Iranian hardliners
I’m not going to write much about Iran today. My opinions haven’t changed substantially, and I don’t trust much of the analysis coming out. I certainly plan to say a lot more over time, but right now I just don’t have much to add.
But I wonder whether this has any meaning, or is just some form of theater (I actually think that way about a great many of the statements on both sides):
Iranian ultra-hardliners have launched a fierce campaign against a newly announced framework agreement with the United States, labeling it a humiliating capitulation that betrays the ideals of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The strongest backlash has come from the Paydari Front, also known as the Endurance or Steadfastness Front, which is a small but vocal faction of ideological purists. The group positions itself as the guardian of the revolution’s anti-Western principles.
Either they mean it – which is somewhat encouraging, because it might indicate that the “deal” isn’t a total capitulation on our part – or they don’t. If they don’t, they’re laughing at us behind the scenes and celebrating.
John McWhorter on Karmelo Anthony
Commenter “Kate” linked to this thread on “X” by John McWhorter, about Karmelo Anthony and his motives for stabbing Austin Metcalf. I had read the thread last night; it’s long, so I’m just giving the link here and discussing some excerpts.
McWhorter made this statement that Kate posted in her comment:
Young Black men need to be told not to fall for the idea that being dissed justifies physical violence.
Well, yes, as far as it goes. But “physical violence” covers quite a range. A fistfight – are those out of style? – used to be the way it was commonly done. A stab through the heart was not the norm, nor is it today. After all, it’s not as though most young black men are murdering people, although the murder rate is certainly higher in that population. Most young black men manage to learn that being dissed doesn’t merit stabbing anyone in the heart.
Plus, who was dissing (disrespecting) whom? McWhorter doesn’t highlight the fact that it was Anthony who was disrespecting the other team. Although McWhorter describes it he doesn’t characterize it that way. It was Anthony who crossed a boundary by coming to the other team’s tent, and who would not leave when asked many times. He defiantly stayed and even insulted (dissed) people there.
McWhorter writes about it this way:
Anthony sat down under a team’s tent. Anthony was neither on the team nor a student at its school, and an unwritten but widely known rule is that only team members are permitted under a team tent. Multiple student witnesses – and not just “whitenesses,” as several were Black — testified about what happened next. Anthony was told several times to leave the tent but refused, including a profane epithet, culminating in warning “Touch me and see what happens.” Team member Austin Metcalf shoved Anthony, who pulled a knife out of his bag, stabbed him in the chest, threw the knife into the stands and ran away. Caught by the police, he immediately admitted to the stabbing, reportedly saying “He put his hands on me. I stabbed him.” Metcalf died in his twin brother’s arms.
Anthony was the provocateur. He also came prepared with a knife, which was prohibited by the schools involved. Since he never took the stand, we’ve never heard his excuse for having a knife there, nor have I heard anyone else explain it. The venue was not the inner city, either; it was a relatively prosperous and peaceful area of Texas with a lower-than-average crime rate.
McWhorter goes on:
There is no reason to think Anthony was trying to kill Metcalf. He was trying to hurt him severely, putting him in the hospital, for shoving him, as he indicated in at first saying “He’s not gonna die.”
What on earth? That’s absurd, and McWhorter is dreaming there. No one stabs someone in the chest, with force, without trying to kill them. And “hurting someone severely” always carries the risk of death anyway. Anthony was not a child, nor was he dumb or insane. Perhaps he lived in a video-game or cartoon world, in which people stab people in the chest and the victims spring up again perfectly fine. But I very much doubt it. And “he’s not gonna die” is probably just a hope at that point, since Anthony realized he himself would be in big big trouble if Metcalf died.
McWhorter adds this:
Also, claims such as prosecutor Bill Wirskye’s that Anthony meant “Touch me and see what happens” as a provocation are based on a misreading of Black English. “Touch me and see what happens” is not a command to touch. It means “If you touch me, you will find out.”
McWhorter is a professor of linguistics at Columbia, and one of his specialties is black English. I’ve seen him in many podcasts and sometimes agree with him and sometimes disagree, but here he’s not making any sort of sense that I can see. The two statements – “Touch me and see what happens” and “If you touch me, you will find out” – seem very much the same and both are indeed provocations or dares.
McWhorter is by no means the worst commentator on Karmelo Anthony’s crime, but I find him quite annoying because he knows better.
[NOTE: Much of McWhorter’s “X” essay has to do with explaining Anthony’s behavior in terms of Sowell’s book in which he traces some of the violence in black culture back to the influence of certain strains in the southern whites among whom black people lived early on in the US. That entire topic interests me little at this point, because the historical roots no longer matter; it’s the current behavior that matters all these centuries later.]
The dilemma of modern warfare
The idea of fighting a war while keeping clean hands is a tempting one. The wars of the 20th century, particularly the Second World War, involved such massive casualties that neither we, nor other Western nations, want to pay such a price again. The deaths were hardly limited to the military, either:
World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. An estimated total of 60–75 million deaths were caused by the conflict … This represents about 3% of the estimated global population of 2.3 billion in 1940. Deaths directly caused by the war (including military and civilian fatalities) are estimated at 50–56 million, with an additional estimated 19–28 million deaths from war-related disease and famine. Civilian deaths totaled 50–55 million. Military deaths from all causes totaled 21–25 million, including deaths in captivity of about 5 million prisoners of war.
Those are estimates, of course. But we won’t quibble here; the point is that a lot of people died and a great many were civilians. Many civilians died from bombing that deliberately targeted civilians, or from killing fields and camps that performed mass murder of the premeditated kind. The US was spared those civilian deaths, but certainly saw the suffering that resulted from them abroad.
Atomic weapons targeting civilians ended the war with Japan. It is a paradox that the enormous number of civilian casualties in Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably spared the deaths of many more by hastening the Japanese surrender (see my posts here).
By the time of the Vietnam War, our opponents had learned a thing or two. This was a guerilla war and a war of propaganda. The enemy read the US very well, and realized we didn’t have the stomach to go on and on and on. Also, it was as a result of the Vietnam War that the US draft ended and our military became all- volunteer, which removed most citizens from much knowledge of the calculations involved in fighting a war.
Later, instruments of war became more accurate. Our bombs are now relatively “smart,” certainly compared to in WWII or Vietnam. That doesn’t mean there is no collateral damage in which civilians die. But we don’t target civilians, and we have very little tolerance for the death of civilians even when it occurs by accident. These are not bad things; I think it’s a good thing to have compassion for civilians in war and even to try not to have many military casualties in war, if possible. But the unintended consequence is that it becomes more and more difficult, despite our technology, to definitively end a war against a foe who’s determined to resist and to use against us our reluctance to inflict massive harm on civilians or to put our own boots on the ground.
Terrorists and terrorist regimes have no such reluctance. Au contraire; they target civilians. Not only do they target civilians in terrorist attacks, but they also willingly put their own civilians in harms’ way, the better to accuse us of barbarity when we inevitably kill some of them.
[NOTE: See also this previous post of mine on clean hands in war, as well as this one.]
Wondrous science: analyzing a Neanderthal fetus
This is one of those things I never quite imagined.
From the article:
… [T]he authors of a new study have reconstructed the fetal bone growth pattern of an unborn Neanderthal that died with a gestational age of about 8 months.
Discovered at the Sesselfelsgrotte Cave in Germany, the specimen is estimated to be between 50,000 and 60,000 years old and is known as Sesselfelsgrotte 1. A total of 12 bone fragments belonging to this prenatal Neanderthal have been unearthed, yet until now it was unclear how these compared with the bones of Homo sapiens fetuses and newborns.
The researchers used microcomputed tomography to analyze how the bones had formed in Sesselfelsgrotte 1 and compared it with two baby Neanderthal skeletons found at La Ferrassie and Le Moustier in France, as well as modern humans. Overall, they found that Sesselfelsgrotte 1 was most similar to Romano-British pre-term babies aged 30 to 36 weeks, recovered from archaeological sites under 2,000 years old.
“The micro-CT scans of bone microanatomy of fragments of the femur, humerus, ulna, fibula, three ribs, mandible, vertebra and frontal bone of Sesselfelsgrotte 1 revealed skeletal tissue structure partly consistent with late third trimester gestation in H. sapiens,” write the study authors. “All bones showed broad microanatomical patterns consistent with modern human fetal growth in the final trimester of pregnancy approaching eight–nine months,” they add.
It’s not so much the findings that are amazing as the entire process itself. Then again, it makes perfect sense – although I never thought about it before – that if a Neanderthal woman dies in late pregnancy and some of her bones are preserved, that some of her fetus’ bones will be preserved as well.
The findings themselves – that is, the similarity to the fetal development of later humans – are part of the growing trend of seeing Neanderthals as quite advanced and not so very different from later humans, as opposed to the earlier concept of Neanderthals as dim bulbs.
Open thread 6/19/2026
The EU turns slightly to the right on immigration
The pressure has been on, and the EU has made a concession of sorts:
The European Parliament on Wednesday approved more stringent migration measures that grant member states wider-ranging powers to deport failed asylum-seekers.
EU lawmakers approved the changes to EU policy with 418 in favor to 218 against and 30 abstentions.
That’s not a close vote.
More:
Under the new system member states will be allowed to establish so-called “return hubs” in non-EU countries.
A non-EU national found to be staying illegally within a member state will be obliged to leave the EU country “immediately or within a given time,” the European Parliament said.
A migrant or asylum seeker in such a situation could find themselves in “return hubs” in other countries that have an agreement with EU member states.
These agreements “may only be concluded with third countries that uphold human rights, international law and the principle of non-refoulement.”
Under the legislation, the person may be detained, should they fail to cooperate with local authorities or if they’re found to pose a security risk.
Seems like it will only deal with a small percentage of illegal aliens, the ones who get into the most trouble with authorities. And where will they go? Where are these countries that protect human rights and yet want to accept the deportees?
[Cyprus’ Migration Minister] Ioannides said the “general idea” is to set up return hubs “maybe in Africa or Asia” but “not close to European borders.”
I’m still trying to figure out where these hubs might be. And so are they:
Spain’s Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska, who is opposed to the returns deal, said at last week’s meeting that he was worried return hubs would be built “without safeguards” for people’s rights, “to the point that a family with children could be returned to countries with which they have no ties.”
Luxembourg’s Minister of Home Affairs Léon Gloden said his country would object to sending women and children to return hubs, despite backing the centers being set up.
Maybe the idea is to motivate illegal aliens to self-deport back to their host countries, or not to come to EU countries in the first place, if there’s no guarantee of being allowed to stay.
NOTE: Makes me think a bit of the way Australia was settled (at least in part), as a way of clearing out Britain’s overcrowded prisons.
VDH on how you can tell when “anti-Zionism” is Jew-hatred
Worth watching:
Luigi Mangione intends to plead “extreme emotional disturbance” in his defense
[UPDATE 8:15 PM: Apparently Mangione’s attorneys are withdrawing the plea, although it’s not at all clear why. So, as Emily Litella would say, “Never mind.”]
It’s not as though Mangione’s lawyers have a lot of options. There’s little doubt that he murdered United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson in cold blood, shooting him in the back. What can they plead? That Thompson deserved it, which is the basic argument of the left and of Mangione’s fangirls (who seem to be themselves suffering from “emotional disturbance,” but they’re not on trial)? Certainly not.
“Extreme emotional disturbance” wouldn’t get Mangione off entirely, nor would it get him a stint in a mental hospital. It would, however, reduce his sentence, if the jury found it was present:
Luigi Mangione plans to assert a psychiatric defense at his state murder trial, claiming he was suffering from extreme emotional disturbance when he gunned down UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, a judge said Wednesday. It wouldn’t absolve him of the Dec. 4, 2024, killing, but could free him from prison sooner.
If a jury accepts that defense, the panel would convict Mangione of manslaughter and he would face up to 25 years in prison. Alternatively, the jury could reject the extreme emotional disturbance defense and convict him of murder, which carries a potential life sentence. That defense isn’t available in his federal case.
His state case is due to begin September 8 and his federal case October 13. Each state has its own murder laws, and Mangione is being tried in New York. “Extreme emotional distress” as a defense is not common in states in the US; this site claims it’s only available in NY (how convenient for Mangione), although I’ve read it also exists in Arkansas. Basically, it’s somewhat similar to the old “heat of passion” defense although it’s not exactly the same, and it reduces the crime to manslaughter.
In New York:
To establish the defense of Extreme Emotional Disturbance, the defense must prove:
(1) The defendant was under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the killing, and
(2) There was a reasonable explanation or excuse for the emotional disturbance, determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant’s situation under the circumstances as they believed them to be.
Unlike the insanity defense, EED does not require proof of mental illness, though psychiatric evidence is often used to support the claim. It is a partial defense focused on emotional volatility and human response to extreme stress, provocation, or trauma.
I sincerely hope it requires more than the statement “I’m a hothead, and I got upset and killed him.” It is probably requirement #2, the “reasonable explanation or excuse” part, that raises the bar and makes it more difficult to prove than that. Traditionally, I believe it functions when there is major and personal trauma that directly involves the murderer and the victim, not some sort of generalized trauma like being upset about a divorce and then killing some random person on the street. Nor does it involve something like losing your job – which is upsetting but which most people seem to survive without killing anyone – and murdering your boss.
Here are examples of how it works in New York:
The courts look for cases where the defendent:
– Was provoked by a triggering event that created overwhelming emotional stress
– Reacted immediately or after a short period during which the emotional disturbance remained active
– Had no reasonable opportunity to regain self-control before committing the act
– Was under the influence of emotional trauma that a reasonable person in their situation might have experienced similarlyExamples include:
– A person killing a spouse after discovering infidelity in a shocking and unexpected way
– A parent reacting violently after prolonged abuse or threats against their child
– A victim of long-term domestic violence lashing out in a moment of uncontrollable fear or despair
You can see what I mean about the direct connection between the killer and victim.
I suppose everything depends on the jury composition, and it’s possible – because this is New York – that the jury will at least be deadlocked or hung. But I don’t think all the jurors would accept a defense like this for Mangione, even in New York. The crime was heinous, there was a relative long period of planning, and the previous connection between Mangione and Thompson was basically nil as far as we know.
What on earth will the defense claim to be the cause of his emotional disturbance? I’ve read Mangione had some back pain and a spinal fusion surgery – that apparently was successful, and that his insurance company was not United Healthcare. So, what would the distress have been? That he was upset by a news story about the health insurance business? It seems preposterous to me, but perhaps his lawyers will get creative. I don’t think they’ll win, but you never know with juries and New York is a funny place.
The federal charges don’t allow that sort of defense, and so I think Mangione will be going to prison for a long long time one way or the other.
Open thread 6/18/2026
Update on tech stuff here
First of all, I finally got a new computer. It takes me a while to get used to tech change, and this is no exception. The good part is that it’s much faster than my old one, which was geriatric. But there are still glitches to be ironed out, plus the usual steep learning curve for me with tech stuff. It’s a Lenovo Yoga, by the way, for those who are curious.
I’ve also been working on the “too many requests” problem, as well as other issues that have plagued the blog for while. Basic cleanup. I’ve changed certain things and it seems to have helped, but time will tell. Let me know if you’ve been having problems.
Trump on the Iran Deal [scroll down for important UPDATE]
Here are some statements, for what they’re worth:
President Donald Trump dismissed “false” media claims that the U.S. will be party to a $300 billion fund for Iran, as leaked versions of the initial agreement allege that the regime will receive billions of dollars worth of “cash sweeteners” just to sign a “Memorandum of Understanding” (MoU) on Friday.
“President Donald Trump says the agreed deal with Iran is not final,” BBC reported Wednesday. “Speaking at the G7 summit in France, he adds that the US will “go back to dropping bombs” if he does not like the final agreement.”
The president also rejected the $300 billion fund claim, calling it “false.” “People can invest if they want. I mean, what am I going to do — say nobody’s ever allowed to invest? We’re not investing. We’re not putting up ten cents,” he told reporters.
I’d say it’s about 50/50 that any agreement will be signed at all and released on Friday. Of course, that’s a pretty safe bet; you sort of win either way, because you’ve really predicted nothing except that it will be one or the other.
UPDATE 5:40 PM:
Just a few moments after I wrote and posted the above, I saw that there’s been a briefing from the White House on the deal. It says basically what I wrote yesterday, strangely enough, which was this:
At any rate, it sounds like the agreement is just an agreement to ease pressure on Iran in order to have some future negotiations. Why? Is this mainly a temporary measure about oil prices?
About today’s White House briefing:
“We’re not going to be taking their word for anything,” a senior U.S. official said when asked about “compliance” for Iran’s adherence to the deal, particularly when it comes to nuclear development, adding that the U.S. will “work very closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA].”
Some provisions: a ceasefire (already in effect anyway, I would say), some blather about “mutual respect” (absurd, I would say, but typical diplospeak), more negotiations for 60 days for a “final” deal (which can be extended, so is basically meaningless), opening Hormuz – and the rest of it is mostly just things that might happen in a final agreement. A wish list, as it were.
What will happen more immediately is this:
The United States of America undertakes, but immediately upon the signing of this MOU, and until the termination of sanctions, the U.S. Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives and all associated services including banking, transactions, insurances, transportation, etc.
There’s also this, which is somewhat opaque as to when it would happen:
The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use, the frozen, or restricted funds, and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of the MOU, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will usually agree on the procedures related to the relief of these funds during the negotiation. Such funds, whether retained in the original accounts or transferred, government may be fully usable for payment to any ultimate beneficiary designated by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The opaque part is whether this happens right away or is contingent, like so much of the rest, on further agreement.
It’s about what I expected, and I still find it troubling. It also still seems to me to be a way to get oil prices down in order to help the economy and the midterms. It seems to me to signal weakness, and since it depends on Trump’s now-uncertain readiness to go back to war if things don’t work out, that signal seems like an invitation to Iran to declare it has made the US capitulate. And in this case I think Iran would be correct.
I’ve written a great deal about Iran, both in the past and recently, and I’ve always seen it as an intractable problem. The Iranian government will stop at nothing – literally nothing – to stay in power. Our resolve does not include all-out war or boots on the ground. Modern technology and targeted bombings can only do so much.
ADDENDUM:
Professor Jacobson at LI says it more bluntly than I, but I’m in agreement with him:
It’s an embarrassment and sell out of our national interests. And that’s the nicest thing I can say about it. No reason to sugarcoat it. We went from sweeping military success to capitulating because Iran threatened to destroy the world economy and drive energy prices higher.
What a shame.
One of the many reservations I had about Trump at first, and have retained right along, is Trump’s mercurial nature and his loose-cannon tendencies. This can go either way; he’s unpredictable. Sometimes he’s rock-solid and sometimes he says or does things that make a person cringe. He is never completely reliable. The explanation for what is happening now with this deal – and the cause of my own uneasiness since the negotiations and ceasefire phase began – is not clear. But I agree that it has to do with economics. I would add, however, that Trump’s narcissistic desire to make a deal is probably some part of it. I’ve expressed that fear before: that the idea of himself as dealmaker extraordinaire would cause him to make a bad one. This seems to be that bad one, unless there’s a whole lot that I’m missing.
Another thing that has made me more and more uneasy as time has gone on is that Vance has become more visible as spokesperson compared to Rubio. This did not, and does not, bode well.
At the moment, this appears to rank up there with Biden’s retreat from Afghanistan – or worse. I hope I’m overreacting.