Ultimately, an alliance is an expression of trust. Formalizing and legalizing that trust is hugely important. It also isn't automatic or self-fulfilling, and actors can be formally in an alliance and be completely untrustworthy

Ultimately, the argument that "The US won't leave NATO because it 'would essentially be cutting off Washington’s nose to spite its face'" falls flat.

Leaving orgs like the WHO is cutting off its nose. Threatening to invade an ally is nose amputation. Current US FP is all about removing nostrils.

This piece is...deeply unconvincing.

It minimizes US threats against Greenland to a stunning degree. The view of US participation in NATO is deeply formalistic (ex. barriers to withdrawal do nothing to ensure genuine art. 5 application).

Summary -

Republican Justices: "we're going to do whatever we can to block these environmental rules, precedent and rule of law be damned."

Democratic Justices: "but what about the process?"

Repubs: "lol, stfu."

And then all 9 agreed to keep it hush-hush because "the norms."

Brought to you by "top party consultants."

You might know them from their previous hits "running to the center (right)," "rolling over and playing dead," and "whatever lame-ass shit Schumer is on about this week."

We’re hiring! 3 TT positions

Two Assistant Professors in Political Science (Dutch required, deadline 17 May)

careers.universiteitleiden.nl/job/Universi...

One Assistant Professor of Political Theory (Dutch not required, d/l June 1)

careers.universiteitleiden.nl/job/Assistan...

Share = 🙏❤️

It all depends on the "leftover seminar sandwich" exchange rate

"Don't trust higher education, except for this one report." - the NYT

Absent SCOTUS reforms, pro-democracy legislation is a nice idea that is also entirely at the 'mercy' justices.

If a 2026/2028 candidate (Congress & Presidency) doesn't have a plan for:

1.) Holding regime members criminal responsible

And

2.) SCOTUS reform

Then they deeply unfit for the moment.

It would fit with the Pentagon's "Good Friday service is just for protestants" bit

Eh, this latest Dan Brown novel seems a bit overwrought.

"Fun" fact: the war itself, of which the blockade is a part, is illegal.

"You can't fire me, I quit!"

When one considers the eventual heat death of the universe, any individual policy choice is fine enough

"But Kyle, you have to consider bounded rationality! And how rationality depends on actor preferences!"

No. I never said someone should check in on constructivism. That shit is doing fine.

Someone should check in on the rational actor assumption. Seems like it has had a hell of a week/month/year/decade.

Far more turkey trot than marathon

Honestly, in most cases, it's probably better to have a chargé d'affaires running things than whoever Trump would nominate.

Thoughts from midterm grading: a surprising (at least to me) number of students are quite good at writing in cursive.

if you're going to go full 14th-century, you have gotta do better than an Undersecretary of Defense

A block of cheddar could absolutely outsmart this guy.

The order of events is interesting because, just in case anyone forget, Trump has already threatened to invade a NATO member (this very year).

Not everything is a fucking distraction. Fascists can walk and chew gum at the same time.

The "thoughts and prayers" stage of responding to threats of genocide

A bit weird how this article makes it very clear that officers are well trained on these points and then pivots to discussing enlisted personnel in order to create a "dilemma"

If gas hits $7 a gallon, Mike Johnson is announcing his retirement in October

The beacon of journalistic integrity made sure to note when AOC said "uh" of "hmm," though.

Bluesky is dying because 27.82%* of all posts are about the death of bluesky.

*very real stat, I counted

Are y'all being paid to be on here or is this worrying pro bono?