Are the Democrats on the verge of winning the shutdown?

The shutdown is nearly three weeks old now, with no sign of an immediate end. However, there are signs of cracks in the Republican facade. Mike Johnson, who had been adamant about not reopening the House until the end of the shutdown, is now talking about a "change of strategy", and reopening the House. The Republicans are also talking about passing a much longer continuing resolution, until the end of next year, rather tacitly admitting that this shutdown is hurting them, and they don't want to have to deal with another one. Donald Trump is talking about ending the "madness", and how he won't be "extorted". All of these suggest that the Republicans are getting a bit hot under the collar, and feeling the heat. However, the Democrat demands are likely more than just an enormous amount of money for better health care support. The Democrats want the military out of Blue States, and returned to the control of the governors. The governors want ICE cut down to size, and on a tighter leash. The Democrats want an end to the attack prosecutions of Trump's enemies. And, above all, the Democrats want higher taxes on the rich, to bring the deficit under control without affecting benefits. It's not that everything Trump has done is entirely bad or entirely uneasonable. He's certainly correct that the media is always biased, one way or another, that there are many criminal elements amongst the immigrant community, and that colleges and universities are fairly useless, on the whole. However, taking a wrecking ball to the immigrant communities, the media and even the colleges and universities probably isn't the best approach here, and Trump does need to be brought under control. Currently, Trump's popularity is largely unchanged, and fairly low. The Democrats are retaining their lead in the generic polling, and are not particularly being blamed for the shutdown's impact, which can only increase over time. In particular, it might become very difficult to continue paying the military or federal law enforcement, if the shutdown goes on much longer. So, within the next few weeks, it seems likely the Republicans are going to have to change their ways, or else. And, even the Republicans seem to be aware of it. Can the leopard change its spots though? We shall have to see. The Democrats, and the whole world, are watching.

The fallacy of the anti-ontological entity "infinity", in science and engineering

Some observations on the nature of war and conflict by Nobel Prize winner Anatole France

Car toutes les armées sont les premières du monde;. La seconde armée du monde;, s'il pouvait en exister une, se trouverait dans un état d'infériorité notoire; elle serait assurée d'être battue. Il fau- drait la licencier tout de suite. Aussi toutes les armées sont-elles les premières du monde;. C'est ce que comprit, en France, l'illustre colonel Mar- chand quand, interrogé par des journalistes sur la guerre russo-japonaise avant le passage du Yalou, il n'hésita pas à qualifier l'armée russe de première du monde; ainsi que l'armée japonaise. Et il est à remarquer que, pour avoir essuyé les plus effroyables revers, une armée ne déchoit pas de son rang de première du monde;. Car, si les peuples rapportent leurs victoires a l'intelligence des génereaux et au courage des soldats, ils attribuent leur défaites toujours a une inexplicable fatalité. Anatole France, L'ile des Pengouins All armies are the best in the world. A second army, if it were possible to exist, would be in a state of obvious inferiority and its defeat would be certain. Such an army should have been abolished immediately. And so all armies are the first in the world. This was understood in France by the famous Colonel Marchant, who, when asked by a journalist about the Russo-Japanese War, replied without hesitation that the Russian army was the first in the world, and so was the Japanese army. It is worth noting that even the most shocking failures do not lower an army from the rank of the first in the world. This is because nations attribute their victories to the genius of their commanders and the heroism of their soldiers, while they always attribute defeats to an unforeseen disaster. Anatole France, Penguin Island I found this interesting quotation in, of all places, Wikipedia Hebrew, in Hebrew of course. The Israelis, given their state of incessant warfare with all their neighbors, all the time, necessarily have to try to have some understanding of war at a very deep level, both in order to win, and, in order to understand their own limitations, in order to survive. Now, the interesting thing here, is that this goes somewhat beyond the classic observation that the first casualty in warfare, is the truth. Because, people aren't lying here, even to themselves. They really believe that their army is the best in the world, and, you'll notice the accuracy and universality of this observation. The Americans, the Chinese, the Russians, the Ukrainians, the Germans, the British, the French, the Israelis, the Iranians and the Turks, all really believe they have the best army in the world, and would argue the point to you at some length. Now, of course, a tiny nation like Denmark would merely insist that they had the best soldiers in the world, and the best weaponry, and the best generals. They would probably agree that, entirely on their own, they wouldn't be able to defeat a great power, but, simultaneously, they would also insist that they could readily call up allies to supplement their efforts, thus, in combination, constituting the best army in the world. The key point here, is that it is virtually impossible for most people to admit that their country could lose a war, ever. Now, of course, this isn't an entirely rational point of view. People win and lose wars all the time, no nation always wins, no nation always loses. The fortunes of war are most unpredictable, there are too many variables in play for the results of wars to be entirely predictable, ever. However, even to attempt to fight a war, an existential conflict in which everything is in play, it is essential to believe you will win, that you cannot possibly lose. The risks are so total and enormous, that even considering the possibility that you might lose will tend to undermine your ability to fight, at all. You must be invincible, or, you cannot fight at all. To what extent are the leaders themselves of nations infected with this same irrational belief in their own invincibility? They seem to be. Since their own risks are as great, or greater, than the average person's, they must be just as irrational about their nation's power as everyone else is. So, what does this tell us about the nature of human conflict, and how dangerous it can be? This tells us that extreme, unresolvable conflicts lead to total irrationality at all levels, and the quest for pure destruction to resolve these conflicts, and no one is ever immune from this irrationality. So, isn't that why we should always attempt, if at all possible, to seek mediated compromises, rather than conflict? Because the way of war, is the way of total irrationality, and total destruction, always.