Let me put this question on the floor. What should we expect from the upcoming Trump-Putin summit? I think the most likely outcome is an enormous amount of grandstanding on the part of domestic politicians.

This morning I’ve been listening to the usual talking heads complaining about a too-cozy relationship between Trump and Putin and demanding that Trump hold Putin accountable for interfering with U. S. elections (which he has denied) and for supporting the Syrian government, especially in its use of chemical weapons against its own people (which he has also denied).

Something to bear in mind. Not only is Putin’s approval rating sky-high at home, in terms of the number of people who approve of him, not only is his global approval rating higher than Trump’s, it’s higher than Obama’s. For example, an outright majority of the Chinese approve of Putin while only a minority of the Chinese approve of Obama.

I laughed out loud when I read this short post, “Why Can’t Pakistan Facilitate a Long-Term Ceasefire in Afghanistan?”, by Umair Jamal at The Diplomat. In it the author lists two reasons. First that Pakistan just doesn’t have much influence over the Afghan Taliban and second that for that to happen any solution to the carnage in that part of the world must further Pakistan’s strategic interests.

Perhaps the author is being overly kind in that second. Let me put it another way: the Pakistan government sees the carnage in Afghanistan as being in its strategic advantage.

But let me suggest the most important reason that Pakistan can’t facilitate a long-term ceasefire in Afghanistan. The government in Islamabad can’t even facilitate a long-term ceasefire in Pakistan. Two of Pakistan’s provinces are in more or less a state of permanent insurgency against the Islamabad government and have been for decades.

I can’t remember where I first heard it but the characterization of Pakistan as a government without a country is only a partial exaggeration.

At RealClearDefense Michael Peck gives an example of just how uncommitted to their own defense the Germans are:

The German magazine Spiegel recently revealed that most of the Luftwaffe’s—the modern German air force’s—128 Eurofighter Typhoons are not flightworthy.

In fact, only about ten of the aircraft are ready for operations, Spiegel said. This raises doubts about Germany’s ability to meet its NATO defense commitments.

“The problem is complicated,” according to Spiegel.

Actually, the problem is extremely simple. The question is not whether Europe is important to us. It’s whether it’s more important to us than California. Or Louisiana.

I think the answer is obvious. The Europeans will either look after their own defense or they won’t. We shouldn’t carry water for them while they complain about what a lousy job we’re doing and how awful we are. Either they’re sovereign nations or they aren’t.

Again, I don’t think that the U. S. should withdraw from NATO. I think we should remain NATO members in the sense that Germany is, in a largely symbolic capacity.

At RealClearPolitics Sean Trende analyzes the chances of the presumed leading contenders to be appointed to the Supreme Court:

All of the potential justices I cite below would likely be more conservative than Kennedy. It is almost pointless to write about their ideological orientations, as doing so would run something like: “Makes Clarence Thomas look moderate,” “very conservative,” “very, very conservative” and so forth.

Instead, I am simply going to rank them from the point of view of what they bring to the table for Trump and for judicial conservatives (liberals, of course, can read this in reverse order). Again, the main takeaway is that these prospective justices would all mark a shift to the right in the court’s jurisprudence, and will at the very least put the brakes on the few advances liberals were able to make under Kennedy.

I only have three things to add. First, don’t underestimate how much Trump likes a good fight. IMO he’s as likely to appoint someone because of the uproar it would create as to try to avoid controversy.

Second, while Mr. Trende’s point about the Court lacking an intellectual linchpin since Scalia’s death, I doubt that will figure in President Trump’s reckoning at all.

And I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the eventual appointee isn’t in Mr. Trende’s list at all.

In his column at the Wall Street Journal James Freeman takes note of the much-reported shortage of workers:

How are U.S. employers going to fill all of their open positions? That’s the question raised again by the National Federation of Independent Business monthly jobs report, due out later today.

“Reports of employment gains remain strong among small businesses. Owners reported adding a net 0.19 workers per firm on average, virtually unchanged from May and a good number,” says NFIB Chief Economist William Dunkelberg.

That’s certainly good news, but the news could be much better if employers could find more job seekers. “Sixty-three percent reported hiring or trying to hire (up 5 points), but 55 percent (87 percent of those hiring or trying to hire) reported few or no qualified applicants for the positions they were trying to fill,” adds Mr. Dunkelberg.

NFIB finds particularly high demand for workers in home building, “where labor shortages are clearly restricting the construction of new homes and apartments as demand remains strong. The limited supply is resulting in strong house price appreciation.”

Beyond construction, it seems that things are tough all over for small businesses in need of new workers—both skilled and unskilled. “And the hiring strength is in industries that pay well,” notes Mr. Dunkelberg. Along with construction, this category includes manufacturing and financial services.

Let me put my observations in bullet form:

• In some cases there actually aren’t enough workers.
• When we place caps on the number of people who are trained, as is the case, for example, with physicians, it tends to create shortages which otherwise would not exist.
• Some of the shortages are actually attempts to keep wages low. Employers are entitled to keep wages low. Americans are entitled to resist importing workers to keep wages low.
• In some cases the shortage is an over-simplification. Employers aren’t just looking for workers with specific skills. They’re looking for workers with specific skills who don’t do drugs, have no criminal convictions, who haven’t posted nasty things on Facebook.
• In some cases the shortage is nonsense. They’re looking for workers with specific skills, etc. who are under thirty and have fifteen years of experience. I recall seeing ads in 1981 for IBM PC programmers with five years of experience. That such mythical creatures did not exist never occurred to prospective employers.
• In some cases the shortage is a self-inflicted wound. Junior engineers become senior engineers. When you won’t pay junior engineers a living wage, eventually there are no senior engineers. We’ve been reducing vocational training at the high school level for decades. We shouldn’t be surprised that there are no prospective workers with the skills that might be learned in such training let alone workers with those skills and ten years of experience.

And then there are the policies which make it more comfortable to be out of the labor force than in it. Good policy is hard which is why there’s a chronic shortage of it.

The editors of the Washington Post point out the obvious about the calls to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement:

The sudden call by some Democrats to abolish ICE — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency whose multipronged mission includes deportation — makes a better bumper sticker than a blueprint for policy. Like eradicating the Internal Revenue Service, the GOP’s own recurrent shibboleth, scrapping ICE reflects the risible notion that offensive policies can be wished away by atomizing the agency that enforces them. They can’t be.

Many Americans — we count ourselves among them — are outraged by the Trump administration’s harassment, humiliation and hounding of immigrants, including the zero-humanity policy of deterring future migrants by separating children from their parents. The instrument of some (though not all) of those policies has been ICE. But it is just that: an instrument, wielded in every instance to enforce the will of President Trump and his administration.

I think we need to disaggregate the objectives of those calling for the abolition of ICE. Some are simply politically motivated full stop. Some actually believe in a right of immigration—they think that any attempt at securing our borders is immoral not to mention racist. Some mistakenly think that laws enforce themselves.

Others think, mistakenly, that if you take all of the people, all of the practices, and all of the policies that make up our immigration enforcement and create a new agency with another name all of the problems will go away with the old agency.

Innocent third parties are always injured by enforcing the law. They’re also injured by failing to enforce laws. We need to strike a balance among the conflicting interests. If that were easy, it would have been done decades ago and there would be no problem.

There still isn’t a great deal going on to comment on and I don’t have a lot of time to reconnoiter but, in the light of the Trump Administration’s trade bill, I did want to remark on the U. S.’s role in international organizations.

I do not believe that the U. S. should exit the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or the World Trade Organization. I do believe that our participation in them should more closely resemble the participation of other member countries.

For example, the U. S. contribution to United Nations funding should be more in the vicinity of 15% (our proportion of world GDP) than it is to our present tithe (22%).

In the case of NATO, we should remove our troops from Europe to whatever extent we can without injuring out-of-theater operations. Henceforward, our participation in NATO should be largely symbolic. We should attend the events, cut the ribbons, and make bold speeches about the U. S.’s and Europe’s close bond. Otherwise, not much.

We should do about what we’re doing WRT the WTO except that we should take every possible opportunity to point out that China has never lived up to the obligations it assumed as a condition of its membership, violates the terms of its membership more than any other country other than Russia, and that it owes its present position in the world economy to WTO membership, suggesting that it be ousted for non-compliance.

If those are the new rules we should definitely play by them.

It was bright and sunny for the Sauganash Fourth of July parade this year. Some of my neighbors set up to watch.

The parade always starts with several firetrucks. You can see them there in the distance, coming up the street.

Getting closer. A few Chicago police officers on bicycles as well.

And there they are, sirens blaring. It’s really deafening that close up.

Fortunately, no pipers down.

The local scout troop usually participates.

My beloved Happy Foods made an appearance.

A variety of vehicles of all shapes and sizes are in the parade.

Was that a Lamborghini?

They decorate pickup trucks.

Community groups participate.

Now there’s a cool car.

And my neighbors. All shapes, sizes, and colors of them.

I didn’t do a head count but at least 500 people were in the parade. Here “parade” is a verb.

And Chicago’s finest brings up the rear.

I don’t usually post a great deal on the Fourth of July. I put up my usual post on the Sauganash Parade. I may write a short essay. I don’t know how the spirit will move me today. There doesn’t seem to be a great deal going on other than the normal bickering and people killing each other on the South and West Sides. It’s pretty quiet down there so far. Last year the tally was 15 killed, 89 wounded.