Last night we had baked chicken, oven roasted potatoes, and a little arugula salad plucked from our tiny basement garden. A small luxury.

There’s a common thread running through several of the things I’ve read today—the need for certain behaviors to change. For example, at IEEE Spectrum Robert Charette says that to reach 2050 emissions targets people need to change their behaviors:

How willing are people to break their car dependency and other energy-related behaviors to address climate change? The answer is perhaps some, but maybe not too much. A Pew Research Centersurvey taken in late 2021 of seventeen countries with advanced economies indicated that 80 percent of those surveyed were willing to alter how then live and work to combat climate change.

However, a Kanter Publicsurvey of ten of the same countries taken at about the same time gives a less positive view, with only 51 percent of those polled stating they would alter their lifestyles. In fact, some 74 percent of those polled indicated they were already “proud of what [they are] currently doing” to combat climate change.

What both polls failed to explore are what behaviors specifically would respondents being willing to permanently change or give up in their lives to combat climate change?

For instance, how many urban dwellers, if told that they must forever give up their cars and instead walk, cycle or take public transportation, would willingly agree to doing so? And how many of those who agreed, would also consent to go vegetarian, telework, and forsake trips abroad for vacation?

The bulk of the article is devoted to the difficulties in reaching the EV adoption targets. I recommend it.

This post by Jennifer A. Kingson at Axios is about the various (mostly fad) diets being introduced to combat climate change:

Move over, locavores: A slew of new labels — from “climavore” to “reducetarian” — reflect the trend of people eating with sustainability in mind to reduce their climate “foodprint.”

Why it matters: Food manufacturers, restaurants, and supermarkets are racing to cater to the zeal for lower-carbon eating choices, which has people eschewing plastic packaging, ingredients flown in from afar, and foods that are environmentally damaging to produce.

• While there’s plenty of disagreement about what to avoid, top villains include faves like red meat, chocolate, avocados, sugar, and — gasp — coffee.
• The “eat local” mantra is being replaced by the notion that what you eat is more important — since transportation is sometimes just a small part of your meal’s carbon footprint.

A considerable proportion of the commentary on the killing of Tyre Nichols centers around changing the behaviors of law enforcement officers.

There’s an irony in this yen to change people’s behaviors: it’s frequently accompanied by an insistence that some behaviors are unalterable and must not just be accepted but normalized.

I think that much of this is painting with far too broad a brush. I think that behaviors fall into multiple categories including needs, wants, inherent, and definitional. So, for example, I doubt that many people feel an urgent need to drive but that driving is a means to an end. Move where they need to go (work, stores, etc.) closer and people will drive less. Doesn’t that bode well for the future of cities? I don’t think so. I believe that people have an inherent, innate desire to live in villages and that’s why every city is surrounded by sprawling suburbs. Living in large cities, packed densely together is a relatively new phenomenon. For tens or hundreds of thousands of years of human existence we were living in small groups.

Similarly with diet. I think that those who fantasize about changing people’s diets the better to address their ideas of environmental soundness are doomed to frustration. Diets are very durable things. The archaeological record suggests that as far back as we have been able to determine human beings have preferentially sought out the highest fat food source in the environment, especially meat and shellfish but also including dairy products, nuts, olives, etc. Given that history I suspect that people will fight before giving up their burgers. As my wife once put it you can lead a horse to water but that won’t make him into a duck.

Changing police behavior sounds felicitous but, again, I think that those advocating it will be frustrated. There is a certain element of thuggery inherent in police work. However well they’re recruited or trained police officers will inevitably return to old, bad methods. Can we improve things? Definitely. But we can’t eliminate police violence entirely. Any more than we can eliminate crime entirely.

Here’s an interesting experiment. I asked ChatGPT two questions:

Why should the United States support Ukraine in its war with Russia?

1. Defense of sovereignty: The war in Ukraine is a conflict over the country’s right to determine its own future and defend its territorial integrity. Supporting Ukraine upholds the principle of state sovereignty and the right of nations to choose their own path.
2. Promoting stability: The conflict in Ukraine is destabilizing for the region and beyond, and supporting Ukraine helps to restore stability and prevent the spread of violence.
3. Countering Russian aggression: Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine represents a challenge to international law and the rules-based order. Supporting Ukraine sends a message that aggressive behavior will not be tolerated.
4. Advancing U.S. interests: A stable and democratic Ukraine advances U.S. interests in Europe and beyond, and supporting Ukraine helps to promote U.S. values and strengthen relationships with important allies.
5. Humanitarian concerns: The conflict has caused suffering for the Ukrainian people, and supporting Ukraine can help to address the humanitarian crisis and promote recovery and reconciliation.

Why should the United States not support Ukraine in its war with Russia?

1. Cost: The cost of supporting Ukraine, including military aid and economic assistance, can be high and divert resources from other pressing priorities.
2. Escalation risk: Providing military support to Ukraine could escalate the conflict and lead to a larger and more dangerous war.
3. Complex regional dynamics: The conflict in Ukraine is part of a larger and complex web of regional and global interests, and supporting Ukraine may have unintended consequences for U.S. relations with other key actors.
4. Limited U.S. influence: Despite its efforts, the U.S. may have limited ability to influence the outcome of the conflict, and supporting Ukraine may not achieve desired results.
5. Potential for blowback: Supporting Ukraine may provoke a strong reaction from Russia, potentially damaging U.S. interests in other areas.

I think it’s stated the pro and con cases pretty well. I don’t know whether to find that scary or encouraging.

Out of the mouths, etc.

Speaking of training and maintenance I found this post at RealClearDefense by Lolita C. Baldor interesting:

A MILITARY BASE IN SOUTHEASTERN POLAND (AP) — On the front lines in Ukraine, a soldier was having trouble firing his 155 mm howitzer gun. So, he turned to a team of Americans on the other end of his phone line for help.

“What do I do?” he asked the U.S. military team member, far away at a base in southeastern Poland. “What are my options?”

Using phones and tablets to communicate in encrypted chatrooms, a rapidly growing group of U.S. and allied troops and contractors is providing real-time maintenance advice — usually speaking through interpreters — to Ukrainian troops on the battlefield.

In a quick response, the U.S. team member told the Ukrainian to remove the gun’s breech at the rear of the howitzer and manually prime the firing pin so the gun could fire. He did it and it worked.

The exchange is part of an expanding U.S. military help line aimed at providing repair advice to Ukrainian forces in the heat of battle. As the U.S. and other allies send more and increasingly complex and high-tech weapons to Ukraine, demands are spiking. And since no U.S. or other NATO nations will send troops into the country to provide hands-on assistance — due to worries about being drawn into a direct conflict with Russia — they’ve turned to virtual chatrooms.

Modern telecommunications certainly change the landscape of battle, don’t it?

There has been some discussion here in comments about whether the U. S. will or will not supply the Ukrainians with F-16s. At 1945 Peter Suciu sums up the question like this:

The U.S. is reportedly discussing the option of sending the fighter jets “very carefully,” even as several issues remain – including the training involved and the fact that a steady supply of spare parts would need to be supplied. However, it is increasingly looking like it will simply be a matter of time until Ukraine is also provided with the combat aircraft.

The remaining questions are how the aircraft would be supplied and maintained. If they’re maintained by American technicians, that will carry a heightened level of risk.

While John Gray’s piece at The New Statesman begins as a critique of Robert Kaplan, towards the end he transitions into remarks on the war in Ukraine with which I largely agree:

The war in Ukraine began not as a tragedy but a crime. Vladimir Putin has prosecuted his “special military operation” with unspeakable savagery. Torture, abduction, sexual violence and targeting civilians are routine procedures for Russian forces. Putin’s avowed aim of extinguishing Ukraine as a distinct culture approaches genocide. Confronted by expanding Russian barbarism, it is unthinkable that the West could have stood aside. In recent months, however, Western objectives appear to have changed. From seeking to defend Ukraine against aggression, the goal has become inflicting a devastating defeat on Russia. For some the aim is to topple Putin; for others it is to break up the Russian state.

By whatever route Putin leaves office, he will most likely be succeeded not by an opponent of the war but by an intelligence insider such as Nikolai Patrushev, the hard-line secretary of the Russian Federation’s Security Council. Others may join in jockeying for power, and a protracted period of instability could follow. In a not unrealistic scenario, the Russian Federation could fracture and fall apart. For evangelical liberals this would be a triumph of self-determination, not only for Ukraine but the nations currently confined in the Russian empire.

Here liberals are engaged in a high-stakes gamble against history. Because it left much of the state intact, the implosion of the Soviet Union was relatively peaceful. But the disintegration of the Russian Federation could be closer in human cost to the complete collapse that occurred a century ago when the country descended into anarchy, with independent states emerging not only in Ukraine but also Siberia and the Caucasus, during the Civil War of 1917-1923. Around ten million people died in battles, pogroms, famines and pandemics. Millions more fled the country.

There are larger hazards. The prospect of nuclear escalation could return if Ukrainian forces threaten to advance on Crimea. Russia’s illegal annexation of the territory was not a Putinist anomaly. The seizure of the region, which is of pivotal geopolitical importance to Russia because of the port of Sevastopol, was supported by Mikhail Gorbachev; even the jailed opposition leader Alexei Navalny has not suggested it should be reversed. Any attempt to recover Crimea will be treated as an existential challenge. If the barrier against small battlefield nukes is breached, anything could happen.

According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, full-scale nuclear war could kill more than half of the world’s human population through its effects on health and food production. No doubt some will assure us that Putin is rational enough not to commit suicide. The same people tend to tell us he is mad, but never mind. It would be piquant if the modern West – the most intellectually advanced civilisation in history, as everyone agrees – destroyed itself though an irrational faith in human reason.

In any new Russian offensive Ukraine must be strongly defended, with the US and Europe (now including the opaque and devious German chancellor, Olaf Scholz) giving it the arms it needs. But Russia can be permanently contained only by calling on the influence of China, also a repressive autocracy. There is no realistic scenario in which the West, a declining force in world affairs, can prevail over both powers.

We ignore or dismiss Russia’s and China’s national interests at our peril. We should not doubt that certain actions on our part inevitably lead to certain responses from Russia and China. That is where the “tragic realism” that Mr. Gray calls out comes into play.

On the Sunday talking heads programs I’m hearing many, many opinions being expressed about the killing of Tyre Nichols. Some are true, some partly true, and some clearly false.

On ABC’s This Week attorney Ben Crump said something that was true: police culture was a contributing factor in the killing of Tyre Nichols. Then he said something partly true: that the race of the victim was a determining factor. I think that any individual who resists arrest is risking an extreme response by arresting officers. IMO that is particularly true in the case of black perpetrators but isn’t limit to them. Note that I’m not “blaming the victim”. I’m saying that certain actions foster certain responses.

My explanation for the reactions of the police and that of those arrested by the police is excessive fear. The police have excessive fear of black people who are resisting arrest and black people have excessive fear when apprehended by the police. The fear is not irrational but IMO any fear that leads to death is irrational. It’s at least counter-productive.

Then an individual whose name I didn’t catch came on touting federal-level police reform. I’m not sure that federal-level police reform will contribute materially to eliminating these situations because I don’t see it addressing either the police culture or excessive fear that were factors in their happening.

I do think that “qualified immunity” should be ended not just for police but for all government officials when what they are accused of doing is a violation of the law or policy.

The senior senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, then made a point that I think is nearly completely false and which I would characterize as the “bad apples” theory. If you just eliminate a few bad apples, it will solve the problem. I think the problem is much more inherent than that. You’ve got to look at the people who become law enforcement officers, their attitudes, why they become law enforcement officers in the first place, and what happens to them including but not limited to police training that impels them to act as they do. The sad fact is that any pullback in police activity hurts black people the most. While it may be possible to mitigate the risks I don’t believe they can be eliminated, especially by getting rid of a few “bad apples”. Or enacting federal laws.

During the round table discussion several points were made that I thought were good. The first is that “elite units” seem to be especially problematic in cultivating the notion that the police are entitled to do pretty much anything in pursuing their missions. John Kasich then made the valuable point that ongoing monitoring is a necessity. It’s not just “one and done”.

I’m a sucker for some of these lists of the Top 10, in this case the American Film Institute’s lists of the top 10 actors and top 10 actresses (whose first film was before 1950), presented by MovieWeb. Here are the lists:

1. Joan Crawford
2. Marlene Dietrich
3. Judy Garland
4. Elizabeth Taylor
5. Marilyn Monroe
6. Greta Garbo
7. Ingrid Bergman
8. Audrey Hepburn
9. Bette Davis
10. Katharine Hepburn

And

1. Charlie Chaplin
2. Spencer Tracey
3. James Cagney
4. Clark Gable
5. Henry Fonda
6. Fred Astaire
7. Marlon Brando
8. James Stewart
9. Cary Grant
10. Humphrey Bogart

I find both lists odd, misleading, or idiosyncratic albeit in different ways. I’m not sure how they’re defining “actor” or “actress”. They seem to be striking some sort of balancing act among best actors, biggest stars, top box office, and most important to cinema history. So, for example, I think that Charlie Chaplin, Clark Gable, Fred Astaire, and Cary Grant are out-of-place among the actors while Marlene Dietrich, Marilyn Monroe, Ingrid Bergman, and Audrey Hepburn are misplaced among actresses although I wouldn’t doubt any of their charisma or importance. I’m judging by acting alone. Monroe in particular only gave one or two really good performances, e.g. Bus Stop.

Some of Hollywood movies’ greatest actors and actresses are missing from those lists. How do you list Jimmy Cagney without listing Edward G Robinson? Not only were Robinson’s performances as gangsters completely equal to Cagney’s but he had more breadth as an actor. See Our Vines Have Tender Grapes, for example. No list of top 10 actors is complete without Paul Muni.

The top 10 actresses list is evenly divided between Americans and non-Americans. I’m not sure how Audrey Hepburn and Marlene Dietrich make the cut while Irene Dunne and Norma Shearer don’t.

Comparing the lists is strange, too. How do you put Fred Astaire on a list of greats without including Ginger Rogers, who, in addition to her pairings with Astaire, gave some fine performances in comedies, romances, and dramas? My take is that neither of them belong in these lists if they’re really listing greatest actors and actresses.

Seems like a dumb question but it looks to me as though the Ukrainians, we, and, of course, the Russians have very different definitions of victory.

The Ukrainians have been pretty clear in their definition of victory: an ethnic state within the boundaries that existed prior to 2014 that isn’t under attack by the Russians and, presumably able to pursue those goals without fear of Russian attack.

Our definition is less clear. I think it’s for the Russians not to be attacking Ukraine but others have more expansive goals.

What the Russians’ goals are depend on who you ask. Some say it’s to reconstitute the old Russian Empire. The Russians say they’re defending ethnic Russians in Ukraine. I think it’s pretty clear that the Russians intend to hold Crimea and may think they’re defending ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Whether they’re accomplishing that or not is another question.

The direction in which we’re presently embarked appears to be to pursue the Ukrainians’ idea of victory. Should we support their desire to have an ethnic state within the pre-2014 boundaries? That’s something that has never existed before. I find the notion of Ukraine as an ethnic state antithetical to U. S. Interests. I don’t think that those goals are consistent with our values and are not worth risking 330 American lives to pursue. Other Americans see it differently.