. A humorous excerpt from Jeffery Goldberg at The Atlantic:
    https://www.aol.com/sinwar-march-folly-100000407.html
    “The American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities happened because the country’s leaders misunderstood Trump. But to be fair to Iran’s leaders, Trump’s national-security and foreign-policy impulses have been confusing even to his own supporters. The closest I ever came to a clear understanding of his contradictory and sometimes incoherent policies was in 2018, at a lunch in the White House with one of his closest aides. We were discussing an article I had published a few years earlier in this magazine, about Barack Obama’s foreign policy, and I said that I thought it might be premature to discern a Trump equivalent. The official responded, “There’s definitely a Trump Doctrine.”

    I asked him to describe it. He said, “The Trump Doctrine is ‘We’re America, Bitch.’ That’s the Trump Doctrine.”

    The official continued, “Obama apologized to everyone for everything. He felt bad about everything.” Trump, he said, “doesn’t feel like he has to apologize for anything America does.” Another White House official explained it this way: “The president believes that we’re America, and people can take it or leave it.””

    Yep, that’s about it. Make the T-Shirt.

  134. Tom,
    I want a T-Shirt that says that!

    Lucia,
    The Palestinian Authority too huh. Crazy. Maybe everyone is washing their hands of the Iranians for now (going way out on a limb).

  135. Ceasefire? Interesting development.

    Yesterday Netanyahu said Israel’s military actions WRT Iran were nearly finished….

  136. mark bofill,

    Probably countries in the region are a lot less intimidated by Iran, and a lot more intimidated by certain other countries.

  137. “We’re America, Bitch.”

    I like it. But Goldberg’s confusion seems silly. I never thought Trump’s positions were anything other than clear, although he is deliberately opaque as to what specific actions he might take.

    What part of “Iran must never have a nuclear weapon” did Goldberg or the Mullahs not understand?

    The policies of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden were often anything but clear.

  138. According to Gemini the final step from 60% to 90% enrichment is not difficult:

    “The Principle of Diminishing Effort
    A key concept in uranium enrichment is that the majority of the effort is expended in the initial stages. Enriching natural uranium (0.7% U-235) to reactor-grade (3-5% U-235) requires a massive amount of work. To then enrich that to 60% U-235 takes significantly more effort. However, to go from 60% to 90% (weapons-grade) requires comparatively little additional work.

    Think of it as climbing a progressively less steep hill:

    The climb from 0.7% to 20% enrichment constitutes roughly 90% of the total effort needed to reach weapons-grade.
    The final step from 60% to 90% is a short and rapid final ascent.

    …

    Based on public assessments by nuclear experts and international bodies monitoring state nuclear programs, the timeline for a nation with an established and operational enrichment facility to enrich a sufficient quantity of uranium from 60% to 90% is estimated to be on the order of a few weeks, and in some scenarios, it could be as short as a matter of days.”

  139. Tom Scharf,
    Suppose a centrifuge stage has an enrichment factor, say 1.01, with the output being 1.01 richer in U235. So to go from 0.7% to 90% it would take about X steps, where

    1.01^X = 90/0.007

    and X = 9000 steps

    But it is much more difficult than that, because the U238 enriched stream (the U235 depleated stream) has to go backward to the preceding stage(s). Without backfeed, you would have to throw away about half of the uranium at each step…… so not practical. Backfeeding makes the separation gradient much less steep, but allows nearly all the U235 in the feed to be recovered…. but only with huge effort.

  141. There’s ‘bonus points’ for never letting Iran develop a single solitary operational nuke to begin with, but there is still value in doing what’s possible to oppose their program regardless. If they have enough material and knowledge for a handful of gun type bombs, it’s still worthwhile to see they don’t refine enough material and develop enough expertise to build a boatload of implosion types.
    It’s not a binary thing. It can be better or worse depending on their capability.

  142. But once a country has a few operational nukes, its limits what one can do to impede their progress.

  143. I think this is a different way of saying what SteveF said.

    Say I want 1 kg of U-235 in highly enriched form.

    Starting from natural uranium, I would need to process about 150 kg of starting material.

    Starting from 3% enriched uranium, I would need to process about 30 kg of starting material.

    Starting from 20% enriched uranium, I would need to process about 5 kg of starting material.

    Starting from 60% enriched uranium, I would need to process about 1.7 kg of starting material.

  144. mark bofill,

    Unless the enriched material is above 80% U235, a gun-type takes a lot of enriched material. Even with that level of enrichment, a gun type bomb presents a significant risk of a fizzle since the uranium is constantly generating neutrons at a low rate. Surrounding the uranium with a neutron reflector (to boost explosive yield) increases the risk of a fizzle, since the reflector effectively increases the net flux rate of neutrons (they get reflected back through the uranium instead of being lost). The speed of the “bullet” (probably under 1000 meters per second) is just not high enough to have certainty the mass will be fully assembled before a neutron starts the chain reaction. The entire fission process is so fast (well under a microsecond) that starting fission before complete assembly presents a significant risk of very low yield.

  145. Thanks Steve.

    Mike, true. It’s just frustrating to me that people take the attitude that since Iran has already accomplished (fill in where ever they are currently) it is futile to oppose their nuclear program and we might as well not.

    That sort of thinking is how Iran got to where they are today. [Well, to where they were last week maybe]

    Hell is a bottomless pit. It potentially gets worse if we sit idle and sink deeper into it.

  146. SteveF,
    I remember from the fabled lecture that fizzles are a real problem and that sometimes boron (IIRC) was used to mask neutron interaction just before firing.

    Don’t take this to the bank, I’m trying to remember a lecture from two years ago on a subject very wide of any expertise on the subject that I might have thought I had.

  147. john ferguson,

    Yes, I expect an internal collar or plug of boron nitride or similar could be displaced (driven away) by the advancing ‘bullet’, which might make the transition time from sub-critical to critical a lot faster….. lowering the probability of a fizzle. I doubt those who actually know the details are going to explain to us. 😉

  148. The “explosion velocity” in a uranium implosion weapon is so high (eg 9 km per second) and the implosion distance so small (centimeters) that the chance for a fizzle would appear to be very low.

  149. Democratic party attempts to impeach Trump aren’t even really news anymore. Nobody cares.

  150. Are there any countries that use gun-type fission devices? Real question, but I think the answer is no.

    As I understand it, the advantage of a gun type device is that it is simpler than an implosion device and can be counted on to give a blast beyond that of a conventional bomb even if it fizzles. The disadvantages are that it is big and heavy, can’t use plutonium, and might fizzle. Once you master the technical details of an implosion device, there is no reason to go with gun-type.

  151. IMO Iran is effectively at the finish line. The detonation of a bomb is an engineering exercise. They have reportedly spent $1T and decades on this effort.

    Previous agreements with Iran allowed them to enrich at scale way beyond civilian needs. Everyone in the room knew they were developing nuclear weapons. This is an indictment of that political process that sold the world a bill of goods that Iran’s nuclear development was being controlled.

    2015: Obama announcing the Iran deal. Listen to how definitive he is, what BS. None of this happened. Iran had no intention of complying with this.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLhV3JRWKUM

    2020: Iran admits breach of nuclear deal discovered by UN inspectorate
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/18/iran-admits-breach-of-nuclear-deal-discovered-by-un-inspectorate
    “It was reported that Trump last week looked at options for striking Iran’s main nuclear site, but was dissuaded from taking action after his advisers warned it might lead to a larger conflict in the Middle East.
    …
    US officials told Trump last week that inspectors from a UN nuclear watchdog had reported on Wednesday that Iran’s stockpile of nuclear material increased significantly, and that Iran had barred their access to another site where there is evidence of prior nuclear activity.
    …
    The IAEA declared last week that Tehran’s explanations were unsatisfactory for how and why certain nuclear program-related particles were found by agency inspectors at sites where they should not have been present.”

    Trump was correct for the US to leave this agreement (the others stayed in the agreement) in term 1 as completely useless and apply “maximum pressure” because Iran was never going to comply. This type of agreement should NEVER have been made. This is the flaw, not whether circa 2025 military action was wise or not.

    In hindsight Iran was probably just delaying, delaying, delaying so they could get far enough along to make action too little, too late.

    A lot of other efforts were made, Stuxnet and other sabotage, scientist assassinations, etc. It slowed things down but Iran never stopped.

    Diplomacy, cheating, military strike. It’s all water under the bridge now. What next? That answer isn’t any easier.

  152. Mike M,
    I think you are right: all are implosion based.

    You could test the implosion lens design using tungsten or (better) depleted uranium, so it doesn’t seem like that big a technical step. I remember seeing a video of the implosion team at Los Alamos collecting (smoking- hot) metal that had been implosion tested.

  153. Tom Scharf,
    “IMO Iran is effectively at the finish line.”

    Do you mean Iran is in a position to assemble bombs with no further centrifuge enrichment work? If so, the US and the Israeli spy agencies probably disagree, based on the past two weeks of activity.

    My guess is that the Israelis have very good human intelligence in Iran (look at how many specific individuals were killed in their bedrooms!), and know what the status of the bomb program is.

  154. Iran seems to be quite adept at shaped charges according to the US’s experience in Iraq with IED’s. They would probably go with implosion.

  156. SteveF,
    It’s all speculation. Some is obfuscating a first detonation with the ability to delivery a weapon on a missile. It’s game over once the first detonation occurs, the rest is well within Iran’s capability.

    “US intelligence assessments had reached a different conclusion – not only was Iran not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, it was also up to three years away from being able to produce and deliver one to a target of its choosing”

    “Netanyahu said: “The intel we got and we shared with the United States was absolutely clear, was absolutely clear that they were working, in a secret plan to weaponize the uranium. They were marching very quickly.”

    “Tulsi Gabbard, testified in March that the US intelligence community, “continues to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized a nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.””

    Ha ha, why are they doing all this work? An academic exercise? That is crazy. It is dissembling that they aren’t there yet therefore they aren’t going there.

    My speculation is based on the discovered 83% enrichment and Iran’s history of cheating I highly suspect they have weapons grade already, but nobody knows except Iran. AFAICT they need far fewer but more sophisticated centrifuges to finish from 60% and can do it in a much smaller facility. If Israel or the US takes out the enriched stockpile it changes everything.

  157. See, it’s not game over once Iranians detonate a nuke. The problem doesn’t just go away. It just gets harder to deal with.

  158. mark bofill,
    “Democratic party attempts to impeach Trump aren’t even really news anymore. ”

    Sure, but the crazy part is that they talk about impeaching Trump over the exact same executive actions that they supported with Obama and Clinton. The Dems are quite shameless: it is all about politics to gain power, with never a shred of actual principles. Clinton can bomb Kosovo, and Obama can bomb Libya, with zero consultation with Congress, and with Dems doing nothing but cheer leading. But Trump must be impeached for bombing Iranian nuclear weapons facilities?

    Please; they may have no shame, but I almost feel embarrassed for them. Except for AOC, who is far too stupid to know anything about history…. or anything else.

  159. The implicit assumption here is that Iran will play like North Korea. That nukes mean they won’t nuke anyone except as a last resort. There is plenty of reason to doubt this.
    The stakes for Israel are probably life or death. The game doesn’t end with Iranian nukes way you slice it.

  160. mark bofill,

    “We will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.”

    Seems pretty clear cut. This is most certainly NOT N Korea.

  161. I’m sorry Steve, of course you are correct. I should have directed my comment to Tom.

  162. The Israeli side:

    Israel first operational nuclear weapon was in 1966. It (unsurprisingly) started full scale production after the Six-Day war in 1967. It reportedly has about 90 warheads and has never knowingly tested a weapon, except perhaps the “Vela Incident”.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel
    “One official said the operation was referred to as Spider because the nuclear devices were inelegant contraptions with appendages sticking out. The crude atomic bombs were readied for deployment on trucks that could race to the Egyptian border for detonation in the event Arab forces overwhelmed Israeli defenses.
    …
    The CIA believed that Israel’s first bombs may have been made with highly enriched uranium stolen in the mid-1960s from the U.S. Navy nuclear fuel plant”

  163. By “game over” I mean that any further attempts to stop Iran’s nuclear program are futile. One nuclear weapon is infinitely more than zero.

    If and when Iran has working weapons then it shifts to the same MAD in place everywhere else. If Iran used their weapons then they would suffer the nuclear consequences.

    Iran probably wants protection of their regime and the ability to spread their regional terror without domestic consequences.

    Secondary effects are going to be Saudi Arabia will want protection from Iran, etc.

    Iran / Israel having a nuclear exchange is easy to imagine.

  164. Tom Scharf wrote: “In hindsight Iran was probably just delaying, delaying, delaying so they could get far enough along to make action too little, too late.”

    Hindsight? Lots of people on the right, Trump included, said so at the time.

  165. Tom,
    It doesn’t shift to MAD once Iran detonates ONE weapon. Israel and or the US could (and might) first strike Iran off the face of the Earth. You are making assumptions that the situation will play out like other situations that don’t involve crazy Islamic fundamentalists.

  166. The ‘game ‘ is over when the US and Israel stop destroying Iran’s research and production efforts. Not before.

  167. mark is correct. A country like North Korea wants nukes so that they can threaten to use them. Iran quite likely wants nukes to use in a first strike. The two cases are very different.

    FWIW, we never should have let the Norks get nukes.

  168. Setting aside conscience and moral considerations, a first strike starts to look like the rational move. The problem is potentially igniting the Muslim world against Israel.

  169. Maybe what happens now is the effort switches to Mossad covert to monitor and sabotage, at least for a time. Maybe.

  170. Tom,
    I hope that I have not offended you. I like you and give you credit for your obvious intelligence and general knowledge, I just strongly disagree with your perspective on this, for whatever that’s worth. If I have offended I apologize for it.

  171. This debate is about whether these recent actions had the intended effect, stopping Iran’s nuclear program. I doubt it. I can’t say it enough times that they waited too long. There is nothing wrong with the goal.

    Iran asked for and agreed to a ceasefire, of course, without agreeing to stop their program.

    If the US and Israel are committed then they need to continue to destroy everything related to Iran’s nuclear adventures.

    Israel’s best option now is regime change.

    The US / Israel can say give us your enriched uranium stockpile or we take out Iran’s energy infrastructure and cause great economic harm.

    Better do it now.

    Iran may do a first strike for religious reasons. Iran may hand Hamas a dirty weapon. This is different than North Korea.

  172. Tom,

    I agree that action should have been taken sooner. But 5 or 6 years ago might have been premature. And in the interim, action was not an option, because Biden.

    But that is not really the issue. Action now was vastly preferable to continued inaction.

  173. Tom Scharf wrote: “Israel’s best option now is regime change.”

    I think that is an empty statement. What do you mean by regime change and how could it be brought about? Simply assassinating Khamenie will not change the regime.

  174. Yes, assassinating the Ayatollah. I don’t know how much public support he really has. From what I gather the expected response is the IRGC crushes any dissent and installs another religious nutjob and nothing much changes. But it rolls the dice.

  176. Mark,
    I have no problem with disagreement. I’m not convinced of my own arguments and I hope I am wrong, ha ha. It’s just the more I look into it the more I am convinced Iran is very far along and not going to turn back. They are my least favorite country to get a nuke.

  177. Fair enough. I appreciated your clarifying that ‘game over’ doesn’t mean we give up and go home in your book, waiting for Iran to nuke Israel. I honestly think that’s what it means for some people who argue that a nuclear armed Iran is inevitable.

  178. If you assassinate Khamenie, the mullahs, with the support of the Revolutionary Guard, will chose another ayatollah, just as they did when Khomenie died. The result will be the same regime with a different guy with a white beard at the top.

  179. The Israelis swiped our uranium? How quaint.

    In 1985, I found myself in charge of the design of a very large environmental test facility – 65F to +165F IIRC. As far as we knew, the Germans had done one of these in Eastern Poland but not to the standards that ours had to meet.

    The drafting was done in an open engineering office by people who didn’t know what it was and without any labels on the sheets beyond sheet numbers. That way we didn’t have to get clearances for them, which cost real money.

    One day, one of the contract employess who was working on another project walked by, looked at the drawings and said “I know what that is.”

    I suggested he keep it to himself. We went to a conference room where he revealed that he really did know what it was and that he’d worked on one that was built in Israel a few years earlier. I called DIA and they came over for a discussion with him which wasn’t all that productive because his role in the Israeli project had been at a very low level. He was advised not to discuss either their project of ours. As far as I know nothing was ever said about it. But we did find him a better job in another office.

    I called up the customer’s contract manager and suggested that we talk to the Israelis and maybe take a trip over there to see how they’d done it. The Israelis flat out denied having one of these even after being shown an aereal photograph of theirs. They wouldn’t admit they had one and of course this meant we couldn’t see it. This was elevated to a higher level in the government but the answer was the same.

    My conclusion from this was that they are great for taking, but not so much for giving, even sharing.
    Although there was an element of twitchy secrecy to both their project and ours pretty much for the same reason, there was no brotherhood where there really should have been.
    Maybe they thought we were too leaky. And gosh, at that point none of had ever Trump.

  180. NYT:
    “A preliminary classified U.S. report says the American bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites sealed off the entrances to two of the facilities but did not collapse their underground buildings, according to officials familiar with the findings.

    The early findings conclude that the strikes over the weekend set back Iran’s nuclear program by only a few months, the officials said.
    …
    The report also said much of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium was moved before the strikes, which destroyed little of the nuclear material. Some of that may have been moved to secret nuclear sites maintained by Iran.
    …
    Initial Israeli damage assessments have also raised questions of the effectiveness of the strikes. Israeli defense officials said they have also collected evidence that the underground facilities at Fordo were not destroyed.”

    The usual anonymous sources “familiar with the matter” making a bunch of assertions without evidence, and not explaining how these people would know.

    My level of trust for these type of reports from the NYT/CNN is pretty low. Some anonymous person maybe said those things but they tend to spin it for their own political advantage and their failure to say it on the record speaks for itself.

    I’d still rather the assertions were in the opposite direction.

  181. While I’m at it, it appears a few of my Fellow Democrats missed Playground 101 where you learn never to tell someone to do something nasty to himself unless you are able to make it happen. As in never tell anyone to go to H…., or go F.. yourself, or stand for impeachment.

    And I agree with SteveF above on how hyopcitical and stupid it is to call a guy out for impeachment when their own guys did the same thing. Maybe if Trump had sent 100,000 troops into Iran, it might have been better to get some sort of acquiesencs first, but for this?
    Nuts.

  182. Thanks John. Maybe there is more sanity on the left than I give it credit for.

    That said, I want to hear the ‘sensible left’ tell the likes of AOC that she is quite insane. I will not hold my breath waiting.

    Honest question: are you part of the sensible left? If so, how do you deal with the crazies? I am happy to discount the crazies on the right. Can you do that on the left?

  183. mark bofill,

    “igniting the Muslim world against Israel”

    That world has been ignited for as long as I could evaluate it. There is little Israel could do, short of self destruction, which would make a difference. The Muslim world is implacably opposed to the existence of Israel. That is the kernel of the problem. Of course, governments can (and several have) entered peace agreements with Israel. Migrating from governments accepting Israel to Islamic people accepting Israel is the long leap.

    I remain (as always) pessimistic that will happen.

  184. Steve,

    Yes. I spoke poorly- I really meant governments and not Islamic people. I meant that governments of Muslim countries might have a difficult time overlooking it if Israel annihilated Iran with nuclear weapons in a preemptive first strike. Otherwise a preemptive first strike might be a rational (if evil) measure to take to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes.

    It’s not the sort of thing either Israel or the U.S. would be likely to do anyway of course.

  185. mark bofill,
    “It’s not the sort of thing either Israel or the U.S. would be likely to do anyway of course.”

    For sure. But the longer Iran continues to refuse to give up nuclear weapons, the more likely that tragic outcome becomes. It is absolutely nutty, if you look at it from any rational POV. Unfortunately, Iranian leadership may not have a rational POV.

    I hope they do.

    I fear they do not.

  186. A different take. After the last month or so of military operations with Ukraine taking out roughly a third of Russia’s strategic bombing capability, Israel utterly decimating Iran’s air defense and most of their missile capability, and the US strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities, I think the chances of China trying to forcibly take Taiwan in the next 2-3 years has gone down considerably.

    Trump frequently exaggerates and the Left still wants to argue about how effective MIDNIGHT HAMMER was but SOMEthing got the Iranians to agree to a ceasefire with Israel very quickly even if the word didn’t get all the way down the chain. Don’t believe our rhetoric, believe what you see the other guy doing.

    Hitting Fordow was a demonstration of not just power but the willingness to use it that I think shocked a lot of the world. People got used to America being a paper tiger that would issue threats then launch some cruise missiles to kill a few camels and then acquiescing to “world opinion”. In my opinion, this is REALLY why even our allies don’t like “America First”.

    In response to previous comments, there is a very real difference between launching attacks on military targets knowing there will be collateral damage and TARGETING civilian populations. The former is a part of the US military planning and execution process; the latter is what Hitler did with V2s against London, Tojo did in Nanking, what a rogue unit did in My Lai, and what Iran was doing against Israel. Russia has also had no compunction about targeting and trying to take out civilian leaders where they weren’t worried about a full scale military response. Zelenskyy wasn’t advertising his overnight accommodations for a reason.

    Sen Kennedy was 100% right about countering the Democrats by letting AOC speak. The more she talks, the harder things get for a less loony Left.

  187. Derek,

    I’ll agree that it is not more likely at this point that China will try to snatch Taiwan than it was a few weeks back.

    I’ll think about the rest of that. You may be right.

  188. “The more she talks, the harder things get for a less loony Left.”

    The more she talks, the more difficult it is for people to claim the leftist party has not gone utterly nuts.

  189. When are Trump’s tariffs going to crash our economy? Things seem to continue to be ok?

  190. The more AOC talks, the harder things get for a less loony Left. That is, the more she talks, the more difficult it is for people to claim the national leftist party (AKA Democrats) has not gone utterly nuts.

  191. Honestly, AOC is the kind of politician any party would like to be rid of: Crazy, highly visible, highly motivated, and implacable.

    Of course, there is a fringe of crazies which will keep her and her fellow travelers in office. You can’t reason with stupid.

  192. Mark Bofill wrote: “When are Trump’s tariffs going to crash our economy? Things seem to continue to be ok?”

    But it seems that Jerome Powell remains optimistic that things will change.

  194. The Fed is concerned about inflation, having been embarrassed by “temporary price increases” caused by absurd monetary policies. They went along with nutty Biden administration policies which caused monetary inflation because….well, just because. Now they are reluctant to ease up on interest rates. Of course, part of that is a political resistance to do anything which might help Trump.

    The problem with ‘experts’ is that they are almost never honest brokers.

    Fortunately, Powell’s term in office will soon end.

  196. They’re going to elect the socialist. I love it.
    Maybe this will help inoculate the nation against AOC in 2028 and help us generate a proper national immune system response.

  197. Looks like NYC is heading to crazy town, Mamdani leading by 8% with 77% of votes counted.

    Mamdani says he will tax “corporate” grocery scores and then fund government run grocery stores who get tax free / rent free facilities. That’s definitely going to work.

    We can look forward to a lot more NYC refugees in FL in the near future.

  198. Tom,

    That’s definitely going to work.

    For sure. I wonder why nobody’s ever thought of this before.

  199. 44% of the vote might not be enough for Mamdani to win. It will depend on voters’ 2nd, 3rd, etc, choices.

    Also, the primary winner might not win the general. Adams is running as an independent.

  201. The Democrat establishment is soooooo far out in the weeds at the moment. Leaderless, rudderless, can’t figure out what they stand for, and can’t even beat a 12 year old far left loony socialist nobody ever heard of with their hand picked establishment candidate. This has got to be the bottom for them …. right?

    The estimates I saw had Mamdani increasing his proportion on further rounds of ranked choice, but we shall see. I think it is a race between Cuomo and Not-Cuomo.

    Editorial: Want to know how a socialist mayor would govern New York City? Ask Chicago
    https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/06/23/new-york-city-johnson-mamdani-cuomo-chicago/

  202. City owned grocery stores. That will be interesting.

  203. I’m sure an organization that spends a $1B / mile building a subway will be awesome at super market logistics.

  204. The poor New Yorkers.

    Lemme see. The evil capitalists who operate supermarkets work with maybe 2% -3% margins. How is a city owned store going to offer much lower prices? I know…… make taxpayers subsidize most of the cost, and slather on inefficient operation, and out-of-sight union wages. That will be so smart… welfare for anyone who walks in the door, and that burdens taxpayers with endless government waste.

    There may be legal challenges from commercial supermarkets.

  205. SteveF,
    It is the “poor new yorkers” who have the problem. But it’s not price, it’s no store nearby. We have some areas in St Pete where the chain supermarkets have closed because of too much theft, and other problems, and challenge of pricing.

    As to store margins, some chains have gross margins as low as 1 1/2%. That was the margin at the A&P in Glenview, IL in the ’50s when I knew someone who worked there.

    So nothing that works at all like the usual supermarket will be able to survive in a neighborhood with serious pilferage, or where armed guards are required.

    A lot of the locals are not part of the problem and even so suffer the consequences.

    Subsidized transportation might be a better solution accepting that it is impossible to have supermarkets within walking distance of everyone.

    If you meet some dissability criterion or other, you can ride anywhere in Pinellas county door to door for $4.00 .

    Maybe my susceptibility to some liberal ideas makes it easier for me to see that some citizens can’t really manage and need help.

    How else could the supermarket deserts be addressed assuming they should be?

  206. John Ferguson,

    I have no doubt that there are places where operating a supermarket is nearly impossible (theft, physical danger, etc.). But the solution is to stop the theft, eliminate the physical danger, etc, not foist huge costs on the taxpayers because the local government fails in its basic obligations.

    Watch what happens to New York under the leadership of than moron, or just look at what is happening right now in Chicago under yet another socialist mayor. I note Mamdani is not talking about addressing the real problems in New York, only offering ‘free stuff’; it will not end well, although Florida may see an increase in migration from New York.

    At least he can probably do a better rap song than most elected officials.

  207. Surf camp report day two….
    The sea was flat calm, so the campers tackled the bay side of the park on paddle boards. Highlight of the day was paddle boarding wit a pod of bottlenose dolphins (3). Also capturing a blue crab without getting pinched.
    We brought burgers home and watched ‘Grease’.
    Granddaughters keep me from becoming an old grump!

  209. Has anybody seen actual results of the New York mayor race? I know that Cuomo conceded, but I can’t even find results for the first round.

  210. john ferguson

    How else could the supermarket deserts be addressed assuming they should be?

    I’m just predicting city run grocery stores won’t work. The precise manner in which they won’t work remains to be seen.

    I don’t need to identify some other methods of trying to solve food desert problem to anticipate this one won’t work.

  211. John,

    How else could the supermarket deserts be addressed assuming they should be?

    How else? Socialism doesn’t address the problem, it only exacerbates it.

    As Steve says, governments can address lawlessness. This includes rampant homelessness and drug use. They can adopt sensible policies that attract businesses and promote business.

    However, at the end of the day while government is a factor, it’s not the sole factor. Maybe it’s necessary but not sufficient. What is needed is a culture that prioritizes industry and prosperity. Americans are [still] generally pretty good this way compared to the rest of the world, surprisingly. I hope this continues.

  212. John: “How else could the supermarket deserts be addressed assuming they should be?”

    They shouldn’t be addressed. They are caused by the people who live there and by the policies they vote for. Democrats have repeatedly excused theft as no big deal, made excuses for engaging in it, claimed it as a moral good, and effectively legalized it by removing consequences. Trying to address the problem will not work until the social/moral rot causing it is the primary focus. Anything else is just digging a deeper hole.

  213. Of course Lucia. Recognizing that the proposal won’t work does not impose an obligation to imagine something that would.
    At the same time, it’s possible that should our hero become Mayor, they’ll actually try this and given how many other ongoing processes in NY like public education don’t work, its not working will be ignored.
    And the bureaucracy required to administer it will soon exceed the number of people in what had been food deserts.

    I always liked Parkinson’s observation that while Britain actually ruled the seas, the Navy was run out of the Queen’s carriage house.
    Now that it no longer does, there are more sould in Whitehall than aboard ships at sea.

  214. https://food-deserts.com/food-deserts-in-new-york-city/

    Green areas are areas where the residents have no grocery stores within 1 mile. Orange are areas where the residents have no grocery stores within a half mile. These areas overlap with areas of low-income residents, underlaid in blue.
    Source: USDA Food Access Research Atlas

    It appears a “food desert” may exist when the closest grocery store is more than 1/2 a mile to a mile away. My closest grocery store is 1.5 miles away. I guess I live in a food desert.

    Well… it’s that far unless the Walgreen’s counts. But they don’t have fruits and veggies. I can get ice cream bars, cereal milk and such there. (I don’t.)

    Obviously, living in a “food desert” does not cause me a problem. I drive by the grocery store on the way to and from my dance lessons which are much further away.

    I’m not sure I’ve ever lived closer than a mile to the nearest grocery store. I get that living more than a mile from a grocery store is a great inconvenience for some. I did find it a PITA to take the bus to the grocery store in grad school and Jim and I picked an apartment right next to a strip mall with a grocery store when we first married. (We had a car. But the strip mall was also the last/first stop for the bus route. So it was convenient for other reasons too.)

  215. I think the idea is it’s a desert where there is also a transportation problem.
    Coping with a municipal bus system can be really revealing. We bussed from Miami Beach Marina to the nearest Home Depot in 1997 while our car was sick. It took 2 1/2 hours each way. I understand that housekeepers who lived in Overton (North Miami) could need as much as 3 hours to reach their day jobs in South Coral Gables.

  216. The government is encouraging shoplifting by not enforcing the laws. Failure to arrest, failure to prosecute, failures to jail repeat offenders, reducing theft to a misdemeanor.

    Every store near downtown in SF had private security. The Target grocery store I went in had security every other aisle, I kid you not. The Walgreens metal entrance gate had been smashed multiple times and 90% of their items were behind plastic theft barriers. A store’s door in the indoor public mall was locked during business hours and you had to knock on it to be let in. They sold jeans, ha ha.

    If you want to solve this problem with government then you need to stop the chaos which requires distasteful and aggressive changes in law enforcement and the justice system.

    In theory local stores could just keep raising prices to cover costs, but who wants to run a store where the employees are literally in danger? You can’t touch a shoplifter due to liability, the cops don’t show up at all for shoplifting in cities, and shoplifters aren’t punished.

    Even if you do raise prices the local activists will then accuse corporate billionaires of predatory pricing, price gouging, and racism. You won’t even be allowed to raise prices.

    Government is the problem here, not the solution.

  217. John

    I think the idea is it’s a desert where there is also a transportation problem.

    Sure. And if I didn’t have a car, there would be a transportation problem. There are apartment complexes around here that are more than 1 mile from the nearest grocery store. There’s less public transportation than in NY city.

    When I was a kid and we moved to what mom calls “the apartments”, we lived more than 1 mile from the grocery store. Dad had the car at work. My mom took the kids and a little wagon to the grocery store. This was in the suburbs.

    Coping with a municipal bus system can be really revealing.

    Agreed. When I first lived in Urbana, I took a bus to the grocery store. I picked on on the bus line, not the nearest one. My mom didn’t have a bus line, so we took the little wagon.

    The Jewel grocery chain started out by delivering groceries back before people had cars in cities.

    I understand that housekeepers who lived in Overton (North Miami) could need as much as 3 hours to reach their day jobs in South Coral Gables.

    Yes. And oddly, they can probably get groceries at various stops along their 3 hour commute which almost certainly takes them more than 1.5 miles from their home. Their bigger problem is the need to commute long hours to their day job.

    (I’m also assuming the commute a “real” need that can’t be overcome. I still remember reading about a woman who lived on the far south side with her unemployed adult daughter and had what I would have found an intolerable commute from her job near O’Hare to home. What was not explained or in anyway brought up was why, after making good money for over a decade in a security job at O’Hare, she had not moved to a place nearer O’Hare. It’s not like you can’t find equal amounts of lower rent places near O’Hare vs. the “south side” of Chicago. They also didn’t explain why her adult daughter didn’t work. Was she special needs? What? )

  219. HI Lucia,
    I suspect special needs daughter and a need for nearby help from people she was comfortable with – not leaving the neighborhood.
    It may also have never occurred to her.

    I think the A&P was about 3/4 of mile from home in Glenview and grocery store in Minneapolis when we lived there (1945-53) was about 3/4 of a mile – and we walked in Minneapolis .

  220. Mamdani was for defunding the police in 2020 (I think he has walked this back like most political chameleons) and then he wants to fix this effect with government run stores.

    Fine, go ahead, try it. I think the results are predictable. Success will be declared before the data is in, the increased costs will be hidden to consumers at the stores, but the cost of living overall (taxes) will have to be raised to support the subsidies and inefficient operation. In order to solve the inefficiency and crappy produce on the shelves the government will hire more government workers.

    The city council will mandate only fair trade rutabaga can be sold in government stores and Israeli Zionist crackers will be banned.

    Corporate stores won’t want to touch that market with a ten foot pole.

  221. Yes, the MOP wasn’t even spec’d to go that deep for Fordow. Then there is the uncertainty of what is actually in the mountain and how much reinforced concrete the structure has. There is also the fact that this was the first use of this weapon.

    Maybe the planners knew all this and had a workable plan, but since they keep that stuff secret there is no way for us to * know that they know *.

    It was risky and experimental. It may have worked but the early declaration of success was unwise unless they had indicators we don’t know about. For example if they dropped the MOP’s and the HVAC system or main doors blew out then you have good indicators your reached the right spot. Very smart people probably were looking for specific things and they have said nothing.

    Trump doubling down on “obliteration” and “nuclear program eliminated” is also unwise. Either Iran takes a journalist on a tour of potentially undestroyed Fordow or they detonate a weapon with secretly enriched uranium and Trump looks like a fool.

    We still don’t know much, but silence is probably bad news. They may need a Plan B, which is OK. Trying risky plans is … risky. Achieving the goal is what is important.

  223. Tom Scarf, It occurred to me that the Trump’s SNR ratio is very low. I’m guessing that there could be genral agreement with this observation with the understanding that maybe it doesn’t matter if you like the signal.

    And there is also the problem of discriminating the signal. I also wonder if his apparent simplicity makes complex problems more soluble – ie. he doesn’t tie himself in knots like Obama did, or Biden in the few times when he might actually have understood the issue.

  224. john a ferguson,

    I do not find that NPR report credible. Other people have done independent calculations and get very different results from what the NPR guy got. He says nothing about the penetration of multiple bombs or if reaching the target depth is even required. Ans he acts as if DoD has never tested the weapon to assess what it can actually do.

  225. Those gopher tortoises are pretty amusing. They barely recognize the existence of humans and go about their turtle business.

  226. john a ferguson wrote: “It occurred to me that the Trump’s SNR ratio is very low. ”

    As opposed to a normal politician whose signal to obfuscation ratio is basically zero.

    Trump says what he means and means what he says. I don’t see where there is a signal-to-noise problem until the media get hold of it and dismember the signal while adding lots of noise.

  227. Yes, the US does pretty extreme weapons testing relatively. They have learned a lot of lessons the hard way. It’s also why ladders cost a $1M.

    There were probably unknowns though that couldn’t be answered, the exact makeup of the mountain.

    Some of these type of bunkers are nuclear rated like Cheyenne although a direct hit today would probably take it down. It’s 2000 feet deep. You can certainly build something immune to a MOP attack, but did they? I don’t know.

    If there wasn’t a social taboo then engineering says use a nuke.

  228. Cities with “food deserts”: Oddly enough, every single city on the list is run by Democrats, except for Birmingham, where every elected official is officially non-aligned, but in fact are Democrats.

    Maybe that is just a coincidence, but maybe not.

  229. Lucia,
    I too apparently live in a food desert…… and have my entire life. I never lived within a mile of a grocery store or supermarket, birth until now.

  230. SteveF,.
    Saying US cities tend to be run by Democrats isn’t quite like saying all pregnant people are women, but close.

    But then there is also make-them-sick, make-them-well where you alert the population to some heretofore undetected social or economic challenge to which amazingly our heroes have the solution – always bureaucratic.

    I wonder if there is a self-sufficiency or maybe self-confidence index which might sort out Democrats from Republicans.

  231. john ferguson,
    Apparently, 29 of the 100 largest cities in the USA are run by Republicans, including Miami and Jacksonville, FL. Here are the 50 largest cities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_the_50_largest_cities_in_the_United_States

    (8 Republican mayors)

    If “food deserts” exist because of geography, or zoning, high land cost, or some other similar factor, then sure, providing transportation to/from food stores might make sense. My city offers zero or low cost mini-bus transportation for elderly and disabled. OTOH, if the deserts exist because of high crime, shoplifting that makes stores unprofitable, and the like, then I think those are the problems that need to be addressed.

  232. I’m pretty sure I don’t live within a mile of anything. A cemetery or two, a couple of churches, and a bunch of other houses.
    Shrug.

  233. There is a market for food in cities. Rumor has it people eat continuously. Addressing why the market doesn’t serve some places requires an honest assessment. It may be long term social problems and it’s a fair question of whether the government should be directly involved and a fair answer might be no.

    You can also give corporate supermarkets free rent and tax breaks. That is clearly a better answer.

    The Mamdani election was reportedly more about rent prices. He wants rent freezes.
    https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/nyc-mayor-primary-rent-housing-affordability-78e26691?st=6L3h55&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

    All this is just the usual blunt artificial market constraints that have endlessly proven to be ineffectual. The government building “low cost” housing also ended up with $1M apartments. Even when they did better these projects of public housing became crime ridden hell holes that were torn down with great fanfare and urban renewal.

    So, promise free things, get elected. If you tax people hard enough for “free” things then the tax base leaves. Candidate does not meet promises. Gets tossed out of office. Rinse. Repeat.

  234. Tom, your post:
    “Those gopher tortoises are pretty amusing”
    This guy or gal is a local celebrity. It entertains beachgoers daily. It has a burrow in the dunes behind the beach.

  235. WRT targeting and effects, the DoD has a pretty mature process for targeteering and weaponeering. The raid would have been designed around their estimates of what it would take to reliably take out the target AND suggesting what to look for in their strike assessment. I am fairly confident another strike would have been recommended if they thought the results were questionable.

    WRT food deserts, my elementary and middle schools growing up were located 1 and 2 miles away from the house. The closest grocery store was located near the elementary school. I usually walked to either — the bus was available but I frequently chose to walk so I could put the bus fare toward comic books, snacks, or sodas. Today, I don’t think I was putting anything over on my parents when I did that but I think they were satisfied I was learning monetary management. In college, I would walk approximately 1.2 miles every weekend to the nearest grocery store.

    You learn to make do when you have to do something and there’s no government crutch to lean on and no one wants to hear you whine.

  236. Freeze rents….. yes, that will motivate construction of apartments and satisfy the demand for more housing. Steal from landlords, and at the same time guarantee a housing shortage…. for ever….. while driving up housing costs over the long term. The stupidity is remarkable.

  237. Derek, your post:
    “I am fairly confident another strike would have been recommended if they thought the results were questionable.”
    Yes, but,,,, The decision about whether a second strike was needed, was not made by the military, but made by Trump. A second strike would’ve made the first strike look ineffective and Trump couldn’t possibly have that.

  238. Mike M, “Ans he acts as if DoD has never tested the weapon to assess what it can actually do”

    My understanding is that this is the first time the bunker busters have ever been used. I also saw one presentation where the speaker stated that the angle of the bombs can be deflected which could greatly impact the damage done to the centrifuges.

    I assume everybody is lying at this stage. I will await multiple confirmations from different parties before assessing whether pthere the bombing was effective or not.

  239. I found a purportedly independent analysis of the bomb damage assessment, it is called the”Institute for Science and International Security”
    I don’t know anything about this organization. It’s just the first independent analysis I’ve seen.
    (assuming it truly is independent)
    The conclusion seemed to be in accord with the Trump administration conclusions.
    Full report and satellite images:
    https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/post-attack-assessment-of-the-first-12-days-of-israeli-strikes-on-iranian-nuclear-facilities

  240. Jonferguson

    HI Lucia,
    I suspect special needs daughter and a need for nearby help from people she was comfortable with – not leaving the neighborhood.
    It may also have never occurred to her.

    The reason I doubt the special needs theory is the article was clearly written to garner sympathy. So I’d be stunned if they left the special needs issue out when that would have potentially made her more sympathetic.

    As for not leaving because of comfort– that puts the blame for the long commute on her, not society, not capitalism yada, yada. I get wanting to be near family. But if the explanation for how hard it is to get by even when you have a good job is “I prefer this ridiculously long commute every day rather than having a short one and visiting my homies on weekends”, then the solution really doesn’t fall to “society”.

  241. One of my questions vis-a-vis food deserts and Mandami(sp?) plan for city run stores is this: If all of us everywhere seem to live more than a mile from a grocery store, then can the government really do much of anything to ensure everyone lives withing a mile of a grocery store? Is his plan to open enough grocery stores to ensure no one lives more than a mile from a grocery store? Real Q– I haven’t heard his full plan other than city run grocery stores.
    But if he opens all these grocery stores, I suspect some already existing grocery stores will close. Then he’ll have to open more.

    Subsidized grocery delivery– focusing on the veggies and fresh goods that seem to concern those worried about “food deserts” might be the useful service. ( The availability of a quickie mart with cereal and dove bars doesn’t seem to be enough to make an area ‘not a food desert’.)

  242. I may just be paranoid, but…
    We were checking out at camp today and were in line with a bunch of other campers and their parents. Two people, including the guy crossing the names off the list, gave us a side words glance.
    My suspicion is that it is because we are a mixed race family. (my daughter-in-law is from the Philippines). Nothing untoward has ever happened, it’s just that we sometimes get those double takes.
    It’s probably just because Sarasota is nearly 100% white.

  243. Jdohio,

    “never before used against and enemy” is different from “never tested”. I have seen video of the bomb beging used, presumably in a test.

    It is fine to withhold judgement. I take issue with claims that it could not have worked.

  244. I think an issue with the “food desert” business is the difference between urban and suburban areas, where a useful definition of suburban could be areas where free parking is readily available. Being a couple miles away from a supermarket in a suburban area is no big deal for the overwhelming majority of people who live in such areas. And the population density would not support a high density of grocery stores.

    I guess the small neighborhood grocery stores are a thing of the past.

  245. Russell,
    That was very interesting and more comprehensive about the attack targets and the overlays were very helpful. It definitely shows the US had very specific targets at Fordo (Fordow?) and hit what they were aiming at. It still doesn’t add anything to whether the MOP’s actually made it all the way down to the underground structure or not.

    Commercial satellites only get a picture every day or so to monitor the site, it’s likely the US had eyes on this place nearly continuously. They will know more and they should have video of the bomb detonations which they aren’t sharing.

    A previous article I saw also had a snapshot from your favorite NASA fire monitoring satellite showing a hot spot at Fordo.

  246. Russell’s url is very interesting and I think likely. I wonder if there are drawings anywhere which depict the effect of an explosion at depth. If the holes which these things bore (or are caused by the explosion) are 6 meters in diameter, is it possible that a significant part of the energy released goes right up the stack?

  248. Yesterday the SC reversed a lower court injunction against the Trump administration deporting illegal aliens to countries other than their native country. I think there will soon be gang members who think it better to self deport to a country of their choice than to be sent someplace else by the Trump administration.

  249. You are welcome guys.
    I had been actively seeking independent BDA to no avail.
    The Institute for Science and International Security was new to me and they have no social media presence so I had to find them the old fashioned way, via Mr Google.
    Another fresh analysis I just found, from Israel Atomic Energy Commission:
    “We assess that the American strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, combined with Israeli strikes on other elements of Iran’s military nuclear program, has set back Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons by many years,” the handout stated. If Iran does not gain access to nuclear materials, this “achievement can continue indefinitely.”
    https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-858987#google_vignette

  250. Is the complaint that undocumented immigrants are being arrested without warrants nonsense? It seems to me that these folks are being arrested in the midst of commission of a crime, namely illegal presence in this country.

    When has a warrant ever been required for the arrest of someone who is effecting a criminal action?

    Am I missing something?

  251. John,

    In fairness, the issue is (supposedly, I think anyway) that non citizens might be arbitrarily detained on the basis of their apparent race.

    I have a certain amount of sympathy for this concern. Sadly, we are overrun with illegals and it seems voters legitimately want Trump to deal with this, so. There will be a certain amount of inconvenient transgression on the rights of some innocent people with a special flavor of racist discrimination as icing on the cake.

    If we could be sure the false accept rate for selecting illegals to arrest was zero I don’t think there’d be any argument to be made? But I’m not 100% sure of that. People are creative with their arguments sometimes.

  252. Ugh.
    I said ‘non citizens might be detained’, but I was thinking ‘non non citizens’.
    Citizens in other words. Citizens might be detained.
    Sorry.

  253. Hi mark,
    i was trying to chase down what I suspected was nonsense about how arrests could be made of illegals. At the same time, I’m fully supportive of what I understand to be due process, where the “suspect” is presented in a judicial proceeding and the Fed’s prove that he is who they say he is and he is given an opportunity to present any information like already being subject to a judicial proceeding or any other reason why he shouldn’t be deported and only after the judge finds that there is no reason for him not to be deported can he be deported.
    (sorry for the clumsy writing)

    My guess is far more folks are being deported than just the really bad guys which I think is unfortunate but illegal is illegal.

    A good reponse to all the whining about how the illegals are being processed might be to see how it was done during Obama’s presidency where hundreds of thousands were sent home.

  254. Neither Obama or Biden dported nearly as many illegals as claimed. They just gamed the numbers to count as deported people who were arrested crossing the border and sent back.

  255. As far as I am concerned, Trump can pretty much do no wrong when it comes to deporting illegals, even if he does things that I would have condemned five years ago. The reason is that he has to clean up the mess created by four years of Biden’s gross lawlessness. I don’t like it, but it is necessary. It is like the situation in war, where you must accept things that you would never accept in peacetime.

    I worry that some of what Trump is doing might do permanent damage to our civil liberties. If so, it will be Joe Biden’s fault.

  256. I said yesterday that the Institute for Science and International Security did not have a media presence. I found today that their leader David Albright is active on Twitter and often links to their stories. His link has below.
    https://x.com/davidhalbright1?s=21

  257. Tom, your post:
    “ A previous article I saw also had a snapshot from your favorite NASA fire monitoring satellite showing a hot spot at Fordo.”
    What a dumbbell I am I never checked the NASA maps for the bombing effects.

  258. Hegseth took the media, including Fox News, out to the woodshed. Great briefing all around.

  259. Russell,

    Bret Baier had a guy from Institute for Science and International Security on Special Report yesterday.

  260. Mike, I saw that, that guy’s ‘X’ link is above.
    I followed him because he links to their stories.

  261. Looks like Trump agrees with my assessment of today’s news conference:
    “ One of the greatest, most professional, and most “confirming” News Conferences I have ever seen! The Fake News should fire everyone involved in this Witch Hunt, and apologize to our great warriors, and everyone else!”

  263. Hegseth’s briefing was a bit overly dramatic, which is his style, but he was mainly right about everything. He’s kind of the anti-Rumsfeld who properly just didn’t care about the media. It’s hilarious the press had to sit through this scolding like guilty children, I only wish there was a camera on their faces.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWTpjwaX4NA
    “If you want to know what is going on at Fordow then you better go there and bring a big shovel”

    The Fordow slide from today’s briefing.
    https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/06/poster-fordow-fuel-enrichment-plant-107184607.jpg

    MOP testing video
    https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/cvg61yzkj76o

    Hegseth says the 3 holes are actually the * now exposed ventilation shafts * and all 6 bombs went down the visible center shaft(s).

    The media did latch onto the DIA assessment like a fawning child reporting on it the same way they did with every whispered rumor of Trump Russia Collusion. They then downplayed every assessment that said otherwise. IMO this has become their MO and isn’t even news any more. In their view the story is the pissy fight over the assessment and adjectives, not what happened.

    The press core is scarred from Vietnam and Iraq reporting which they believe was overly patriotic now. They over learned that lesson. They are super sensitive to appearing to be on the US’s side. It now comes off as anti-US, especially if the wrong administration is in power. The Defense Department and IDF shouldn’t be completely trusted but you should at least report what they say and let the listener decide.

    All that said we still don’t know much. The defense department should have more info and they aren’t showing it. The Iranians should really know and they are silent. I have no idea what that means. Since this is now a political football it’s hard to trust anything until we get on the (under)ground reports.

    My best guess is the defense department doesn’t know the extent of the damage. It was executed successfully and they know other people don’t know either.

  264. Tom,
    “ All that said we still don’t know much.”
    I’m starting to think that we will never know much.
    Can you do LiDAR surveys from space?

  265. Russell,

    Is your question whether we can measure surface slumping as a result of collapsing the underground structures? That would be interesting.

    I know that radar altimeters on satellites are used to measure sea surface height to within centimeters. But I can not seem to find any similar instruments for land mapping.

  266. If you are left of the NYT, the citizens probably should be worried. NYT Editorial Board:
    “Unfortunately, Mr. Mamdani is running on an agenda uniquely unsuited to the city’s challenges. He is a democratic socialist who too often ignores the unavoidable trade-offs of governance. He favors rent freezes that could restrict housing supply and make it harder for younger New Yorkers and new arrivals to afford housing. He wants the government to operate grocery stores, as if customer service and retail sales were strengths of the public sector. He minimizes the importance of policing.
    Most worrisome, he shows little concern about the disorder of the past decade, even though its costs have fallen hardest on the city’s working-class and poor residents. Mr. Mamdani, who has called Mr. de Blasio the best New York mayor of his lifetime, offers an agenda that remains alluring among elite progressives but has proved damaging to city life.”

  267. Tom Scharf,
    “The Iranians should really know and they are silent. I have no idea what that means. ”

    I suspect it means the centrifuge chamber was destroyed. If not, we would likely already have official Iranian videos of the perfectly-OK centrifuge chamber.

  268. MikeM,

    “ground penetrating radar” is likely limited to 15 meters.

    Slumping of the hill top would only happen if the physical integrity of the entire hill were compromised. More likely there would only be a collapse of the material directly above the chamber, not the whole hill.

  269. There was some slumping around the ventilation shafts in the pictures.

    I don’t know that surface height would change at all if the entire structure collapsed. The relative volume change is tiny. Either the rock far above would stay intact or the changes would be very small. Mountains are always moving so it would have to have had a very recent measurement before the strike.

    The sea surface measurements include a tremendous amount of time and area averaging so that comparison may not apply.

    Are the HVAC systems still running the same? Is the site power draw changed? Are there long lines of earth moving and digging equipment showing up? Are employees still arriving at the same rate? Are specialized hazmat people being tasked to visit the site? Surely people in Iran are talking about it so Israel/US should be sweeping up stuff one way or the other.

  270. Mamdani seems left of Fidel, and sits comfortably next to AOC. The fact that anybody that far out can be elected to an office anywhere in the USA should worry everyone.

  271. Russell —

    We’ll have to agree to disagree. I dislike a lot about Trump but I think he’s smart enough to realize that he would be better off ensuring the job is done thoroughly and correctly if a second strike was needed than incorrectly claiming an effect from an inadequate single strike.

    DoD has done weaponeering and targeteering for a long time. With the amount of time and preparation they seem to have put into planning this operation, I expect they also looked at what observables they expected to see from a successful versus unsuccessful strike and planned for that collection as part of the strike assessment. This does not appear to have been generated at the last minute.

    I will footstomp this point: disregarding anything Trump had to say about the effectiveness of the strike, SOMEthing got the Iranians to agree to a ceasefire with Israel roughly 24 hours after the strike. The Iranians themselves know something we don’t.

  272. If they sent 6 mops down the same ventilation shaft chances are the contents of the chamber are destroyed regardless of whether or not the chamber itself was compromised. The shafts and entrances were the weak links which would allow deliverance to the underground without having to penetrate through rock and concrete. Getting 6 30k explosives down near the underground facility is going to wreak havoc regardless of the structure. I doubt the ventilation shafts were fully sealed at the time. Even if they were, that seal is going to be weaker than the facility itself. Iranians backfilled the entrances to prevent skipping ordinance down the entrance tunnels. Harder to do that for ventilation shafts.

  273. If Fordow was intact and operational without a lot of damage then the Iranians should want a ceasefire to protect it.

    I don’t know why Iran would want to continue under any circumstances with a fight they are losing handily so I’m not sure a ceasefire tells us much. Israel agreeing to a ceasefire may be more meaningful.

    Iran could have zig-zagged or spiraled the ventilation shafts during the design phase to prevent this Death Star port operation. Even if it was straight you would need to hit it at a near perfect angle. Maybe they did, but I’m not sure those Darth Vader planes were using The Force.

  274. I’d have thought that relative to the rock, earth, and concrete reinforcement the busters were designed to penetrate, the ventilation shafts would have been approximately transparent to the busters, even if the open air space did zig zag.

    If it took one to bust them open, that still left five follow ups.

  275. I had assumed that they sent 2 down each hole. (12/6). Sending 6 down the same hole really maximizes the probability of mission success at both ends of the facility. DIRA started designing the attack plan as soon as the facility was discovered. ~15 years with 2 specialists working. The MOPS were designed, built and tested for this purpose. I’m sure Iran had some protection built into the ventilation. I really doubt it was enough to survive 150k of explosives. If there were spirals or zig zags chances are those were taken into account.

  276. What I mean is, say a bunker buster detonates in the spiraling or zig zagging shaft. A substantial amount of the explosion is going down that shaft; that’s what the busters are designed to do. The shockwave and explosion is going to echo and reflect down the zig zagging or spiraling shape.

    It’s an imponderable in some sense, there is always some amount of reinforcement that will stop whatever practical force one can imagine being brought to bear.

    Obviously, my money is on the busters. Arguments that items of value were likely removed earlier are more persuasive to me than arguments that we probably didn’t destroy the targets.

  277. Mike,
    “Is your question whether we can measure surface slumping as a result of collapsing the underground structures?”
    Yes, I have seen volume calculation of subsidence using LiDAR on archaeological sites. I was wondering if the same concept could be extrapolated to determine how much of a collapse there had been into the underground works in Iran.

  278. Just a quick note since some of the posts seem to equate the total weight of the MOPs with the explosive content. My understanding is that each MOP is basically 25k pounds of steel with 5k of explosive. The point of the steel is that the sheer momentum and strength of the steel enables deep penetration before the explosives go off.

    Contrary to some statements, the GBU-57s have been tested; this is just the first operational use in the field that we know of.

    Bear in mind it’s not just the penetration, there’s also the question of how the shock of the explosions are transmitted to the rest of the environs. Look at the different effects expected from a Magnitude 4 or 5 earthquake if experienced in California versus Hawaii versus Wyoming versus Pennsylvania or Ohio. I’m not a seismologist, just remember reading some articles years ago about how the different bedrock and soil composition affect transmission of the shock.

  280. Alligator Alcatraz! Florida takes the point in the illegal immigrant campaign….
    “Florida fast-tracks ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ detention center in the Everglades”
    “Florida is seizing a remote airfield in the Everglades to build a 5,000-bed immigration detention center.The project is being carried out under emergency powers signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis.”

  281. It was claimed today by the UN atomic agency that the vibration alone may have done a lot of damage. The centrifuges are designed to be run continuously for years and if they were running then just the vibration may have done a lot of damage. However they can be powered down in exceptional circumstances and I assume Iran would be crazy to not do that.

    It might be like a spinning hard drive, dropping one while running will likely kill it, but the heads can be “parked” and it can be safely moved.

    I’m no explosive expert but once the explosion happens then the explosive force will head toward the weakest point. That might be back up through the bomb hole normally. For maximum impact the structure would need to be penetrated. The roof could also be collapsed like a mine cave in. People heard it from miles away. The Iranians plugged the entrances and speculation is that was to contain an explosion. Seems flimsy.

    Gaza bunker buster distinct explosion example
    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/UpAN3-UcGDs

    As John posted there is a tremendous amount of science here and the US is very, very, good at it. If it was possible then the US had the best chance of doing it.

  282. SteveF,
    You can unwrap the fish. NYT actually has someone to the left of them. of course all my mopst lib friends seem convinced that it’s mikddle of the road.

    I guess that depends on the road.

  283. Surf camp update, day four…
    Image of the gopher tortoise burrow entrance. It’s about 18 inches across and 12 inches high. Historically they are 10 to 20 feet long underground.
    And
    Image of cleaning the saltwater and sand off the surfboards and boogie boards at the end of the day.
    https://x.com/rklier21/status/1938328640846237977?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ
    I only brought my younger granddaughter home today because her older sister took off with one of the guy counselors who had a car….. my little one is growing up.

  284. How would you create a spiral or zigzag ventilation shaft? Can a tunneling machine turn corners? How do you lift the rock out?

    It can probably be done. But I think it would be a fiend of a job.

    And why would they decide to do it 20 years ago? I doubt they would have anticipated a 15 ton bomb that could be dropped with that precision.

  285. John Ferguson,
    “You can unwrap the fish.”

    I am in fact scheduled to start catching fish within a week. 😉

    I haven’t had the pleasure to use the NYT for fish cleaning in a couple years…. seems the paper version is becoming uncommon. I have mostly been using supermarket shopping bags, or the Boston Globe when available….. also supremely suitable fish-cleaning material.

    Still, the NYT’s preferred policies are almost exactly 100% opposite of what I prefer. The NYT’s disavowing Mamdani is a bit like Castro complaining that Che’ is too extreme. YMMV.

  286. I agree it would be a pain to do a non-vertical shaft. They frack in all kinds of directions though.

    However when you are designing a bomb proof bunker you probably think about the weaknesses. The defense might have been a concrete slab and dirt covering the shafts that was exposed after the bombing.

  287. Mike,
    “ Can a tunneling machine turn corners? How do you lift the rock out?”
    Water utility tunneling machines can turn corners. I’ve seen them up to about 24 inches in diameter be able to make curves.
    Lookup ‘directional drilling’.

  288. “Nuclear weapons are the only weapons that can destroy targets deep underground or in tunnels. Weapons of mass destruction (WMD)-related facilities near the surface may be destroyed with either nuclear or conventional weapons, but nuclear weapons are of interest because they produce more effective agent-kill mechanisms. The types of conventional weapons likely to be employed against tactical targets are discussed in Chapter 7, “Conventional Weapons.” Note that the discussion in this chapter assumes the physical destruction of the target. It may also be possible to destroy or degrade the functionality of the facility, or the functionality of the network of which it is a part, without physically destroying the specific target node.”

    This document John posted suggests you won’t get more than about 10M in medium strength rocks with a penetrator weapon. It gets to 70M in silty/sandy soil. 10M is more than enough for a nuclear weapon to destroy deep underground targets.

    It’s very important the nuke goes off underground for this type of attack, it magnifies the effective air burst yield by a factor of 20X for just a 3M penetration. Mostly a ground shock thing.

    A 300 kt nuke penetrating 3M has about a 99% chance of being effective on a 200M buried shelter buried in granite.

    A 10kt nuke at 3M has about a 20% chance.

    The MOP is 0.0025kt.

    This is just a study, could be completely wrong.

  290. SteveF,
    Castro whining about Che being too liberal is really rich. thanks.
    Are you now on the Cape?

  291. Iran’s supreme leader claims victory….
    Khamenei: “We were victorious over the US, we slapped them in the face”
    He is correct. The country of Iran did in fact destroy 12 of the United States biggest bombs.

  292. Jennifer Griffin of Fox news was chastised personally in the briefing yesterday. To defend herself she posted this:
    “The Pentagon does not want to answer this key question: where is the 440 kg of near weapons grade Highly Enriched Uranium and could it have been moved? So I asked some nuclear experts.
    Daryl Kimball, Arms Control Association, @DarylGKimball explained how Iran could and likely did move the 60 percent Highly Enriched Uranium. In short it is a gas that can be put in cylinders.”
    Is this correct? Iran’s uranium was in gaseous form.?
    The rest of her post:
    https://x.com/jengriffinfnc/status/1938281362643136710?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ

  293. Grok answered my question:
    “ Iran’s 60% enriched uranium is primarily in the form of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) gas, as this is the chemical form used in the enrichment process via gas centrifuges at facilities like Natanz and Fordow. Some of this UF6 may be converted into uranium oxide U3O8 or uranium metal for specific applications, such as producing targets for medical isotope production, but the bulk of the stockpile remains as UF?6gas, stored in specialized steel cylinders.

  294. john ferguson,

    Yes, on the Cape. Fishing after the center console is in the water next week.

  295. I made some rough assumptions and guess that 900 pounds of enriched uranium gas would require 36 cylinders of 400 ft.³ capacity for storage. That is the size of the large acetylene cylinders you see in machine shops. So with little ado or fanfare, Iran could have moved its enriched uranium into a dozen panel trucks and dispersed it throughout the country. I hope Mossad is on the case.
    Someone please check my math with real numbers.

  297. Russell,

    UF6 is a solid at room temperature with a sublimation T of 56.5 C, according to Wikipedia. So it will readily evaporate at room T and needs to be stored in a gas tight container.

    400 kg of uranium would give about 600 kg UF6 which would have a volume of about 120 liters. So it is likely stored in hundreds of small containers. Should be pretty easy to move.

    Maybe they moved it around or maybe they decided to put it all in the safest place, i.e., Fordow. Or maybe they kept it in the places it was already stored. It would have been very vulnerable during transit. So I suspect that what they did depends on their relative confidence in the physical security of their facilities compared to the security of their information.

    I think it quite possible that the Israelis know where the uranium actually is.

  298. Now that I think about it a bit more, I’d bet that they kept the UF6 where it was. The containers are presumably quite sturdy and they were almost surely stored in a number of underground vaults. Not too much in any one vault, because critical mass. It would survive anything other than a direct hit. So most, if not all, the containers are probably still intact, but maybe a tad hard to get to.

  299. Ah. UF6 is stored as a solid in compressed gas cylinders. The gas is pumped into the cylinders and allowed to solidify. I don’t think that really changes the rest of my comments above.

  300. Mike M,

    The phase diagram shows the practical conditions for centrifuge separation: probably under 300F and relatively low feed pressure. Any higher temperature would start to weaken the aluminum centrifuges. Any higher internal pressure would also add a lot to the hoop stress on the centrifuges, although higher pressure would also increase throughput, all else equal. The density of the gas phase is so high (not far from water at atmospheric pressure!) that the g-force will likely build a considerably higher pressure at the centrifuge walls than near the center of rotation, so the possibility of solidification on the walls is present if the feed pressure is too high. It is an interesting engineering problem….. but one I am not going to explore. 😉

  302. I was a local government official in Sarasota during the Cold War. During that time nuclear weapons were stored at Macdill Air Force Base in Tampa and we had periodic safety briefings from the Florida Emergency Management Department. One remarkable fact was that the warheads were occasionally sent for maintenance to a distant factory. The warheads were transported in unmarked, over the road tractor trailers and they took circuitous routes for security reasons.
    I think it is reasonable that the Iranians would use a similar tactic to covertly hide their cans of enriched uranium. It would have been easy to sneak them out of the facility in unmarked vans destined for secret, nondescript locations.
    That’s how I would do it anyway.

  303. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.

    Slightly better than nothing I guess.
    [Edit: Actually, this seems pretty reasonable.]

  305. mark,

    I am not clear as to the context of what you are quoting.

    Courts should not exceed their power. Some judges are doing that via their judgements that the Executive is exceeding its power. It is slightly better than nothing for a court to not further exceed its power.

  306. Key quotes from Barret’s decision here:
    https://reason.com/volokh/2025/06/27/supreme-court-nukes-universal-injunctions/

    Oh. Barrett’s opinion is what mark was quoting.

    But federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.

  307. There’s some real gems in there.

    We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.

    Apparently, for Jackson, legal precedents are mind numbing technical queries. A true DEI hire!

  308. IIRC Iran was obligated to store the enriched uranium where inspectors could, uhhh, inspect it. I agree with Fox, asking where the enriched uranium went is a valid and important question. It’s also valid for the US and Israel to keep their cards close to the vest.

    It is debatable whether they moved it. If they weren’t anticipating an attack from the US then Fordow was the best place for it. Taking it out makes it vulnerable to Israeli attacks and there is little doubt the Iranians are paranoid in the extreme about Israel’s intelligence abilities. So maybe they left it there, maybe.

    Does anybody besides Iran know? They aren’t saying.

    Also the facilities that convert the uranium gas to metal were all reportedly above ground and have been wiped out.

  309. “We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

    Yep, that’s why I voted for Trump in 2016 and don’t regret it.

    Presidents are somewhat accountable to the electorate, the SC not so much. I’m sympathetic to term limits for the SC for this reason. The conservative majority is due to good fortune mostly.

  310. As always, the Bee has a fun take on it:

    “The court hereby rules that a president can be president,” wrote Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who penned the decision for the majority. “By virtue of being president, that person is the president. I can’t freaking believe I’m having to explain this.”

    Pretty much, yeah.

  311. Trump V CASA opinion seems to me pretty weak tea. Better than nothing, I guess, but doesn’t really stop the universal injunctions problem as it should. Lefty judges will 1) create pseudo-classes that qualify for nationwide injunctions based on an identified class of individuals (eg all employees of the Department of Education), and 2) many lefty judges will make it known that they too will immediately block Trumps executive orders if only individuals would bring a suit before them in their district. With a couple hundred such judges, there will be plenty of injunctions issued.

    The decision raises the bar for those trying to use the judiciary to block Trump, but only slightly. I predict the issue will return to the SC next term, because lefty judges will continue to abuse the system to issue universal (or near universal) injunctions.

  312. “The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group of Maryland parents who want to be able to opt their elementary-school children out of instruction that includes storybooks on gay relationships, transgender identity and other LGBTQ themes.”

    This was another very dumb case to prosecute by Maryland, the precedent is now on the books. The militant gender people have set back their cause by a decade.

    The NYT ran an op-ed by Andrew Sullivan a couple days ago basically saying the gay groups want to disassociate themselves from the transgender cause.

    How the Gay Rights Movement Radicalized, and Lost Its Way
    https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/26/opinion/gay-lesbian-trans-rights.html?unlocked_article_code=1.R08.hyRO.QhhPZws3GAVJ&smid=url-share
    “But this illiberalism made a fateful, strategic mistake. In the gay rights movement, there had always been an unspoken golden rule: Leave children out of it.”

  313. Tom Scharf,
    “I’m sympathetic to term limits for the SC for this reason. ”

    Not in our lifetimes, and probably not in the next 50 years… if ever. 38 states are very unlikely to agree on this…. never mind supermajorities in Congress.

  314. Mealy-mouth Roberts needs to think about how universal injunctions will lead to Federal Courts being judged by voters as nothing more than another political branch, but one were voters can do nothing to change what they don’t like. Heck, Congress can eliminate every Federal Court save for the SC, and set the number of judges on the SC. Roberts is playing with fire when he doesn’t issue rulings that stop the judicial over-reach.

    Ultimately, this will end badly when voters get angry enough that Congress restricts the jurisdiction of the Courts by statute…… something they rarely have done but can do to almost any extent they want.

  315. Tom,

    The conservative majority is due to good fortune mostly.

    Sometimes luck saves us. Obviously not forever, but this time at least it did.
    I think term limits introduce too much discontinuity, myself. But as you point out, maybe I can afford that luxury because I’m not staring at a leftist dominated Supreme Court. But I don’t think there’s a simple fix any way you slice it.

  318. Yes, term limits will not be a reality any time soon.

    Universal injunctions are absolutely needed when the executive clearly oversteps their bounds. Biden’s loan forgiveness for example.

    The question is who decides. They could have said only the SC could do this but that would increase their workload. We shall see if their work around is effective. The SC is sending the message to curtail this practice or more severe measures will be put in place. My guess is clever lawyers will defeat the work around quickly.

  319. How much work does the SC actually do? The seemingly glacial rate at which oversight takes place makes it far easier for their underlings to run amok.

  320. DaveJR,
    The court makes on the order of 70-80 decisions per year, with 60 or so being full-fledged cases with extensive opinions. Is that a heavy work load? Donno. I do know a lot of the grunt work is done by very highly qualified clerks.

    When my oldest son clerked for a “Superior Court” state judge in NJ, he said the clerks wrote most of every opinion, with the judge making just ‘final touches’ on the manuscript.

  321. Tom Scharf,
    “They could have said only the SC could do this but that would increase their workload.”

    Well, the SC can refuse to hear cases, and if they decreed a universal injunction can only be issued by the SC, then the increase in their work load could be minimal….. they can just refuse to hear bullshit cases, which are the large majority.

    I completely agree that truly egregious illegal action by the president should be blocked (loan forgiveness, nation-wide blocking of evictions, and mandated vaccine injections for private company employees being three obvious cases). But note those egregious cases ended up ultimately being decided by the SC anyway, not lower courts. During the “percolation” process, many terrible executive actions continued. The SC could just have said ‘no’ to each in a one page opinion without the (useless, time wasting) participation of lower courts.

  323. SteveF,
    Not providing sufficient judicial services is a specific complaint in the Declaration of Independence.
    I don’t know what your eperience has been but mine has been when I see a decision I really don’t like, I read it and often find that there was an overiding issue which makes the decision a good one.

    Not always, but often.

  324. In general, the Supreme Court never decides more than what needs to be decided. It looks like that is what they did in Trump v CASA. Other cases may lead to further restrictions on universal injunctions. And maybe some will survive.

  325. Mike M,
    ” Other cases may lead to further restrictions on universal injunctions. ”

    Sure, seems almost inevitable, considering the landslide of such injunctions.

  326. The weird thing about Jackson: She seems blissfully unaware of how incompetent she is about understanding both Federal statues and SC rulings over many decades. Or maybe, like all “progressives”, the need to actually follow the law (and the Constitution!) is a burden they simply refuse to accept. Were she not a SC justice, she would fit right in at an anti-ICE riot.

    Jackson, who does not know what a woman is, is in fact a woman. And an idiot.

  327. john ferguson,
    “Not providing sufficient judicial services is a specific complaint in the Declaration of Independence.”

    Sure, but I am not suggesting not providing adequate judicial services for normal civil and criminal cases. I am suggesting that activist judges (left or right!) should not be issuing nation-wide injunctions, and should be prohibited from doing so. Really important cases (eg Trump stupidly invoking a 1790’s law to deport illegal aliens, Biden stupidly forcing people to get COVID vaccinations via OSHA) should be blocked…. by the SC, nobody else. And the SC should do so immediately, with little delay, and no fanfare. Just say no. I mean: kill the really outrageous stuff immediately.

  328. Surf camp highlights day five.
    Two manatees joined their group while paddle boarding. One swam directly under my youngest granddaughter‘s paddle board.
    Given the size of those critters, I would’ve been somewhat intimidated, but they said it was fine.

  329. john ferguson,
    To be as clear as possible: I think Congress has erred terribly in not placing (many) clear restrictions on the jurisdiction of lower Federal courts. Much of the politically motivated nonsense from Federal judges only happens because Congress has rarely (almost never) explicitly limited the jurisdiction of Federal courts. Congress could say (tomorrow): “Nationwide injunctions can never be issued by any court except the Supreme Court.” Congress could say: “Lower Federal courts have no jurisdiction over xxxxx.” Whatever xxxxx might be. Sadly, they refuse to do anything like that, and the Roberts court seems unwilling to step into the breach.

  330. Russia may be winning the territorial battle by tiny increments, but they are definitely losing the war of attrition in men in equipment.
    I often comment on the continuing loss of Russian troops and tanks, but it is worth mentioning that all of Russian military hardware is being degraded. Here are two examples from the last 24 hours.
    Kyiv Independent:
    “Ukrainian drones strike 4 fighter jets in Russia’s Volgograd Oblast, General Staff says.
    According to preliminary data, two Russian fighter jets were destroyed, and the other two were damaged.”
    OSINTechnical:
    “Ukrainian long-range attack drones continue to hunt down high-value Russian SAM systems in Crimea.
    Seen here, a swarm of Ukrainian drones blind a pair of Russian S-400 batteries, scoring hits on a TEL, two 92N2E Grave Stone engagement radars, and two 91N6E Big Bird search radars”
    video:
    https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1938497943021170832?s=61&t=7w4bCW3a8ve2DqoeniQatQ

  331. SteveF
    I apologize if I’m having trouble grasping the problem here, but doesn’t it make sense if any judge finds some action of the government unconstitutional, the judegment should apply everywhere. I assume that the government’s action occurs within the judge’s jurisdiction and that the government can appeal to a higher court and ultimately to the SC.

    I’m assuming that you don’t have any problem with the judges opinion, or issuance of restraining order or TRO, or injunction being effective within his jurisdiction.

    If this is your view, I’m not sure I disagree with it.

  332. john ferguson,

    The decision handed down today has nothing to do with judgements, which I take to mean decisions by courts.Injunctions and TRO’s are issued before there is any decision. Many have been issued without giving the Trump administration a chance to respond.

    With respect to decisions, I think the rule is that a district court decision is binding within that district and a circuit court decision is binding within that circuit. Such decisions have weight in other jurisdictions but are not binding.

    I would think that an injunction or TRO would be less broadly binding that an actual decision.

  333. J Ferguson: “I apologize if I’m having trouble grasping the problem here, but doesn’t it make sense if any judge finds some action of the government unconstitutional the judegment should apply everywhere. ”

    There are a couple of problems with your analysis. First, you assume that the judge knows something and is applying the law objectively. Many incompetent federal judges have been appointed. One that stands out to me was a supposed federal law clerk for a federal judge who (the clerk) didn’t know what the standard of review was for a federal district court decision being reviewed by a federal appellate court. If this person had been actually working this standard should have come before her hundreds of times. (Sen. Kennedy of Louisiana exposed this) All a federal judge is, is a political appointee who is a lawyer. He or she has a little bit of special knowledge but not much. No reason to give significant deference to a federal judge on matters of policy.

    Secondly, there are about 600 federal district judges with many different opinions and if they have substantial input into policy chaos will ensue.

  334. JD,
    I don’t see anything in what I wrote that assumed that a decision was sound. I was interested in the breadth of its application.

  335. The breadth of application of an unsound decision should be as limited as possible.

  336. John ferguson,

    A district judge should have zero jurisdiction beyond his/her district; I mean zero. I have no problem with judges decisions based on individuals, cases and controversies actually before the judge, for that district. Once different districts disagree, the SC will (usually) step in to resolve the dispute.

    My problem is a district judge in New Jersey issuing orders for Alabama… indeed for the entire USA. That was never the intent for the creation of lower courts. We do not have 600 supreme courts, only 1.

  337. The breadth of a decision should be limited along the lines SteveF suggests without respect to its soundness. Who would appraise its soundness except another stage in the judicial process?

  338. Russell
    Interesting videos. There is no video breakup as the drone approaches the target. Either the Russian electronic warfare was not working, had been destroyed, the drones were using something like fiber or new robust communications, or they are fake (ha ha).

  339. Tom,
    I haven’t found any videos of the jet fighters being taken out,,,,,,, It makes me wonder if that is fake also.
    BUT, both of those came from trusted sources, so I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

  340. It had become rather routine to shop judicial districts for an injunction, then drag out the legal process, then hope you win the next election.

    Limiting injunctions is curiously being reported as a “win for Republicans”. It’s a win for America.

    Immigration enforcement had devolved into a mass immediate granting of asylum according to lawyers which was then followed by a case by case tedious deportation process with due process. and a heavy burden.

  341. The guy who killed the Minnesota lawmakers also killed their Golden Retriever. That is low. I don’t think the jury will spend a lot of time deliberating on this case.

  342. This is curious..… It’s two AM [Florida time] and there are 11, C-17, heavy lift aircraft in the pipeline between the US and the Middle East. Maybe they are bringing all our stuff back home, but I doubt it.
    Of course, maybe I just fell for another USAF prank.
    Screenshot:
    https://x.com/rklier21/status/1938840561588347204
    I guess maybe we are returning our stuff to the port in Bahrain.

  344. another unintended consequence of Putin‘s invasion of Ukraine is the awakening of all the sleeping tigers in Europe.
    About 18 months ago, Poland went on a crash, spending spree to develop its military as the premier fighting force in Europe, but now Germany wants to take over that position.
    Germany had to change its constitution to do this:
    “Building up our military is our top priority,” said Merz. “From now on, the federal government will provide the military with as much money as it needs to ensure it becomes Europe’s strongest armed force. We are Europe’s most populous country and Europe’s biggest economy, and nothing less should be expected from us. Our partners not only expect this — they demand it.”
    https://www.npr.org/2025/06/28/g-s1-74591/germany-military-nato
    It’s like an arms race between two allies, who just want to be king of the hill.

  345. And it’s not just Germany, Poland and the Baltic states that made moves in the past few weeks:
    Poland eyes 1 million landmines for borders with Belarus, Russia
    https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2025/03/20/poland-eyes-1-million-landmines-for-borders-with-belarus-russia/
    Estonia ready to host NATO jets carrying nuclear weapons, says defense minister
    https://news.err.ee/1609732053/estonia-ready-to-host-nato-jets-carrying-nuclear-weapons-says-defense-minister
    The Baltic states are building a wall of land mines:
    Europe is building a new ‘Iron Curtain’– with millions of landmines
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/24/lithuania-iron-curtain-landmines-europe/

  346. I wonder where the Russians are who realize that Putin’s adventure is not going to work out, that Putin cannot accept anything short of the complete absorption of Ukraine into Russia which means this could be stalemated for a few more years.

    But Aha! Some other Russian could admit that this was a dumb idea, accept a settlement that maybe lets Russia keep Crimea but get out of the rest of Ukraine, and maybe even apologize.

    Putin’s time on earth is likely shorter than he’d like it to be.

    Fergusons are off to the Baltic where we’ll try to get a sense of what the people we meet are expecting.

  347. I was stunned by Justice Barrett’s smack down (signed off on by 5 other justices) of Justice Jackson. Not surprised that she would think it, but that she would say it, in an official majority opinion, no less. Jonathan Turley puts the blame squarely on Jackson:

    The tenor of Jackson’s language shocked not just many court watchers, but her colleagues. It seemed ripped from the signs carried just a couple of weeks earlier in the “No Kings” protests.

    and

    This hyperbole seemed to border on hysteria in the Jackson dissent. The most junior justice effectively accused her colleagues of being toadies for tyranny.

    https://nypost.com/2025/06/27/opinion/justice-jacksons-activist-opinion-does-more-damage-to-supreme-court-civility/

    p.s. – I started to read Jackson’s opinion to see for myself, but soon found it too tedious to continue.

  348. Mike,

    When SC Justices are uninterested in precedent and call it mind numbing boring legalese, IMO they are in the wrong line of work. Jackson should never have been appointed. It’s interesting to me to note the progression; a senile President appoints an incompetent SC Justice. It’s how toxins slowly trickle through our system. Personally I think it’s also an interesting commentary on how far Harvard has fallen.

    Oh well. Maybe she will grow into the job, if she decides she wants to quit being an amateur actor and activist and instead practice Constitutional Law someday.

  349. Real Housewives of the Supreme Court! It sounds like there was some very contentious internal meetings.

    “Recently, during the argument over the use of national injunctions in May, Chief Justice John Roberts was clearly fed up with Justice Sotomayor interrupting government counsel with pointed questions and commentary, finally asking Sotomayor, “Will you please let us hear his answer?””

    If you listen to some oral arguments this is what Sotomayor does all the time. It’s called “arguing from the bench” and it is very tedious sometimes.

  350. Tom,
    It’s important that the wise Latina be able to share her wisdom with the white males who haven’t had the same richness of experiences that she’s had and consequently reach poorer conclusions.
    I mean duh.

  351. Shockingly Mamdani’s father is a professor of post-colonial studies at Columbia and also teaches in the departments of Anthropology and African Studies.

    Have at it NYC! Enjoy!

    Realistically he will be restrained by the same forces that stop every other reformer in their tracks. The inability to change the tax structure without state legislature consent, intractable ossified bureaucracy, and impenetrable public sector unions with a lot of power.

    Mamdani strikes me as another “celebrity politician” though and results aren’t that important, personal brand is what matters. I think I’m starting to miss the days of boring staid politics.

  352. J A Ferguson, “breadth of decisions” discussed above. Sorry I misinterpreted your post.

  355. I read Barrett’s opinion, Thomas’s concurrence, Kavanaugh’s concurrence, much of Sotomayor’s dissent, and skimmed Jackson’s dissent.

    Kavanaugh rightly points out that all the cases involving universal injunctions will end up before the Supreme Court, usually after going through the appellate courts. He urges the appellate courts and the Supreme Court itself act swiftly to resolve these cases, so that the country does not suffer under a hodge-podge of laws, with different rules and different laws in different districts.

    Thomas (and Alito) point out that it is inevitable district courts will now quickly accept “class action” suits to continue issuing universal injunctions, effectively bypassing this ruling of the Court. He essentially warns the lower courts that this work-around to issue universal injunctions will be frowned upon if it is not really a class under federal rule 23.

    Sotomayor’s argument starts with her conclusion: since we all know that Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, we must accept a universal injunction issued by any district court. Same argument would apparently apply to all the other dozen’s of universal injunctions: since the ‘progressive’ position is always correct, universal injections issued by progressive judges must be allowed. And then there is the constant rage in everything she writes. What part of being in the minority does she not understand? When you are in the minority, you don’t get what you want…. get over it. After reading her dissent, I have to ask: why is it that being a ‘progressive’ correlates so strongly with being incapable of reasoned analysis? I find it weird.

    Jackson’s dissent is even more disturbing: “We don’t need no stupid judicial arguments, we just need to make sure the decision is right!” To say she is an incompetent fool is far too kind. This is how a DEI hire at the Supreme Court writes.

  356. Steve,
    That’s pretty much what I walk away with too. I didn’t read Kavanaugh or Alito very carefully.

  357. It’s telling that progressives think this decision works against them. On the face this is a neutral inside baseball ruling. It can hurt conservatives just as much when a liberal President exceeds their authority.

    It shows that progressives consider the legal system as a tool for their ideology.

  358. The Republicans are much more effective getting things done in Trump II. I’m not sure I would use the word “professional”, but that applies except for the presentation aspects, ha ha.

    So far Mike Johnson has been pretty stellar with a tiny majority, even though I’m not a big fan of the sausage factory BBB due to the economics.

  359. Senate Republicans are saying that they won’t vote for the BB Bill unless changes are made that House Republicans say they will not accept. Music to Democrat ears.

    Not passing the BB Bill would mean hitting the debt limit in August, with unknown effects. It would also mean a massive tax increase in January, with predictable effects. So I think they will have to pass the bill although it will likely take Trump knocking some heads together to make it happen.

    In other words, I think that even Republicans are not stupid enough to Kill the Bill. But then, I am a convicted cockeyed optimist, so who knows.

  360. SteveF has been prescient in predicting that yesterday’s decision will result in the Dems shifting to class action lawsuits. Yesterday on The Five the Lefty panelist, Jessica Tarlov, was gleefully predicting the same and said that the first such suit had already been filed.

    At a minimum, having to get a class certified will at least put a speed bump or two in such lawfare. But I wonder if a class action suit might make it easier to enforce rule 65(c):

    (c) Security. The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. The United States, its officers, and its agencies are not required to give security.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65

    With a universal injunction, who puts up the security? A court can hardly demand that from non-parties, but it is hardly fair to demand security from an individual plaintiff that goes beyond that plaintiff’s request. A class action might resolve that problem.

  361. Mike,

    I think that even Republicans are not stupid enough to Kill the Bill.

    You tempt fate. Never underestimate the power of Republican congress critters to do stupid things, is my view.

  363. mark bofill,
    “Never underestimate the power of Republican congress critters to do stupid things..”

    Indeed, it is almost their modus operandi. The difference between progressives and conservatives is perfectly clear with something like this. Progressive Dems would NEVER allow a disagreement with their party’s legislation to defeat a bill (we would need a stronger word than “lockstep” to describe it accurately), while conservative Republicans seem to always be waiting for a chance to screw everything up…. even if they agree with 95% of a bill.

    I would ask them to consider the alternative: a massive tax increase in January, another debt ceiling stand-off, no changes in Biden’s Orwellian abomination (“Inflation Reduction Act”), and all the rest that goes with current law. That they would risk not changing those horrors because of something they want in the reconciliation bill is outrageous, destructive, and yes, very stupid.

    Trump should be on the phone right now promising the numbskulls well funded primary opponents and visits to their districts denouncing them as incompetent fools.

  364. The Supreme Court ironically used this case to limit national injunctions but also had to leave a loophole for a national injunction against a ban on birthright citizenship. That was never going to fly.

  365. Mike M,
    You didn’t need to read more than 3 paragraphs of Barrett’s opinion to see what the response of progressive judges would be.

    Like Jackson, they only care about stopping Trump’s executive orders…. the law and the Constitution be damned.

  366. Tom Scharf,
    “The Supreme Court ironically used this case to limit national injunctions..”

    I think a better description is: they used this case to scold district courts about issuing so many national injunctions, but refused to do anything to actually stop national injunctions. Progressive judges will flip them the bird.

  367. Mahmoud and Taylor:
    I think almost everyone expected SCOTUS to side with the parents (aka “Mahmoud”). The only question was how strongly and using what reasoning.

    https://reason.com/volokh/2025/06/28/free-exercise-clause-rights-to-opt-children-out-of-public-school-lesson-that-substantially-interfere-with-their-childrens-religious-development/?comments=true#comments

    Aside from any legal arguments, I sort of wondered “What was the school board even thinking?!” Well, I’m pretty sure I know what they were thinking. They were thinking they had the power to cramming a political agenda down parents throats and they thought this particular one was worth pushing.

    But seriously…. while this was not the legal issue, what they did was
    (a) introduce topics that were listed as being in a state mandated human sexuality courses required of kids in high school.
    (b) then not allowing an opt-out even though the same law that required introducing these topics in high school also required students be given an opt out.

    The required opt out was probably included in the state mandate because people know perfectly well this is a sensitive issue. And they know when making the sausage, they need to include things in the mix– and that means allowing opt outs.
    (The opt outs aren’t merely for religious parents. Anyone can opt out of certain human sexuality topics in Mass.)

    The mix of people who thought the school board introducing the topics and not permitting opt outs was amazing. Randi Weingarten— not a conservative pundit– said she wouldn’t read those books to young children. (She didn’t go any further in criticizing the school board. But… I mean… come on. Lots of people thought the books were not age appropriate, useful, yada, yada….)

  368. Man this is impressive… even by Florida standards.
    Alligator Alcatraz was announced as a possible housing facility for 5,000 illegal immigrants five days ago. This site was a barren abandoned airstrip in the middle of the Everglades. Yesterday,DeSantis said it will be ready for inmates by Tuesday.
    “During an interview with Fox & Friends host Steve Doocy, that aired on Friday, DeSantis said the center should be ready to take its first detainees by Tuesday. Footage from the site showed portable restrooms and air conditioning systems underneath tent-like canopies.”
    video:
    https://www.foxnews.com/video/6374971215112

  370. Lucia,

    Randi Weingarten— not a conservative pundit– said she wouldn’t read those books to young children.

    I am noticing a divergence between the moderate left and the more extreme progressives these days. For example, there are those who think the Democrats should turn more sharply to the left and double down as it were, and then there are those who seem to grasp that the emergence and dominance of Trumpism to some extent is a sign that progressive ideas have passed beyond what the general population is willing to tolerate in most (or at least many) areas. I think it used to be the case that moderates were willing to go along, but I think that time has ended.

    I’m curious to see if the Democratic party survives the next decade, honestly. Perhaps it will fade and a Democratic Socialist party will emerge, although I have trouble believing such a thing could exist and function for very long in this day and age. I don’t know. Maybe something else will emerge, or maybe the Democrats will find a new message and new core tenets. Interesting times indeed!

  371. One of the current worries is kids being able to opt out of the LGBTQ stuff will now be able to opt out of evolution. My reaction is to say “let them”.

    I believe in evolution. I think it’s better for kids to learn it than to not learn it. I think kids whose parents opt them out of evolution will be at great disadvantage if they want to go into fields involving biology. But mostly, if they decide they want to go into anything involving biology they will eventually have to learn about evolution.
    But really: How far behind other students will they be? At most, in terms of useful courses, they may not taken high school or AP bio. Biology isn’t a required course for high school graduation in Illinois– so is it really all that fatal if kids get to opt out of evolution?

    Anyway, having no bio in high school is probably about as bad as not having had calculus in high school when you want to go into engineer. You’d be better off if you had it, but you can still go into engineering. I’m sure students whose parents opt them out of evolution won’t be too far behind if they really do want to go into fields like nursing, agriculture, dental hygene– all sorts of topics that do involve some amount of “bio”. And of course, biology isn’t exactly foundational to music, theater, any foreign language, literature, economics, computer science, yada, yada, yada. And lots and lots and lots of people (including me) go into non-biology fields.
    (I took biology in high school. I remember very little.)

    If the students read, and they are good students, they will have probably heard some rumors about this “Darwin guy”. I probably had some classes that mentioned evolution in high school and below. (Catholics have no objection to the theory of evolution.)

    But I really don’t see how allowing kids to opt out of learning about evolution in grade school is going to cause huge problems. I think it’s actually better than having people try to introduce “alternate theories” during the discussion of evolution. Just let the “alternate theories” kids to do something else– like learn about more stuff to do with migration of humans moving from Africa to Europe and so on. You can generally avoid the “E” word in all that. You can even avoid it while bringing up things like DNA sequencing and what we’ve learned from that!

  372. Lucia,
    I suspect most kids who are inclined to pursue science or engineering won’t have parents who don’t allow then to learn about evolution, and for the few that do, they will make up their own minds about evolution, no matter what their parents want. The folks who believe it’s ‘turtles all the way down’ (or any other religiously inspired absurd story) usually don’t have an intellectual environment at home which facilitates the kind of questioning that is the basis of all technical thinking…. and learning.

  373. mark bofill,

    I hope your speculation about Democrats self-destructing actually happens. Alas, I suspect it will not.

    Considering the drift leftward among Democrats over the past 30+ years, it is difficult for me to imagine that will not continue. Colleges and universities continue to produce a huge number of dedicated socialists, and they are concentrated in those fields (law, political ‘science’, education, history) that will have long term influence on politics and the direction of government.

    Could many dedicated socialists have been elected to congress 30+ years ago? I doubt it, but Congress now has dozens of dedicated socialists. That is a tectonic scale change in US politics. These are people who don’t care about the constitution…. indeed, they reject the governing principles in the Constitution and the existence of the USA as a self-governing republic. They want to substitute a form of government where all individual liberty is granted (or removed!) by government, and the collective has absolute control. In the long term, they want no borders and world-wide government by the left.

    I think the best we can hope for is the drift leftward costs Dems enough voters that they have little power outside a few deep-blue states and large cities, and that the political pendulum ultimately swings back toward the right.

  374. A world view (progressive or otherwise) and societal values are actually much more like a competing religion than evolution, IMO. Sure, there will always be dumb fundamentalists who think the answers to questions of science can be found in ancient writings, but this is just saying ‘the fools will always be with us’. Of course they will be, and if they weren’t fundamentalists, still they’d be fools, mostly causing obstruction and not much use.

    Modern gender theory is a natural outgrowth of modern secular philosophy. Most of it is a matter of faith and not subject to scientific verification. Modern philosophy essentially doubles as religion in the modern world. It competes with religion to answer ontological, moral and ethical questions. It guides and informs the next generation of artists, writers, lawyers (in particular), psychologists — all those who’s work focuses on people instead of things. And it’s mostly become pathological in the late 20’th century, as far as I can tell. Christianity may or may not be a false faith, either way it remains a bulwark against the ravages of modern secular faith.

    I’ll suffer the darn fundamentalists and the evolution theory opt outs.

  375. Steve,

    I don’t really claim the Democratic party will cease to exist, but I do think it’s possible. Unlikely, I agree.

    I also do think that the more moderate among the left are becoming less willing to tolerate the more extreme among the left. I think this because I read the confused angst from the left pondering what they need to do to regain power, and the moderates seem to realize that part of why they have lost power is because the extremists are too far out there.

  376. Go read about Mamdani for instance. You can divide the stories about him into two groups:
    1. Stories that worry that his socialist policies will lead to rapid ruin and who wish to avoid this (among the Democrats and leftists might I add)
    2. Stories that assert that Mamdani is the way, the future, and the path forward, and if the left clings to the courage of their convictions they will prevail.

  377. lucia and mark make good points about students opting out of evolution. I think that most high school biology courses don’t actually teach evolution. So including evolution and allowing opt outs would increase the number of students learning about evolution.

    The number of parents objecting to their teenagers learning about evolution would surely be dwarfed by the number of parents objecting to their grade schoolers being groomed by the alphabet soup perversity.

  378. I think it possible that the Dem Party is headed for 3rd party status. The extremists are not going to move to the middle. The moderates will eventually revolt. Maybe they will retake the party, but the extremists seem to have a firm grip on the levers of power in the party. If they maintain control, a strong, moderate third party will eventually emerge. One of the two left-of-center parties will have to fade, either the Dems rejecting the extremists to re-adsorb the rebel moderates or the far left being reduced to 3rd party status.

  379. It will be interesting to see what happens in the NYC general election. On one hand, Adams has an approval rating in the 20’s and Hamdani is a slick snake oil salesman. OTOH, Adams is sane and Hamdani is an antisemitic kook.

    The general election is not a foregone conclusion. Last fall, over 2.7 million votes were cast in NYC, down from over 3 million in 2020. Hamdani got 0.43 million votes last Tuesday. Normally, something over 1 million votes get cast in the mayoral election, but normally may be irrelevant. With normal turnout, Hamdani should win. But if a lot of people turn out to vote against Hamdani, Adams could win.

    p.s. – It might be unfair to call Hamdani a snake oil salesman. He probably wants to give it away at taxpayer expense.

  380. MikeM,
    Googling around, it looks like in quite a few states the “solution” to the whole ‘evolution question’ is to require evolution be taught (in middle school) but then teach creationisms side by side. I think it would be much better to not waste the “pro-evolution” kids time with creationism and let the kids whose parents object to evolution just op out and do something better. Teaching the two things side by side can only be simultaneously confusing and time wasting.

  381. Mark: “the moderates seem to realize that part of why they have lost power is because the extremists are too far out there.”

    The question is always whether they believe the extremists are too far out, or whether it’s just too much, too soon. I often get the feeling that the optics are of far more concern than the actual policy substance. Thus, there is more talk about the “messaging” rather than discussion about whether the “solution” should ever have been a thing. The lack of substantive pushback is a primary reason why they are “out there” in the first place, IMO.

    I think it was Schumer or Nadler that, when asked about ANTIFA, claimed they didn’t exist, when he should have dissassoiated himself from them. This kind of cover is precisely why they have this problem.

  382. DaveJR,

    I think you are right. More “moderate” Dem politicians never really say the crazies are, well, crazy. I expect part of it is that, at bottom, many ‘moderate’ Dems are supportive of the same objectives, but recognize, as the Wicked Witch noted: ‘These things take time.’ I suspect another part is purely tactical: criticizing the crazies could benefit Republicans, and that is too much for Dem politicians to swallow. Better to say nothing than to impede ‘progress’.

  383. DaveJR,

    I agree that the big difference between “moderate” elected Dems and the extremists is messaging. But I don’t know what the moderates believe. Maybe they believe the same nonsense as the extremists and lie about it. Or maybe they don’t believe the nonsense but believe that they can’t survive politically if they alienate the extremists and lose the money and activists who back the extremists.

    It makes no difference unless a civil war breaks out in the party, forcing the “moderates” to pick a side. But even if the “moderate” politicians stick with the far left party establishment, moderate voters could still revolt and back a center-left third party candidate.

  384. Sorry, I misquoted the Wicked Witch. It should have been: “These things must be done delicately, or you hurt the spell.”

  386. It looks like necessity will prevail with the BB Bill. At least one prospective holdout Senator gets it exactly right:

    Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., who flipped his vote from a ‘no’ to ‘yes’ in dramatic fashion, said in a statement that the mammoth bill is a “necessary first step” to fiscal sustainability and cleaning up the mess left by the Biden administration.

    “Biden and the Democrats left behind enormous messes that we are trying to clean up – an open border, wars, and massive deficits,” Johnson said. “After working for weeks with President Trump and his highly capable economic team, I am convinced that he views this as a necessary first step and will support my efforts to help put America on a path to fiscal sustainability.”

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-lawmakers-react-after-big-beautiful-bill-clears-senate-hurdle#&_intcmp=fnhpbt1,hp1bt

    Two Republican knuckleheads voted against without really offering an alternative. I get Rand Paul being a knucklehead; he is something of an ideologue who represents a significant chunk of the party. But what is with Tillis? Maybe he should be primaried.

    Musk is screaming about the bill cutting pork for wind and solar after attacking it as being pork-filled. I think he is playing to his customer base.

  388. Thanks Dave.

    It’s a good question. If the moderates don’t believe what the more extreme members believe, the question turns into this: What the heck do they believe anyway?

    People are usually more complicated than what we model in our thoughts and speech. I still lean towards the idea that there are indeed at least some Democrats who aren’t gender ideolog socialist globalist relativist anti humanists. A consequential percentage? Who knows really.

  389. In a way, that does seem to be the moderate democrat dilemma. ‘If not this, what? What will we stand for that is different from Trumpism?’ This seems to be the question Dems are asking themselves.

    Trumpism is out of the question of course. Trump is the tribal arch enemy. But tribalism wasn’t enough in 2024.

  390. The reality is that there is a magnitudes larger problem of students “opting out” of school just because they don’t like school. 37% of students in Wash. DC, right next to Maryland, are chronically absent (> 10 full days unexcused absences).
    https://dcist.com/story/23/11/30/osse-chronic-absenteeism-remains-high-dc-schools/

    These activists are more concerned with their boutique progressive agendas (let’s rename the schools!) than they are with the fundamentals of education. They lost middle America because this is the kind of stuff they continuously talk about.

    It has to be frustrating to the people who are legitimately trying to solve a very hard education problem that crazy people yapping about gender issues get all the attention.

  391. Mark Bofill wrote: ” I still lean towards the idea that there are indeed at least some Democrats who aren’t gender ideolog socialist globalist relativist anti humanists.”

    I think we need to distinguish between Democrat politicians and people who vote Democrat. As near as I can tell, a large fraction of the latter, maybe most, do not really support the nuttiness. They might give lip service to it for fear of being cancelled. When it comes to voting, they downplay those issues. They want to be nice to gays, trans, etc. and ignore the way the latter try to undermine our institutions and norms. They are legitimately concerned about inequality and the less fortunate, which makes them easy marks for the socialists. They are in denial as to the extent of illegal immigration. They believe “all” the economists on trade and globalization. They might not be explicit relativists, but see themselves as open minded as to different religions and social norms. And all of that makes them dupes for the anti-humanists.

    Note: I think that by “anti-humanist” Mark means anti-human rather than opposed to secular humanism.

    Addition: I don’t think the people driving the extremism are well meaning fools. They mean to be destructive and make use of the well meaning fools.

  392. I say if socialism works then let’s do it. I’m just inclined from experience to not believe that. People tend to become less socialist as they get older for a reason.

    Mamdani is just Bernie Sanders dressed up in a better looking less angry costume. He recently said his plan was to increase taxes on the “richer whiter” neighborhoods. Those are the same neighborhoods who voted him in crazily enough. He lost the poorer / blacker neighborhoods.

    Somehow when push comes to shove the richer whiter neighborhoods find a way to exert the levers of power to prevent these type of plans. They like to be seen supporting this stuff, not actually doing it. Somehow they never give up their kid’s seat to an elite school for the less fortunate.

  393. Mike, good point. I’m talking about Dem voters. I agree with the characterization and distinctions you made in your post, thanks in particular for reading me correctly on ‘anti-humanist’. I meant ‘anti-humanist’ in the antinatalism sense, or the eco-activist sense that holds that humans ought to not exist.

  394. In my view the DNC and RNC organizations are primarily about winning elections and obtaining political power. The ideology isn’t that important. If it was all about ideology they wouldn’t spend all their time on polls, focus groups, and messaging.

    They want to harness all the energy of the true believers without the crazies bringing down the ship. They will jettison the crazies if they look like they are causing too much harm. The DNC did this in NYC by running Cuomo and It didn’t work so there is now mass confusion on the proper direction. Mamdani basically ran against the Democratic establishment and won.

    Oddly enough I suspect the left crazies point to Trump/MAGA as a model of the crazies winning the day and they aren’t exactly wrong about that.

    The DNC knows that what just won in NYC isn’t going to cut it in middle America. Fortunately for them there is 3 years until the next presidential election for Mamdani/NYC to self destruct. They also know that generic geriatric AI robots like Biden / Harris also won’t cut it.

    There is an axiom that the way to pacify an extremist movement is to let them rule for a while. Trump II is less stupid and reactive (I’m not counting anything leaving Trump’s face hole). It looks more like regular government with a twist.

    We are entering a new phase of politics. Personality and perceived authenticity matters more than panel tested talking
    points and debate club. Trump blew the doors off the old model and occasionally saying stupid things isn’t much of a liability now.

  395. Tom,

    Oddly enough I suspect the left crazies point to Trump/MAGA as a model of the crazies winning the day and they aren’t exactly wrong about that.

    And

    I say if socialism works then let’s do it. I’m just inclined from experience to not believe that. People tend to become less socialist as they get older for a reason.

    Seem incongruous to me. If Trump’s policies works, are those policies really crazy? I think if they work they are not crazy.

  396. Also,

    There is an axiom that the way to pacify an extremist movement is to let them rule for a while.

    I don’t really agree. Not in Chicago, not in California.

  397. Tom,

    It sounds like you think the DNC runs the Democrat Party. I think their power is quite limited. They are subservient to the donor class and their activists. So they might change the party messaging, but they probably won’t be able to have too much effect on policy.

    They got the guy they wanted in 2020 and look what happened.

    Part of me would be delighted to see the Democrat Party dry up and blow away. But our system depends on having two competitive, sane parties. A competitive opposition keeps the party in power honest. A sane opposition means that when the voters decide it is time for a change, a different sane party takes over.

  398. Mark

    Seem incongruous to me. If Trump’s policies works, are those policies really crazy? I think if they work they are not crazy.

    Sure. But define “works”.

    China’s ‘one child policy’ worked. Their population growth was about 3% in the 70s and seems to be about -0.1% now. Maybe the general idea was not “crazy” in the 70s. But I remember shaking my head around 2000. It is borderline “crazy” to think you can control “everything” and not have unintended consequences. One unintended consequence: All those kids who grew up without siblings (or even cousins) don’t seem to want to have kids. They certainly don’t want to have two kids. Population decline is happening in all sorts of countries, but China exhibits this issue on steroids. “Who’d a thunk?

  399. Lucia,
    Fair enough, some more nuance to ‘crazy’ might be useful.
    Policies that do not accomplish their main purported goal are at least irrational means of trying to attain said goals. Crazy has another dimension and more meaning. Trying to wipe out humanity for instance would be crazy, using some specific tactic or weapon to try to do it might be rational.

  400. Mark,
    Policies that don’t and clearly can’t achieve stated main goals are certainly one type of crazy.

    I think “city run grocery stores” is going to fall in this category. That is assuming the goal is to reduce malnutrition due to people not eating fruits, vegetables and fresher cuts of meats or proteins.

    Now… maybe there is some other goal. Lots of people suspect the main “goal” of city parks in Chicago was to have lots of city employees who could be deployed to do favors for politicians. The parks were a side effect. (A nice side effect, but not really the goal.)

    But there are other types of crazy.

  401. Lucia,
    Yes. In trying to analyze whether or not many of Trump’s policies are irrational (or crazy) one right away runs into the question of ‘what’s the actual purpose of that policy?’

    Like ‘Alligator Alcatraz’, where the guys at Powerline think the actual purpose of it is to help drive self deportations, as was the idea of reopening Alcatraz before it if memory serves. Reopening Alcatraz for whatever official reasons were given would probably be highly irrational. It’d likely be impractical anyway.

  402. There’s arguably a lot of crazy surrounding Trump’s tariff policies? Or is the jury still out on that. The economy seems to be doing alright, but again – did we actually accomplish whatever the heck we set out to do? Was the thing we said we were trying to accomplish the thing we actually wanted to accomplish?

    The question marks are meant to reflect my lack of confidence as much as to actually indicate those questions. Maybe Trump was just doing the art of the deal to renegotiate more favorable trade deals. Maybe he was just full of hot air. It might be imponderable.

  403. I’m not a super fan of Bezos. Nor do I have anything against him. But I’m laughing at people getting their knickers in a twist over Bezos wedding.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/28/bezos-sanchez-nuptials-almost-enough-turn-me-socialist

    The multi billionaire couple have taken over Venice for their seemingly never ending nuptials, which are being attended by 200 guests, including Kim Kardashian, Oprah Winfrey and Leonardo DiCaprio.

    I suspect “taken over” is an exaggeration. There are clearly many more people remaining in Venice.

    The fest was supposed to be the epitome of refinement,

    Is it supposed to be the epitome of refinement? Or is it just intended to be a great big party? I’m guessing the latter. “Refined” is generally “not fun” and often reserved for boring things like Royal Coronations.

    Yet so far it has proved to be a triumph of tackiness over taste. We’ve had a pyjama party and the couple cavorting around on their $500 million yacht covered in foam.

    Sounds like fun. Sounds like there was no intention of being “refined”. I mean… if you hear someone had a “bouncy castle” and clowns at their kids birth day party, they weren’t trying to be “refined”.

    No, what I object to is the idea that a high net worth wedding now seems to necessitate this sort of festival of narcissism. One day of ostentation might be just about bearable but six?

    I haven’t heard the Bezos or anyone claim this was necessary. Look: Turkey with all the trimmings, several pies and all sorts of side dishes isn’t necessary.

    Far from affirming the Bezos’s affluence, it smacks of imposter syndrome in the vein of Harry Enfield’s Loadsamoney: “shut yer mouth and look at my wad”.

    Huh? I haven’t heard the Bezos telling anyone to shut their mouth. I think they are just fine with you yammering!! (I have no idea who “Harry Enfield’s Loadsamoney” is.)

    Overall: I think the Bezos and their guests probably had a lot of fun. If they invited me, paying for my ticket and hotel in Venice, I would have gone. I’d have drunk my fill of champagne. I’d hope for nice big dance floor! I might have spent a little extra to linger in Italy an extra week. I suspect some of the celebrity guests (and possibly the Bezos) are using this for publicity and networking as much as having fun. But so what?

    Some of the outfits aren’t my favorite. But so what?

    Also: I wonder if the WAPO author was equally put out by the various royal weddings. They tended to be more staid which often scans “refined”. But… so what?

  404. So if I can’t hold Trump to anything he says, I probably ought to concede that I don’t have any business slinging ‘crazy’ around at the commie in New York.
    Shrug.

  406. Mark Bofill: “There’s arguably a lot of crazy surrounding Trump’s tariff policies? … did we actually accomplish whatever the heck we set out to do?”

    I don’t think there is any crazy in Trump’s tariff policies, but there may be a good deal of misjudgment in how he has gone about it.

    I think Trump’s goals are pretty clear, with different aspects of his actions linked to different goals. In no particular order:

    (1) Reshore certain critical industries (like metals and pharmaceuticals) especially from unfriendly countries (China). So there are tariffs on certain specific products and special tariffs on China. It is way to soon to say if that is working.

    (2) Get our trading partners to lower import barriers. Hence the on and off “reciprocal” tariffs. I think it is clear that is not working as well as Trump anticipated. Yes, lots of countries are negotiating but there is only one deal with the 90 day deadline just over two weeks away.

    (3) Raise revenue in a less economically damaging manner than most taxes, hence the 10% across the board tariffs. That will surely raise revenue, but economic effects (or non-effects) remain to to be seen.

    (4) Get Mexico, China, and Canada to do something about the flow of fentanyl. I have not heard anything about whether is is working.

  407. Trump / Mamdani are both examples of the RNC / DNC establishment losing control of their party. The smoky back room selections are being defeated by outsiders using “democracy” that these parties so much worship with words (but not necessarily action in the DNC’s case). They collect money from donors and fund their preferred candidates. It doesn’t always work out.

    The DNC / liberal donor class are pretty much the same thing and the influence runs in both directions. You have to win elections to get what you want whether that is eco-crazy, no China tariffs, or bigger union paychecks. The DNC consolidates all that and attempts to win elections, that is their primary job. Win.

    Chicago is not Venezuela and I bet plenty of avowed socialists want to make it so. It’s a matter of degree. They can’t take over private industry here and their level of income redistribution is thwarted by other players and competition from other cities and states.

    The entire left dropped Defund the Police because it was tried and failed in practice. The homeless can’t camp on the streets anymore. Decriminalization of hard rugs is no longer in vogue. They have stopped their immigration rhetoric as soon as they were exposed to the downsides. These positions have been pacified by trial. They would still be supporting this crazy stuff if they hadn’t been allowed to implement it.

    So go ahead and open your government grocery stores, just not in my voting/tax district.

  408. To clarify everyone thought Trump was crazy to try to run for President, literally laughing at him over and over. He can’t win a national election.

    The left crazies can hold him up as an example that nutty policies and people can sometimes win national elections. If Trump can win anybody can win.

    People thought Trump was crazy not necessarily because of his policies so it is a bit different, but he slayed a lot of politically correct positions that were thought to be political suicide. They weren’t.

  409. Tom,
    Thanks for the clarification. I still don’t agree with your axiom, but that’s OK. Also I understand what you mean about crazy Trump better now. For sure I agree that Trump has taken control of the Republican party, I don’t think anyone would dispute that.

  410. Thanks Mike.

    I thought Trump’s insistence that trade deficits are absolutely negative and problematic was a little overblown. I ‘get’ the basic idea, and I think our trade deficits ought to not be insane, but I wouldn’t call every trade deficit necessarily wrong. This was always at least a little crazy IMO. Those who aren’t Trump fans probably think this is lots crazy.

  411. Mark,

    I think that insisting that we not have a trade deficit with any country would be a bit crazy. It is hard to tell if that is actually Trump’s position or if it just an example of Trumpian hyperbole.

    OTOH, I think it is definitely crazy to claim that there is no problem with persistent, large overall trade deficits.

  412. Lucia: ” have no idea who “Harry Enfield’s Loadsamoney” is.”

    A character on a 1990s UK comedy sketch show who made a thing out of showing how much money they had in a parody of yuppie culture. “Loadsamoney” was his catchphrase.

  413. Q What is the difference between Sean Diddy Coombs parties and the Bezos pajama party/ies?
    I mean the contestants or attendees are the same, hello Kim.
    And the sex trafficking seems to be between paid or willing contestants though across country rather than state borders.
    –
    A. Diddy was guilty of a made up RICO charge.
    –
    Word of the day Uxorious
    I thought it meant oily or unctuous.
    Instead it describes most of us here but not Sean or Jeff.

  414. Tropical disturbance forming in the northwest Gulf of America only a 20% chance of becoming a storm
    I’ve had a couple of rain squalls from the outer bands of it pass through.

  416. Angech

    Q What is the difference between Sean Diddy Coombs parties and the Bezos pajama party/ies?

    Perhaps organized sex trafficking by the hosts? I didn’t attend either, so I can’t say for sure.

  417. Economist introduced HENRY an issue or two back.
    High Earner Not Rich Yet.

  418. Above normal sea surface temperatures in the north east Gulf of America (88-90F). The models tell a conflicting story about development of a low pressure system. My guess is no development.

  420. Lucia (#249814),

    I remember when I was introduced to Darwin in biology at a Catholic HS. The teacher made it perfectly clear that she didn’t care whether we agreed with it or not, we were going to know the theory.

    I feel this held for my theology classes. While I doubt they ever said they didn’t care if we believed, we were never forced to believe the teachings. In that way we were able to have several Jews in my class. I don’t remember if we had any Muslims at that time, but I know the local Catholic HS does have Muslims enrolled.

  421. The Turn or Burn Preacher drives the pinko protesters forth in Huntsville Alabama. I love it.

    Yeah, it can be uncomfortable in the Bible Belt but at times there are definite perks.

  422. Ironically, the most “edgy” preaching I’ve ever come across was in San Francisco just two years ago. I think the group were the black hebrew israelites, which perhaps explains how they were free to be utterly homophobic and get away with it in a bastion of tolerance and gay pride.

  423. Mark,

    I remember – when at Auburn for undergrad – these types of preachers would stand on the concourse between Haley Center and Parker Hall on mornings. One particular pair were very entertaining! I am not sure if they realized the crowd that gathered was there to laugh at them or not.

    Alabama sidewalk preachers are a breed apart!

  424. Dean,

    I’ve never personally encountered one, but in some ways I lead a very sheltered existence. I ought to get out more (well, deviate from my routines more, is more like it).

    Even fundamentalist fools can make a positive contribution to society under the right circumstances. Hah!

    [Edit: I have lived in Huntsville for long enough to finally grasp some of my civic responsibilities. So, even though I don’t follow this at all: Roll Tide. There, the forms have been satisfied.]

  425. mark,

    YOU HEATHEN!!! R*** T***???? I thought more of you than that!!!

    One thing I noticed when this particular couple was out riling up the crowd – a third preacher was almost always nearby. Not nearly as flamboyant, not nearly as controversial. But always with a crowd around him – and most of these people were listening intently and honestly to what he had to say…

  426. ~grins~

    Regarding the third preacher, that is interesting.

    I don’t listen to many preachers. I joined a church and went to service every Sunday in the service of my children’s social life back when they were children, but now that they’ve grown I no longer feel the need. Part of the reason I quit was my local preacher. Few things are more offensive to me than listening to some young adult pontificate authoritatively on matters he clearly knows absolutely nothing about. I lost patience for the last time listening to my preacher talk to me about economic ‘stewardship’ as if we were merely the caretakers of God’s static wealth instead of producers of that wealth.

    But Huntsville is a city with a sizeable number of engineers, I bet if I shopped around I’d find a palatable preacher someplace. It’s worth thinking about. Religion and religious belief is a poorly integrated idea in my mind, I’m inconsistent in my thinking about it in many ways. Sometimes I think it’s worth looking into, but more often than not I’ve got other fish to fry with my free time.

  427. The list of “horribles” that allowing parents to opt out of reading the gay/trangender books in op eds and post complaining about it is amazing. Mostly, what’s amazing is the over-extension of what the court ruled.

    * The court ruled that parents could opt their kids out of actual lessons that were actively planned to happen by the school board. These lessons has actual goals of what the board wanted kids to “learn”. The ruling says nothing about what a teacher might blurt out incidentally without planning.

    * It did NOT rule that the school couldn’t include these books in the curricula.

    * As far as I can tell, this ruling neither increases nor decreases individual teachers “freedom of speech” nor their ability the to chose materials. Why? These books were not selected by individual teachers. The books were selected by the school board in a “process”. It was clear that teachers didn’t get to decide to “opt in” or “opt out” of their own volition. The teacher training made it clear that the teachers must include these books. I’m sure some teachers were thrilled. Likely others were not. But this wasn’t the choice of individual teachers– it was a curricular decision by a school board. Actions by school boards (or even groups of teachers) who make decisions that all must communicate a particular message don’t represent “freedom of speech” for individual. (Note: Teachers are employees paid to do a job for which they are hired. When on the job and speaking for their employers– which is what teaching is– their individual freedom of speech is legally limited. This is justifiable.)

    Some are complaining this is going to costs schools lost of money. Is it going to cost schools some money to administrate the opt out program? Yes. But those wanting kids to not be given an opt opt out were fine with parents having to spend tons of money on private school tuition to opt out. So the only issue here is who the opt out costs money.

    I mean… schools have to spend money on programs. Them spending money is routine. They spend money on teachers salaries. They spend money on athletics. If there is a student field trip, they have to spend money to deal with kids who don’t go on the field trip. They probably spent money on the books they use in the classroom and the library. Now if they want to active planned lessons that would force parents to violate their religious views, the school has to spend some extra money to fulfill the educational views of the school board. I’m not seeing this as a big problem.

    The schools can then figure out how to best achieve the goal of introducing the curriculum they want while controlling spending. This is something they already have to do.

  428. DeanP

    I remember when I was introduced to Darwin in biology at a Catholic HS.

    The thing is, Catholics have nothing against the theory of evolution. Also: their view is you can go to the Catholic school or pick another one. So if you don’t want to cover that topic, yes, you can to somewhere else. This is perfectly reasonable if you and the rest of the community aren’t paying taxes to support that school.

    Parents sending their kids to the Catholic school know perfectly well the perceived value of the Catholic school diploma is improved by the fact that kids do take evolution. But if they really objected, they could find another private school. It probably won’t be Roman Catholic though. And the perceived value of the “no evolution” school to colleges will tend to be lower for that reason. (They might be able to make up the value in some other way. But “no evolution taught here” will be seen as a negative.)

    Public schools don’t have the same flexibility. They should just allow an opt out. Those kids will either not be prepared for biology or they will be less prepared. But biology is not required for graduation in Illinois. So…. is not being prepared for biology really an important reason to not allow an opt out?

    And, of course, public schools can figure out some way to indicate that kids took the “no evolution in during the years when the state standards suggest it” branch in student records. I think schools are allowed to have records of what you took. Since these are middle school records, I think these record will probably not make much difference to kids applying for college. The main thing colleges would see is “didn’t take biology”.

  429. john a ferguson,
    HENRY
    The legacy media has been running this narrative for quite a while now. I have yet to find a person sympathetic to this line of argument, nor do I quite understand what they are trying to say.

    WSJ yesterday.

    They’re in the Top 10% of Earners. They Still Don’t Feel Rich.
    https://www.wsj.com/economy/high-earners-financial-fragility-871a4aa4?st=MJDa7J&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
    “But when her son Dalton heads to college next year, he’ll have to tap student loans and hunt for scholarships. The couple haven’t been able to save enough to cover all of their children’s expected college expenses, which often cost around $75,000 a year per student for families at their income level. “

  430. Lucia,

    I wonder if there was a slippery slope the school board was hoping to implement: If parents aren’t allowed to opt out of a topic, how can they opt out of sending their kids to public schools?

    Schooling is mandatory up to a certain age (depending on the state, I suspect). While I suspect there are rules about sending kids to private schools on the books in most states, home schooling may be an entirely different manner (a quick Grok search indicated a wide range of regulations on home schooling).

  431. Lucia,

    Regarding free speech, yes. I had never noticed until recent years people making this oddly inverted argument that reining in petty bureaucratic tyrants was interfering with ‘free speech’. I mean, no, not at all. Points for creativity, but bureaucrats aren’t medieval noblemen who rule by right of birth. They are people doing jobs. There isn’t a free speech issue to be had there.

    I agree with the rest of your points as well.

  432. One might wonder what all those lobbyists in DC are good for.

    Trump played chicken with Canada over their digital services tax and Canada just backed down and says they will not enact it. This was yet another high tech sector rape and pillage effort (they learned from the EU). It was going to cost $1B per year and those nice polite Canadiens made it retroactive to 2022 so a $2B payment was due immediately.

    Trump scrapped the trade talks last week because of this tax and Canada relented.

    It’s always a bit vague, wink and nod, how much lobbying has to do with outcomes but never the less it was money well spent by the tech sector.

  433. Mark,
    I do love reading the signs at these events. “Hate will not make us great” and “MTG is a fascist grifter” side by side, ha ha. Then of course you have upside down US flags and proclamations about love for democracy. Real hand made signs are always good reading.

    People need a hobby I guess, it looks like they are having a good time. Pass me the bong! I’m curious about politics / human behavior but I can never see myself going to a political protest.

  434. Tom,

    but I can never see myself going to a political protest.

    Yup. Certainly not as a participant. Just the thought of it makes me feel ill. Marching around yelling like some dirty no good gosh darn hippy, no thanks.
    Even observing in person doesn’t strike me as an appealing idea. I guess I’m not as adventurous as I used to be.

  435. DeanP

    If parents aren’t allowed to opt out of a topic, how can they opt out of sending their kids to public schools?

    SCOTUS ruled on the right for parents to send their kids to private schools. Parents have that right– it’s well established.

    The main difficulty for parents who might want to exercise that right is that it is very expensive. And parents are already paying taxes either directly as home owners or indirectly because landlords obviously cover real estate taxes as part of their cost of business.

    Real estate taxes are my largest individual tax bill. Most of it goes to funding schools– though some goes to other things.

    The school board definitely wanted to force kids to be exposed to this material. They wanted to characterize it as “mere exposure”– but it’s clear it was more than that.

    I have no doubt if that this level of “exposure” had been seen as so de minimus as to not allow an opt out, the school board would have ramped up to more. Of course, the flip side is that I am equally sure that many parents will “discover” their objection to this material is that it “violates their religion”.

    I’m an atheist/agnostic. If I had kids this material would not violate my religion. Depending on exactly how it was presented, I might prefer to opt out. Maybe, like Saul or St. Joan, I’d suddenly have a vision of God (or the virgin mary) who would tell me I can’t expose my kids to this. This kindly God or St. Mary, would, for sure, not tell me I need to actually go to church or tithe. For this reason, I would “sincerely” believe what she told me. Or maybe I’d just consult a therapist about my visions of God and let the kids sit in through the class.

  436. There is freedom of speech, compelled listening, and compelled speech. Maryland was forcing grade school children to listen to controversial ideological content and the teachers are being compelled to speak it. There are going to be gray areas here but certainly an area where a lot of scrutiny is warranted.

    The activists wanted to cram controversial ideological content down children’s throats by edict without any further work on their part. This was a spectacularly stupid fight to pick and just plain lazy.

    The existence of gray areas doesn’t mean you shouldn’t allow an opt out or allow it. It is a pain for administrators which is why schools properly end up with the least common denominator in most cases and avoid controversial content.

    I used to be OK with the faculty lounge deciding school content but I no longer am. They are under double secret probation in my book.

  437. The very real “freedom of (teacher) speech” — “right to employment on equal basis” — “parent religion” issue that is going to come up is going to be related to parents wanting to opt their kids out of a class taught by a gay or trans teacher.

    What cannot be predictive is the precise fact pattern. Will the trans teacher merely be visibly trans, but quiet about it? And some parents will want to opt out of that 2nd grade (or other) class? Of will the teacher be a very vocal and straying on to the topic of transitioning and gender rights during reading? Each side will claim facts more supportive of their position.

    But that’s the situation were individual rights really will butt up against each other.

    We are also going to see arguments about pride flags– but we already have those. And for those: well… actually, teachers “freedom of speech” doesn’t actually extend to introducing non-curricular topics. If it’s not curricular speech, the teacher likely has to give in. I mean: why is the flag even in there? How is it even a close call relative to parents right to not have their kids be “taught” or “persuaded” that gay rights are important.

    A similar argument could be made if the teacher hangs a cross complete with dying Jesus on the wall. Why is it there?

    I suspect this may be the death knell for Pride flags.

  438. Lucia,

    Or maybe I’d just consult a therapist about my visions of God and let the kids sit in through the class.

    Whether your vision is of a wise old man up in the clouds or a flying spaghetti monster matters less in some ways than whether you share the same secular beliefs that are popular today. I think people ought to be able to make up their own minds about the nature and objective reality of sex and gender even if they can’t cite a hallowed biblical source for their views. They ought to be able to disagree with the current politically correct dogma which rests on no smaller foundation of faith than traditional religious beliefs do.

    I think invoking the spaghetti monster ought not to be necessary to opt out of modern dogma. There’s a lot of carbs in spaghetti after all.

  439. Down here in evil FL you can get an $8,000 voucher (any kid, any income level) to send your kid somewhere else besides public school. This is even available for home schooled kids. The state places a limit on the number of vouchers per year with a tiered/priority eligibility system.

    I see this as primarily a battle against entrenched teachers unions. This problem is not nearly as bad in FL as it is in IL and other places where public school costs have skyrocketed with the added bonus of poor performance for the cost.

  440. Particularly since children these days self select for sacrificing their genitals and reproductive future on the secular altar, and parents in many places are hindered by schools, psychologists, and the state from protecting them. There’s more of Moloch and Tlaloc worship going on here than might be immediately obvious.

  441. The Supreme Court already ruled in 2020 that you can’t not hire / fire somebody for their sexual preference / gender identity.

    You can fire anybody for not adhering to workplace rules. Most places have rules for what a teacher can display in their classroom. Typically overt political stuff is not allowed. Pride/BLM flag is a gray area. Making your kids pledge allegiance to a pride flag gets you fired after you take down the American flag because it makes you uncomfortable.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2021/09/02/california-teacher-removed-after-urging-student-pledge-lgbtq-flag/5693430001/

    There are teachers who can be trans / gay and talk about it with kids in a respectful way that they shouldn’t get fired over. We have all had good teachers who can do this type of thing. There are also activist teachers who would do this rather poorly. If I was a teacher who liked my job I wouldn’t go there.

  442. Tom Scharf

    The existence of gray areas doesn’t mean you shouldn’t allow an opt out or allow it.

    Evolution is actually a very good example here:

    * Some states and some parents tried to ban teaching of evolution. SCOTUS: no. Epperson v. Arkansas 1968.

    * Some states and parents require teaching of creation science. SCOTUS– no you can’t. Requiring teaching creation science violates the establishment clause. ( Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) ) It’s NOT in the curricular standards for kids in any state. (I had previously thought some states require it– but no. None do.)

    Those rulings are correct. The religious views of some parents should not be able to prevent others from being taught evolution nor require others to be exposed to “creation science”.

    As far as I am aware, there was no SCOTUS ruling on allowing kids to opt out of a required evolution. Perhaps that’s because schools often let kids opt out– and so no case is ever presented. Perhaps it’s because parents aren’t as motivated to opt out. Perhaps it’s because schools tone down how evolution is presented and really don’t push it.

    I note the NGSS standards for evolution are here
    https://www.nextgenscience.org/topic-arrangement/hsnatural-selection-and-evolution

    But also: Google tells me “HS-LS4-1.” is a standard for 9-12 grade life science. You are not required to take biology or life science to graduate high school in Illinois. You are required to take 2 science classes at least one of which includes a lab. Jim didn’t take biology– he had some sort of “earth science” class, then chemistry and physics. (His parents had no objection to evolution. Their school just started with “earth science” for some reason, then he picked chem and physics.)

    It’s not unlikely that Mahmoud ruling will be interpreted to schools being required to let kids opt out of evolution classes. But my guess is that they mostly already do.

    These are btw, the NGSS middle school standards

    https://www.nextgenscience.org/dci-arrangement/ms-ls4-biological-evolution-unity-and-diversity

    Notice how the actual standards ‘cleverly’ avoid touching on human evolution while discussing many of the factors that support the notion that evolution will occur? Note that if you hear the more elaborate creatinists, they have no objection to kids discussing things like htis

    “LS4-6. Use mathematical representations to support explanations of how natural selection may lead to increases and decreases of specific traits in populations over time.
    LS4.C: Adaptation

    Adaptation by natural selection acting over generations is one important process by which species change over time in response to changes in environmental conditions. Traits that support successful survival and reproduction in the new environment become more common; those that do not become less common. Thus, the distribution of traits in a population changes.”

    When I’ve encountered creationists, they have he “creationists” tend to have “no objection” to the idea that species “change over time”. What they object to is that entirely new species spring into being. ( How exactly the string together everything they think… dunno. But when I’ve come across a rabid creationist who delved into “the controversy” and wanted to argue, they have no problems with the middle school learning objectives!

  443. Mark

    I think invoking the spaghetti monster ought not to be necessary to opt out of modern dogma.

    I don’t disagree. But if you are going to claim something violates your religion you have to claim what you believe is based on your religion. That’s how 1A works.

  444. Tom

    The Supreme Court already ruled in 2020 that you can’t not hire / fire somebody for their sexual preference / gender identity.

    Yeah… but there is “space” between actually firing a teacher vs. allowing kids to opt out of their 2nd grade class. There are often multiple 2nd grade teachers.

  445. I applaud the recent SCOTUS opinions; while I consider Sotomayor the least qualified to sit on that august bench, Jackson is showing herself to be competing for poorest thinker. Barrett’s rebuttal to Jackson’s rebuttal is astounding.

    The Left has depended on apparatchiks for decades but I am still astounded that the US has allowed the ascendence of Soviet-style nomenklatura over the last 30 years. We used to make fun of the Soviet Union over their bureaucracy and then we adopted it.

    In other “news”, Iran’s senior cleric has pronounced a fatwa against Trump. Do they seriously think we DIDN’T consider them threatening our senior politicians and defense and intelligence officers even absent a formal fatwa? The US needs to maintain as much hands-off as we can but if the rest of the Gulf states really want peace in the region, they should consider going Open Season on Iran’s IRGC and mullahs now that Iran’s air defenses are basically gone. Free the Iranian people to choose their destiny.

  446. lucia wrote: “Teachers are employees paid to do a job for which they are hired. When on the job and speaking for their employers– which is what teaching is– their individual freedom of speech is legally limited. This is justifiable.”

    I think that is true up to a point. It is fine for a school board to tell biology teachers that they must teach evolution. But a school board should not be allowed to tell civics teachers that they must teach that Trump is an evil fascist who will destroy democracy. It also seems obvious to me that elementary teachers should not be required to teach stuff that is clearly age inappropriate and that teachers should not be required to teach stuff that is clearly outside the subject matter, like DEI in a physics course. I admit that I am not sure how to define the line.

  447. MikeM

    There are at least two branches here: Forced speech– the school board requiring speech the teacher does not want to engage in and claimed free speech– a teacher just wants to talk about whatever the teacher wants to talk about.

    First: I agree a school board has no place forcing teachers to advance views that are not even in the curriculum. So that should take care of any school forcing a teacher to advance the school boards preferred views on DEI when teaching physics. DEI is not part of the physics curriculum and a teacher certainly shouldn’t be required to advance any party line when teaching that class. In the meantime, they should be forced to discuss Newton’s 1st-3rd laws and so on.

    I think everyone will claim teachers should not be forced to teach anything that is age inappropriate. The difficulty here is going to involve arguments about what is or is not age inappropriate.

    Ohl.. gotta go. More later. 🙂

  448. Harvard Violated Students’ Civil Rights, Trump Administration Finds
    https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/harvard-violated-students-civil-rights-trump-administration-finds-4a0ed7aa?st=JYmhUc&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

    File this under “Hung by their own petard”.

    These places created a fantasy world where reverse discrimination wasn’t a possibility. Discrimination claims must first pass through an oppression filter in their view. A building full of constitutional lawyers somehow wasn’t much help.

    Note how the definition of racism was changed with the last part added:
    “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.”

  449. Maps was picking a slow route….
    On the “age inappropriate”. There are going to be differences of opinion on what is age inappropriate. Some if these decisions are going to end up falling to the political process. In fact we see this with parents finding library books they consider totally inappropriate in middle school libraries. ( E.g. with illustrations of blow jobs etc.)

    I think most teachers can avoid being forced to make choices they think are age inappropriate through the same political process. But yes, this process can put an employees at risk. (Many teachers have tenure though– so less risk for them than you might worry.)

    Finally: there is the issue of a teacher wanting to discuss something that is not in the curriculum. Well… they don’t have that “right”. Maybe they can get away with discussing it. But if a teacher wants to spend the entire physics class on the wonders of Mother Theresa, DEI, gay pride and so on and so on, and the school board doesn’t like that, then they should lose their job because they aren’t doing it. The job is “teach physics”. They should lose their job if this speech is merely sufficient to be disruptive and impair learning.

  450. lucia,

    I think it is pretty easy to justify employers restricting speech at the workplace. “You are perfectly free to say that, you just can’t say it here”.

    But forced speech is much more of a problem unless it is clearly required by the job.

    Forced speech simply because it is “in the curriculum” gives too much power to whoever gets to define the curriculum. It is one thing to say that with regard to a long established curriculum. It is very different to force compliance when the curriculum involves “innovations”.

  451. Reinterpreting history is also very annoying. I don’t believe people now have a more accurate view of the historic events than the people who wrote it down 20 years after it happened.

    I can imagine where that sometimes could happen but I doubt that it happens very often. Changing the grand sweeping narrative to a very negative view of colonialism and oppression is an example.

  452. Tom –

    I support revisions of history when new facts come to life but little of what constitutes historical revision today is really about new facts so much as telling it the way the authors want to. Facts be damned when they have a message to indoctrinate today’s youth with.

    As an example, 80 years ago, Patton was a bloody genius in countering the Germans in the Ardennes. Decades later, the fact of how much of the German message traffic we had decrypted was declassified and Patton was still a military genius but one who had some inside information to work from. That’s a far cry from the propaganda and disinformation pushed by the 1619 Project, Critical XXXXXXX Theory, or “Modern Monetary Theory”.

    WRT evolution, I liked the way my high school biology teacher handled it. He laid out the competing theories to include spontaneous generation, creationism, and evolution — spending about 5 minutes on each — then said, “you’re free to believe which ever of these you want but since this is a science class, we’re going to study the only one that is supported by scientific evidence and theory. You’ll be tested on what you’ve learned about that scientific evidence and theory, not what you believe.”

  453. MikeM

    Forced speech simply because it is “in the curriculum” gives too much power to whoever gets to define the curriculum. It is one thing to say that with regard to a long established curriculum. It is very different to force compliance when the curriculum involves “innovations”.

    You have to give specific examples of things that actually happen for us to discuss what you are worried about.

    I think saying that Columbus left Spain and “discovered” American in 1492 can be required.

  454. DerekH

    As an example, 80 years ago, Patton was a bloody genius in countering the Germans in the Ardennes.

    Whether he was a “genius” was always an opinion. That he countered the Germans is a fact. I don’t think history curricula generally require teachers to decree whether generals were “geniuses”. They do relate who won battles.

  455. lucia,

    I gave a some examples earlier. Sexually explicit material, especially in lower grades. DEI stuff in most or all courses. Reading material with a lot of profanity. Material pushing specific political views.

    Community norms should be respected, even if the norms are not as widely held as they once were. It is probably OK to have “Beloved” or “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” being in a high school library. But they should probably not be used as required reading.

    A good rule of thumb might be that if you can’t read it aloud at a school board meeting, then it does not belong in the curriculum or in a school library below the high school level.

  456. MikeM

    Sexually explicit material, especially in lower grades.

    By examples: I mean examples of specific school districts that did specific things. You are just throwing topics out there.

    Community norms should be respected,

    Sure. And part of that is done through school board etc.

    if you can’t read it aloud at a school board meeting, then it does not belong in the curriculum or in a school library below the high school level.

    Sure. Which is why some parents managed to embarrass school boards and get attention by making posters of pages from books on library shelves and trying to read them in the school board meeting.

    But I thought you were intending to discuss teachers “freedom of speech”?

  457. On another topic, we’ve seen before that there were rush moves to send out $$$ at the end of the Biden Administration. Here’s another: $42B in “clean energy” loans in 2 days, despite an Inspector General warning, ““Although the audit is not complete, we are issuing this memorandum now because of the risks associated with closing an additional $22 billion in loans and loan guarantees by January 20, 2025, without ensuring compliance with conflicts of interest regulations.”

  458. from today’s White House schedule calendar:
    7:15. The President departs The White House en route Alligator Alcatraz
    South Lawn Open Press

  459. MikeM,
    if you can’t read it aloud at a school board meeting, then it does not belong in the curriculum or in a school library below the high school level.

    How would something like reading “To Kill a Mockingbird” or “Huckleberry Finn” where the n-word is often used? Would i read it at a school board meeting? I am sure many would not. Me? sure – no problem. The perpetually offended have no power over me.

    A teacher in Spokane , however, was just fired for reading such a section in his class – when he was specifically discussing with the students about whether these words should be omitted.

    I have no problem with controversial texts being in libraries. Even school libraries. If a kid – even a 2nd grader – picks up a controversial book and checks it out, I feel it is the parents responsibility to guide the child, not the school. I would be in favor of the school identifying to the parent that the book was checked out. This could be something as simple as an email to parents when any book is checked out.

  460. I’m personally not so much concerned about controversial content as long as it isn’t one sided. For the Montgomery County exercise it was both controversial and one sided. There didn’t seem to be much effort to “teach the controversy” in that case. It was ideology.

    Public schools operate closer to the heckler’s veto model where nothing gets taught that anybody will scream about. IIRC they didn’t touch abortion with a 10 foot pole when I went to school. I can accept that model as well.

    Off the subject but what I find most appalling is the lack of teaching personal finance in K-12. They wrap themselves around a pole on grade school gender but can’t bother to teach how student loans really work.

  463. Tom Scharf wrote: “Public schools operate closer to the heckler’s veto model ”

    That certainly used to be the case and is probably still the case in many places. But as many news stories show, it has ceased to be the case in many places. It seems that those are Deep Blue areas where the school board gets dominated by committed Leftists. They are the sort who are convinced that they have the moral high ground, that their view is the only correct view, and that any opposition must be immoral and uninformed. So they fearlessly plunge ahead with outrageous content.

  465. I agree with Mike. Public schools transitioned a while ago from the heckler’s veto, teaching on non-controversial subjects, to indoctrination (sometimes even in heavily conservative regions by shielding curriculum from parental inspection).

    I am less troubled by parents who don’t want their kids to hear about evolution for two reasons. First, I really don’t see that many parents that are anti-evolution. Second, the kids will be exposed to scientific information later and will have to settle their own beliefs.

    I am more troubled by the social indoctrination that is occurring in public schools and state-mandated curricula these days. It’s brainwashing, pure and simple, AND the activists have been taking steps to prevent the spread of any information that counters the propaganda. “The Algorithm” is still alive and well at Google and YouTube, they are just hiding it better after seeing what happened at Twitter.

  467. Indoctrination exercises are usually made with an attempt to hide the indoctrination, it’s a red flag. Hide it instead of defend it. Montgomery County had an opt-out and then removed it because it was “too hard to manage” or something. This sounds more like a hope and prayer that nobody would notice it being slipped in.

    Activist controversies on school boards has increased. Once a few of these were discovered then trust was lost and people started looking under all the rocks. I don’t know if it was always this way and nobody noticed, but it is probably a combination of both.

    Court ordered forced bussing was off the scales controversial when I was a kid. This is another example of a bad policy that had to be tried before it could be discarded (in most areas). People pining for these type of policies are few in number now.

    Differential school funding was a real problem that needed to be solved but I think the impact here was much smaller than people thought.

  468. Some actual info, not sure it means anything:

    WSJ: “Satellite images show Iran has built a new access road at its Fordow uranium enrichment site and moved in construction equipment that could be used to assess the damage done to the key underground nuclear facility by last month’s U.S. airstrike.

    The imagery captured in recent days by Maxar Technologies, a commercial satellite company, shows a new road up the mountain where the Fordow nuclear facility is located along with a number of vehicles, including what analysts have identified as an excavator and a mobile crane.

    An analysis of the images by the Institute for Science and International Security, a think tank studying the Iranian nuclear program, said the excavator was likely preparing a staging area to send cameras or personnel down the holes made by American bombs to inspect the damage done to the underground facility.
    …
    The Institute for Science in its analysis said it observed no visible activity at Fordow’s tunnel entrances”

    Also, I’m reading “Countdown to Zero Day
    Stuxnet and the Launch of the World’s First Digital Weapon” which covers the early days of Iran’s nuclear program and Israel’s cyber warfare campaign. Suffice it to say Iran has been cheating hard and often since the very beginning. The Institute for Science and International Security is heavily featured all the way back and I suggest this is just a cover for Israel, they get access to an awful lot of secret info somehow.

  469. I’m skeptical that there is actually a difference between indoctrinating kids and just raising them, but it’s not worth arguing about IMO.

  470. mark,

    But it is not the job of the schools to either indoctrinate or raise kids.

  471. DerekH

    I am more troubled by the social indoctrination that is occurring in public schools and state-mandated curricula these days.

    Which “state-mandated curricula” bothers you?
    The Maryland school board wasn’t pushing a state mandated curricula. It was a school board– at most county level. (I think that was the level. Illinois school boards are a township levels.)

    Usually, when I hear stories about objectionable things being pushed it’s an individual teacher, school or township. It’s not state wide. Once the political question rises to the state level, some compromises are made and/or ridiculous stuff is wiped out.

  472. Mark: “I’m skeptical that there is actually a difference between indoctrinating kids and just raising them”

    So am I. “Indoctrination” as a word has sinister implications, but is a parent passing on their morals and ethics to a child not “indoctrination”? Some people would certainly say so, however, I have come to view this process as installing a basic operating system. If the parents don’t install one, someone else will do it for them. I would absolutely encourage parents to “indoctrinate” their kids to give them protection against others who might want to do the same, but different.

    “Note: The term often carries a negative connotation, implying manipulation or lack of intellectual freedom, but it can be neutral in contexts like education or training when used without bias.”

    If you want to raise a child properly, you need to be biased. You want to be biased against things which are likely to produce bad outcomes and to be biased for the opposite. “Intellectual freedom” is a trap until the child gets old enough to have a proper intellect.

  473. I’ll add, because this was disturbing. There are papers out there by “academics” who bemoan phrases like “childhood innocence” and would like to see them lose social acceptance. They, correctly, see them as gatekeeping phrases, designed to prevent people inserting certain ideas into childrens heads. They desperately want to be able to teach kids as young as possible all about “sex” so they will grow up to be accepting of “alternative lifestyles” and who the hell knows what else…

  474. Dave,
    Yes. I think it’s inevitable, even with the best of intentions. We all have implicit assumptions and beliefs, some of which we are aware of and some we don’t. Anyway you slice it though, children are sponges. They will soak those up as they soak up the language and the ability to understand words and put words together. It’s much the same as bias in AI LLMs in my view; the bias in LLMs is an inevitable artifact of the training data. It’s almost meaningless to call it a ‘bias’, it’s really just — the digest of the training data, whatever that turns out to be.
    [‘Bias’ implies some alternate non biased ‘true’ value, which is not IMO a useful distinction to make in this regard, I guess is what I’m trying to get at.]

  475. in·doc·tri·na·tion
    /in?däktr??n?SH(?)n/
    noun

    the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

    Certainly, the point of the LGBTQ books was to accept some beliefs uncritically. No one intends to have discussions about whether “Uncle Bobby” marrying his boyfriend rather than a girlfriend was a good or bad thing when the book was introduced. The marriage is presented as an obvious good all around. (I do sort of wonder what actual conversations will occur when the book is ultimately used– assuming they do use it. The training had responses to certain questions kids might ask– but of course, they can’t control what kids will actually say. )

    Doubtless, some parents also want their kids to accept some beliefs uncritically. That said, I don’t think all education of kids is indoctrination nor even intended as such. Even when very young, kids have a natural inclination to trying to think critically. Kids ask “why” a lot.

    They just often don’t have much information to work with.

  476. Lucia,
    For sure the crazy stuff (can’t be read at a school board meeting) doesn’t get a lot of promotion. OTOH, where there is enough support (as in Virginia suburbs close to Washington DC), where I suspect there is near zero regard for any more ‘conservative’ views when setting school agenda.

    The strange thing for me is not that the crazies want to promote their views, it is that they imagine promoting those views will not immediately generate political push-back from parents.

  477. Many years ago (20?), I took my now much older children to Provincetown on Cape Cod. When we were walking in the city we encounter multiple cases were gay or lesbian couples walked the streets with “hands down-the-pants” of their significant other. Last time I visited with kids.

    These folks need to set better standards.

  478. Somewhere between ages 5 and 9 kids critical thinking skills really starts to develop. They are learning way before then. Everything they learn before then is more or less indistinguishable from indoctrination.

  479. SteveF

    For sure the crazy stuff (can’t be read at a school board meeting) doesn’t get a lot of promotion.

    But I think that’s precisely why it generally happens at lower than State level. When it’s at state level, it gets discussed.

    I’m not saying nothing screwy happens at state level. Just that most of the sex/gender/weird history happens at local levels. That’s the level where introduction can fly under the radar because lots of people don’t spend much time paying attention to school board meetings.

    Heck…it goes both ways. I lived somewhere where the local school board was brief creationist dominated. That changed the next election. But people don’t pay that much attention to it. So that’s where it happens.

    as in Virginia suburbs close to Washington DC

    Note: all this stuff was at a local level– less than state wide. When it came into wider view…. well Youngkin is in office now.

    I’m not saying screwy things don’t happen. I’m just suggesting that– unless someone can show the screwy thing they were concerned about was at a state level, it’s usually at a local level.

    Mind you: dumbing down math does happen at state levels. Then well off communities ignore it or rebel. ‘Cuz their kids are going to get Calculus and go to Ivies even if the State wants “equity”.

  480. Mark Bofill

    Somewhere between ages 5 and 9 kids critical thinking skills

    I baby sat kids. I think it’s near 5. They don’t have much to work with… but…. “why?” They sense unfairness. They grasp some stuff.

  481. Lucia,

    They sense unfairness. They grasp some stuff.

    Of course you’re not wrong. Some of that probably is hard coded, or at least the initial conceptual promptings. For instance social animals like dogs, and apes show evidence of understanding fairness. I know humans take it a lot farther, I don’t disagree with that.

  482. Well, I don’t know that it’s hard coded. It might be earlier developmental. The more I think about it the more I think that. What’s hard coded is imitation. Maybe that gets the ball rolling in social animals. I don’t know. I could read about it I guess.

  483. ESPN: Penn to ban trans women from women’s sports, ends case focused on Lia Thomas
    https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/45634254/penn-ban-trans-athletes-ending-lia-thomas-civil-rights-case
    “The University of Pennsylvania says it will update records set by transgender swimmer Lia Thomas and apologize to female athletes “disadvantaged” by Thomas’ participation on the women’s swimming team, part of a resolution of a federal civil rights case.
    …
    On Tuesday afternoon, the Penn website showed other athletes holding the school’s top times in Thomas’ freestyle events. The site was annotated with a note that read, “Competing under eligibility rules in effect at the time, Lia Thomas set program records in the 100, 200 and 500 freestyle during the 2021-22 season.””

    I’m not getting “tired of winning” these cases, ha ha.

    CNN:
    “Some critics claim transgender athletes have an unfair advantage in sports, but that’s not what the research shows.

    While research is limited and ongoing, a 2017 review in the peer-reviewed journal Sports Medicine found “no direct or consistent research” showing trans people have an athletic advantage.
    A more recent October 2023 review of the research concluded that sex differences do develop following puberty, but many are “reduced, if not erased, over time by gender affirming hormone therapy.”

    Physical attributes that could work in a trans girl’s favor, like height or limb length, for example, appear to be “less malleable,” the study said, but it also pointed out that there are no efforts to restrict cisgender athletes who are taller than average or exceptionally gifted physically in any other way.”

    Orwell doublespeak alert! Deciding to be trans doesn’t make your limbs shorter, oops I mean less malleable. CNN is silent on whether males have an advantage, perhaps they think this isn’t relevant.

  484. Mark Bofill
    This article suggest 3 years olds already have some aspects of critical thinking. They will believe sources who were right more often than those who were wrong. The grasp that doctors are more likely to know something about health and plumbers more likely to know about mechanical devices. They already understand the possibility people lie.

    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2951681/

    I’m not sure when “critical thinking” starts, and perhaps it depends what you think critical thinking is. But I think all the above are elements of critical thinking. They are using information they have, thinking and assessing whether information someone gives them is likely to be true.

    Even without the paper, my experience with kids is the do think about things like this. Even very little kids try to assess if you are lying in some circumstances.

  485. There may be critical thinking, but it’s “undeveloped” because of limiting factors like naivety and credulousness. This is the basis of “childhood innocence”.

  486. DaveJR,
    I think childhood innocence is they haven’t been exposed to certain things and sometimes don’t yet have to capacity to grasp it.
    The articles I looked at today do find things kids are less likely to realize. For example, even though they know some people are unreliable in terms of providing true or correct info, they don’t recognize that people are unreliable in claims about themselves. They tend to believe if someone says they are honest, then that person must be honest. Same for strong, intelligent etc. Older kids learn to be skeptical about people description about themselves.
    Kids critical thinking is certainly not fully developed. But I detect some critical thinking even in quite young kids.
    I mean…all you really need for “critical thinking” is a kid identifying
    (a) I have a particular “problem”. (Could be want, need etc.)
    (b) I will figure out a solution.
    (c) Kid figures out solution.

    I remember a visitor to my mom’s house had a 3 year old with her. The 3 year old did not want his picture taken. My mom was insisting on snapping them. From kids POV “I have a problem”. Kid found a closet, crawled into the corner and would not come out.
    This is an example of critical thinking.

    Additional behavior: Mom tried to wheedle him out. He would not come out. Mom “promised” she would stop. Mom was lying. ( I know my Mom. She was lying.) He refused to come out.

    Mom complained…. So after a bit I said I’d get him out. I talked to him. I told him I would prevent people from taking his picture and that if someone tried to take his picture I would return him to his closet and block them from taking pictures. He believed me. (I’d never met this kid before. I don’t know why he trusted me.)

    I went out with him– and stuck with him. Mom immediately thought this was her opportunity to take photos. I stood in front of the kid and told her I wasn’t going to let her. Why? ‘Cuz I promised him. She was like, “He’s only 3!!”

    Anyway… I prevented her from taking pictures. Kid stuck with me (which was fine.)

    My interpretation: Kid was using critical thinking. He considered something a problem. He found a solution that worked for him. He assessed who he believed. He acted on his belief. (In fact, he picked right. Not sure how he managed– but he did.)

    Is this “deep” critical thinking? Are there tons of fact to weigh? No and no. But it is critical thinking. Kids have it.

  487. mark bofill
    JULY 1, 2025 AT 10:09 AM
    The OBBB has passed the Senate.
    A miracle.
    Miracles never cease.
    Another miracle.
    –
    No one commenting on the fact that it did require JDVance vote to get it over the line.
    –
    I was kind of hoping for it not to pass initially giving a stock market fall and a chance to go back into shares.
    Never mind.
    –
    On a lighter note why did they have to build a new road ?
    .
    Did the deep bombs cause so much upheaval?
    and how could they do it up a mountain so quickly?

  488. Kids clearly develop critical thinking skills sure. I’m sure it starts right away. I started with a claim that all early learning is indoctrination, and I still think that’s true, even though all the while kids are developing the ability to eventually think critically about what they are being taught.

    What does it mean to think critically anyway? We have the (1) direct evidence of our senses and (2) whether or not we can integrate new facts in a logically consistent way with what we already believe. Unless I’m overlooking something I believe that’s about it, most of what there is to critical thinking. Well, the younger a child is, the smaller the preexisting belief system he has to integrate with and the more rudimentary his ability to detect logical inconsistencies will be, and also the fewer life experiences he will have had that give him a chance to directly observe the truth.

    There’s not really much way in my view for children learning ‘history’ (for example) to think critically about it. Mostly adults seem to lecture them about ‘what happened’ and the kids read chapters on ‘what happened’ and absorb it. I don’t think kids approach very many primary school subjects critically, quite honestly. They don’t really have powerful enough tools until they are teenagers to begin to stand as critical equals against the adults indoctrinating them. The power differential in the situation also works against them; the kids can suffer for not cooperating and have limited power to retaliate, obviously. Teachers can usually maintain discipline and control.

    Also, we haven’t touched at all on those things that are impervious to critical thinking, which are the assumptions one brings along for the ride. They are a host of things we believe without evidence. Existence of other minds, reliability of senses. Arguably the validity of logic, although maybe we should rephrase that as faith in repeatability and identity (if something is A, by default it remains A unless something happens. If A causes B, we can expect A to cause B). There are lots of others. This is why philosophy and religion are orthogonal to science in many ways. The definition of indoctrination supplied IMO didn’t address this idea of assumptions very well. If I can dictate what you assume, I’ve got you, formatively speaking.

  489. Mark Bofil

    I don’t think kids approach very many primary school subjects critically, quite honestly. They don’t really have powerful enough tools until they are teenagers to begin to stand as critical equals against the adults indoctrinating them. T

    I agree with this. Also: even adults can be indoctrinated.
    The thing is, people– both children and adults– aren’t constantly set to “super skeptical”. And that will be especially true if they are being presented material by “trusted” sources.

    Even using their critical thinking skills, kids will tend see adults they know, and teachers whose job is to teach as “trusted sources”. And they are in school a large fraction of the day. So school teachers are uniquely situated to “indoctrinate” if they try to do that. And even if the teachers believe they don’t want kids to accept lessons uncritically many students will.
    Also: like it or not teachers don’t really mind kids accepting lots of stuff without using “critical thinking” to challenge every darn thing. It’s easier for the teacher if the kids aren’t constantly arguing against simple things like “The pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock in 1XXX”. You really don’t want kids to be challenging teachers to provide “primary sources” for that kind of stuff. (And as much a teachers later want to teach kids to use “trusted” sources, that’s thorny too. Because it’s impractical for everyone to check everything down to primary sources. And some supposedly “trusted” sources turn out to be “not trust worthy”. )

  490. I remember going into our kids’ school to give a talk to 3rd graders on the solar system and universe. At the end, one kid asked how everything ends. Good question. Lots of theories, but still a lot unknown.

    I said that one thing we do know is that the sun is expanding, and in about 5 billion years, the surface of the sun will expand past the orbit of earth and earth will be swallowed up. The kids seemed to grasp it and didn’t make a big deal about what i said in the class.

    A week later the teacher calls me and says she has had numerous calls from parents about their kids in near panic because the sun is about to gobble up the earth…

    Sure, they understood the concept, but had no experience to understand how long “5 billion years” is…

  491. Dean,
    Yes. Its been a long while, but I remember realizing that for at least some people who would argue against evolution with me, their problem really appeared to be rooted in not being able to comprehend evolutionary timescales.

  492. Will Trump pressure enough congress critters in the House to pass his bill? It will be interesting to see how it goes.

    I note that as the bill advances, the hair-on-fire complaints have mostly focused on the “cruelty” of the bill (work requirements for able-bodied food stamp and medicaid recipients, removing illegal aliens from medicaid, deporting illegal aliens), the “unfairness” of the bill (those who currently pay the large majority of federal taxes will continue to pay at the same rates as the last 5 years, rather than much higher rates), and how many people will “lose their jobs” (ending Federal support for green energy boondoggles means there will be fewer jobs available in green energy boondoggles).

    I am sure many of the objections are sincere, but sometimes uninformed. There continue to be many claims that “seniors” will suffer loss of medicare, which is simply dishonest. Most of the objections show clearly the size of the divide in the USA over the proper role of the Federal Government.

  493. DeanP,
    “how long “5 billion years” is…”

    Very funny story. Numerical comprehension is sometimes slow to develop I guess.

  494. Mark Bofill

    their problem really appeared to be rooted in not being able to comprehend evolutionary timescales.

    Evidently, “young earth creationists” are a thing.

    The motivation to try to come up with “creation science” is to try to not have to deny quite as many facts– to try to have something that hangs together. But you end up having to deny things or concoct elaborate special exception theories.

    That said: to the extent evolution is “required” it’s middle school. Students at that age know sufficiently little “stuff” that it would be possible to make ‘creation science’ sound plausible. (I don’t know their rationalization about radio carbon dating for example. )

    Other people who want to cling to no evolution do it mostly be not thinking about it much. But we are all free to not think deeply about lots of things, and very little “bad stuff” happens to individuals who just don’t spend time thinking about evolution.

  495. SteveF

    Very funny story. Numerical comprehension is sometimes slow to develop I guess.,

    And honestly, if the teacher wasn’t prepared, she may have given a poor answer. I know teachers spent time on length scales when discussing the size of planets, the solar system and the universe. But they may have omitted spending a similar amount of time discussing time scales.

  496. DeanP,

    When I talk with kids about long time spans I try to compare with human lifetimes or the length of ‘a generation’ (eg 25 years, 40 generations = 1,000 years). Some get it easily, some less so.

  497. I would argue that objections to LGBTQ are also evolutionary based. A strong desire for the opposite sex increases the survival rate. For some the objection is an innate feeling that this is “unnatural”.

Comments are closed.