I hate to say it, but I’m starting to think the President’s recent actions mostly make sense if you see them as rapid payoffs for previous or future favors before having to step down, either in 2021 or sooner. In just the last few months, we’ve seen: Trying to prove a conspiracy theory about Ukrainian election meddling that would give cover to both pardoning Paul Manafort and reducing/removing sanctions on Russian oligarchs. Pointedly pushing a peace accord between Ukraine and Russia that essentially gives Russia what it wants. Removing the US troops serving as a tripwire between Turkey and the Syrian Kurds right when the Turks started their invasion, in the name of stopping “endless war.” Sending 2000 more troops to Saudi Arabia to get mixed up in the war in Yemen two days later. The only part that fits a normal narrative is trying to dig up dirt on a political opponent for the 2020 race. The last two items happened so rapidly I’m not sure what’s going to happen next, but keep an eye out on actions involving Russia/Ukraine, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. (Given current tensions, I didn’t think it was possible to give in to Turkey and Saudi Arabia at the same time.) ...

The report from the Senate Intelligence Committee on Russian disinformation campaigns surrounding the 2016 U.S. Presidential election and beyond is really interesting reading.

The stories around President Trump and his colleagues’ activities in Ukraine have settled down into a pattern, so as an enthusiastic amateur I’ll try to tie some threads together. At this point it is fairly obvious that the President and his staff have asked for two favors from Ukraine, possibly in exchange for much-needed American aid and recognition. (That “possibly” is the crux of the impeachment hearings.) First, they want Ukrainian authorities to cooperate in an investigation into interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Second, they want Ukraine authorities to open investigations into Hunter Biden’s involvement with Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company that was previously under investigation, and whether former Vice President Joe Biden encouraged the previous investigation to end. ...

Pretty sure just the sight of the guy on synths lead to the tearing down of the Berlin Wall.

[youtube &w=560&h=315]

“Hmmmm, car window is sticking. I wonder if there’s a way to fix it without taking the door panel off.” Googles “car window sticking.” Finds article titled “How to fix a car window without taking the door panel off.” Clicks on link. Third step: “Take the door panel off.” I’m not sure how we expect Google to circumvent human deceit via algorithms. (After all, not only was content creator actually lying with the title of the article and page, it was part of a network of human-designed and machine-assisted sites linking to each other, pushing the page rank up.) ...

I was not at all surprised to note that the author of The Tragedy of Liberalism also writes for The American Conservative. The well-written pessimism about modernity coupled with a shout-out to “intentional communities” at the end is as good as a fingerprint. (Check out Rod Dreher for the best example.) Unfortunately, no matter how nicely written and generally correct in detail, these pieces usually stumble due to the implied foundation: That there was a time when it was not so (and, occasionally, that there will be a time when it will not be). Dr. Deneen writes about Liberalism as Anti-Culture – terminology that always makes me think of the Anti-Life Equation -- due to the need to privilege individual freedom and state power over cultural norms. The lack of cultural norms as a governing factor results in social chaos and attempts by the state to replace that structure with rules and punishments of its own. ...

While we keep seeing new nation-states, I wonder how many primarily are facades for interfacing with the rest of the world? It wasn’t that long ago that dynastic families performed the same function.

Obligatory caveat: I’m an employee of the EPA, and nothing I say here reflects any official governmental stance. But the political science nerd in me feels the need to point out that getting rid of the agency wouldn’t do much about the regulatory environment. A substantial portion of the EPA’s work deals with implementing the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and TSCA, both through scientific and regulatory work. If the EPA is abolished, those duties move to another agency, such as HHS, CDC, Interior, USDA, etc. It’s the law. (The EPA was originally a consolidation of environmental protection duties fragmented among other agencies.) ...