Ghost of LL

It's akin to the experience of the British Army in World War I. At the beginning of 1914, the British Army had roughly 250,000 troops. In August and September, about half those were sent to France as the British Expeditionary Force. By the end of the year, pretty much all of them were dead or wounded. On Boxing Day 1914, the British Army formed the Second Army. That's not a term like the Germans had with First Army and Second Army, which invaded Belgium and France in August 1914. The British Second Army was more like "we need to raise a second army because the first army got all killed and shit in the first five months of this war." That's where Russia is. Their first army is gone. They've now formed a second (and probably really a third) army. I'm just going to tell you--at this point, I don't see how Ukraine can prevail without direct Polish involvement. And what worries me is that I don't think the Poles are inclined to allow Ukraine to lose.

I think that's all right. And you hit on something I referenced--there is a gender issue at play, both as to the complimenter and the receiver of the compliment. I think the lesson, more than anything, is "use good judgment." And if you have any question about whether you have good judgment, then perhaps consider foregoing a compliment. As an aside, and as I referenced, my former partner was the head of the firm's employment section. And later that afternoon, a bunch of us attorneys were laughing because the employment section is always the one that is the closest to the guardrail when it comes to workplace behavior. It's pretty much a cliche across law firms at this point--every firm I've ever been associated with has had the same opinion of its employment lawyers. But here's the thing--they have good judgment based on years of professional experience. They know when something is going to be unwelcome and offensive. They don't make those comments. So they may make comments that seem out of place among others who are cognizant about watching our step. But they never actually make comments or do anything that would be truly unwelcome.

It's not about the aircraft. The discussion was in the context of a drone vs. a live pilot who is in the cockpit. And in a dogfighting scenario, the human pilot can see the movements in the control surfaces, which will cause a change in the orientation of the opposing aircraft before the aircraft actually reacts to that change in its own control surfaces. As an aside, that has to make it difficult for the pilot of a 4th Gen. fighter in any dogfight with a 5th Gen fighter, because the control surface movement would be so different that it would really throw off the pilot of the 4th Gen fighter.

Now that the United States is a net exporter of petroleum, it's really hard to justify the SPR. It's akin to Greenland maintaining a Strategic Ice Reserve or Oklahoma holding on to a Strategic Meth Reserve. It doesn't really make any sense.

Well, well, well . . . look who's being the bad conference partner now.

So wait--a person who is uncertain about what her legal rights/obligations are can't go to court to obtain a decision . . . let's call it a "declaratory judgment" . . . declaring what those rights/obligations actually are? Well fuck, and here I have been citing Chapter 37 of the CPRC for more than two fucking decades. Silly me.

But let's be real fair--"Asian" is a lousy geographic description because it is so non-specific. To give any idea what you actually mean, you need to say "East Asian" or "South Asian" or whatever. The implication that "Asian" means "East Asian" brings its own problems. It indicates that you're ignoring (among other places) the most-populous country on Earth. And yeah--some people find that kind of offensive. All of which should serve as your periodic reminder that today's progressivism is tomorrow's cringe. In this anecdote, we're talking about a woman complimenting other women. So I think the discussion about what we as men can or can't do in the workplace is a bit misplaced. But somewhat relatedly, our former partner who was the head of our employment-law section was in the office yesterday to handle some EOY benefits stuff. She retired a year ago and hadn't seen me in at least six months. And during that time, I've lost a bunch of weight. So when she stopped by my office, she said "damn, GOLL--you look hot." Fuck yeah, I do. I'm not eating fucking salads and spending my evenings in the gym to look not hot, after all. But even so, that (very accurate) observation had me strutting around like a peacock all afternoon. And it occurs to me that we shouldn't forego compliments that are going to validate someone's efforts for fear that the person may have a condition that only a tiny percentage of the population has. Besides--in my experience, people with IBS make sure everyone around them knows about their IBS. They're a little like vegans in that way.

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison (1803). . . . except in Texas, in which it is up to doctors to try to fumble around and figure out whether a particular pregnancy fits within a statutory exception, because the Supreme Court isn't going to say what the law is.

And of course no sooner than I issue my learned prognostication than SCOTX hands down its decision, showing my prediction to be 100% wrong. So let this be another small rock upon the mountain of evidence demonstrating why nobody should ever listen to my pontifications.

100% they dismiss the appeal as moot. I would very much expect to see that order come out Friday at 9:00.

Well, they're going to have some real trouble when they enter the workforce. Because by the time they get into the workforce, the people who are young employees now are going to be the boss. And let me tell you--they are frequently very sensitive and conscientious about these topics. I don't think they're going to appreciate their subordinates not showing appropriate respect for minorities (or anyone, really). So fun thing as I watch L.A. Law, which is now streaming on Hulu and was one of my great television pleasures as a young person. Back in the late 1980s and early 90s, L.A. Law was seen as a very progressive show. It even had a transgender person on it. But now you go back and watch it, and the word "yikes" frequently crosses your mind. So let this be a lesson, particularly to all the GenZers who are oh-so-progressive and judgmental of their elders' perceived malfeasances: Today's progressivism is tomorrow's cringe.

Yeah, so the GQP now has a one-vote majority? Or is it two votes? Beyond running the risk of losing the majority if they have a retirement or death (or another expulsion), it enables any single member to flip the majority by switching parties. And for a few of them in Biden districts, that may be pretty appealing.

Counterpoint: unlike many red varietals, champagne does not improve in your cellar. Actually, it generally degrades over time. And since evil seems to live forever, you shouldn't be cellaring champagne in anticipation of Trump's or Switzer's death. Spec's always stocks Dom (and Krug and Comte de Champagne, which are better)--best to just hit it up when the time comes.

Whoa--that's not right. Kissinger told the Nixon campaign about the status of the peace talks. It was Nixon who used that information to sabotage the talks. Let's not let our enthusiasm for denouncing Kissinger absolve Nixon of his manifold wrongdoings.

Yeah. You know, everyone seems to have celebrated Kissinger's death, without anyone really explaining or identifying what he did to deserve such celebration. And I have to admit that I don't fully grasp it. So he advocated for the bombing of Cambodia. Yeah--the United States shouldn't have done that. I mean, the North Vietnamese shouldn't have been using neutral Cambodia as a transport route and a base of operations. But still--it's not great. But Kissinger wasn't the president who ordered the bombing. It's Nixon who bears the responsibility for that. And the manner in which the bombing was carried out--which I think can be fairly described as "indiscriminate"--was a military decision. The USAF, not Kissinger, bears responsibility for that. So I guess I'm a bit "meh" about Kissinger in the grand pantheon of deaths that I will celebrate. But obviously, I may be woefully ill-informed on the issue, so I welcome any education coming my way.

The "murder appears to be violent"? Really? A murder may have been violent? Please tell me more.

Is it really your contention that the Russian military is stronger today than it was on February 1, 2022? Are you contending that the Russian military is comparatively stronger vis-a-vis Nato than it was on February 1, 2022? And to the extent you're contending that the Russian military is stronger either in absolute or comparative terms, on what evidence are you basing that? When you say "they've had to adapt to this new kind of warfare," what evidence of such adaptation are you seeing? Where have those adaptations been successful? Because Russia's war aim continues to be the conquest of Ukraine. But for 20 months, they haven't had any meaningful gains. That doesn't reflect any successful adaptation to me. The reality for any objective observer is that this war is weakening Russia in every way. Russia may not be losing. But it's not winning. And for Russia, that is losing.

And thank you, Aaron Rodgers, for demonstrating that no rational person could think Texas doesn't deserve to be in the CFP and that the only reason one would argue otherwise is a manic hatred of the Longhorns.

That didn't really bother us when we invaded Grenada.

Battle doesn't harden an army that suffers the casualties that the Russian Army has suffered. Would you say that the United States Army was "battle tested" in 1974? Fuck no, you wouldn't. The United States Army in 1974 was severely degraded, and that's after having suffered 50,000 dead in ten years, not 70,000 in 20 months. The Ukrainian Army is also battle degraded. And the Ukrainian nation is suffering mightily. Their interest is for this war to successfully end at the earliest possible time. So from that standpoint, the interests of Ukraine diverge somewhat from the interests of the United States.

The very best thing that can be said about Russia's current status is that it is not losing strategically significant territory and it may make marginal gains from time to time. But overall the front could properly be characterized as "static." And from an American standpoint, that's fine. I know a lot of people are emotionally invested in Ukraine and fervently hope that the Ukrainians will be able to expel the invaders from the whole of its territory. But speaking purely of America's interests here and being completely dispassionate, the current status quo benefits us more than an unequivocal Ukrainian victory would. Right now, while Russia is bogged down in Ukraine, it is unable to threaten any of our Nato allies. Even the Baltic countries, which the Pentagon has always worried could not be readily defended in the event of an invasion, now face no realistic threat from Russia. An end to the war would mean that Russia would have a chance to rebuild and replenish its military. But for now, it has to increase its budget just to keep up with the stocks it is losing on a daily basis to the Ukrainians. Russia is militarily weaker than it was in January 2022, and that decline is continuing. And the decline isn't just military. It's economic and diplomatic. The sanctions haven't had the crushing effect for which one might have hoped. But they've had an effect all the same. The Russian economy is stagnant; inflation is high. That's right, friends--it's the Fed's great fear: stagflation. And there's not a damned thing the central bank can do about it. Russia certainly can't sell weapons on the international market; nobody wants their garbage. At the same time, Russia's military ineffectiveness means its diplomatic stature is decreasing. Everywhere from Kazakhstan to Armenia, its former satellites are exerting their independence. And maybe once upon a time, someone might have given a fuck about Russia's position on Gaza or Venezuela; now, nobody does. All of Russia's losses have worked to the benefit of the United States. Russia's losses in the international arms market are being picked up by American manufacturers. Russia's diminishing diplomatic stature has been filled by an increased American role in the Caucasus and Central Asia. American O&G producers are making up for the loss of Russian hydrocarbons on the international market. America's allies are finally realizing that they need to contribute to allied defense. And all this is being accomplished at virtually no cost. The United States spends money that . . . goes to American defense contractors. We get a jobs program; Russia gets dead people. Why would we want this to stop? And I think the answer from the position of the United States Government is, "we don't." So, yeah, @Ken Griffey Jr--Russia is doing just great. As an American, I kind of hope Russia keeps doing this great indefinitely.

I don't love that, because then the Venezuelans will frame their aggression as being a reaction to Anglo-American imperialism in the form of a base being built on Venezuela's borders. And while that may be bullshit, it'd gain a lot of traction around Latin America and undermine our ability to build a broader CONMEBOL coalition to counter the Venezuelan aggression. It'd be far better to let the Brazilians take the lead. And to the extent Brazil needs support, we can provide that covertly.

Only aggy would describe us as being "the Cal-Berkeley/Stanford of the east" and consider it to be a pejorative.

The UK does have the ability to project power . . . or at least enough power as would be necessary to fight off Venezuela. The Royal Navy has two active carriers, each of which has more than enough combat capability to destroy the Venezuelan Air Force is pretty short order. The challenge, then, is ground support in a jungle environment against a non-mechanized adversary. And as the USAF demonstrated in Vietnam, that presents some challenges. That's where the Brazilian ground forces come in. And yeah--they do have an interest there. As the Fish points out above, Brazil has a strong interest in keeping their road through Guyana to the Caribbean ports open. And yeah--it is their road. It was built with Brazilian money and serves primarily Brazilian interests. It's the same way it's "our Canal," irrespective of Panamanian sovereignty. But beyond that, there's some regional dick swinging that comes into play here. Brazil sees itself as the regional hegemon. And if you're the regional hegemon, you don't take too kindly to one of the subordinate powers trying to upset the regional status quo without your pre-approval. That's just not how this works. So Brazil has an interest in putting Venezuela back in its place and demonstrating to the rest of CONMEBOL that shit can't go down in South America without Brasilia's say-so.