© Charly, all rights reserved. Click for full size.

The indeterminate variety “Agrie” has white flowers, and it is the one that contains most of the “ugly” plants, unfortunately. Some plants have dark green, curled-up leaves, which might be a sign of too much nitrogen. In all probability, I did not spread the fertilizer wide enough in some areas. About 70% of the plants look normal, so it is not a total catastrophe. We will see what comes of it.

© Charly, all rights reserved. Click for full size.

The second indeterminate variety “Dali” has white flowers too, and all plants look healthy.

Both indeterminate varieties could do with some more hilling up, but I do not have the material to do so. Which is unfortunate; a few plants were damaged by strong winds. They are just too tall and frail due to how abnormally quickly they grew. I am not experienced in applying fertilizer, and it seems my soil was more fertile than I thought.

© Charly, all rights reserved. Click for full size.

The very early variety “Bellarosa” has light pink flowers and light green leaves. These are grown in the Ruth Stout method, which is not conducive to over-fertilizing, but it is very good for slugs. Whenever it rains, I collect quite a few of them in this growth. The slug infestation is nowhere near as severe as it was two years ago, but I still suspect the tubers will be damaged by them as well.

© Charly, all rights reserved. Click for full size.

The early variety “Camel” has flowers of an even darker shade of pink. Even the green parts have a reddish tint to them, and the growth is thus distinctly darker than the adjacent “Bellarosa”. They are also smaller and sturdier than all the other varieties. These were damaged by voles or mice, so there are a few bald patches in the growth and a few plants are stunted. However, the rest took off well, and they look healthy.

Overall, potatoes do look promising, albeit not perfect. I will not be satisfied if I get anything less than 300 kg, but if I get more than 200 kg, it will be worth the effort.

This weekend, they all get a second dose of fungicide to prevent blight. These varieties should all be resistant, but it is better to be safe than sorry. I was successful in keeping my potatoes blight-free for years, and I do not want to break the streak.

Only a man with an unparalleled ignorance of history such as Donald Trump would have signed America’s peace treaty with Iran at Versailles, the byword for national humiliation. And only a man with an impish sense of humour such as Emmanuel Macron would have suggested it.

It is easy to cast Trump in the role of the humiliated and hurt German Count Ulrich von Brockdorff-Rantzau. The treaty of Versailles after all was based on 14 points, just as the memorandum of understanding has 14 clauses.

But the memorandum is not a full-scale surrender document; it is an admission that America could not achieve what it sought through war.

If the memorandum, taken with Trump’s remarks at his hour-long press conference at the G7, is compared with the final document the Americans tabled in 2025, it is possible to see how far the US has been forced to retreat. Red line after red line has been erased.

The 2025 document was tabled by the US immediately before Israel – with US support – began the 12-day war culminating in the bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites. Under its terms, Iran would have had no domestic enrichment capabilities beyond the limited enrichment for medical and agricultural needs; all nuclear supply would be imported from outside Iran; all enriched uranium stockpiles would be shipped out of Iran immediately upon signing the agreement; all enriched stockpile material would be down-blended to 3.67%; Iran would not build any new enrichment facilities; and Iran would dismantle all programmes capable of uranium conversion. Instead, a consortium including Iran, the US and the Gulf states would undertake enrichment outside Iran.

But the MOU shows that it achieved far less than those goals.

What is worse from the US perspective is that all these concessions have been made to try to secure the reopening of the strait of Hormuz, which was open before the war, but even that may not be achieved.

So why did Trump agree? It was because even he could see that prolonging the closure of the strait of Hormuz was going to have lasting adverse repercussions.

Trump was very frank on Wednesday: the risk of a worldwide recession and oil reserves running out in a matter of weeks. He said: “The one president I did not want to be was the late, great Herbert Hoover,” referring to the president blamed for the Great Depression that wiped out savings and pitched millions into poverty. “I didn’t want to see economic catastrophe. If you kept this going, that could have happened.”

Inflation in the US has risen to 4.2% according to the latest report and even the new chair of the Federal Reserve did not do what Trump wanted him to do which was lower the interest rates. The 60-day deadline for many of the features of the MOU pushes the date to mid-August. It is clear that Trump and the Republicans are fretting over the electoral consequences of high inflation and are no doubt hoping that the end of the war and the resumption of oil flows will bring the inflation rate down in time for the mid-term elections.

But reducing the rate of inflation usually takes a long time. Furthermore, even if the rate goes down, prices will not go down, although Trump has promised that prices will decrease rapidly. That is not how these things work. Widespread and rapid reductions in prices only occur in periods of deflation and recession, which would create massive unemployment. Even if costs go down for manufacturers, they will try to keep their prices high to inflate their profits because people have been paying those prices, so people likely will be stuck with high prices, including for gas, for a long time.

Other analyses paint an even bleaker picture of the deal. This article analyzes each of the 14 points in the MOU, many of which defer final agreement for 60 days. This analysis described the right-wing discomfort with the MOU.

As Playbook detailed yesterday, the only concessions the U.S. has actually extracted so far represent a return to Iran’s pre-war positions — promising not to pursue a nuclear weapon, and allowing ships passage through the Strait of Hormuz. In return, Iran gets massive new financial investment, desperately needed sanctions relief and the now-certain knowledge that its leverage over Hormuz can deliver big geo-strategic and economic wins.

Beyond the MAGA cheerleaders, nobody seriously views this as a U.S. victory. The WSJ editorial board decries “the surrender of the Strait to the dictates of Iranian foreign policy.” The NYT’s veteran White House and national security correspondent David Sanger writes that “the Iranians emerged from a confrontation with the world’s most powerful military having not only survived, but with much to celebrate.” Israel is stunned. Tehran is gloating. And the oil industry is deeply unhappy, as POLITICO’s James Bikales and Carlos Anchondo write today for Pros.

It is clear why Trump tried to keep the details of the MOU secret for as long as possible, right up until the signing. He wanted to create a fait accompli, so that critics could not derail it and his allies had to sign on, however grudgingly. That may be the main tactical victory he got, despite all the deaths and destruction and suffering of ordinary people.

There was a violent crime in Belfast: a black immigrant stabbed a white man. It’s a common kind of crime, horrible and deserving of condemnation, but trust Elon Musk to fan the flames of hatred and turn it into a cause celebre, and the city was consumed with violent riots.

As the bedlam raged in Belfast after the stabbing—resulting in far-right rioters torching cars, buses, and even the homes of immigrants—Musk egged it on. Using X—the platform he acquired precisely for moments like these—he posted locations for groups of rioters to congregate. He elevated vile, overtly fascist and white-supremacist exhortations. When one far-right British politician called for the prosecution of officials who “placed dangerous third world savages in our communities,” Musk replied: “This is the way.”

These developments graphically illustrate the future that Musk truly envisions. They also demonstrate that Musk will use his stratospheric wealth and influence to incite untold levels of global fascist violence going forward. Which leads to an unavoidable conclusion: At some point, friends of liberal democracy throughout the advanced democracies—including future liberal governments—will simply have to come together in a concerted and deliberate way to constrain Musk and all he’s unleashing. Whenever Democrats take back power in the United States, this must be squarely on the agenda.

The article has a lot to say about Musk’s outrageous fascism, and don’t deny it: it’s fucking fascism of the kind Hitler would have endorsed, combined with the same crazy ignorance of actual genetics, and he has a plan that Donald Trump would recognize.

It’s instructive that amid the violence, Musk endorsed a call for “Reconquista,” an allusion to Christian military campaigns to retake the Iberian peninsula from Islamic forces. (Modern-day keyboard fascists have long rather pathetically imagined themselves to be akin to Charles Martel, who turned back the Muslims at Tours in 732.) And Musk boosted a call for the removal of millions from the U.K.

I was wondering what Democrats could possibly do against a trillionaire. Here are some suggestions.

Then there’s what a future Democratic Congress can do. The Musk problem will have to be on its agenda in a serious and meaningful way. Claire Finkelstein, a professor of national security law at the University of Pennsylvania, points out a core problem here: His many government contracts, and his access to privileged information, pose a “national security threat,” even as Space X itself is in many ways a “national security asset.” We need to know a lot more about what Musk’s contracts actually translate into in terms of his personal influence inside the government.

“Congress has to do rigorous oversight of Musk’s government contracts as well as his entire financial empire,” Finkelstein tells us.

Other ideas abound. Brian Beutler has urged the next Democratic administration to closely scrutinize the murky circumstances of Musk’s own immigration to the United States. Beyond such things, we’ll need a coordinated effort across liberal democracies. Appropriately, the targeting of apartheid in Musk’s native South Africa provides a model. We need an international consensus that recognizes the threat Musk poses and works against it with boycotts, with the withdrawal of support and funding, and with whatever creative tools are available. Politicians and publics alike need to think internationally.

OK, let’s strip him of his government contracts, and then turn his own plans against him: deport Musk. Maybe we can seize all of his assets and turn SpaceX into a subdivision of NASA, too. And that’s a mild response: he really ought to be jailed for incitement.

And the winner is…

I can’t say that I’m particularly upset at our defeat — it was an unjust attack, a war of aggression instigated by our right wing and Israel, and it was doomed from the start — except that we killed a lot of people for no good reason. Fortunately, now Trump has signed what is called a “Memorandum of Understanding” that ought to be more accurately labeled our terms of surrender.

He signed it at Versailles.

On social media, the historian Kevin Kruse reacted with disbelief to the president signing the agreement to end his war in the same location where Germany was forced to sign the humiliating treaty of Versailles in 1919, accepting its loss in the first world war.

“He signed an unconditional surrender at Versailles?” Kruse wrote. “Come the fuck on.”

It is most definitely a surrender. Look at point 6 of the memorandum.

6. The United States undertakes, together with its regional partners, to create a comprehensive plan agreed upon by both parties for the rehabilitation and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran, While ensuring financing of at least $300 billion. The implementation mechanism of this plan, as part of the final agreement, will be formulated within 60 days.

The US also agrees that “frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran will be released and made fully available”. There are no concessions to the US other than the promise that Iran will never produce nuclear weapons, a promise that was in place before we started bombing everything. We’re paying $300 billion in reparations!

The war might be over, except for one little clause.

The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States, together with their allies in the current war, declare upon the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding an immediate and permanent end to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon, and undertake that from now on they will not launch any hostile action against each other, and will refrain from the threat or use of force against each other. The final agreement will confirm the provisions of this Article and the remaining Articles.

Our “ally” in this war was Israel. Netanyahu has already declared that they aren’t leaving Lebanon. He’s going to start firing missiles everywhere, isn’t he?

The MAGA rationalizations are going to be epic.

Iran has agreed to re-open the Strait of Hormuz for traffic with no charge for 60 days, and promised not to “procure or develop nuclear weapons” and to allow the IAEA back into the country. The latter had been part of the JCPOA negotiated earlier that Trump scrapped.

As for sanctions, the US has agreed to “terminate all sanctions” both its own unilateral ones and the multilateral ones. The US and its partners will also “develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least USD 300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development” of Iran. The MOU also states that the “US 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.” and the US “undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this MOU.” The US also”undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal.”

Many of the details are to be determined within the 60-day period following the signing but as I read it, it looks like the Iranians have got much of what they wanted in return for re-opening the Strait of Hormuz

But there is a big shadow over the deal and that is Israel and Lebanon. The very first point off the MOU states:

The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war are signing this MOU to declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph.

Although Israel is not named, it is clearly implied in the ‘allies’ phrasing. But as Alex Nguyen writes, it is not clear if Netanyahu will go along with this and what Trump will do if he does not.

Israel, meanwhile, has reportedly been denied access to the text of the US-Iran agreement, and on Monday, Netanyahu vowed to ignore the agreement and continue to occupy Lebanon “for as long as necessary.”

If Israel—or any of the other countries involved—do not comply with the agreement, then its next thirteen points will not hold. It doesn’t matter whether the US is actually genuine in its commitment to respect Iran’s sovereignty, lift all of its sanctions, and source at least $300 billion in investment to fund rehabilitation and economic development in Iran. That’s assuming Trump doesn’t simply walk back his commitments, particularly if the US doesn’t get an answer it likes on its demands around the country’s nuclear capabilities.

Trump released the text of the MOU earlier today and spoke to the press about it.

The Trump administration has released the text of its 14-point agreement with Iran, claiming it delivered a “major win” for the United States – even as it made significant political and financial concessions to Iran to reopen the strait of Hormuz and prevent a “worldwide depression”.

In extraordinary remarks on Wednesday, Donald Trump went from threatening Iran with a new wave of attacks to suggesting that Iran had basic rights to enrich uranium for civilian use, that he would not pressure Tehran to abandon its ballistic missiles program and that the US was “going to have to give back” billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets.

Those remarks, as well as the full text of the agreement – which was hailed by Hezbollah as a “great victory” by Hezbollah’s chief Naim Qassem – are likely to fuel anger in Israel and among hardliners in the Republican party who had urged Trump not to make a deal with Tehran.
…

Trump also sounded a conciliatory note on returning frozen assets to Iran, a stipulation of the Obama administration’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that he had attacked in 2015.

“We have taken a lot of their money,” Trump told reporters. “It’s not our money, it’s their money, and we froze it at a certain point in time. I guess we’re going to have to give it back, you know, if we didn’t give it back, nobody would ever invest in the dollar again.”

The problem with any deal involving Trump is that his word cannot be trusted and that he may ignore the deal on a whim depending on what response he gets.

As of June 10, about 3,500 people in Iran and 3,700 people in Lebanon have been killed. Any relief for the long-suffering people of that region is to be welcomed.

The thing is, when they’re on that web and the wind is blowing, they’re just vibrating all over the place. You’d think they’d be hopelessly motion-sick.

I couldn’t stand it so I let her take a break from the gale on my finger.

Don’t worry, I returned her to the same branch.

Ol’ Kent is going to have to flail about a bit in response, and I’ll be looking forward to it. I’m going to predict that what he’ll do is declare McClellan to be an atheist by default.

Also, I despise those tik-toks or whatever that feature someone just smiling and nodding along, but making sure that their face is on screen the whole time. I’ve seen a few lefty videos like that. Speak up and contribute something!

As an undergraduate, my introductory neuroscience course was taught by Johnny Palka, a developmental biologist and neuroscience who worked with Drosophila, who had to explain to us on the first day of class that flies have brains. It was memorable because I was surprised that anyone thought otherwise (don’t worry, the class got much more sophisticated and mathematical after that). But it’s true that there are an awful lot of people with that degree of ignorance.

Confirmation:

“Most people think insects are reflex-based machines,” said Dr Olli Loukola, a behavioural ecologist at the University of Oulu, Finland, and senior author. “That they can’t have any emotional states or feel pain. Some people don’t even realise that they have brains. I hope that these results change the worldview about that.”

That’s from an article about bee intelligence, and if you think insect anatomy is a confusing topic for the general public, wait until you find out there are people who think intelligence can be reduced to a single number.

Only…biology can surprise you. We don’t even understand what intelligence is, so you should avoid limiting preconceptions. All it takes is a simple test to demonstrate the capabilities of insects.

The bees, which were only a couple of weeks old, were first trained to associate a blue artificial flower with a reward of sugar water. During the test, the flower was moved to the ceiling of a transparent petri dish-style chamber whose ceiling was too high for them to reach, but with insufficient space for them to hover. A ball was also introduced into the chamber. To reach the flower, the bee had to roll the ball under it and climb on top – a behavioural sequence they had never previously encountered or been trained to perform.

In the most basic version of the test, 75% of the bees were successful in reaching the flower. “This is essentially an insect version of the classic ‘box-and-banana’ problem,” said Loukola. “The animal must realise that an object can be repositioned and then used as a tool to reach an otherwise inaccessible goal. What stands out about the result is that this kind of spontaneous problem solving is now demonstrated in an insect.”

This is not to say that bees have the breadth of ability that a chimpanzee has. It’s saying that some things we regard as a significant intellectual capability can be implemented with a tiny number of neurons, and that includes tool use.

“There’s a general perception that intelligent behaviour requires big brains because we are big-brained and relatively intelligent among animals,” Chittka added. “Bees are a model of how much intelligence you can squeeze into a small nervous system … It’s a good reminder of there being a motivation to pay some respect to these other beings.”

Another example I’d point to is corvids — teeny tiny little bird brains that are remarkably smart.

• A majority of U.S. adults adopted a biblical answer on only 1 of 7 questions about humanity and only
1 of 7 questions about the supernatural.
• Only 57% of adults believe humans are God’s creation, made in His image, fallen, and in need of
redemption—despite 70% identifying as Christian.
• Just 30% of adults hold the biblical view that people are born into sin and can only be saved by Jesus
Christ. Among Catholics, that figure drops to 24%.
• Only 1 in 4 adults (27%) believes human life is sacred. An equal share says human life has no intrinsic
value.
• A majority of Americans (52%) consider abortion morally acceptable—and only 1 in 3 adults (33%)
describes themselves as passionately pro-life.
• Only half of U.S. adults (50%) believe God is the all-powerful, all-knowing Creator of the universe
who rules it today—down from a clear majority at the start of the millennium.
• One in four adults strongly agrees that Jesus Christ sinned while on Earth. Among Notional Christians,
roughly half of all churchgoers, more strongly agreed He sinned than strongly disagreed.
• By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, Americans are more likely to firmly believe the Holy Spirit is merely a
symbol than to strongly affirm the Holy Spirit as a living entity.
• Twice as many adults strongly agree that animals, plants, wind, and water have unique spirits (35%) as
strongly disagree (16%).
• Nine out of 10 American adults hold Syncretism (not Biblical Theism) as their dominant worldview

• A majority of U.S. adults adopted a biblical answer on only 1 of 7 questions about humanity and only
1 of 7 questions about the supernatural.

What is a “biblical answer”? I don’t think there is such a thing — the Bible is a tremendous hodge-podge of archaic, conflicting, and fuzzy ideas. This is an assumption that there is a clear “biblical” position on everything, so I’m unsurprised that there is an absence of a coherent response. The survey returned results that don’t match Barna’s presupposition of what Americans should believe.

• Only 57% of adults believe humans are God’s creation, made in His image, fallen, and in need of
redemption—despite 70% identifying as Christian.

57% is still too damn high. I’m curious as to what the 43% believe.

• Just 30% of adults hold the biblical view that people are born into sin and can only be saved by Jesus
Christ. Among Catholics, that figure drops to 24%.

That’s just a fundamentally horrible belief. What is sin? What is it that a newborn is a sinner? I’m happy to see that belief is in decline.

• Only 1 in 4 adults (27%) believes human life is sacred. An equal share says human life has no intrinsic
value.

I believe that human life is valuable and should be protected, but I don’t believe in the “sacred,” so I guess I’m in the majority. A lot of people are becoming cynical if they think life has no intrinsic value.

• A majority of Americans (52%) consider abortion morally acceptable—and only 1 in 3 adults (33%)
describes themselves as passionately pro-life.

The pro-life movement has always been nothing but an ideological game that was ginned up in the 1970s. The Bible doesn’t say much of anything about abortion, and basically takes it for granted that it happens. Is this one of the things they score as a “non-biblical answer”?

• Only half of U.S. adults (50%) believe God is the all-powerful, all-knowing Creator of the universe
who rules it today—down from a clear majority at the start of the millennium.

Good. Let’s see that number continue it’s decline. The concept of an ominipotent supernatural agent is nonsensical.

• One in four adults strongly agrees that Jesus Christ sinned while on Earth. Among Notional Christians,
roughly half of all churchgoers, more strongly agreed He sinned than strongly disagreed.

I’ve never even thought about this idea! Why would anyone care about the sin-status of a rabble-rousing Jewish preacher who lived 2000 years ago? Apparently it’s a serious theological question, which is an indictment of theology.

• By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, Americans are more likely to firmly believe the Holy Spirit is merely a
symbol than to strongly affirm the Holy Spirit as a living entity.

Don’t you suspect that most people are confused about this whole business of a “holy ghost”? I know I was only exposed to the concept of the trinity as a grade school child, and found it absurd, so I’m sure theology has a more “sophisticated” muddle of excuses, but I suspect most Americans have the equivalent of my childish explanation.

To be a good Christian, must one believe in a nebulous space ghost?

• Twice as many adults strongly agree that animals, plants, wind, and water have unique spirits (35%) as
strongly disagree (16%).

“Spirits.” Stop there. When your survey is treating spirits as discrete entities that need to be evaluated, you’re lost.

• Nine out of 10 American adults hold Syncretism (not Biblical Theism) as their dominant worldview

OK, good. Ken Ham is thus rebuked.

I read the whole paper, and I’m mainly confused about why we should consider it significant that American religious belief is complicated and messy and does not conform to one particular view. There are tens of thousands of protestant denominations! I guess it’s nice that Barna is highlighting how incoherent religious belief is.

Near as I can tell, it’s perfect, and her peers also thought so. The only suggestion I could possibly make is to maybe add a few spider photos…or a picture of my granddaughter? I don’t know that my suggestions would necessarily help.

It’s nice to have a vague idea of what she’s been up to!