These three articles provide such contrasting views of events I thought I should link to all of them.

First, there’s Walter Russell Mead’s column in the Wall Street Journal. In his view Russia’s war in Ukraine provides the United States with an opportunity:

Helping Ukraine is not a charity project to be undertaken out of sentiment. Nor is it a strategic distraction that weakens our hand in the Indo-Pacific. In his blindness and folly, Vladimir Putin has handed the U.S. a golden opportunity. We should seize it with both hands.

Next up is Marwan Bishara’s take at Al Jazeera which, as you will note, is in sharp contrast with Dr. Mead’s:

As the war drags on with no end in sight, it is important to address US President Joe Biden’s – and his Western allies’ – miscalculations in Ukraine as well. These, unsurprisingly, mirror Russia’s own failures, as both leaders prove incapable of learning the lessons of imperial hubris.

From the start, Biden took the moral high ground, framing the conflict in Ukraine as a global one between democracy and autocracy, between respect for international law and national sovereignty and the scourge of Russian aggression. Yet, he pleaded with world autocrats to join the crusade and disregarded America’s own illegal wars.

He underestimated the power of Russian nationalism and rejected Moscow’s fears of NATO expansion towards its borders as baseless excuses for Russian imperialism.

In the months leading up to the war, Biden undermined efforts to implement the Minsk agreements signed in 2014 and 2015 to end the conflict in the Donbas region. They were meant to pave the way for the creation of two autonomous Russian areas in eastern Ukraine and stave off the expansion of Russian intervention in the country.

Both Ukraine and Russia had signed on, but France and Germany, which helped conclude and refine these agreements, failed to push hard enough for their implementation. Despite having much to lose from a devastating European war, European powers did little to stop the escalation.

Biden also underestimated Russia’s military endurance, betting on Ukrainians defeating it just as the Afghans defeated the Soviet Union with help from the United States.

But for Moscow, Ukraine is far more important and strategic than Afghanistan, considering its shared history and geographic proximity. From Putin’s perspective, Ukraine is vital for Russia’s national security and his regime’s survival. Clearly, he would rather have it destroyed than see it join a Western alliance.

Finally, there’s Daniel Davis’s piece at 19FortyFive:

Put simply, Ukraine doesn’t have the personnel or industrial capacity to replace their lost men and equipment in comparison to the Russians. Moreover, Russia has been learning from its many tactical mistakes and evidence suggests they are improving tactically while simultaneously expanding their industrial capacity. Even bigger than the dearth of ammunition and equipment for Ukraine, however, is the number of trained and experienced personnel they’ve lost. Many of those skilled troops and leaders simply cannot be replaced in the span of mere months.

Ukraine is now faced with a world-class dilemma: should they use their last offensive capacity in a last gasp of hoping they inflict a grave wound on the Russians defending in the occupied territories or preserve them in case Russia launches a summer offensive of their own? There are serious risks with either course of action. I assess there is currently no likely path for Ukraine to achieve a military victory. Continuing to fight in that hope may perversely result in them losing even more territory.

I have no idea of which of these views if any to believe. Ukraine cannot be an asset for the U. S. as Dr. Mead avers if it is defeated on the battlefield. Simple as that. Indeed, rather than being an asset Ukraine could become a permanent liability.

The reports of drone and missile attacks by Russia and Ukraine do little to clear things up.

Last night’s dinner turned out particularly well so I thought I’d put a picture of it here.

Smoked baby back ribs
Sea island red peas
Rice
Green salad

I started smoking the ribs when I rose yesterday morning at 6:00am and they were done by 4:30pm. I kept them warm in the oven until we were ready for dinner. The sea island red peas were very good—they were sweeter than I expected them to be.

After more than 20 years posting at The Glittering Eye, I’ve expressed pretty much all of my thoughts about Memorial Day. I think that Monday holidays dilute the meaning of national holidays, reducing their role in incorporating the actual events they were originally intended to commemorate into the common culture. As you must surely know, Memorial Day originally was a day of remembrance of the Civil War dead, particularly those who died serving the Union Army.

The last members of my direct line of ancestors to have served in war served in the Union Army during the Civil War. My great-great-grandfather Wagner participated in some of the fiercest actions in the war. He survived the war but he died young of tuberculosis which I suspect he contracted while serving.

My great-great-grandfather Flanagan also served in the Union Army during the Civil War as did my great-great-grandfather McCoy. I’m not sure about my great-great-grandfather Schneider. He, too, died young of tuberculosis but I don’t know whether he served in the war or not. My great-great-grandfather Schuler did not arrive from Switzerland until shortly after the war.

My mom’s Uncle Ed was one of the lucky few who served in World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. He had a specialty the Navy greatly needed. My wife’s father and uncles served in the Navy in World War II. All survived the war.

The single thing we can do to honor those died in the service of our country most is to ensure that no more American soldiers are killed or maimed in wars that do not make us a bit safer or more secure. We’ve had a lot of those lately: Iraq, Afghanistan after about 2002, and Libya, just to name a few.

So far twelve Chicagoans have been killed this Memorial Day weekend. The long weekend is only half over and we’ve already equaled the number killed in 2022.

This strikes me as a story worth more attention than it’s receiving. State Farm Insurance, which writes more homeowners insurance policies than any other company in California (it’s also the largest in the U. S.), has announced it will accept no new homeowners insurance policies. Ashley Capoot reports at CNBC:

State Farm General Insurance Company on Friday announced that it will stop accepting new homeowners insurance applications in California, citing “rapidly growing” catastrophe risks like wildfires, “historic increases” in construction costs and a challenging reinsurance market.

“We take seriously our responsibility to manage risk,” the company said in a release.

State Farm said it will stop accepting new business, personal lines property and casualty insurance applications starting Saturday. The new policy will not impact personal auto insurance, according to the release. State Farm’s independent contractor agents will also continue to serve existing customers.

This move has some serious implications including probably increasing the cost of homeowners insurance in the Golden State and discouraging selling your home to upgrade or downgrade.

Well, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and President Joe Biden have reached a tentative agreement on the debt limit. Far-right Republicans are already castigating the deal as “caving in”. I suspect we will start hearing complaints from progrssive Democrats along the same lines. Now comes the difficult chore of getting something to pass both houses of Congress. Moira Warburton, Katharine Jackson, and Gram Slattery report at Reuters:

WASHINGTON, May 28 (Reuters) – After tough negotiations to reach a tentative deal with the White House on the U.S. borrowing limit, the next challenge for House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is pushing it through the House, where hardline Republicans are already threatening to sink it.

As Democratic and Republican negotiators iron out the final details of an agreement to suspend the federal government’s $31.4 trillion debt ceiling in coming days, McCarthy may be forced to do some behind-the-scenes wrangling.

“We’re going to try” to stop it from passing the House, Representative Chip Roy, a prominent member of the hardline House Freedom Caucus, said on Twitter. House and Senate Republicans were critical of the deal’s time frame and emerging terms.

A failure by Congress to deal with its self-imposed debt ceiling before June 5 could trigger a default that would shake financial markets and send the United States into a deep recession.

Republicans control the House 222-213, while Democrats control the Senate 51-49. These margins mean that moderates from both sides will have to support the bill, as any compromise will almost definitely lose the support of the far left and far right wings of each party.

For the last 50 years or so both political parties have been drifting away from being the “big tent”, catch-all parties they have always been to being programmatic parties. This contretemps illustrates the hazards of that transition. Over the next few days we’ll see just how strong a speaker, majority leader, and president we have. I suspect the answer is “not very”.

BTW although I’ve read dozens, maybe hundreds of complaints about the debt limit, I haven’t read one credible explanation of why the Congress preferred it a century ago when they created it to fund World War I.

I wanted to call your attention to Seth Cropsey’s post at TheMessenger because, although I agree with some of his bullet points, I found the premises of his piece gobsmackingly, shockingly wrongheaded.

Here are his bullet points:

• Show political commitment to a lengthy Eurasian war
• Freeze ship retirements
• Accelerate the distribution of naval and air basing networks
• Expand air-naval logistics
• Be prepared to strike Chinese mainland targets

Although I think we can, indeed, reduce the likelihood of a war between China and the United States, I don’t think that those measures, severally or in combination, will accomplish that.

The misconception under which Mr. Cropsey is operating is that some things are deterrable while others aren’t. You cannot deter a country from pursuing their core interests. Period. They will pursue them regardless of what we do. Furthermore, we don’t get to dictate to them what their core interests are.

Here’s my alternative list, starting with the most important.

• Stop assuming that China and the U. S. are headed towards an inevitable war
• Stop encouraging Taiwanese independence
• Produce a lot more of what we consume
• Reduce our dependence on Taiwan
• Reduce our dependence on China
• If we use military force anywhere it should be dispositive. We should accomplish our objective.

There are others but that’s a start. I could explain why those are so necessary but I think it’s pretty obvious.

A war between the U. S. and China would benefit no one. We should stop pretending it’s an acceptable idea.

There’s quite a bit of hubbub this morning about a Supreme Court decision, Sackett v. EPA. The decision is being castigated as “gutting the Clean Water Act” or praised as “a victory for liberty”, depending. Here’s the editors’ of the Wall Street Journal’s take (spoiler alert: they come down on the victory side):

The Supreme Court issued another landmark decision pruning back an overgrown administrative state on Thursday in Sackett v. EPA. Don’t believe the cries that the 5-4 decision will despoil America’s precious wetlands. The majority simply stopped a regulatory land grab.

Michael and Chantell Sackett’s ordeal reveals how rule by an unfettered administrative state can cause significant cost and hardship. For 16 years the couple has been battling the bureaucracy to build a home. The Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers claim their dry property is a wetland subject to federal regulation.

The Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes EPA to regulate only “navigable waters” in interstate commerce. Yet the EPA said the Sacketts’ property was connected to a wetland some 30 feet away, which was connected to a ditch that connected to a nonnavigable creek that connected to a lake. Follow that?

Americans anywhere in the country could have their backyard declared a wetland, but they wouldn’t know it until the EPA swoops in and threatens enormous penalties for pouring herbicide on weeds. EPA advises landowners to solicit the Army Corps’ opinion before doing anything with their property. But 75% of the time the Corps claims jurisdiction.

There’s one bit of context that so far has been missing from most editorial comment I’ve read including this one. Both the five conservative justices who formed the majority and the four other judges who were in the minority agreed that the EPA had violated the plantiffs’ rights. Nonetheless I agree with one of the minority justice’s expressed opinion that the Supreme Court shouldn’t be in the business of making every environmental decision in the country. The whole kerfuffle reminds me of this:

with Congress being in the position of Henry Blake and the EPA being in Radar’s. Congress left ambiguities in the law to save themselves work but being a Congressional representative shouldn’t be a sinecure. Had the Congress intended the EPA to micromanage every bog, swamp, marsh, damp spot or other wetland in the country they should have written that into the law explicitly. The decision which Sackett v. EPA overruled allowed the EPA to overreach in just the way that the justices agreed violated the plaintiffs’ rights.

What’s the lesson in this situation? First, Congress shouldn’t be signing blank pages, allowing the civil bureaucracy to fill in the details. Sadly, the voters have abrogated their responsibility by electing and re-electing the same people time after time.

It seems to me the other lesson of this, like other recent SCOTUS decisions, is that if you don’t want to violate people’s rights, don’t just assume you can depend on the courts to do the legislators’ work for them or that the civil bureaucracy will be philosopher-kings. If your Congresscritter won’t assume his or her responsibility, vote for someone who will.

Today is Jack’s first birthday. We took at extra-long walk this morning and I must say he behaved very well (for a change).

However, when I saw the enormous bash that Jack’s littermate, Astelle’s owners were throwing for her I must admit it made me feel like a piker.