Suchergebnisse

Campaign finance disclosures, or sometime lack of
these, give some clues as to whether wholesale changes may come to the Bossier
Parish Police Jury's composition staring next year.

While all but one incumbent chose to run for
reelection, and a few didn't draw an opponent, according to reports that detail
spending and activity three challengers stand a decent chance of displacing an
incumbent starting this week, and at least a couple more have an outside chance of doing so. The
reports ten days prior to the general election cover an important period in local
campaigns that demonstrate the seriousness of a candidacy and tactics used. For
this level of races, the most effective campaigning is door-to-door canvassing,
followed by direct mailing, eye-level signage (yard signs better than
billboards), canvassing before groups such as at high school football games, display
print advertising, and lastly electronic means such as ads and texting.

The reports show some vulnerable incumbents. District
1, with three challengers to Republican Bob Brotherton, has the most candidates
but not much active campaigning. Only two have filed reports, with the
incumbent not being one of them. That doesn't mean campaigning isn't going on –
reports are necessary only if there is a donation the exceeds $200 or more than
$2,500 spent – but that it is occurring at most at a low level, it at all.

According to that reporting, only Republican small
businessman Michael
Farris – almost exclusively with his own funds – has made an extensive campaigning
effort with signage and canvassing. Brotherton, who has been ailing physically
for an extended period that caused him to miss most Jury meetings this year,
does have some signs up, as does Democrat trucking executive Andre
Wilson. This makes Farris the most likely to knock off an incumbent this
cycle.

As well placing emphasis on canvassing is District
12 Republican challenger small businessman Keith
Sutton. He has raised about $8,000, almost all his own funds, and spent
most on signage, mailings, and canvassing. By contrast, Republican incumbent Mac Plummer,
while reporting raising about half that much money from himself, has not spent
any even as yard signs of his have appeared. Unless these are leftovers from
his 2015 or earlier campaigns, that would indicate failure to properly file campaign
expenditures. Sutton's activity suggests he also stands a good chance of toppling
an incumbent.

Also very competitive is Republican former juror Barry
Butler, challenging the incumbent with perhaps the most extensive campaign
infrastructure, Republican Julianna
Parks in District 5. Butler's largely self-financed campaign has been
all-of-the-above, a mix of electronic contact, eye-level signage, and
canvassing. Parks has raised and spent almost as much, with a higher proportion
coming from donors with heavy representation from the Bossier political
establishment and attorneys (she is one and her husband Santi is the elected Bossier
City Court judge), with more emphasis placed on electronic contact. This looks
to become the highest-spending contest, by far.

Another challenger making a concerted effort is
Republican former executive director of the Cypress Black Bayou Recreation and
Water Conservation District Robert
Berry. In District 6, he has sunk over $7,000 of his own money into canvassing,
signage, and mail. Incumbent Republican Chis
Marsiglia didn't file the latest report due, but a previous report shows
about $1,500 spent on small amounts of signage and mail (with all $4,000 in
donations from firms connected to politically-active businessman Jerry Juneau).

And while demographics suggest an uphill battle
for her, District 9 Republican challenger Pam Glorioso is
making a go at it against Democrat incumbent Charles Gray.
Until recently chief executive officer of Bossier City, she has drawn over $7,000
in donations mainly from the Bossier political establishment in a reversal of the
trend in other contests spent mainly on electronic and mail contact and
signage. Gary didn't turn in the most recent required report, but previously
had raised almost as much but concentrated on advertising.

Perhaps banking on name recognition, former school
board member Democrat Julius Darby has done much visible campaigning with no finance
reporting – his older brother Jerome gave up the District 10 seat after 40
years. Retiree Democrat James
Carley did file to show some signage and canvassing activity, while another
retiree Democrat Mary Giles didn't but has put up signs (some apparently on
public right-a-ways).

Other contests also appear lower key in nature. District
3, Republican challenger and constable Andy
Modica has spent about $1,000 on electronic contact and canvassing, while
Republican incumbent Philip
Rodgers has tripled up on that amount, mainly on mail and signage. In District
4, incumbent Republican John Ed Jorden didn't file nor did his Democrat
challenger Donald Stephens, while his Republican opponent appraiser Jack Harvill spent
only on push cards.

All in all, if things break right for challengers
they could send half of incumbents packing. More likely, at least a couple of
new faces will show up on the Jury in 2024.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky came to the United States last month bearing a powerful moral message: Ukraine's cause in fighting back against Russia is an unusually clear case of good versus evil.
Like Churchill rallying his people against Hitler's forces in World War II, he urged continued American resolve in ensuring that the war ends in Ukrainian victory, and he warned that any compromise with Moscow will only invite more aggression. America, he argued, faces a stark choice between right and wrong. If only things were that clear. In fact, the lengthening and increasingly bloody conflict in Ukraine is forcing the United States to grapple with a moral dilemma: a choice not between right and wrong, but between right and right. It is right to help Ukraine defend itself against Russia's invasion. After all, Ukraine did not attack Russia, and under the terms of the United Nations Charter, Russia had no legal basis for waging war on its neighbor absent authorization by the UN Security Council. And it is right to oppose Russia's brutal conduct in the war, which includes strikes on civilian facilities and numerous instances of rape, murder, and abuse of individual Ukrainians, all violations of international law. But these elements tell only part of the moral tale in Ukraine. German theorist Max Weber contrasted an "ethics of conviction" that battles against all injustice with an "ethics of responsibility" that calls for considering the potential results of such battles when weighing moral choices. An ethics of conviction argued that Western military intervention in Libya in 2011, intended to prevent mass atrocities by the barbarous Qadhafi regime, was the morally correct policy. An ethics of responsibility points out that America's good intentions resulted in disastrous instability that continues to radiate into Africa, the Middle East, and Europe to this day. These contrasting approaches complicate our calculations in Ukraine. Viewed through the lens of conviction, the correct response to Putin's invasion seems clear: one does not indulge evil; one fights and defeats it. Viewed through the lens of results, the case for such an uncompromising approach is far less certain. For now, the balance sheet in Ukraine features more assets than liabilities. Western aid has been instrumental in preventing Russian forces from capturing the vast bulk of Ukrainian territory and rendering Kyiv a Kremlin puppet, and the United States has so far managed to defend Ukraine while avoiding the escalatory dangers of a direct clash with the Russian military. But the conviction that any compromise with evil is wrong prompted Ukraine (with Western encouragement) to break off settlement talks that were progressing with Russia in April of last year, opting instead for a "counteroffensive" aimed at driving Russian forces off all Ukrainian territory, while so weakening Russia that it could never again contemplate such aggression. That counteroffensive has gone poorly. If Ukraine continues attacking into the teeth of formidable Russian defenses, it risks depleting its increasingly scarce supplies of men and munitions to such an extent that it could become vulnerable to new Russian advances. Should Russia threaten to overrun Ukrainian forces, could the Biden administration refrain from some form of direct involvement in the war, if that seemed to be the only way to prevent a Russian victory? Having ruled out compromise with Putin, Biden's political room for maneuver in such a scenario would be perilously narrow. Yet the consequences of a military clash between the world's preeminent nuclear powers could be horrific for everyone. Short of a Russian battlefield breakthrough, we must also consider the potential impact on Ukraine of a prolonged stalemate. Zelensky himself has also warned that a long war of attrition would mean "a fork in the road for Ukraine" and a "totally militarized economy." Having already lost millions fleeing to Europe and Russia, Ukraine would lose even more people, both on the front lines and to emigration. A demographic study published last year indicated that by 2040, Ukraine's working age population could fall by a third of its present size, with the number of children declining to half its pre-war level. A shrinking Ukraine would grow ever more dependent on the United States and Europe just to support its aging and war-crippled population's needs for social services. A prolonged war also threatens to reshape the world order in dangerous ways. The loss of cheap Russian energy supplies is damaging the German economy and fueling the rise of Germany's leading far right party, Alternative for Deutschland. Western economic sanctions are also driving increased Russian trade and military cooperation with China, Iran, and North Korea, compounding America's geostrategic challenges. Is helping Ukraine recover Crimea and Russian-controlled portions of the Donbass worth a radicalized Germany, a threatening entente between Russia and China, an accelerated North Korean ICBM program, and robust Russian-Iranian military cooperation? These are not questions that those favoring an ethics of conviction in Ukraine want to answer. But they are questions that our elected representatives, as agents entrusted with safeguarding the interests of the American people, are duty-bound to consider. It is right to help Ukraine defend itself against Russian aggression. And it is right to consider the potential fallout from the war on American and world security. Our challenge is to strike a pragmatic balance between these contending interests in justice and order. We will not achieve it through moral grandstanding, but through a judicious blending of military strength with diplomatic skill.

 This week is the 30th anniversary of my first day of teaching and of professing (although I think my first title did not include "professor" as a visiting ABD).  The first day of teaching was my best exemplar of being an absent-minded prof: I somehow forgot to bring the pile of syllabi to the first course of the day--Intro to IR... and then to my second course of the day, which was a different section of Intro to IR..... and then to my third course of the day---also Intro to IR.  This was long before folks had courseware, long before stuff was uploaded before classes started.  Profs brought paper versions of their syllabi (shorter then because of little required boilerplate) to the class. And I failed miserably in that basic task.  Have I said this before?  This is now a constant problem in my teaching (and in my blogging?)I don't have any pics of my early teaching so this willhave to do.The good news is that I didn't fail as a teacher that first year.  As a last minute hire, I was lucky to get three sections of the same course, one that I had TA'ed for a few years earlier.  In my second year of grad school, at a school with a quarter system, I got to assist a terrific class, a bad class, and a class that was a bit of a mess as the prof was figuring out how to revise the class as the Cold War was ending.  So, I built that one course from the terrific class, borrowed a few tricks from the class that was a bit of a mix, and learned what to avoid by not doing what I saw in the bad class.My aims my first year were modest: try to be clear and organized.  I had very extensive notes although I did not try to read off of them.  I spent much effort producing transparencies so that I could show the students the outlines of the lecture to keep both me and them on track.  I did not build in jokes or elaborate stunts to keep them away--the tricks developed later mostly to keep the 600 students awake and engaged at McGill.  At Vermont, I had roughly 30 students per class, did mostly lecture (much more my strength then and now, rather than leading discussion).  I am trying to remember if the classes had discussion sections... I remember not having TA's, and doing the grading myself.  Papers and exams although it has been forever since I have had in-class tests.  And it went well enough that they brought me back even after being ruled of that year's job search.  I liked teaching quite a bit.  Sure, I am an attention hound, but talking about the stuff helped me understand it better, they asked good questions which made me think, they pushed my curiosity as I didn't always know the answers (I often did not the answers).  They were a lively, engaged bunch and I fed off of their energy.  It has been a long, long time since I taught three classes a day, but I was able to do it then by being an energy vampire.  It was really a terrific place to learn how to teach and how to manage my classes--I was a visitor whose career there was quickly to become finite, so I could focus on the teaching (no dept meetings for the visitors, no dept service either) and on the skiing.  It was also where I started to learn and theorize about department politics. It is kind of wild to think that particular batch of students of about 90 poli sci students are now around 50. I have not kept in touch with any of the students from that first year (although I did write a few recommendations for some of them shortly after their time with me) and only occasionally a few profs from that experience.  Of course, I am celebrating my 30th anniversary of teaching my first classes by ... not teaching.  I am on sabbatical this year, so no teaching (except for the Summer Institute last month).  I hope to be refreshed next year, as I am entertaining the idea of teaching a new class (or an old class that I haven't taught in eight or nine years)Looking back, I realize that I am very lucky to find something that works so well for my personality and for my excessive curiosity.  I don't enjoy grading, but hanging with the kids has kept me youngish, keep pushing me to think about stuff differently, and keep challenging me.  I have had to ditch my old cultural references, and I have to keep track of my stories better.  I stayed in grad school in part because I could not imagine doing anything else, and, now?  My imagination still sucks, as I can't imagine anything that would have worked as well for me.   

If the deaths of Wagner chief Yevgeny Prigozhin and several of his mercenary group's top commanders in a fiery plane crash Thursday were indeed deliberate and directed by Vladimir Putin, it could be said the Russian president has restored his authority by the methods of the Godfather's Michael Corleone.


In the months leading up to the Wagner mutiny, Putin's failure to suppress the increasingly bitter public feud between Prigozhin and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu was beginning to weaken his image within Russia's elite as a decisive leader. Today, few in Russia will be doubting Putin's capacity for decisive ruthlessness, whatever they might say about his morals.


The Wagner affair marked a serious breakdown of Putin's longstanding strategy of elite management. Far from being the Stalinist autocrat often portrayed in the West, Putin has generally operated more like the strong chairman of a squabbling board of directors, maintaining his own position by balancing one elite faction against another. He thereby prevented any individual or group from becoming too dominant, and also prevented their disputes from emerging in public and threatening the image and stability of his regime.


If in a given case Putin decided in favor of one side, the losers were not destroyed, but kept in reserve while being compensated with lesser positions — and after all, if you can't be a director of Gazprom, a directorship of Rosneft is not a bad consolation prize. However, this was only the case so long as they remained publicly loyal and deferential to Putin and did not allow their discontent to become public.


As Putin showed in the case of former "oligarch" Mikhail Khodorkovsky, any elite figure who emerged as an independent potential rival to Putin himself would be taken out in one way or another. The exact course of events leading to Prigozhin's death is not clear and probably never will be. No evidence has been presented that points to a deliberate act of killing by the Kremlin or the Russian security service. As of late Thursday, the cause of the crash is still unknown.


We can only speculate why Putin might want to take this course. Perhaps he saw the deal by which Prigozhin was pardoned as a humiliation that weakened his own image. Perhaps Prigozhin broke the terms of the deal by returning to Russia instead of staying quietly in Belarus.


This combination of authority and flexibility on the part of Putin has been generally welcome to the Russian elites. A key feature of Russian politics over the past generation has been the elites' profound distrust of their own ability to manage and limit their differences without Putin or a figure like him to keep them in order.


They fear that if he is replaced or severely weakened, their rivalries will break out into the open and destroy the entire state order on which their own positions and fortunes depend. Doubtless, many in the elite will regret that things were ever allowed to come to a point where Prigozhin would have to be killed, and shocked by the blatant nature of the act, if confirmed. Few however are likely to regret the consequent strengthening of government power.


As to the future of Wagner (or whatever new name it is given by the Kremlin), Putin's intention is clearly that it will continue to act as Russia's proxy in Africa, Syria, and possibly (though this is less certain) in Belarus. Only two days ago, Russia's deputy defense minister met in Libya with rebel warlord Khalifa Haftar, a sign that the Kremlin was already seeking to assure Wagner clients in Africa that Russian support will not diminish. But Wagner henceforth will almost certainly be subject to much tighter Russian state control, probably exercised through installing a Putin loyalist at its helm and closely monitoring its operations.


Similarly, the violent end of Wagner's top leaders is unlikely to have much impact on the war in Ukraine. Most of the mercenary group's rank-and-file fighters have now signed contracts with the regular Russian military.


Although Russia was highly dependent on Wagner's manpower and fighting prowess in 2022, once Moscow completed its partial military mobilization from late last year and brought tens of thousands of fresh forces to Ukraine, Wagner became much less important to Russia's war effort. Putin was content to exploit Wagner's fighters and their expertise in urban combat during the bloody battle for Bakhmut, but the Russian military is now well positioned to prosecute its attrition strategy in Ukraine without the need for Wagner's support.


Prigozhin's demise dashes hopes that Putin's rule — and by extension, Russia's war effort in Ukraine — might soon be undermined by internal turmoil. For the time being, any assumption that Putin had Prigozhin killed will discourage would-be political challengers to the Kremlin. Coupled with the recent removal of General Surovikin (regarded as a Prigozhin sympathizer) as head of Russia's Aerospace Forces, and the arrest of hardline nationalist critic Igor Strelkov, the Kremlin has sent strong signals to Russia's restive political rightwing that opposition to the state will not be tolerated.


The final chapter in this story remains to be written, however. Although Putin has overcome the abortive Wagner challenge, his political fate over the longer term remains far from assured. And one factor looms larger than all others in determining that future: the still very much uncertain course of the war in Ukraine.

Elections
for half of Caddo Parish's executive offices will tell whether the dynamics
of the 2022
Shreveport mayoral election signaled something new or was just a transient blip
on the radar.

Last year, Republican Mayor Tom Arceneaux
surprisingly defeated Democrat state Sen. Greg Tarver for the city's top
job. Not only did the city's Democrat majority in the electorate provide enough
defections to let Arceneaux post the win, but also a significantly higher
proportion of blacks that typical did the same, a result especially unanticipated
as Arceneaux is white and Tarver black.

While the contests for clerk of court and coroner this
fall went unopposed for the incumbents, spirited battles seem ahead for sheriff
and assessor, where in both instances long-time incumbents will step down. For different
reasons, both will test, this time in a parish-wide setting (Shreveport
voters comprise about three-quarters of the parish total) propensity for
crossover voting that could benefit white Republican candidates as happened for
Arceneaux.

The sheriff's race features an interesting field.
Black Democrat Henry Whitehorn, who has a long career in law enforcement
including some high-profile offices but who most recently was chief administrative
officer for Democrat former Mayor Adrian Perkins, is considered solidly in
position to make the general election runoff. The other big favorite is white
Republican former Shreveport Councilor John
Nickelson, who doesn't have a law enforcement background.

That lacking will be a negative for him. There's
much more to the job than just law enforcement, such as serving as the parish
tax collector, but the vast bulk of employees and visible activity of the office
is that. Many voters instinctively will assess that kind of background in
vetting candidates.

Recent past history in parish-wide races also suggests
Nickelson will be at a disadvantage because of this. In the last contest that
Republican incumbent Steve Prator won easily, former constable Eric Hatfield, a
white Democrat, and lawyer black Democrat Hersy Jones ran well behind him. Both
are running again, although Hatfield switched his affiliation this time to
Republican.

Jones was the only black Democrat in the field,
and Hatfield the only white Democrat. Jones has no law enforcement experience
while Hatfield was an elected constable, but in performing
the duties of that office so controversially – eventually prompting the
state Legislature to pass a law reining in his aggrandizement of the office –
he lost reelection. Yet in 2019 Hatfield drew nearly twice the vote, 21 percent
to 11 percent, that Jones did, even given Jones was the only black running in an
electorate composed nearly halfway with black registrants. In other words,
voters not wanting to vote for a white Republican were so impressed with Hatfield's
background (likely many not knowing of the controversy he stirred while in office
that led to his losing reelection) that this overrode race for some voters even
as they had another candidate of their race available for selection.

The other indicator indicating Whitehorn to be
favored over Nickelson is the 2015 election for First Judicial District Attorney.
In 2015, black Democrat James Stewart won over a white Republican by 10
percentage points, even though then
whites held a three-point advantage in voter registration. This fall, it's
just over a percentage point.

Almost certainly Whitehorn and Nickelson will make
the runoff. Hatfield's and Jones' proportions will fall precipitously, and
Stewart's 2020 opponent Democrat lawyer Pat Gilley, who is even farther to the left
on crime issues than Stewart and more
controversial than Hatfield, will receive a pittance. The only candidate
with the potential to make a run is the other entrant, Republican Shayne Gibson,
a veteran law enforcement officer now police chief of Greenwood, but he would
need a lot of donations fast. But in a runoff, unless the dynamics of 2022 in
Shreveport persist and parish-wide, Whitehorn remains the favorite.

Whatever trend emerges or recedes also will find
confirmation in the assessor's race. There, two top deputies of retiring Democrat
Assessor Charles Henington vie with two others to succeed him. One is white
Democrat Kristin Gonzalez and the other is white Republican Brett Frazier.
Making the internecine battle even more interesting, two black Democrats also
joined the fray, accountant and previous House candidate Reginald Johnson and
Southern University Shreveport professor Regina Webb.

As this is such a low-information contest, the
interplay of party and race should be fascinating to watch as these largely will
determine voting behavior. White Republicans comprise 26 percent of the electorate,
white Democrats under 9 percent, and black Democrats 36 percent.

Normally, this suggests that Frazier and one of
Johnson or Webb would make the runoff. But assessor office experience will
matter somewhat, and it's interesting to see whether that would peel off enough
votes to get Gonzalez into the runoff, which she would win. If not, along the
lines of the dynamics in the sheriff's race, a black Democrat would be expected
to win the runoff, but Frazier's assessor experience might allow him to abscond
with a greater proportion of the black vote than such a candidate typically
receives and enough for hm to win.

Thus, these two Caddo executive contests could
provide fresh details on whether voter dynamics are shifting even slightly away
from their past heavy emphasis on race.

A stroke of good luck for Louisiana taxpayers, the strike
by writers and actors of motion picture and television productions can be
leveraged even more for the state's citizens to avoid the bad consequences of
its poorly-conceived Motion Picture Investors Tax Credit.

First writers, then actors began the strike
starting over three months ago. This brought largely to a halt an already
slowing production of movies and series, whether shown in theaters, on broadcast
television, cable television, streaming over the Internet, or in podcast form,
although some films in progress actor members have been allowed to complete. Anticipation
of a strike as early as late last year had prompted ratcheting down production,
so as not to have things interrupted if a strike occurred. To work with a network
or major studio (which comprise most of the business; for example, the top ten
studios in movie box office receipts for last
year collected seven-eighths of all revenues), writers and actors must be a
member of their respective unions.

The main issue in both cases is revenue-sharing. The
rapid growth in streaming particularly has exposed that prior compensation
models didn't account for this, leading members to demand a greater share of
the pie from that. Both also want more control over the use of artificial intelligence
in story writing and actor likenesses. Writers additionally want retainer pay
for stretches that they don't work.

These fall under a much larger theme: an industry
used to centralization of economic control through cooperation of management
and labor has lost that control because, simply, the economics have changed so
that far more people at far reduced costs can create profitably content. Old
producers and unions have come to loggerheads because the decentralization trend
has more forcefully affected the fortunes of the latter.

But the unions involved – both extremely top heavy
with the vast majority of earnings going to a handful of members in each – also
by their actions have impacted other people who work in the industry and in
much greater numbers. Audio-visual content production requires a slew of
behind-the-scenes labor, almost exclusively contract in nature. Shutting down
production also shuts down at least part of the livelihood of many individuals,
as most work part-time, but for some its entirety.

That
has hit Louisiana disproportionately hard, given its generous taxpayer
subsidization of film and television production to the tune typically of $150
million annually which artificially has boosted this activity and created a kind
of workfare for people who want to work around the movie business. Nobody
should kid themselves that in absence of the credit that business would be no
more than a fraction of what it is, or that the credit is a net money-maker for
taxpayers, as study after study has shown (the latest,
most optimistic shows it returns 23 cents on the dollar while costing $13,300
for each job "created").

Thus, the slowdown will help Louisianans save
money, as fewer productions will occur and fewer credits dispensed. But the overall
theme that triggered the strike now has a chance to insert itself into policy-makers'
consciousness, which it apparently didn't this past legislative session when with
only some beneficial changes the tax credit foolishly was renewed.

And, the idea
to accomplish this reform to keep up with the times actually came years ago
from Republican Lt. Gov. Billy Nungesser,
running for reelection this fall. He suggested that part of any contract with
an entity qualifying for the credits contain a clause that, if the production
made a certain amount in revenues, the state take a cut.

This can be designed to capture streaming revenues,
and in a way to help local producers; the overwhelming majority of credit
dollars go to out-of-state entities. The law could be changed to charge gross
revenues to the parent corporation or other entity in a tiered system. For
example, there would be no tax reimbursement for a production that in a decade
after release doesn't collect $1 million, but then from there to $10 million one
percent is charged, two percent up to $20 million, and so on every $10 million
until reaching $100 million and beyond where it becomes a fixed 10 percent.
This shields smaller producers such as those in-state as an incentive to grow,
ensures that creative accounting doesn't hide revenues, and reasonably accounts
for present and future streaming.

As currently constructed, the film tax credit is nothing
more than a jobs program for a favored political constituency that wastes
taxpayer dollars and distorts the economy into a preferred direction picked by
government. Ironically, people in the spillover industries that have benefited
from this now suffer precisely because of it and its vulnerability to what
happens in Hollywood. Had the reimbursement idea been in place, it would have been
less buffeted by Hollywood developments because it would have helped stimulate
an indigenous film industry outside of the current labor dispute. The new
Legislature next year needs to make this modification.

 Many accounts of the rise and fall of Senator Joe McCarthy say that his popularity collapsed after a dramatic exchange in a Senate hearing ("have you no sense of decency?").  A few years ago, I had a post that looked at Gallup data on views of McCarthy and found no change after the incident.  But there was a drop in approval between March 2, 1954 and March 24, 1954, which I said might have been the result of a critical TV documentary by Edward R. Murrow that ran on March 9.  Since that time, I've found more data--Gallup sometimes asked for ratings on a scale of +5 (like very much) to -5 (dislike very much), so you can collapse those into favorable (positive) and unfavorable (negative).  This makes it possible to extend the range of the analysis, looking at approval during and after the Senate investigation and censure vote against McCarthy (December 1954).  I also looked at news stories in the New York Times in March and in the June hearings.  It turns out that there was more going on in early March than the Murrow show.  On Sunday the "Week in Review" section had a long story which began "With startling suddenness, there arose in the U. S. last week the question:  has the tide turned against McCarthy?"  It went through events of the week, which started with an broadcast speech by Adlai Stevenson saying that the Republican party was "half Eisenhower and half McCarthy," and in addition to Murrow's program included a Senate speech by (Republican) Senator Ralph Flanders attacking McCarthy, a press conference by Eisenhower in which he made approving comments about Flanders's speech and dismissed Stevenson's claim, and an address by Vice-President Richard Nixon (McCarthy had demanded a chance to respond to Stevenson, but the party chose Nixon for the job) in which he was critical of McCarthy.  The exchange in June got a front-page story, which noted that the spectators burst into applause after Joseph Welch confronted McCarthy.  I was struck by this passage: "Senator Mundt has daily cautioned the audience to refrain from 'audible expressions of approval or disapproval' . . . under pain of being expelled from the room.  But he made no effort to control or admonish the crowd that applauded Mr. Welch's retort to Senator McCarthy."  Mundt, a Republican, was the acting chair of the committee [McCarthy had temporarily stepped aside].  Now for the survey data:Vertical lines indicate the "turn of the tide" week, the day of the McCarthy-Welch exchange, and the Senate censure vote against McCarthy. The figures on the vertical axis are percent favorable minus percent unfavorable ratings.   Blue dots represent the collapsed ten-point scale, red are approve/disapprove--there don't seem to be any systematic differences between them, so I'll treat them as equivalent.  There was a clear drop in March, but nothing that happened after that point seems to have made much difference.  If anything, McCarthy's popularity might have recovered a little after the summer of 1954.  Before the "turn of the tide" his approval rating was generally around +10, and afterwards it was about -10.     Putting this together, a sustained bipartisan effort had only a moderate impact on McCarthy's popularity.  Moreover, all of the impact came at the beginning--that is, he seemed to have a substantial core of support that stuck with him through everything.  What does this episode suggest about contemporary support for Donald Trump?  One interpretation would be that even if most Republican elites had turned against him, it wouldn't have made much difference:  public confidence in political leaders and the media was much higher in 1954 then it is today, so any loss of support today would be much smaller than McCarthy's.  Moreover, Trump now seems to have a larger core of enthusiastic supporters than McCarthy did (only about 10% gave him a +5, a number that didn't change much).  However, I think it might have had more impact on the sense of viability:  that is, many of the people who approve of Trump and intend to support him for president in 2024 would approve of him and think he had been treated unfairly by "the elites," but figure he didn't have much chance anymore and look for someone else to vote for.  I don't have any solid evidence, but there are some hints in the surveys on McCarthy.  In December 1953, there was a question on who you would support for the Republican nomination in 1956 if the candidates were Eisenhower and McCarthy--9% said McCarthy and 12% weren't sure.  In March 1955 there were a couple of questions about who should get the nomination if Eisenhower didn't run for re-election:  McCarthy got 2% in one and 6% in the other.  That is, he got more support against a very popular incumbent in 1953 than he got against a collection of less prominent and less popular people in 1955.[Data from the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research]

As a parting gift to Louisianans, Democrat Gov. John Bel Edwards
gave them the middle-fingered salute that forever cements his reputation as
Gov. Nyet.

It's not so much the volume of vetoes, contrasted
to his predecessor Republican Gov. Bobby
Jindal who in his first term vetoed 74 regular session non-appropriations
bills and 50 in his second term, while Edwards vetoed just 29 in his first term
and wrapped up with 78 in his second. In part, it's because Edwards cast nearly
half his vetoes in just the past two years while Jindal cast only a few in his
last quarter of service.

But mostly it's because Jindal's vetoes only
rarely struck anything but low-profile measures while Edwards' have gone
against some subjects of considerable popular and newsworthy concern. So much
so that Edwards looks to have triggered a third veto session in an annual row, where
these meetings to overturn vetoes had been unprecedented prior to his time in
office, and where one override became the first to succeed.

Expect more. Prior to Edwards, past governors shied
away from vetoing big items, in part because they didn't have to face them. High-profile
measures usually carried popular support and legislative supermajorities, so if
a governor couldn't cut these off at the pass, he would have to let them go.

But Edwards, if not the most liberal governor in
the state's history in the aggregate certainly the most committed leftist on
social issues, just won't lay down on some of these. And he does so for the
most relentless partisan and ideological reasons, even as he invokes tiresome
preachiness about how anybody disagreeing with him is sowing division when, in
reality, he disingenuously goes out of his way to provoke conflict as a necessity
of ideological fealty and to pay off allies.

Some of his veto messages provide prime examples
of this sanctimony. HB 399 would
have had schools when communicating information about the state schedule of
vaccinations also reminding parents and students that under statute they can
opt out themselves or their children from this. He vetoed this,
calling it "a covert attempt to undermine the faith of the public in vaccines"
as his way of covertly attacking state law he dislikes because it disempowers
government – even as the evidence
continues to grow about intentional media and government downplaying of the
volume and magnitude of adverse impacts of Wuhan coronavirus vaccination.

Or with SB 1 that over
the next few years would have reduced substantially, perhaps even entirely, the
corporate franchise tax considered economically injurious. Edwards admits this
but says he vetoed
it because it might cut government revenues too much in light of previous
reformation efforts and the coming expiration of the 0.45 percent sales tax
hike he had backed to the hilt. Of course, in his zeal to overinflate
government to this year's budget Edwards led the charge to add hundreds of
millions of dollars in unneeded new commitments, which without that happening would
have mooted any future concerns about tax cuts that would have reached consumers.

And there's SB 196, which attempted to bring
transparency to the Wild West of third
party litigation funding – critically appraised by the television news
program 60
Minutes, many state attorneys general, and GOP Sen. John Kennedy for resulting
in an unnecessary amount of litigation and potential noncitizen interference in
legal processes – not by prohibiting this but merely asking for revelation of
lawsuit funders. But as this could have the slightest possibility of reducing
trial lawyer business – the single largest group of funders of Edwards'
political career – he vetoed it,
ignoring consequences from the zero oversight and rules about it and instead calling
it "a pretense designed to gain a litigation advantage" for trial lawyer opponents.

His pièce de résistance was the last-minute
vetoes of HB 81,
HB 466,
and HB 648.
HB 466 would prevent school employees from psychological coaching of students
about their gender identity inconsistent with state instructional standards and
protect school employees and students from confusion over pronoun use of
students. HB 81 would cover pronoun usage like HB 466. HB 648 would prohibit
medical interventions to alter the sex of children, where research
shows such interventions regretted by almost a third of all children guided into
these and a significant portion of others years later feeling no more
positively about themselves.

These disapprovals guaranteed another veto
session, with each having passed by healthy supermajorities. Not only will all
but a couple of Republicans vote for overrides but also several Democrats threatened
to lose reelection this fall will jump at the chance to override as nationally
opinion polls show the sentiments behind the bills favored by the public.

Edwards' actions are so predictable. This pathetic
political hack never has had the best interests of Louisianans in mind other
than as an appendage to ruthless promotion of an ideological template alien to
the state and/or empowering special interest political allies. But he'll go
down swinging, railing against whatever contravenes his warped agenda for the
polity. 

Subject. The paradigm of successful professional ageing involves the prolongation of the ability of older workers to participate in work processes and provides arguments for supplementing age-related deficiencies through such functions as selection, compensation, and optimisation. These functions have proved their effectiveness in practice, but in a number of cases it is difficult to implement them. Difficulties arise both on the part of the employer and the employees. If employees, acting as supply in work relationships, do not feel confident about their abilities, employers (acting as demand) feed this lack of confidence with workplace ageism. The development of a concept for the labour market revitalisation by including older workers in the policy for the formation of labour force supply and demand and justifying step-by-step the possibility of prolongation of the working ability is a significant component of the implementation of the Russian strategy in the best interests of older citizens.Objectives. The article attempts to form the notion of labour market revitalisation through the justification of the possibility to preserve the residual work capacity of older employees and to study the factors affecting the prolongation of the active working period. The idea was to structure the employees by their age and identify the timespan of the appearance of "faults" in the body and then, according to the results, present different conditions that allow preventing cognitive ageing. The options included methods of overcoming health-related biomedical risks, minimisation of discrepancies between an individual's work ability and objective requirements for the work, as well as changes to their lifestyle.Methodology. To achieve our goal, we used general and empirical research methods. Analysis and synthesis were used as a method of obtaining new knowledge. The analysis allowed forming an idea of the elements of labour market revitalisation through the expansion of in the structure of employed older workers and identifying the conditions that make it possible. The analysis also helped to reveal the biochemical blood composition of patients of a clinical hospital. The determination of the main points of the analysis elements and the process of their aggregation allowed, using synthesis, formulating a single comprehensive view of the specified approach to labour market revitalisation. Using the method of groupings and classifications, we identified, first of all, six groups of patients for the determination of the timespan of the appearance of body "faults" that lead to premature ageing. Second, we identified three groups of factors affecting the prolongation of the active working period. The survey in this research was used to obtain and further systematise the respondents' opinions on the realities of employing older colleagues. The method of graphic modelling allowed formulating the conclusions based on the visualisation of the results of the conducted survey. Results. The article presents the structured provisions justifying the possibility of revitalising the labour market by taking into account three groups of factors that will help to determine the threshold for the premature ageing of older workers and taking measures to prolong their active working period if these factors are considered by employers, the healthcare system, and employees themselves. The suggested idea promotes the conclusions of scientists claiming that the performance of workers representing a phenomenon known as "silver tsunami" in the academic world can be not only efficient but also successful. The introduction of provisions on the retention and preservation of older specialists into the personnel policy and organisational culture of economic entities will allow employers to perform staff nudging in order to eliminate ageism as well as create an inclusive environment and personnel ecosystem. Conclusions. The transformation of the labour market with an increased number of employed older workers creates a situation that is subject to
interdisciplinary research. In our case, it includes organisational behaviour, personnel management, labour economics, biology, and medicine. The analysis methods used in the article allowed, first of all, understanding the idea of the expansion of staff diversity in the organisation due to older workers and the need to develop an inclusive policy taking into account this group of employees; second, they allowed justifying the possibility of preserving the residual working capacity of older workers through the study of three groups of factors affecting the prolongation of the active working period. The groups of factors include diseases, work, and lifestyle. Third, they allowed representing working capacity as a category that directly depends on the employee's functional age determined by their health. With a timely establishment of the ageing threshold (the period of discrepancies between the calendar age and the functional age), we can identify the signals about the body's abnormalities and the beginning of its deterioration. Fourth, they allowed considering the version of ageism, which stigmatises older workers as being incapable of work, to be controversial, and creating working conditions that allow supporting the cardiovascular and musculoskeletal systems of employees. Fifth, they allowed determining the reasons for the lack of work-life balance and the formation of the "enemy image" regarding the profession and workplace, as well as develop recommendations for the behaviour style at work, at home, and in social situations.

 Enjoying the fresh cc cookies in the United lounge while I await my third leg to get back home, so tis time to catch up on my trip blogging.  This post focuses on yesterday (yesterday was Friday, right? where we meet with folks at Latvia's Ministry of Defence, at their parliament, and at the Canadian embassy, the next post will focus on the bigger lessons/implications.The MoD briefing started with Ronald Reagan's evil empire speech, so that set the context.  The sense here is that war with Russia may be delayed by Ukraine's stand, but is likely down the road.  The Latvians monitor the Russian messaging at home, and it does not reassure at all. Latvia has shipped off quite a bit of what it had to the Ukrainians because they need for Russia to lose, to learn the lesson (which they doubt the Russians will learn).  Justin Massie asked again whether it might make more sense for Canada just to send its military equipment to Ukraine, and the Latvians said--why not both essentially.  That we need to build up Latvia for that day when the Russians invade and we need to delay that day by arming Ukraine.  Latvia is aiming to spend 3% of its GDP on defense, and I refrained from snarking about how having a tiny GDP makes that easy.  They are quite serious.  The Latvians also made good arguments for why Canada operating in Latvia is good for CAF readiness. I asked about how their MoD relates to the military as that is the next Steve and Phil and Ora project, and they said they have a British model (which sounds better than the Canadian model, but Phil will have to find that out fo rus). A recurring theme--waiting to hear whether Justin Trudeau will back up the promises made about spending more on the Latvian mission as it moves from battlegroup to brigade (from 1k to 3k).  Finns got mentioned for the first time as a potential new contributor to the multinational group Canada is herding.The second meeting after a quick fast food lunch (I chose poorly) was at the Parliament where we spoke with an MP and a leader of a think tank (I think).  Lots of fun discussions of Latvian domestic politics--five parties, in govt and in opposition, mostly on the same page.  The Canadians were envious of the MP focus on good governance, not just point scoring.  JC asked about their parliamentary oversight--he is a pal. They are definitely closer to European/German standards--the MPs have security clearances, defense committee is chaired by former defense official, engaged in serious debate.  In other words, tis not Canada. The big split on defense/foreign policy in the parliament is whether parties lean to US/NATO or lean towards EU.  Any change in government (coalition wrangling going on now) is not going to make much of a difference for the stuff we have been discussing.  We had heard of Germans and Lithuanians fighting in the media--the Latvians said that won't happen here even if JT falls short.  Was fun to hear a reference to the BattleRhythm episode we recorded earlier in the week! We had an interesting conversation about the gender debate regarding their conscription.  Their draft starts soon, men can be drafted, women can volunteer.  They discussed challenges for absorbing heaps of people.  We asked about their Russian population, and another recurring theme--the Russian speakers aren't all alike--diverse by age, by what they speak, by social groups.  The very interesting thing was the results of the recent election caused the usually leading party for the Russian-speaking minority to fall short of 5%, which means they don't get any seats.  And they were the one Russian-speaking party that was critical of Russian aggression, so oh my.The conversation at the Canadian embassy was much different, as we asked tough questions and pushed our own views, rather than just being in receive mode.  Why are we here?  What is our interest?  Just NATO?  Doing this mission does reverse the view that Canada doesn't care about NATO (holy short memory, Batman, they forgot about Kandahar so quickly.  Well, Robin, we did leave combat years before everyone else so....).  They folks at the embassy did a good job of articulating to us what Canada gets out of the mission, including a better understanding of fighting disinfo since the Latvians get heaps.  The irony, of course, is that Latvia does strategic comms well and Canada .... doesn't.  I mean, we, the group as a conduit for Canadian info ops (more in the next post)?  Not the best way to do strategic comms even if we academics are the most trusted (hey, our suveys say that, really!).The meeting egan to end as we discussed the best metaphors and analogies.  Did Trudeau propose and ihs now delaying the wedding?  Or are we married, but not really keeping our vows?

Besides offering more evidence of
the unsuitability of Democrat Gov. John Bel Edwards to
hold that position, or any other elective officer above that of dogcatcher, recent
comments by him against legislation to protect children, parents, and
teachers reflect changing political circumstances that have accelerated the
erosion of his rapidly-waning power, to the state's benefit.

His remarks referred in part to HB 648 by Republican
state Rep. Gabe
Firment, which would prohibit surgery or chemicals to alter the sex of a minor;
HB 466 by
GOP state Rep. Dodie
Horton that would ban classroom or extracurricular expressions extraneous
to educating students that focus on sexual activity and gives parents control
over the names and pronouns that refer to their children; and HB 81 by
Republican state Rep. Raymond Crews that
basically duplicates the regulation of naming conventions in Horton's bill. All
have passed the House.

That's in marked contrast to last year, when Firment
offered a similar bill that never received a committee hearing and Horton had
the same minus the naming regime that had to be forced out of committee in a parliamentary
move rarely seen, although it advanced no further. The naming
controversy in the past year has become increasingly visible over
revelations that some schools intentionally keep parents in the dark about their
efforts to encourage children to identify differently than their biological sex
(no Louisiana schools have been reported to do this).

This year, these bills have had much more success,
which in part stems from the pursuit of increasingly extremist policy on this
issue by the political left in Washington and elsewhere, yet also pressured towards
success from upcoming fall elections in Louisiana. Majorities across almost all
demographic groups (excepting white Democrats) nationally are against
surgery or drugs to alter a child's sex hormonally or physically, so unless
politicians are sure about their constituencies' views and whether they can
submerge this issue if need be, they must tread carefully if opposing bills
like these.

Not so the term-limited Edwards, who as his political
shelf life moves ever closer to expiration has felt freer than ever to express
his true inner social liberalism. Recently, he condemned bills like these as
harmful to the tiny, but apparently growing, proportion of youth questioning whether
they identify with their physical sex, without acknowledging that the preponderance
of physical and social science research revealing that practices such as medical
interventions on children have harmful health outcomes for most, and repeating
assertions from a small number of methodologically-questionable studies that appear
to affirm his opinions.

His statements imply he would veto such measures
if they cross his desk, even
though he didn't do that to a similar bill last year that prevents biological
males, even if taking drugs to change their sex, from competing in all-female
athletic events. He chickened out there because votes to pass the bills
demonstrated veto-proof majorities, meaning at least some House Democrats
crossed party lines to support those bills.

That he did to preserve political capital, but
that runs out within a month, so he might go for broke on these. And while on
HB 466 while Republican state Reps. Mary DuBuisson,
Barbara Freiberg,
Stephanie
Hilferty, Richard
Nelson, and Joe
Stagni voted
against it, more than enough Democrats did to make it veto-proof. That
represented a gain from the day before in terms of Democrats supporting with HB
81, with the latter a fallback for part of the former in any event. As for HB
648, only Stagni voted against it.

At least in the House, these numbers indicate particularly
white Democrats running for an office this year won't dare get on the wrong
side of this issue (of them, only new Democrat state Rep. Roy Daryl Adams
defected on HB 81 but the next day voted for HB 466). So, even if Edwards
finally feels free to reveal his true self to the world with vetoes, the House
will vote to override.

The Senate at this point seems harder to predict. It
has only two white Democrats, one of whom will retire from politics with his
term-limitation, and one vote to spare among Republicans for a supermajority.
However, on the law that secured fairness for female athletes, all GOP members voted for it
and for a previous
version the year before Edwards vetoed successfully when the House failed
to override.

Still, that Edwards has
failed to influence enough members of his own party in the House to vote against
these bills demonstrates his growing political impotence, already in an
advanced state following veto sessions triggered the past two years with a
successful override and his punting on the fairness bill. (And, the
House rejected main portions of his budget). Considering his views
increasingly inimical to a positive policy agenda for Louisiana, it's a welcome
development and likely harbinger of that agenda's advancement, on steroids,
next year.

The ISA poster maker was not wrong I am sticking around in Montreal after a wonderful ISA conference as I have a CDSN workshop on Climate Security.  So, I am hanging in my hotel room, marveling at how lucky I am.  I had a great time, meeting old friends, making new connections, giving feedback on a wonderful book, and being really grateful.  After two cancelled ISA's (Hawaii and Vegas, damn it!) and one strange, poorly attended one in Nashville last year, I was determined to hug longer and share my gratitude with all those who helped me along the way.  As it was a conference full of special events, this was not hard to do. Lauren and me on reconstructed McTavish        Started by meeting up with a former undergrad who got hooked on IR in my Intro class at McGill . We walked around our old stomping grounds.  Lauren Konken and I had a great time, chatting about ye olde days and noticing what has changed at McGill.  The plywood instead of a real railing on my old office balcony?  Nope, that didn't change.A ritual for Montreal conferences is for my former student Ora Szekely to take me to her favorite Chinese restaurant in Montreal's mini-Chinatown.  I am always thrilled to see my former students--they are mostly doing great, and they are mostly very funny people.  So, conferences are great for both silliness and pride.  I am quite thankful that I have had such great students over the years even if I whine about reading endless drafts.I met with several editors to promote the Dave/Phil/Steve book manuscript, and they all indicated much interest. I feel good about our chances of getting our book out to a great press in the near future. This was a year full of honorary panels honoring people I know.  Which means I am getting old.  I was asked to be on Victor Asal's panel, as the Ethnicity, Nationalism, and Migration section gave him an award for all of his work, and it was my honor to join Ora, Erin Jenne, Pat James, and some other folks (my memory sucks after a week of reduced sleep).  Victor has published an incredible amount of work in many areas with many, many co-authors.  And he is a mensch.  These panels are supposed involve some roasting, so I teased him gently while also noting his contributions and his mensch-ness.For the first time, I attended the Presidential speech because the President for the past year has been Debbi Avant.  She was one of two senior IR grad students at UCSD when I arrived.  She was most welcoming, throwing a party for the prospective students, and then over my time there, most generous with her advice, and most supportive.  She was also a hell of a role model, starting with her doing security stuff at a time where no prof at UCSD did international security.  She was a pathbreaker in the field of civil-military relations, applying principal-agent theory to it before Peter Feaver made it cool to do so.  Since then, I have often asked her for advice, which she provided quickly and insightfully.  She threw yet another party when I visited Denver when I gave a talk on the Steve and Dave NATO book.  Most recently, she has served quite helpfully on the CDSN Advisory Board.  She gave a great, challenging talk, and was perhaps a little disappointed she didn't get as much pushback as she expected.The other highlight was seeing my supervisor, Miles Kahler, be honored by various IPE luminaries.  The person assigned to talk about his work as an advisor could not make it, so I was happy to stand up towards the end and tell folks what a difference Miles has made in my career.  It was great to hear from these IPE leaders how Miles stood out, making me realize how I ended up emulating him--focusing on the domestic politics of IR, being at the intersection of comparative politics and IR, being a fox rather than a hedgehog (moving around, studying a bunch of stuff, rather than being focused on one big thing), and so on.  I was the first PhD student for whom he served as chair of the dissertation committee/primary supervisor (Debbi was the first one he worked with at UCSD).  So, maybe I made a dent on him too?  I am glad I got a chance to say a few words of thanks (and of snark) and share my appreciation of not just a great scholar but a terrific person.  I am far less intimidated of him now ;)So, it was perfect that I ended my ISA by going out to dinner with Miles, his partner, and with another student of his.  It was a great dinner with a great beer, one that had a can that all admired.  "Any Time Is the Right Time."  Indeed. 

The article presents an analysis of the peace initiative to resolve the Ukrainian crisis put forward by People's Republic of China (PRC) in February 2023. The initiative has attracted notable international attention and has been widely discussed both in the media and expert circles, as well as at political consultations of the world leaders. The article aims to show the significance of this peace initiative for China's broader foreign policy and international relations and to demonstrate a major increase in China's foreign policy activity and international influence observed in recent years. In particular, by launching this and several other diplomatic initiatives in 2022–2023, Beijing has sought to put into practice the provisions on "responsibility for the future of the world" declared by Chairman Xi Jinping. The PRC's peace plan for Ukraine is one of the important components of the "Global Security Initiative" concept proposed by Xi Jinping. The concept marks a new stage in China's foreign policy by positioning it as one of the world's largest powers with global interests. The article also assesses the prospects of China's peace initiative in terms of its impact on resolving the Ukrainian crisis. 中国对乌克兰的和平方案是该国外交政策的体现 这篇文章是对中华人民共和国领导人于2023年2月提出关于乌克兰危机的和平方案的分析。该倡议已成为一个突出的国际事件，在媒体和专家界以及世界领导人的政治磋商层面得到广泛讨论。文章旨在说明中国的和平倡议对中国外交政策和国际关系发展的意义，并在此背景下展示近年来中国外交政策活动和国际影响力的显着增长。特别是，通过这一倡议和2022-2023年提出的其他一些外交倡议，北京正在寻求将中国领导人习近平提出的"对世界未来的责任"的规定付诸实践。中国提出的关于乌克兰危机的和平方案是习近平提出的"全球安全倡议"构想的重要组成部分之一。该和平方案标志着中国外交政策的一个新阶段，即把自己定位为一个具有全球利益的世界大国。本文还评估了中国和平倡议对解决乌克兰危机前景的影响。

Unexpectedly, I've been home this past week instead of vacationing. I'm spending my evenings watching films I missed over the past few years -- with an emphasis on genre films that my spouse does not like all that much, including science fiction, animated features, superhero films, overly violent action movies, and horror. She's away fulfilling a family obligation. These are the films I watched, ranked in order of my liking, with a few comments:The Mitchells vs the Machines (2021) (Netflix)Yes, it feels a bit like The Incredibles, but it is very well done and funny despite the fact that the story takes place during a robot/AI apocalypse. It was nominated for the 2022 Oscar in the animated category, but did not win. Consider this great line of dialogue from the Mark Zuckerberg-type character: "It's almost like stealing people's data and giving it to a hyper-intelligent AI as part of an unregulated tech monopoly was a bad thing." I laughed a lot. Frequently Asked Questions about Time Travel (2009) (HBO Max)This was pretty funny and fairly entertaining. I almost always like Chris O'Dowd films and Anna Faris is charismatic here. Most of the film takes place in a bar and involves three nerdy friends who drink beer and talk about time travel and potential films they might make. Keep in mind that these are their dreams and ambitions because on-screen they are portrayed as losers. O'Dowd's character, for example, loses his job in the first few minutes of the story. It is a solid addition to the time travel genre even as it pokes some fun at the idea. Oblivion (2013) (HBO Max)This science fiction film didn't really register on my radar when it came out, but it was worth watching. It is set post-apocalypse and virtually all the planet's humans are dead. There are some interesting plot twists and the story does not feature too many mindless fight scenes with big explosions. Still, Tom Cruise action films often seem a bit off-kilter to me, particularly when they reveal him to be romantically involved with women nearly 20 years younger than he is. Also, he's a fairly small guy for an action hero (5'7" tall?).Gerald's Game (2017) (Netflix)This film was apparently based on a Stephen King story, though I haven't read it. If you know anything about the movie you probably know the premise. A couple trying to repair their marriage attempts to add a bit of spice to their relationship by venturing out into the middle of nowhere to have an adventurous tryst. Shortly upon arrival, the wife puts on her sexy new slip, the husband strips to his boxer briefs, handcuffs his spouse to the bedposts, starts pretending to be someone else (to her dismay), and then soon has a fatal heart attack. A lot of the story seems to happen in the woman's imagination as she struggles to survive and escape. Some of what she imagines may be real -- it is King, right? I found it watchable, but a big notch or two below the top movies above. Suicide Squad (2021) (HBO Max)So, basically, this is the plot of the Dirty Dozen, but the villains are cartoonish figures with superpowers (or merely incredible killing ability) and there's a space alien component. Does this count as a spoiler? The giant bad guy at the end walks a lot like the Stay Puft marshmallow man from Ghostbusters. Margot Robbie and Idris Elba make this watchable, and the occasional comic dialogue also helps. It's not a terrible movie, but I wasn't the target audience, apparently. Wheelman (2017) (Netflix)I read a book a few years ago with virtually the same title, but the plot was a bit different despite some broad similarities. The credits said this film was written by the director. Virtually all the action takes place inside one of two vehicles and most of the dialogue is between the driver and people we don't see on the other end of telephone calls. In that way, it is similar to the film Locke from nearly a decade ago. It mostly held my interest, but it is not a top-tier film. Some of the conversations seem redundant, there are lots of threats bandied about over the phone, and almost all of the action involves driving, which is only so interesting. At least to me. A Shaun the Sheep Movie: Farmageddon (2019) (Netflix)This film was also nominated for an Oscar for animated film (2021) and did not win. I was expecting it to have the humor of Wallace and Grommit, but Nick Park seemed minimally involved here and it shows. The story is about an infant space alien who lands in the countryside and is befriended by Shaun the Sheep. The humans are not especially smart, the dog is the butt of many jokes, and the sheep are the stars. It just wasn't very funny or even all that fun to watch. How did it earn a 79 on Metacritic? 
Visit this blog's homepage.

For 280 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on twitter.

Or for basketball, baseball, movies or other stuff, follow this personal twitter account.

In 'Why I Am Not a Utilitarian', Michael Huemer objects that "there are so many counter-examples, and the intuitions about these examples are strong and widespread, it's hard to see how utilitarianism could be justified overall."  But I think it's actually much easier to bring utilitarianism (or something close to it) into reflective equilibrium with common sense intuitions than it would be for any competing deontological view.  That's because I think the clash between utilitarianism and intuition is shallow, whereas the intuitive problems with non-consequentialism are deep and irresolvable.To fully make this case would probably require a book or three.  But let's see how far I can get sketching the rough case in a mere blog post.Firstly, and most importantly, the standard counterexamples to utilitarianism only work if you think our intuitive responses exclusively concern 'wrongness' and not closely related moral properties like viciousness or moral recklessness:They generally start by describing a harmful act, done for purpose of some greater immediate benefit, but that we would normally expect to have further bad effects in the long term (esp. the erosion of trust in vital social institutions). The case then stipulates that the immediate goal is indeed obtained, with none of the long-run consequences that we would expect. In other words, this typically disastrous act type happened, in this particular instance, to work out for the best. So, the argument goes, Consequentialism must endorse it, but doesn't that typically-disastrous act type just seem clearly wrong? (The organ harvesting case is perhaps the paradigm in this style.)To that objection, the appropriate response seems to me to be something like this: (1) You've described a morally reckless agent, who was almost certainly not warranted in thinking that their particular performance of a typically-disastrous act would avoid being disastrous. Consequentialists can certainly criticize that. (2) If we imagine that somehow the voice of God reassured the agent that no-one would ever find out, so no long-run harm would be done, then that changes matters. There's a big difference between your typical case of "harvesting organs from the innocent" and the particular case of "harvesting organs from the innocent when you have 100% reliable testimony that this will save the most innocent lives on net, and have no unintended long-run consequences." The salience of the harm done to the first innocent still makes it a bitter pill to swallow. But when one carefully reflects on the whole situation, vividly imagining the lives of the five innocents who would otherwise die, and cautioning oneself against any unjustifiable status-quo bias, then I ultimately find I have no trouble at all endorsing this particular action, in this very unusual situation.Utilitarianism clearly endorses our being strongly reluctant to murder innocent people (and respecting commonsense moral norms more generally).  While it's possible to imagine hypothetical cases in which an agent ought (by utilitarian lights) to override this general disposition, it's an open question what lesson we should draw from our intuitive resistance to such overriding.  If someone insists that they not only endorse the utilitarian-compatible claims in this vicinity, but additionally judge that the act itself "clearly" ought not to be done (even in the "100% reliable" version of the case), then I'll grant that they find utilitarianism counterintuitive in this respect.  But then the question still remains whether they might find further implications of deontology to be even more counterintuitive.Consider the poverty of the alternatives:* Deontology prioritizes those who are privileged by default; but this violates the strong theoretical intuition that status quo privilege is morally arbitrary. (Why should the five have to die rather than the one, just because organ failure happened to occur in their bodies rather than his?)* It rests on a distinction between doing and allowing that doesn't seem capable of carrying the weight that deontologists place upon it. * It implies that we should often hope/prefer that others act wrongly: since, after all, impartial observers should want and hope for the best outcome.* Worse, according to my new paradox of deontology, deontic constraints are self-undermining in the strong sense of being incompatible with taking their violations (e.g. the killing of an innocent person) to be particularly important.* Most importantly, deontology makes incredible claims about what fundamentally matters.  It seems completely wild to claim that keeping a deathbed promise (to borrow one of Huemer's examples) is seriously more important, in principle, than the entire lives of many innocent people.  So either deontologists are stuck making completely wild claims of this sort, or their normative prescriptions (concerning what we allegedly ought to do) bear no relation to what really matters.Now, I think our deepest intuitions about what really matters are much more methodologically significant, and should play a greater role in determining our ethical theory, than superficial verdicts about the extension of the word 'wrong' in various highly-specified cases.  So that's why I think (something close to) utilitarianism is actually the most intuitive moral theory.