Republican Debate

I listened to Thursday's Republican debate online (we don't have TV). It was a good deal more exciting and interesting than I expected. It was well-moderated, too, with tough questions all around. Oddly enough, my perceptions of winners and losers did not match up with those I've seen from many analysts. For example, I wasn't overly impressed with Marco Rubio. He spoke well, cogently, clearly, etc.—indeed, he was probably the best speaker there—yet he failed to really stand out. He reinforced the image I have of him as competent and polished, he simply wasn't exceptional. So, the winners:

Rand Paul. I have seen widely varying assessments of his performance, but one thing is clear: he stood out. He was quite combative, attacking both Trump and Christie. (And I was glad indeed to see him attack Trump.) It's arguable whether he got the better of the exchanges—I saw one article about how he had hammered Christie, and another about how Christie had hammered him—but he definitely stood up for his positions. But even beyond that, he was always clear and rational, and often seemed to have more detailed policy positions than other candidates.

Ben Carson. Carson came off as the oppposite of Paul: quiet, friendly, noncombative. But the impression he made was equally good. His answers were reasonable, intelligent, sometimes funny—his closing speech in particular. His answer when the moderators pressed him on things he hadn't known in the past—"you didn't know Alan Greenspan was secretary of the treasury"—his answer was particularly convincing. I don't think he's the president we need, but he may be one of the last standing in the race.

The loser (apart from Trump):

John Kasich. I do not understand why so many people are praising him for his performance. He managed to avoid the question almost every time, always coming back to his record as governor. (Once the moderator couldn't get an answer, turned to the next candidate and said something like, "Well, maybe I can do better with you.") He missed a great chance to score points with evangelicals on the "message from God" question. He has quite a compelling story of how he fell away from Christianity and then returned due to an auto accident that killled his parents. That was a major missed opportunity. I think he will be in the race a long time due to his relatively moderate, broadly attractive positions, but he came off on Monday, to me at least, as the most uninspiring of the bunch.

Here's a good summary of the debate.

Pictures

Eastern Bluebird.

The moon.

It was a beautiful yellow color, but I couldn't quite capture it. I adjusted the white balace in an attempt to do so. That didn't work. Observe:

First Communion

Not my first communion. One of my little sisters had her first communion today.

We went to a park afterward. We saw a bunch of vultures there. Neat birds.

Cookies

A new notice on Blogger:
"European Union laws require you to give European Union visitors information about cookies used on your blog. In many cases, these laws also require you to obtain consent."
"As a courtesy"  they "have added a notice" to my blog "to explain Google's use of certain Blogger and Google cookies, including use of Google Analytics and AdSense cookies."

      I suspect that soon the EU will require warnings when someone tries to post a comment: "Caution. Posting a comment may enable others to read it." And maybe general warnings to anyone reading a blog: "Caution. By reading this blog, you agree that the blogger agrees to allow you to agree to read it." They will have warnings for anyone writing a blog, too, making clear that something posted publically on the internet is not necessarily private.

Turkish Intervention in Syria May Not Be As Desirable As It Seems

      Turkey has stepped up military action in recent days--not just against ISIS, but also against the PKK. Most news sources have suggested that Turkey's leadership has finally "woken up" to the threat of the Islamic State. But many Kurds seem to believe that Turkey's latest moves are no more than a pretext to stop the YPG's territorial gains.
      Now, to be sure, many Kurds hate Turkey, so it's wise to take their opinions on the matter with a grain of salt. All the same, the idea that Turkey has suddenly "woken up" makes no sense. The bomb attack in Suruc, the supposed cause of their "waking up," was an attack on a pro-YPG gathering--in other words, an attack on a group that the government considers dangerous and subversive. There was also a clash between the Turkish military and IS that left one soldier dead, but that would hardly seem to be a sufficient reason for a major intervention. Furthermore, Turkey has been greatly increasing border security for some time now--since the YPG took Tel Abyad, as a matter of fact. I believe that Turkey was awake all the time, they only needed a good reason to go into action.
     Let's look at the threats Turkey faces from President Erdogan's point of view. It seems pretty clear that he has a definite view for Syria's future. He wants Assad to be overthrown, and he wants to see some kind of moderate Islamist government in power that will cooperate with his regime--maybe a milder version of Jabhat al-Nusra. The Islamic State and the YPG both threaten this vision. ISIS is simply too radical to ever be a rational actor on the world stage, and, I'm sure, much too radical for Erdogan's taste anyway. But the YPG poses a completely different set of problems. Not only does the Kurdish advance threaten President Erdogan's vision for Syria, it also threatens his vision for Turkey. Turkey, of course, has long struggled with Kurdish nationalist movements. If an autonomus Kurdish region or even an independent state with strong ties to the US springs up overnight in northern Syria, serious repercussions could be in store for Turkey. In fact, some have already appeared: the HDP made significant gains in the recent elections. Erdogan can easily deal with the threat of the PKK, an internationally designated terrorist organization, but dealing with a strong, peaceful political party is a different matter altogether.
An intervention in Syria can kill two birds with one stone for Turkey: the Kurds and ISIS. President Erdogan can bomb the PKK, stop the YPG's advance by means of some sort of buffer zone (though it's certainly doubtful whether the US will tolerate that), and weaken ISIS. Erdogan has chosen a moment when his country seems under attack by the Islamic State to execute his plans. (He has a good pretext for bombing the PKK, too. After the Suruc attack, the PKK foolishly shot two policemen whom they claimed were linked to ISIS.) There is little question that he has made a clever strategic move. But does that move bode well for the goals of America?
Unfortunately, the answer is probably no (notwithstanding this ISW report). Ultimately, some kind of coalition of Kurds and moderate US-trained rebels is our best bet to make positive gains in Syria. If Turkey does anything to the detriment of the YPG, that means that they are weakening our only real ally in Syria. If Turkey takes a more extensive role in training or arming rebels, I expect the rebels to become more radical. And finally, Turkey's involvement will make it harder to achieve a negotiated settlement with Assad. I still hope to see something of that sort, in part because it could provide an opportunity for US-Russian cooperation. (I actually saw a report today that the PYD's leader, Salih Muslim, suggested that the YPG might be willing to fight with the Syrian army if they "get rid of the Baathist mentality," or something like that. I don't know if that's accurate.) It would be good if the American airforce could use the Incirlik airbase, but beyond that, Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War, if it goes the way I expect, is likely to have few good results.

Young Birds

We've had a bunch of young grosbeaks and song sparrows lately.

We have a few young Chipping Sparrows as well, but our cat killed one of them.