Everyone is up-in-arms over President Trump's decision to stop supporting the Kurds on the border between Turkey and Syria. On the face, it seems both morally wrong and a geopolitical mistake. However, John Robinson points out that the Kurds are our partners, not allies, and we've been playing fast and loose in the region for a long time.

We partnered with the enemy-of-my-enemy in Syria to fight the son-of-a-son and we made some friends. We confused that partnership with an alliance and that partnership grew to be as strong as an alliance.

But the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs reminded everyone on Thursday that our actual ally, Turkey, had been a NATO ally for the past 70 years. On Sunday, the new secretary of defense gently corrected his Sunday news show host, when she casually referred to our YPG partners as allies. "The Kurds have been very good partners," the secretary affirmed. There's a difference between a 70-year ally and a regional partner, no matter how distasteful you find your ally's actions to be or how loyal you believe your partner to be.

In 2001, the commander in chief declared, "You are either with us, or with the terrorists." NATO invoked Article 5, which states that an attack on one member of NATO is an attack on all of its members, for the first time, in response to the 9/11 attacks. NATO allies, including Turkey, aided the coalition effort in Afghanistan.

What if Turkey should invoke Article 5 now, in response to what it sees as a terrorist threat? US forces are withdrawing from areas of combat in northeastern Syria now, but can we see ourselves obligated to a fight on the sides of the allied Turks, against partner Kurds?

Rather than threatening sanctions, Congress should update an AUMF they've been dithering on for 16 years. Better still, let Congress declare war on Turkey, on behalf of the Kurds, as Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution authorizes them to do.

I'm not expert enough in these matters to offer my own opinion, but I think Robinson's is worth sharing because it goes against the conventional wisdom.


Disney and the NBA sacrifice liberty for profit after employees voice support for Hong Kong protesters.

"Now to trouble brewing for the NBA this morning. The general manager of the Houston Rockets upsetting China with his tweet supporting pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong. Now Chinese businesses are pulling support for the team," announced GMA co-anchor Robin Roberts Monday morning. ...

After sharing Morey's ridiculous apology to the repressive Chinese government, she shared NBA's public apology. "And the NBA putting out a statement this morning saying, 'Morey's comments have deeply offended our fans in China which is regrettable,'" she read. ...

It's easy to understand why ABC would side with China. With the arrival of Disney+ in November, they're likely unwilling to anger the government which controls internet access for billions. As The Hollywood Reporter published back in April, "[Disney CEO] Bob Iger has been building relationships in the Middle Kingdom for years (...) but cracking the world's second-largest VOD market could require big concessions."

Meanwhile Democrat and Republican politicians seem united behind free speech in this instance.

Meanwhile, CBS and NBC noted the groundswell of bipartisan, American condemnation of the NBA for cowering to the Chinese dictatorship. On the CBS Evening News, correspondent Jim Axelrod quipped that the situation made "strange bed fellows" out of Texas Senator Ted Cruz (R) and former Congressman Beto O'Rourke (D). "Normally you can't even get those two to agree on what color the sky is," he joked.

"It's un-American to gag people when they're speaking out on behalf of freedom," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said in a soundbite on NBC Nightly News.

Blizzard has eliminated a competitor named Blitzchung for supporting Hong Kong and fired two sportscasters who let him speak.


Climate activists are advancing an argument that is incoherent for a leftist: we have to save the climate for the benefit of future generations -- future generations we are free to kill in the womb if we so choose.

Can a court find that the government's climate policies have violated the constitutional rights of "future generations" when, to legalize abortion, our courts already have explicitly denied that unborn human beings possess those rights at all?

Consider, too, that most climate activists are concerned with what they call an overpopulation crisis, suggesting that people ought to have fewer children to conserve environmental resources. Some even say that abortion might be a necessary means of curbing population growth: Asked about overpopulation and "climate catastrophe" at last month's climate-change town hall, Vermont senator Bernie Sanders said the U.S. ought to provide funding for abortion and contraception "in poor countries." His comment was hardly the first time someone has suggested such a policy.

Once again, we are faced with the incoherence of the modern progressive movement, which advocates both more stringent climate regulations for the sake of the children and the unlimited right to abortion throughout pregnancy, both consideration for the rights of future generations and a willingness to kill the unborn to enable a cleaner future.

If unborn children have no rights, then what rights can rationally be had by "future generations" whose members haven't even been conceived yet? This incoherence illustrates the fundamental logical failing of group-based morality. You can't claim that a group has rights as a whole while denying the same exact rights to individuals of the group.


The title is my prediction for the next year.

  • Trump will be impeached. Now that Pelosi has given an inch to her caucus, they'll take a mile. It's virtually impossible to conceive of a sequence of events that doesn't see Trump impeached by the House. Probably along a part-line vote -- there may be some GOP defections, but the Republican base will be deeply hostile to any defectors.
  • Trump will remain in office. It's virtually impossible to conceive of a sequence of events in which Senate Republicans will vote to convict Trump. Another party-line vote, except maybe for a Romney defection.
  • Trump will win re-election. The impeachment will drag on -- McConnell won't be able to force a quick vote because Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts will preside over the trial. Both sides will call a zillion witnesses, but none of it will matter for electoral purposes. Impeachment will dominate the year, and voters will punish Democrats for it. Democrat voters will be discouraged and demoralized by the foregone conclusion, and Republican voters will be motivated and angry over the debacle. Biden is a dead man walking, and Elizabeth Warren couldn't be Trump even in a normal election year.

We'll see how these predictions play out!


Some physicists are speculating that "Planet 9" might be a small black hole. I sure hope so.

For nearly 5 years, growing numbers of scientists have blamed the weird orbits of distant solar system objects on the gravitational effects of an as-yet-undiscovered "Planet Nine" that lies in the icy realm far beyond Neptune. But a pair of physicists is now floating an intriguing idea that could offer a new way to search for the object: What if that supposed planet is actually a small black hole? ...

But if the object is a planet-mass black hole, the physicists say, it would likely be surrounded by a halo of dark matter that could stretch up to 1 billion kilometers on every side. And interactions between dark matter particles in that halo--especially collisions between dark matter and dark antimatter--could release a flash of gamma rays that would betray the object's presence, the researchers propose in a forthcoming paper posted on the preprint server arXiv.

It would be absolutely amazing for humanity to have physical access to a black hole! Just imagine all the science we could do with it.


This video has been floating around the blogosphere for months, but apparently the mainstream media wasn't aware that Vice President Joe Biden bragged about using American leverage to force Ukraine to fire the prosecutor who was investigating his son.

From Hot Air:

Note well that Biden leaves out the context of what the prosecutor was investigating at the time of Biden's insistence on getting him fired. He was quarterbacking a corruption probe targeting Burisma, which was paying Hunter Biden a fortune ($50,000 a month at the time). In fact, it seems a little weird without that context as to why foreign aid to Ukraine depended on the person filling a state prosecutor's office at all. What foreign-policy interest would the identity of a state prosecutor -- an internal affair -- have involved that would derail a billion-dollar aid package to an ally in desperate need of the cash?

And yet, here was Biden bragging last year that "son of a bitch, he got fired" -- after Biden explicitly used the authority of his office and the president's to get rid of the man looking into his son's employer. Even if one assumes Donald Trump attempted to pressure Volodymyr Zelenskiy into reopening the Burisma probe, it can't be any worse that the explicit quid pro quo demanded by Biden ... in his own words.

I don't know what Trump said on the phone to Ukraine's leadership, but I'm pretty confident that Joe Biden used his authority as Vice President to protect his son Hunter Biden.


Tom Hanks is portraying Fred "Mr. Rogers" Rogers in a new movie and says:

"We never make fun of Fred. We slow down to listen to him," Hanks said following the film's screening. "It was always going to be, I think, deconstructing the myth of it to show he was a regular guy who went out for Chinese food. At the same time, there is this mystery. What's his motivation?"

"One of the most wonderful things, too, is he was actually an ordained minister who never mentioned God on his show," Hanks said.

There are so many ways to interpret Hanks' sentiment. I will channel my inner Ann Althouse and share a few possibilities. What do you think?

1. It's wonderful that Rogers was able to share the love of God without turning unbelievers off by mentioning God.

2. Some people look down on Christianity, but those people should recognize that Christianity inspires wonderful goodness even though Rogers didn't go out of his way to mention it.

3. It's wonderful that Rogers kept his beliefs to himself so we didn't have to hear about them.

4. It's wonderful that I, Tom Hanks, don't have to portray an active Christian whose accomplishments and beloved-ness are directly tied to acting out his faith.

5. It's wonderful that Rogers' legacy isn't tarnished by explicit references to his faith, which would be unpalatable in the modern era.

I'm sure there are more possible interpretations. I'm sure Hanks chose his words carefully.


Republicans are already creating damning supercuts from last night's Democrat Climate Change Town Hall. Check out these 37 seconds:

I understand that Democrats have to "run left" to win the nomination, but these quotes will come back to haunt whoever makes it to the general election. If the Democrats don't figure out how to mitigate the influence of their most extreme members they're going to have a very hard time nominating a candidate who can win the Presidency.

Democrats: If you want more Trump, this is how you get it.


Just because a few dozen scientists in 2006 decreed that Pluto isn't a planet doesn't make it so.

Saturday 24 August 2019 marked a vexing anniversary for planetary scientists. It was 13 years to the day that Pluto's official definition changed - what was once numbered among the planets of the Solar System was now but a humble dwarf planet.

But not everyone agreed with the International Astronomical Union's ruling - and now NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine has added his voice to the chorus declaring support for Pluto's membership in the Solar System Planet Club.

"Just so you know, in my view, Pluto is a planet," he said during a tour of the Aerospace Engineering Sciences Building at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Scientists classify things in all sorts of ways for many different purposes -- and maybe it's useful to think of Pluto as a "dwarf planet" for some purposes. That's fine. But our planets are more than scientific curiosities, they're cultural, civilizational, and species-ational icons with tremendous legacy and substance. No small group of humans has the power or authority to strip Pluto of it's iconic status or dictate to humanity what label we must use for it.


Thomas Sowell is one of the smartest, most influential economists and philosophers of our time. Here he redirects two common lines of inquiry and asserts that we often ask the wrong questions.

Wrong Question No. 1: What is the cause, explanation, or origin of poverty?
It's not the origins of poverty that need to be explained. What requires explaining are the things that created and sustained higher standards of living [illustrated in the chart above]. There's no explanation needed for poverty. The species began in poverty. So what you really need to know is what are the things that enable some countries, and some groups within countries, to become prosperous."
Wrong Question #2: What's the reason for slavery and why did it exist in the US and elsewhere?
Of all the tragic facts about the history of slavery, the most astonishing to an American today is that, although slavery was a worldwide institution for thousands of years, nowhere in the world was slavery a controversial issue prior to the 18th century. People of every race and color were enslaved - and enslaved others. White people were still being bought and sold as slaves in the Ottoman Empire, decades after American blacks were freed. ...

Deciding that slavery was wrong was much easier than deciding what to do with millions of people from another continent, of another race, and without any historical preparation for living as free citizens in a society like that of the United States, where they were 20 percent of the population.

It is clear from the private correspondence of Washington, Jefferson, and many others that their moral rejection of slavery was unambiguous, but the practical question of what to do now had them baffled. That would remain so for more than half a century.


Psychologist Robert Epstein performed a study about how pro-Clinton bias at Google affects voting.

In his tweetstorm, Epstein clarified a few things: his study did not claim Google directly "manipulated" the election, only that pro-Clinton bias in Google search results could account for millions of votes for Clinton. Trump was also wrong about the high-end number. Google bias "was enough to convince between 2.6 & 10.4 million undecided voters to vote for Hillary."

Epstein has a history of admiration and support for Hillary Clinton, but now he feels compelled to announce that he isn't suicidal.

Okay, this is sort of funny.... It's been suggested that I remind people that I AM NOT SUICIDAL!!! I love my life, wife, 3 awesome sons, 2 awesome daughters, my research, etc. etc. Everyone got that??? Thanks to @Pumped_4_Trump for the suggestion.

I guess he's familiar with the latest data from the CDC: "CDC: People With Dirt On Clintons Have 843% Greater Risk Of Suicide".


I was hardly the only one to wonder when I posted about Epstein's mysterious attempted suicide in July, but now he's dead and "questions swirl" around the circumstances. Here are some of the questions, chopped out of the larger article.

One of Jeffrey Epstein's two guards the night he hanged himself in his federal jail cell wasn't a regular correctional officer, according to people familiar with the detention center, which is now under scrutiny for what Attorney General William Barr on Monday called "serious irregularities." ...

Epstein had been placed on suicide watch after he was found in his cell a little over two weeks ago with bruises on his neck. But he had been taken off that watch at the end of July and returned to the jail's special housing unit.

There, Epstein was supposed to have been checked on by a guard about every 30 minutes. But investigators have learned those checks weren't done for several hours before Epstein was found unresponsive, according to a person familiar with the episode. ...

A second person familiar with operations at the jail said Epstein was found with a bedsheet around his neck Saturday morning.

Bedsheets that are paper thin, and a bed so low that Epstein had to hold his feet up off the floor while he strangled.

Epstein, 66, was found with the sheet wrapped around his neck and secured to the top of a bunk bed, the New York Post reported Monday. He kneeled toward the floor and used the noose to strangle himself, the paper added, citing an unnamed law enforcement official.

Back to the original article...

An autopsy was performed Sunday, but New York City Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Barbara Sampson said investigators were awaiting further information.

What information are they waiting on, and from whom?

I think the Babylon Bee nails the zeitgeist: "CDC: People With Dirt On Clintons Have 843% Greater Risk Of Suicide".


Yet another college admissions scandal where the wealthy cheat, this time to steal money from taxpayers and the poor.

The Journal tells a story of a Chicago-area family whose household income is greater than $250,000. They live in a home valued at more than $1.2 million.

The mother transferred guardianship of her then-17-year-old daughter to her business partner last year.

She and her husband have already spent $600,000 sending their other children through college, the article said. There wasn't enough cash to send their youngest, so they reached into the loophole with the help of, no surprise here, a lawyer and an education consultant.

The daughter claimed only $4,200 in income that she earned from a summer job. The daughter was accepted into a private university, and received a $27,000 merit scholarship, and on top of that, $20,000 in need based financial aid, including a Pell grant that she'll never have to pay back.

What really needs to be said about this? If there are hand-outs paid for by taxpayers, then dishonest people will conspire to steal them.


Considering how many powerful people seem likely to get caught up in the revelations about Jeffrey Epstein's child-exploitation operation, it seems reasonable to wonder if someone is trying to kill him to keep him quiet.

Millionaire and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, facing charges of federal sex trafficking, was placed on suicide watch after being found unresponsive and with injuries to his neck at a federal lockup in New York City, according to a law enforcement official briefed on the incident.

Epstein, 66, was discovered injured on Tuesday in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan, where he is being held without bail, the source said.

He was discovered with marks on his neck that appeared to be self-inflicted, the source said.

I've got no evidence for this conjecture, but there are certainly plenty of people with motivation to kill Epstein. If Epstein dies interest in his crimes will dwindle. Let's make sure this guy stays alive long enough to name names.


I've recently started reading some posts by Sean Carroll at his blog, Preposterous Universe. Carroll is a physicist and an atheist, and he has written a ton of fascinating material about physics and cosmology. I'm learning some new stuff, even though I disagree with his premise/conclusion about the existence of God.

I'd like to briefly discuss one paragraph in his essay titled, "Rapped on the Head by Creationists". (I'm not going to critique the whole essay because I'm not smart enough and don't have the time to work things out.)

As I like to emphasize, the God hypothesis could in principle count as a scientifically promising explanation, if only it could actually explain something new, something beyond our mere existence. For example, it's unclear why there are three generations of fermions in the Standard Model; can God perhaps account for that? Even better, make a testable prediction. Does God favor low-energy supersymmetry? What is God's stance on proton decay, and baryognesis? If you are claiming to explain some features of known particle physics or cosmology by appeal to God (and maybe you aren't claiming that, but some people are), you should be able to carry the program forward and make predictions about unknown particle physics. Otherwise you are just telling a story about stuff we already know, without explaining anything, and that's not science.

My opinion is that this paragraph illustrates a significant lack of humility by Carroll that is common among modern atheist scientists.

Whether or not you believe God exists, it's foolish to argue that the "God hypothesis" hasn't produced anything of value -- any new knowledge, philosophy, science, art, etc. Western Civilization is a cultural edifice that has been built on the foundation of the God hypothesis over the course of several thousand years, and it's naive to think that any modern Western person is learning or accomplishing anything without standing atop this monumental structure. (Richard Dawkins makes exactly this error -- divorcing the Enlightenment from its historical and cultural foundation.)

Science, rationalism, and enlightenment thinking are children of the God hypothesis. You may think -- like Nietzsche -- that the children have now overthrown their father and that "God is dead", but don't be so arrogant as to deny their paternity. Modern man is the inheritor of an ancient and powerful legacy, and he should be grateful rather than arrogant.


We don't know all the details, but it seems that the mystery of Malaysia Airlines flight 370 is mostly solved.

In truth, a lot can now be known with certainty about the fate of MH370. First, the disappearance was an intentional act. It is inconceivable that the known flight path, accompanied by radio and electronic silence, was caused by any combination of system failure and human error. Computer glitch, control-system collapse, squall lines, ice, lightning strike, bird strike, meteorite, volcanic ash, mechanical failure, sensor failure, instrument failure, radio failure, electrical failure, fire, smoke, explosive decompression, cargo explosion, pilot confusion, medical emergency, bomb, war, or act of God--none of these can explain the flight path.

The why is still unclear. The most interesting hypothesis I've read is that the pilot was involved in a conspiracy to steal cash, gold, or jewels that were frequently transported on the flight by Chinese plutocrats smuggling their wealth out of China. In this scenario, the pilot was simulating the flight path of the airplane at home because he wanted to make sure that it wouldn't be recovered easily and no one would figure out that a) his body wasn't on board, and b) neither was the treasure.


A question from Quora: Who would stop me if I legally bought the Mona Lisa, then ate it?

What a fun question! But instead of answering the boring element of it, let me question the premise.

If I somehow acquired the Mona Lisa I wouldn't eat the whole thing. First, it's made of wood, so eating it would be unpleasant. But second, it would be a lot more fun to just eat a small part of it. I'd cut out a small, unobtrusive piece from the background and record a video of myself eating it. Then I'd resell the painting to put it back into circulation. Having forcibly inserted myself into history, I'd now be eternally linked with one of mankind's greatest works of art. I'd post the video of me eating the Mona Lisa on Youtube and live off the proceeds for the rest of my life.

And since Quora is showing me art-related stuff, here's a likely apocryphal story about Pablo Picasso:

Legend has it that Pablo Picasso was sketching in the park when a bold woman approached him. "It's you -- Picasso, the great artist! Oh, you must sketch my portrait! I insist."

So Picasso agreed to sketch her. After studying her for a moment, he used a single pencil stroke to create her portrait. He handed the women his work of art.

"It's perfect!" she gushed. "You managed to capture my essence with one stroke, in one moment. Thank you! How much do I owe you?"

"Five thousand dollars," the artist replied.

"But, what?" the woman sputtered. "How could you want so much money for this picture? It only took you a second to draw it!"

To which Picasso responded, "Madame, it took me my entire life."


The experiences of Facebook moderators show just how harmful the company is to our society.

Early on, Speagle came across a video of two women in North Carolina encouraging toddlers to smoke marijuana, and helped to notify the authorities. (Moderator tools have a mechanism for escalating issues to law enforcement, and the women were eventually convicted of misdemeanor child abuse.) To Speagle's knowledge, though, the crimes he saw every day never resulted in legal action being taken against the perpetrators. The work came to feel pointless, never more so than when he had to watch footage of a murder or child pornography case that he had already removed from Facebook.

In June 2018, a month into his job, Facebook began seeing a rash of videos that purportedly depicted organs being harvested from children. (It did not.) So many graphic videos were reported that they could not be contained in Speagle's queue.

"I was getting the brunt of it, but it was leaking into everything else," Speagle said. "It was mass panic. All the SMEs had to rush in there and try to help people. They were freaking out -- they couldn't handle it. People were crying, breaking down, throwing up. It was like one of those horror movies. Nobody's prepared to see a little girl have her organs taken out while she's still alive and screaming." Moderators were told they had to watch at least 15 to 30 seconds of each video.

It doesn't seem to me that these problems can be solved. In the process of removing this vile content, Facebook simultaneously censors protected speech: politics, religion, satire, and more.

"I really wanted to make a difference," Speagle told me of his time working for Facebook. "I thought this would be the ultimate difference-making thing. Because it's Facebook. But there's no difference being made."

I asked him what he thought needed to change.

"I think Facebook needs to shut down," he said.


How is it possible than an American city has even one "notorious trash pile"? Apparently Los Angeles has enough trash piles than one is the "most notorious".

Drone video shows a sprawling trash pile about a block long between downtown Los Angeles's Fashion and Produce districts. The heap of waste was cleaned up last year, but has returned months later, offering an attractive source of food for rats. (Published Monday, May 20, 2019 | Credit: NBC4)

But there's plenty of money for Fantasy Trains.


This has to be the most cold-hearted argument for abortion that I've ever read: abortion is good for business.

More than 180 business owners, including Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, signed a letter protesting restrictive abortion legislation and published a full-page ad in The New York Times.

Business owners banded together to "stand up for reproductive health care" by posting the ad in Monday's print edition titled "Don't Ban Equality," which says abortion bans are "bad for business." ...

"Equality in the workplace is one of the most important business issues of our time," the ad reads. "When everyone is empowered to succeed, our companies, our communities, and our economy are better for it."

"Restricting access to comprehensive reproductive care, including abortion, threatens the health, independence and economic stability of our employees and customers," the ad continued. "Simply put, it goes against our values, and is bad for business. "

"We, the undersigned, employ more than 108,000 workers and stand against policies that hinder people's health, independence, and ability to fully succeed in the workplace."

Basically: "Killing babies will help us make more money." This is completely insane. The argument tries to side-step the moral and human dimensions of abortion by turning it into an economic issue, but where does that lead? Who else can we kill for money? Who gets to decide? Apparently the richest and strongest people are free to kill the weakest and most helpless people for money.

The argument is also wrong. Human beings are the only wealth-generating "objects" in the universe -- more humans means more wealth.

What a bunch of posturing, evil idiots.

Supporters

Email blogmasterofnoneATgmailDOTcom for text link and key word rates.

Monthly Archives