PeterMP

If you've taken definitions from somewhere, then you've used it as a source. That they didn't mention it before doesn't mean you shouldn't have cite it. I'll pretty much guarantee you that MIT policies don't mention leading scientific journals like Science and Nature. That shouldn't be taken as an indication that you don't need to cite them. The added language is to clarify that shouldn't even be using Wikipedia as a source. Which I'll pretty much guarantee you that people understood at the time. He's a billionaire. Why is taking advice from people on Twitter instead of talking to a real lawyer? Because he's trying to distract and muddy the issue. (Looking at his twitter from what I can see, I didn't know this guy is also a vaccine questioner. "Rather than censor RFK and the skeptics, shouldn’t we instead seek to understand the causes for the massive increase in autism and allergic diseases in our children over the last 30 or so years? If vaccines are not the cause for increased autism and other allergenic conditions, then what is the cause or causes? " A lot of work has been done to understand those things. We are trying. And part of that trying has included people looking for a potential role of vaccines, and despite people looking, there is essentially no evidence that those things are associated with any of those diseases. We have other good ideas of what causes autism and has increased allergies. Maybe he should try reading Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_autism

Is it correct to say that there wasn't really a resolution to this other than we'll see what happens? I'm essentially not on social media and don't have any interest in joining the likes of twitter. If this site goes down, I think I'll probably end up at warpath https://www.thewarpath.net/forum.php unless somehow it becomes clear most of the people here are going somewhere else (I can see some of TK's twitter). Warpath doesn't generally seem to be as large, as diverse, or as knowledgeable than the group here, but their larger than some of the other message boards left, and they do allow things like politics to be discussed.

The whole thing is meant as a distraction/excuse. The stuff about Wikipedia is just a waste of time/distraction. If he wants to know what his wife should have done about Wikipedia, he should just ask her. At the time his wife wrote her thesis, she should have known the standards of her field about citing Wikipedia. And the standard certainly wasn't that plagiarizing Wikipedia was okay. (Generally in academic work, you don't cite Wikipedia because Wikipedia is a collector of information. You should cite the sources underlying Wikipedia that Wikipedia should be and often does cite. And you shouldn't assume that Wikipedia is citing the right things because people mess up and put the wrong the number behind the wrong sentence sometimes, don't actually understand what they read and so botch the explanation, or just make a typo in paraphrasing it and do something like leave out a not or a negative sign in an equation that makes what is written wrong. So you should get the source that Wikipedia is citing yourself and make sure that it says what Wikipedia says it says. That way the proper people that originated the idea gets credit, and you actually understand what you're citing and not somebody else's paraphrasing of it.)

First, I'll fess up to having sent it Jumbo. Wasn't sure if it should be posted here, but since he posted it I guess it is ok. The thing that strikes me about it is how much they talk about civility and respect but don't have any issue with people running down Jumbo and this place in general. I guess those things are only important if you're poster there.

Just to add in, Kiper had Young as the #1 player on his board. But assuming the medical training staff signed off, he thought we should take Tua. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/02/28/mel-kiper-redskins-tua-tagovailoa-chase-young/ And while I understand and generally agree with your point about not passing on the QB you think is best. I don't watch a bunch of college football but this year have gone out of my way to watch the top QBs a little. I don't love Maye or Williams a lot more than the others and certainly not Maye. I'm not excited with taking Maye #2 overall. If there isn't a guy you love and think is really above the others, I wouldn't be against trading out of 2 and moving down and grabbing a guy later in the first round after the move down. In 2020, could you have said I don't love Tua or Hebert traded back to like 5 and taken who was left (assuming whoever you traded out with at 2 took one of them but the other is then left for you at 5). And I think you would have ended up with Tua or Hebert and be in pretty good shape today.

That people like Stefanik are allowed on tv by non-conservative media without essentially everything that they say being challenged is a shame. Not only is Hunter Biden being indicted, but it has been well documented that the gun charge he now faces is abnormal for people in a comparable situation. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/15/us/politics/hunter-biden-gun-charges.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/15/opinions/hunter-biden-indicted-gun-charges-spitzer/index.html If anything, he's (now) being treated unfairly. (I know less about the tax charges, but I suspect his situation is abnormal so it is hard to determine if the deal that was in place was abnormal or not.) Then to let her go forward with the statement that there is a Biden crime family that Joe Biden sits at the head of is just ridiculous If you aren't/can't challenge, her don't have her on.

Well, I think if you don't/didn't interact with black people that it makes it hard to argue that you understand some of the experiences of the larger black community and some of the thinking that arises from those experiences. And I think that might affect how you see racism. I'll give a practical example. I went to high school in a school that was roughly 60/40 black/white. In high school, I worked at a local restaurant where everybody was white except for one Hispanic guy, and he was in the back. Where I worked, while I was there, they never put out a help wanted sign, but there was regular turnover and they regularly hired people. I knew black people that applied there when it wouldn't have been unreasonable to hire them and were told that they weren't hiring. Through working there, I saw racism in practice and understood that the owners were racist and through conversations with some of my co-workers started to understand that many of them were at least indifferent to it (e.g. It is their business. They can hire who they want.) and even supportive of it (e.g. I've got to deal with the n word all day at school. I don't want to have to deal with them after school too.). (Note, I was told essentially this by somebody that didn't use the n word. Initially, I wrote the actual word and expected the profanity filters to deal it. But apearantly that isn't something they deal with so I've edited to n word.) Where I live today is heavily white (like 5/95 black/white). I've lived where I'm now for like 16 years. The place my daughter works in the time that we've lived here has never had anybody in the front of the shop that isn't a young white female. Their hiring practices are almost certainly sexist, but they might also be racist. But because there are so few black people in the area, it is possible that they just don't have any apply. And my daughter is friends with so few black people (really she has 1 black friend) that she doesn't know if that's the case. Her 1 black friend has never applied to work where she works. And I think seeing people you personally know being directly impacted by racism can affect your views on racism. Now, if you live in a heavily white area, I'm not sure how you go about making black friends. Like you, I have friends mostly from where I live, they have kids the same age, and from where I work (where also the percentage of black people is very low). And so don't currently know anybody that I'd consider a friend that is black. How important that is I don't really know, but I think you are more likely to see racism if you interact with black people, are friends with black people, and the other people you know interact with black people.

Let me start by saying that the chances that the FL surgeon general is onto anything relevant are very very small. The mechanism that he seems to be concerned about happening at any significant level is unlikely based on what we know. But to my knowledge, it isn't something that has been directly tested with respect to what has happened so when people say there is no evidence that's really an absence of evidence from a lack of looking. I'm also somebody that has had multiple covid vaccines, including one in Dec. With that said, the expectation based on what I know and understand was that the mRNA from the vaccine would be cleared pretty quickly and the protein would last probably a few weeks. Generally, we think about mRNA in cells lasting minutes to hours and the question with RNA vaccines was how to get them to last long enough that you would generate enough protein to get much of a response. Proteins are then in most cases are turned over on the level of hours and days and so you might expect the protein from the mRNA to last days/to a few weeks. And one of the advantages of RNA vaccines over DNA vaccines is the shorter life time would decrease the possibility of side effects. (first 2 links below). I don't know of any case where for the Covid vaccines where these sort of numbers were published ahead of time, but those are the sort of numbers that historically have been put forward when people have talked about RNA vaccines. What we've found is that in some cases the mRNA is lasting for at least 30 days and the protein for at least 187 days (last 2 links) which seems extremely unlikely based on what people have generally talked about. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8071766/ https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/where-mrna-vaccines-and-spike-proteins-go https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-023-00742-7 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37650258/ In addition, historically a push for the RNA based vaccines was that they could be done in cell free systems which would decrease the possibility of contaminants and associated unknown safety risks and increase effectiveness by minimizing the possibility of mutations resulting in the production of the wrong thing (first link above) (there is evidence that part of the reason that the flu vaccine is not more effective is that QC for the production of the vaccine is poor enough that some years a significant number of people don't actually get what the vaccine is supposed to be because there has been a mutation in the living system generating the vaccine and so they end up getting injected with something else). And it is my understanding that Pfizer used a free cell system for the initial batch of the vaccine for the initial clinical trials and that's what has been done for other RNA based vaccines (that haven't had to be produced at the same scale as the Covid vaccine). But when mass producing the Covid vaccine, they went to a cell based (E. coli) system https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/health/pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine.html which increases the possibility of mutations resulting in the production of the wrong thing and so possibly decreases effectiveness and increase the possible scope and breadth of possible contaminants and that the person is just getting the wrong thing. It appears to me that the FDA's QC and contaminant policy is loose enough that Pfizer went with what was generally not pushed as the way we would generate RNA vaccines to a less clean and less direct method that is cheaper. While it is not possible to completely eliminate the FL surgeon general's concerns (i.e. it isn't possible to sequence every cell in anybody or feasible to sequence one cell from everybody that has gotten a Covid vaccine), given that we seem to be seeing some unexpected things, that I don't we're actually done direct tests in people to test for genome changes, and the amount of money Pfizer has made, it wouldn't be outrageous for the FDA to throw a few 100K or so (with money coming from Pfizer) at sequencing some cells from people that have had multiple covid vaccinations, especially people that are producing the mRNA or protein longer than what appears would be expected or that have had what appear to be associated side effects and seeing if there is any direct evidence of changes at the genomic level.

Historically, they actually don't have a history of claiming credit for things like attacks in Iran. Though this doesn't necessarily seem like something they'd do. It isn't sounding like anybody very important was killed. Wasting resources for a target where nobody is very important doesn't sound like Israel or the US. Unless there was a mistake/somebody changed their plans.

In any capitalist economy, prices are never dictated by input costs. They are mostly related to supply and demand.

I wouldn't say it is vital. But I also wouldn't say it has no reflection on NATO's strength. If Ukraine falls, that doesn't mean NATO is next, but it is concerning. I think having an independent Ukraine that leans to the west and towards democracy benefits us, NATO, the west, and democracies in general. I think a big issue for democracies always is do they have the political will to do what is in their interest long term. I think if Russia wins in the Ukraine because we failed to support them then in this case we've failed to act in our long term interest. It also seems contrary to the initial response where initially Ukraine had large scale popular support in the west. It then raises the question of has Russia discovered a method to undermine our ability/will to act in our long term interest and turn the tide of public opinion to more in their favor. Has the nature of the modern/corporate press, social media, and divisions changed our ability to act in a cohesive and (I'd argue) coherent manner? Using social media, the nature of our press, and political system can we be influenced away from a response that was generally initially widely supported and accepted and I'd argue in our long term interest? If Russia wins, somebody is going to do something else based on the idea that our failure to continue to support Ukraine is an indication that there is a new template to undermine the actions of (western) democracies (whether it is Russia acting somewhere else, China, Iran in the ME, or whatever). At some level, if we aren't going to continue to materially support Ukraine, we would have been better off essentially doing nothing from the start. You always have to be concerned with falling for a sunk cost fallacy, but we have sunk cost and reputation into Ukraine. There has to be something in between in being vital and failure meaning that Russia is going to attack a NATO state next and not mattering at all directly to us. Reality is more nuanced than that.

The research on nuclear winters seems to be all over the place. In general, it seems to me people are suggesting it will be less bad then initially predicted which suggest to me that the earlier studies were wrong and over hyped. It seems to me that access to WMD technology (including nuclear) is expanding. Given that, it to me only seems a matter of time until somebody that wants to use it gets their hands on it. Especially as I'm not sure that as some of the current nuclear powers decline they are going to be careful to keep the technology safe. France, Russia, China are all clearly in decline, and I expect it to continue. As they decline, I suspect they won't prioritize keeping their WMD technology/infrastructure safe and I suspect corruption will increase. Due to our global integrated specialized economy, I think it will take a relatively small percentage of unexpected deaths to disrupt the system. If modern farmers can't get what the equipment, seeds, and other inputs that they are used to using to farm because the global communication and transportation system has been interrupted in anyway, then they have problems pretty quickly. And because they lack the experience/expertise a modern farmer is going to be much less efficient using 1960s technology than your average farmer in the 1960s using 1960s technology. Realistically, the same is true for essentially any industry. The modern biopharm industry is a global industry depending on activity all of the world. If any major part of it goes down, then the whole thing will go down pretty quickly. And the average biotech worker using 1960s technology will be much less productive than the equivalent worker in the 1960s because they don't know how to use the technology. Even if you cleanly take India and Pakistan out of the global economy, that has huge trickle down effects because of the expertise you'll lose and the specialization required for the modern world to work. If you consider a Thanos snap scenario, I suspect losing even 10% of the population randomly and unexpectedly causes large down stream affects. I suspect that there isn't enough over capacity of skilled workers in the nuclear industry to safely maintain our existing nuclear infrastructure if you lose 10% of the workers. And I think that's probably true for most industries. I suspect heavier losses in one area (geographical or specialty) will have a similar impact.

In the context of thousands of years of human civilization, 600 years is a blip. You're looking at the blip and saying that's real. This point is made in the Vox article your graph is from. https://www.vox.com/2015/6/23/8832311/war-casualties-600-years "A recent paper, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Pasquale Cirillo, argued that our current peaceful era was a statistical myth: that dips in war deaths should be expected, as Roser's chart shows, and that there's no reason to believe this time should be different." Pinker is right though but his being right is really just based on the existence of nuclear weapons. We've postponed the large conflict and then subsequent smaller conflicts that would have come with a global realignment and made a blip. If it weren't for nuclear weapons, China would have already tried to invade Taiwan (and what has prevented them is nuclear weapons. Not capitalism, democracy, etc.). But once nuclear weapons are used at a significant level, then things will change quickly. Unless you believe we are capable of having nuclear weapons indefinitely without using them. You don't need the use of nuclear weapons to become the norm. You just need them to knock us out of the current geopolitical/technological structure where war is fought a certain way using certain technology. Once that happens, you go back to the way things were. It is a blip with a cause. But I suspect eventually that cause will also kill a bunch of people disrupting the current geopolitical/technological status of things and return us to the longer historical norm.

Actually, the military's job isn't to be prepared for anything that might happen. Giving somebody that job would just be stupid because it isn't a job that can be done. I believe the current military is supposed to be geared to winning two regional conflicts simultaneously. So this would be fighting a war against Russia in Europe and fighting one Asia against China. We aren't then also asking our military to be prepared to also fight a war between some groups of countries in S. or C. America. It is 2 at once. They've been given a goal to reach far short of fighting everywhere all of the world all at once (which would be included in being prepared for everything). The military/intelligence community is also supposed to do reasonable risk assessments. And historically, they've done a pretty bad job of focusing on "big" singular risk over many smaller ones. The Soviets never were the risk in terms of desire or ability to invade western Europe that was predicted by the US military/intelligence organizations. The European countries (closer to the Soviet Union and more directly impacted) did a better job of actually assessing the risk. Currently, Taiwan's military budget is about 2.6% of GDP and they don't seem to be pushing to acquire nuclear weapons. (2.6% puts them above much of Europe but below Israel). When they push over 3% or start making moves to acquire nuclear weapons (through much of the 1960s and 1970s W. Germany was over 3%. We're about 3% now.), I'll become more concerned because that starts to indicate that they are actually seriously concerned. If there is a betting pool of the next thing that results in greater than 100 US military conflict related deaths is China vs. something else, I'll take the something else. (

I will point out that I'm not a big fan of this type of thinking. The past is often not a good predictor of the future (past performance is not indicative of future performance). It seems likely to me eventually there will be the use of a significant nuclear weapon, and then all of those numbers will change really quickly.

The military is looking for the next thing to keep their funding up. It is the nature of any organization, especially government organizations. Russia, Iraq, Iran, Al Qeada are no longer significant military threats that can be used to justify significant military funding. When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail and you start arguing that everything should be treated like a nail to justify keeping your hammer. China is natural resource poor. While they are a little better off with the rising importance of rare earth elements they still aren't in a good situation. The idea of China being a true destabilizing force in the ME is laughable. They have the same inherent interest in to keep oil flowing as we (and really our European allies do. At purely a competitive economic stand point instability in the ME likely favors us over China and much of the rest of the world). They've also embraced and economic and political system that long term will lose. In terms of money/economics, we're both sort of stuck in the same place and stuck on a merry go round. They need US dollars and US money to prop up their economy/government spending. We need them to keep buying our debt and supplying us with cheap goods to keep our economy propped up. But with ideas like MMT coming to the surface, there is a much better chance we can step off of the merry go round with minimal damage than they can. (How often Americans/westerners will talk about how great democracy and capitalism are but then run around worrying about some other political/economic system passing them by and taking over the world truly astounds me. If you believe in our system, then the obvious conclusion is if you just let time take its course the other system will lose. It is like many people don't really believe in capitalism and democracy and somehow think collective/authoritarian based regimes are better.) It is clear that much of their supposed economic growth over the last few decades was fraudulent, they have huge issues with things like ethics in their science, their population demographics don't look good, and they aren't a country that's likely to embrace immigration or be embraced by immigrants. They've likely reached their peak as a world power. People talking about WWIII makes no sense. Who is going to be fighting in this war? China (who has yet to try and actually take Taiwan) and who? Russia who can't successfully invade their neighbor that has no real military history? Iran? What are they doing in WWIII? Lobbing missiles at Israel? There are 3 relevant concerns with China (and really we have the same issues with Russia) 1. That they will do something stupid and desperate (invade Taiwan) as it becomes clear they will never really achieve true super power status (and won't be able to do things like retake Taiwan unless we just completely fold and let them) and that somehow will escalate to the use of nuclear weapons. 2. That our allies are going through the same demographic issues and also aren't overly open to immigration and that in general creates power imbalance issues in the region (with respect to Russia this isn't as much of an issue towards Europe because Europe has been more open to immigrants and is more attractive to immigrants but certainly with respect to Asia it is an issue). 3. There is the issue of cybersecurity and our reliance on technology to do basic things like deliver energy and for our military. I suspect none of us really now where we are situated on that front. While they've clearly been able to do somethings, we don't have a good understanding of what we can do vs. what they can do. And how far we've penetrated their systems. The fact that they closed down a pipe line isn't something I'm overly worried about, especially because at some level it is likely useful to allow them to have some successes to see what their capabilities are. I'm not worried about it in terms of them "beating" us, but in terms of doing a lot of damage as they also diminish in power. (We need to acknowledge that China has a role to play in the world as one of the largest and most populous countries in the world and that they have a long and impressive history. That the we as a human population and global society wouldn't be where we are today without China, the Chinese, and their contributions. That they should be considered a great country and treated with a level of respect. While we slowly let the economics of the situation and population demographics do the work of whittling away their power and global importance until their time has passed and they've been surpassed by countries like India.)

Let's be realistic. Between Ukraine and Israel only one actually needs saving. The other case is just a matter of how much is it going to cost them to do what they want vs. cost us. Hamas is not close to capable of destroying Israel. Israel wants to do what they want to do and wants us to pay (at least a good chunk of) the bill. Framing our increase in support of Israel as "saving" Israel is an attempt to badly misframe the discussion. (Where long term, I doubt what they are doing is actually going to be very effective.)

Nobody thought 2 years into WW1 either side would achieve that sort of superiority either. We don't join the war and really tip the balance until 1917. The Ukraine is still integrating many of the more offensive NATO weapons into their military (with the F16s yet to come). It isn't impossible that now you say that but another year of grinding down Russia and then the introduction of the F16s does put Ukraine in that situation. To my knowledge, nobody has publicly stated they don't support entry into NATO. But I'm not aware of the political considerations and requirements of every NATO country. Much less that people might change their mind with Russian pressure/disinformation campaigns. But Trump has openly talked about withdrawing from NATO and said things like "their conflicts are not worth American lives. Pulling back from Europe would save this country millions of dollars annually.” https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/01/trump-2024-reelection-pull-out-of-nato-membership/676120/ If I'm Ukraine, that's not exactly the type of thinking I want to be in charge when I'm depending on entry into NATO to limit future Russian aggression. How much the war in Ukraine is costing us isn't very clear. As @Riggo-toni has pointed out, many of the weapons we are giving them are/were being phased out by the US military, can't be mothballed indefinitely, storage was costing us money, and we likely in the near future would have either given them to somebody else or paid to have them decommissioned. And the money is heavily going back into the US economy (e.g. going to US military contractors). There's also the cost of paying the money now vs. the future. What is happening now is the direct result of a lack of action due to past Russian actions. If we had stepped up more after the invasion of the Crimea, it would have cost us more than but probably less now. And if we don't pay this cost now, will we just ending up paying more later. From my perspective, we make it clear to Russia and other countries with similar thoughts, that aggression isn't going to be rewarded with a robust response here and now, or we pay the cost later at a multitude of hot spots all over the world later. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. (There is also the issue of how important the deficit is because we print our money and ideas associated with MMT. I'm not a huge fan of MMT but to worry about the deficit in terms of Ukraine and not a lot of our other expenditures, to me doesn't make sense. But it isn't actually completely clear that we can't in fact do this forever.)

Negotiations don't always work the same way. Some times one side does lose and gets very little to nothing of what they want. You don't think the US is pulling strings to get Sweden in? And it hasn't done any good. All you need is one person like Erdogan or Orban of Hungary to say they will approve it, and then in the end not doing it. Yes, there is a pause, but it isn't like they are very far into the process or really even started the process. Even when a peace agreement is in place (based on what I know), the final approval of Ukraine into NATO is likely to take at least months. Also, if you are the Ukraine do you trust Trump to sign off on them entering NATO much less pushing other countries to do so behind the scenes? Do you think he doesn't partly blame Ukraine for not giving him dirt on Hunter Biden? He's not the vindictive sort of person to hold it against them now? That if Hungary or Turkey say they won't approve it, that he's going to put much pressure on them to do so? I can't see how it makes sense for Ukraine to come to any sort of peace agreement where they are giving up land until the 2024 US Presidential election comes into better focus. If Trump is essentially not a possibility (e.g. he's off the ballot in some key states), then they have a very different hand than if it appears Trump is going to win. They also have the pending shipment of F-16s that are supposed to be coming. Again, some of that will depend on elections in the relevant countries (e.g. Belgium). But F-16s are likely to dramatically affect the war and give them a pretty big advantage. As long as they are comfortable those deliveries are likely, I'd hold out if I were them. We turn down the temperature when the Ukrainians decide they want to turn down the temperature. Currently, they are talking about wanting back the Crimea. I suspect their leadership knows that's not practical (Crimea is majority Russian and the Russians have had time to get their military well integrated into its defense). If it comes down to fighting for Crimea, then I'd consider telling them they are on their own. But I suspect by the time it gets that far, the war will lose the support of the majority of the Ukrainian population, and they'll be politically forced to come to an agreement.

Blocking ACE2 signaling isn't likely without consequence. A lot of the issues COVID causes is because of how it affects ACE2 signaling. https://www.asbmb.org/asbmb-today/science/051620/what-is-the-ace2-receptor "Of greatest relevance to COVID-19, ANG II can increase inflammation and the death of cells in the alveoli which are critical for bringing oxygen into the body; these harmful effects of ANG II are reduced by ACE2. When the SARS-CoV-2 virus binds to ACE2, it prevents ACE2 from performing its normal function to regulate ANG II signaling. Thus, ACE2 action is “inhibited,” removing the brakes from ANG II signaling and making more ANG II available to injure tissues. This “decreased braking” likely contributes to injury, especially to the lungs and heart, in COVID-19 patients." I'd worry a little about giving myself something to block ACE2 signaling that hasn't been studied very much.

You've got it mixed up. Sweden still isn't in because Turkey is holding it up. Turkey didn't object to Finland and it took nearly a year from applying to being approved. Fundamentally, Russia sees the Ukraine different than Finland and Sweden. Which is why they invaded the Ukraine and not Finland or Sweden. And the Russian misinformation/distraction was already busy working on the Ukraine situation to do much about Finland or Sweden. And Sweden still hasn't been approved. And Finland's approval was like record time for approval. If I were Ukraine, I would not make a settlement based on getting into NATO until all of the i's were dotted and t's were crossed for the approval. Which essentially means we would have to be going through the process of approving a country for entry that was at war with Russia, and I think that's very unlikely. You mean protecting their right to self-determination other than the people that live on the land that you are suggesting that they give to Russia.

I think that's the position of many people associated NATO. But you are essentially arguing that the same countries that can't be trusted to keep arming Ukraine are going to sign up to go to war to fight for the Ukraine in the near future. All you need is one country to vote no to be kept out of NATO. Even if Biden supports it if it when it goes to a vote in the Senate and the votes aren't there Ukraine doesn't get in. And if that sort of thing happens in any NATO country, then Ukraine is denied entry into NATO (I don't know the policies of every country for allowing entry of a new country into NATO). If I'm the Ukraine, I'm not betting on the people that won't keep supplying me arms agreeing to signing up to fight a war to support me in the near future unless all of the i's are dotted and t's are crossed first. And we can't let the Ukraine into NATO while they are fighting Russia.

I'd say the point is to contain Russia, prevent Russia from expanding, thinking this was any kind of win, and thinking that similar future behavior of any kind will not result in something that could be considered ever a partial win. I'll admit I'm not sure we have the political will to achieve that. But I'm not sure when push comes to shove that if every NATO country will have the political will to allow the Ukraine into NATO after they've signed a peace treaty with Russia (giving up large segments of land).

Unless a cease fire is coupled with a guarantee of NATO membership (which can't practically be guaranteed because it would need to be approved by our Senate first and I'm sure the other NATO countries have similar processes), settling for anything less than going back to the pre-Russian invasion lines by the Ukrainians would be a mistake. If the Ukrainians can't trust the US to just keep arming them, can they really trust the Senate (and other NATO governments) approver their entry into NATO? If you agree to a cease fire without strong security guarantees (e.g. entry into NATO), Putin will just continue to undermine Ukrainian democracy and sovereignty, and rebuild his military and do it again. And he'll likely to the first 2 things even with NATO entry.

Just to be clear, Portugal hasn't legalized. They have decriminalized. In theory, things like distribution are still illegal in Portugal. And while the immediate results were positive. More recently things have not gone as well and there is a push to reverse the policy. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-drugs-decriminalization-heroin-crack/ In addition, Portugal has much tighter controls on advertising in general, like much of Europe, that don't necessarily or normally exist in the US. https://eurohealthobservatory.who.int/monitors/health-systems-monitor/analyses/hspm/portugal-2017/portugal-limits-advertising-of-unhealthy-food-products-for-children#:~:text=The new Law establishes restrictions,of the places mentioned before. What the Portugal experience shows is that just pure decriminalization doesn't work. You have to have a plan for people that are addicts that can't stay clean or for people that use that aren't addicts. And IMO that may then include stiffer penalties for those people. I'm not sure of the exact numbers of different people in different categories and how many people if caught won't use again if they are given support the first time and now a 2nd violation will be more significant. I'm sorry if I've misrepresented your position. When you say that drug use paid the R&D for human trafficking the implication to me is that human trafficking wasn't happening before or at least no much. You pay R&D cost to make or do something new. Human trafficking was happening. It changed because of changes we made at the border. It was already clear there was money in human trafficking without the cartels putting money in from drugs. Human trafficking paid the R&D cost for human trafficking. I think the idea that it changed because of money from drugs is not well supported. Your point how easy it is undermines your claim about being able to deal with minors and drugs. If we make drugs legal for people over 21, people that are under 21 and getting their drugs illegally from online stores and having them delivered to their house are going to continue to. And that money is going to go to cartels. And if people that over 21 start getting drugs from legal places in the US, the cartels are just going to change their behavior but continue to do illegal things, including selling drugs to minors. In terms of legalization of drugs, we should be able to reasonably look at cases where things have been made legal here before (alcohol, marijuana, and gambling). In those cases, we've seen increased commercialization, increased use, and at least an apparent and corresponding increase in the number of addicts. To claim somehow magically that the same thing won't happen with other drugs just isn't very credible unless you are going to suggest some things to prevent what we've seen in the past with legalization.