Open Thread:
What's on your mind?
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
Sources on the Second Amendment
ContactHanah Metchis Volokh, guest-blogging Robert Brauneis, guest-blogging Subscribe
FeaturesStuff from usAcademic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates Sources on the Second Amendment BlogrollArchives |
Hibachi!
I, too, am a little frustrated by Romney's waffling, since "smart lawyers" have been unpacking this one for several years now. But I appreciate his professed interest to consider the law.
I also am a little shocked by Giuliani's apparent readiness to assert this radical detention authority over citizens (especially in light of the Hamdi decision and the Bush administration's retreat in the Padilla case).
Ponnurru's paraphrased comment seems to give the impression that Crane faults Romney for not agreeing forthrightly with Giuliani. From what I have read from Cato on this issue -- for example here -- I suspect that Crane takes the opposite position and strongly objects to aggressive assertions of presidential power in this area. So presumably he would have liked Romney to object, too. Am I wrong?
I would be delighted to blog on any topic you like if you will pay my usual consulting rates for doing so. If you're interested, just send me an e-mail.
[UPDATE: All, my apologies if that came off as overly harsh. I didn't mean it that way; sorry if it reads that way. I guess I just found RMCACE's comment pretty arrogant given how much of our free time we volunteer on this blog already, and I thought a little snark wasn't inappropriate in response.]
Jeez. I've seen that bit of sarcasm a lot lately from the bloggers here (maybe just Orin? I'm not sure). Was it really called for in this instance?
I'm assuming lack of payment is why we're stuck with just an "Open Thread"?
Don't be. As mayor, he was never particularly concerned with the legal nuances ... and pretty much any legal thing that comes between him and something he wants to do is a nuance.
Not that many. Since the world is not being collectivized, the theme now mostly appears in science fiction. Shorter and better than Ayn Rand is George Orwell, of course. Among science fiction are Lois Lowry (though for young adults, the books are succinct and vivid), Robert Heinlein maybe (Farnham's Freehold? Never read it, but the cover seemed to be Randish.), JRR Tolkein, CS Lewis (Perelandra et seq. Don't like them myself, as the evil ones are the scientists.) Oh, of course! Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and, somewhat less, Logan's Run by William Nolan. Anthony Burgess (A Clockwork Orange). There is a comic book series "V for Vendetta" along those lines.
Of course, you could read novels or memoirs of the real thing by Russian, Eastern European and Chinese authors. Why not Solzhenitzen or Milan Kundera? Any number of good memoirs of living through the cultural revolution are out there.
I agree with Andrew that you should look to memoirs and e.g. Solzhenitzen if you want something more to the point. The plus of Rand is that she does expound and theorize, given that today we have experimented and so there are all kinds of true (or based on true) works that get right to the point without the theory. (And you can get theory and empirics from the world of economics and political science).
The other authors mentioned are good for less expounding combined with more abstraction. I guess it depends on what exactly you are looking for - a hard-hitting anti-collectivist 1) story (danger: an abstraction that can be taken the wrong way) 2) treatist that nobody can mistake (problem: longwinded) 3) memoir / real (issue: not general enough, applies only to one specific situation) ...
Professors (since all of you publish quite frequently) how do you deal with the final couple of weeks where you feel like the paper is perfect and editors are insisting on more changes?
Wow, that actually did make me feel just a little bit better.
That type of sarcasm will stop once we, as readers, realize that the bloggers don't have to post on anything that they don't want to. They do it for our benefit but also because it interests them. Thus, they can blog on whatever it is that interests them.
Fair enough. He is an individual struggling against a totalitarian structure, but although he survives, his individuality does not. I guess I was not limiting my answer to books where our lone hero succeeds.
This isn't to say that it isn't rather brash to seize British soldiers for crossing a line not recognized by any nation by your own, but still does this have any bearing in the context of international law?
Obviously seizing soldiers of a foreign power is allowed within your borders, but who or what is accepted as deciding what those borders are?
Indeed. No having to puzzle over where she stands on things. Some of her expounding, such as on the meaning of money and the lack of moral distinction between a person and their actions, are quite compelling. Quite how bad the books are as works of social science is also to their credit. As you point out, we have a lot of history to look over, and she was just wrong.
Barely heavy at all, if you buy what Bjorn Lomborg says. Lomborg's claim is that we can handle the long run threat of CO2 emissions by putting a portion of world GDP that would currently amount to $25 billion a year into technology research. He doesn't like a carbon tax, but there'd have to be some tax to pay the $25 billion and any tax is going to do its damage to the economy, so I think that means we have enough of a carbon tax to raise $25 billion a year at current rates and pump it into clean tech. As the overall level of carbon use would, we hope, flatten over 25 years or so, the $25 billion would stay steady and then maybe decline. Spread over all of mankind, $25 billion is not a heavy tax.
Of course, that's if you think Lomborg is right about how we have a long time till we really have to worry.
I'm pretty agnostic about Rand, but what does this mean:
Some of her expounding, such as on the meaning of money and the lack of moral distinction between a person and their actions, are quite compelling. Quite how bad the books are as works of social science is also to their credit. As you point out, we have a lot of history to look over, and she was just wrong.
How does history "disprove" that there is no distinction between a person and his actions?
Ditto and it looks all but certain at this point.
At least we can relish the fact that we only have to listen to Billy Packer for one more game . . . this year . . .
I recommend the book Mao. I liked the two chapters dealing with the real story behind the Korean War, which contradicts most conventional historical treatments. The vitriolic attacks by the usual suspects convinced me I should read the book. If you don’t believe the authors just check out the references. Read the attacks carefully and decide for yourself. There’s also a lot about living through the Cultural Revolution. When will people realize China is an enemy, not a trading partner?
Yes, but "Piracy and the Admiralty Law of Nevada: The Case for Reform" was a topic ahead of its time.
I've published 12 articles so far. One got a ton of cites-- a SCOTUS dissent, eleven Circuits, some others. One got two F.Supps. The other ten, so far as I know, got absolutely zero.
Chen Village is fantastic.
I'm pretty agnostic about Rand, but what does this mean:
Some of her expounding, such as on the meaning of money and the lack of moral distinction between a person and their actions, are quite compelling. Quite how bad the books are as works of social science is also to their credit. As you point out, we have a lot of history to look over, and she was just wrong.
How does history "disprove" that there is no distinction between a person and his actions?
Sorry. Not clearly written perhaps. What I meant was
a) her screeds on money and the bit about people and their actions are interesting and vivid.
b) other parts of her work, namely her social science, i.e. cause and effect in society, are just wrong. Societies don't progress the way she says.
c) that history proves her wrong is a little to her credit, in scientific terms, because it means she was actually saying stuff. If you're vague enough, you can't be proved wrong.
- habeas corpus
- ending the ridiculous practice of the executive branch legislating through signing statements and the like
- the nonsensical "enemy combatant" designation
How heavy would a carbon tax have to be in order to have any significant effect on CO2 emissions?
A carbon tax? Yuck.
I'd rather they start using the CO2 emissions from power plants (or any other large scale CO2 emitters) to fuel biodiesel production from algae.
In my opinion the various utilities also might be stifling distributed solar generation. Utilities should have to pay the market rate at the time the power is being fed into the grid. This would improve the economics for the private independent generator and encourage private investment in this area.
Libertarian. Straight-forward (TANSTAAFL!). Not written by Ayn Rand. What's not to like?
Rand had some mildly interesting political views. Her ideas on morality and philosophy were terrifying.
And Annetta Keys is on my mind. Don't Google that if you're at work. Or around your children. Or pastor.
Iran says Britain mishandling captives' issue
For once, I concur with the Mullahs, however I reach my conclusion on different grounds.
I think the Brits should have told them that if their soldiers weren't returned immediately, they would sink the entire Iranian navy immediately, including their 7 submarines. I cannot believe the Brits have become this wimpy. They used to be a tough people with a ton of pride. Now they let a bunch of ragtag mullahs push them around as if they were Liechtenstein. Have they any self-respect left?
And, where's the outrage of the violation of "international law" with the parading around of the hostages? Oh, that's right, "international law" only exists when used to restrain the West.
If Iran gets gutsy after this and kidnaps American soldiers, Bush better threaten war on them in a heartbeat. Of course, the America-haters here and abroad will run to the defense of Iran, a country where the mullahs actually do everything they accuse Bush of doing.
While I sympathize with the sentiment, there are so many ways Bush and the US can lose politically this way it isn't funny. The most important is that attacking Iran strengthens Amedinajad and the worst elements there. The only possible way for the US to win war or war rhetoric with that lunatic is outright invasion and regime change, and Amedinajad is such a lunatic that he might just welcome the possibility. If we make belligerent promises, he may just pick war the way one picks lamb chops off a menu.
Isn't it about time the executive order on assassination was changed?
Who would collect the tax? Who would control how it's spent? What specific research would the money be spent on? And how much of this $25 billion pays for tax collection overhead?
More important, what research and investment will be crowded out by this absurd tactic?
Just sayin'.
Very nice point about sinking the Navy. However, the Geneva Convention restrictions on humiliating treatment doesn't apply here --- Iran and Britan aren't at war.
Orwell's "Animal Farm"
Rent "Serenity" and the TV Series "Firefly" upon which it is based
I seem to recall reading recently that it's not a matter of the Brits being willing to do this anymore, it's just that they can't. Budget cuts have greatly diminished British military capabilities.
I don't have a problem with pursuing diplomatic solutions at the outset - it never hurts to talk and it takes time to ramp up to a military approach anyway. The military option is there if the diplomatic approach fails though once the first shot is fired one has to recognize that the chance of ever recovering the 15 British sailors drops to near zero. You could kill a few thousand Iranians in retaliation if Iran kills the 15 Brits (as they likely would if war broke out) and back in the day Britain would not have hesitated to do so. If you're the British government you need to think about whether you're really ready for this scenario before you charge into it. Also, in the British parliamentary system, the Prime Minister doesn't have the unlimited control over the armed forces that a US President has over the US military. If Parliament bails on you, they can vote non-confidence and that forces the Prime Minister to resign, so you always have to take that into account before embarking on something like this.
Two reasons, 1) law professors have little interest in legal writing, so it doesn't get prioritized and 2) they expect most students will try to get on a journal and learn some legal writing skills from that.
Profs don't seem to be aware that while you do learn some Bluebooking on a journal, you don't actually learn much about legal writing, though you have plenty of exposure to just how badly most law professors write. I suppose in their defense it's worth saying that most professors in any discipline write badly, as do most non-law professors. The ability to write well is a rare and valuable skill.
Wouldn't it be your duty, in terms of upholding the state and national constitutions (right to due process)?
Even if you think he's more likely than not guilty of rape?
Wow. Didn't anyone else see the term suggestion box?
On another note, any lawyer types ready to comment on the lawsuit that includes as defendants the passengers reporting suspicious behavior regarding the Muslim gentlemen kicked off the airliner?
Naming witnesses as defendants seems like an obvious intimidation tactic to me, and just makes me even more suspicious about that lawsuit. There ought to be some kind of qualified immunity there.
It's been nice knowing ya!!
About the time we try to embargo China to punish them for invading Taiwan and discover:
1. That we have just shut down the American retail economy.
2. That we no longer have a manufacturing base.
North Texas FG, 3-0 North Texas
5 Oklahoma TDs, 35-3 Oklahoma
North Texas TD, 35-10 Oklahoma
The points were answered, but they still say "unanswered." Bastards.
Maybye they were in a bad cell and Sprint dropped the call.
If the plaintiffs can actually plead facts supporting a claim for malicious prosecution then there's no problem with the suit in every jurisdiction I'm aware of. Immunity or privilege statutes for reporting suspected crimes generally only protect against negligence and defamation claims, not malicious or deliberately false reporting. See, e.g., Hagberg v. California Federal Bank FSB, 81 P.3d 244, 248-51 (Cal. 2004) (discussing Cal. Civ. Code § 47(b)). This is a long-standing and relatively non-controversial legal principle, if I remember my tort class correctly. Based on the facts even as reported in anti-Muslim news outlets like WorldNetDaily and Little Green Footballs, I think a claim for malicious prosecution could be made out on the face of a complaint. Whether it would survive a Rule 12(c) motion or summary judgment is a different matter.
Such a tax would be pro-rated by carbon use, and since we use 25% of what gets used in a year, we'd be paying a lot more per head than anyone else. Even if China, which is not in abject poverty, passes us in absolute terms, they have 4x the population and still the per capita would be lower. I don't think anyone would suggest having tax farmers prowling around Chad or Southern Sudan extracting $3.85 from each man, woman and child.
In reality, in much of the third world, it simply wouldn't be collectible, which wouldn't matter much.
$3.85, based on a population of 6.5 billion. People living in abject poverty can't afford even that, so any plan that aspires to be semi-realistic will have to rely on a smaller tax base.
Who would control how it's spent? What specific research would the money be spent on? ... More important, what research and investment will be crowded out by this absurd tactic?
Ask this Lomborg guy. I was kind of making a dig at him. We kooky enviros have been studiously trying to incorporate market solutions and individualism and innovation and entrepreneurship into our solutions, both because it makes sense and for the politics. It is a little annoying to have our skeptical right-wing friends tell us that we are proposing an economically dangerous "statist" solution and then, when it's their turn, proposing something eerily like a 1950s Labour Party politician "picking winners."
Ah, good idea. Slow development in the third world. Curb growth early! Prevent technological innovation! Dumb poor people can just starve if they can't figure out how to make solar panels, anyway right? Morons.
And the frikken nerve, wanting to use DDT to kill malaria carrying mosquitoes too, man we haven't used that in decades! And we don't have malaria! Can you believe the nerve of those poor people hurting the poor little environment just to save their own lives. Greedy bastards.
Regardless I believe its doable.
As an observation on Iran's Navy, I'd suspect they are all safely in port and will remain so for the foreseeable future, notwithstanding their concerns for the sanctity of Iranian waters..
I was suspicicious of Iran's motives until I remembered they owed money to the Russians for nuclear assistance. A conflict can go a long way towards raising oil prices, which benefits both Iran and Russia.
Excellent point. But, how come people have been screaming for years that we are violating the Geneva Conventions with respect to al-Qaeda? There is no country of al-Qaeda, and, as every good Bush-hating leftists will tell you, there is no al-Qaeda in Iraq. So, why do we have to follow them in respect to the Gitmo scum? Again, I say, they only apply to restrain the West.
Regardless I believe its doable.
Yes, liberty's nonsense aside, it is a point that arbitrarily disincentivizing carbon use could disproportionately do economic harm to some countries. But it is also an addressable point. There are a hundred ways of rebalancing the effect. Only rich countries pay, or the per ton rate is partly depending on per capita gdp, or there is aid for growth policies that involve more expensive methods. Advantages and disadvantages to all, but doable.
The judgment of what is acceptable depends to a high degree on your judgment of what the potential damage of inaction is. Not a meaningful balancing unless you are also discussing the cost of inaction as well. Don't want to prevent economic development of the Maldives, but also don't want the Maldives to disappear.
And the frikken nerve, wanting to use DDT to kill malaria carrying mosquitoes too, man we haven't used that in decades!
So I take it you buy into the "Rachel Carson is the worst mass murderer in history, pushing Stalin and Hitler into second and third place" theory of DDT policy. It is an incorrect theory.
Are you denying the 'hockey-stick'-like increase in malaria deaths since the discontinuance of antimosquito campaigns?
2. Baseball season is upon us. The Devil Rays are under-rated.
--JRM
Well, you can read this right wing trash or one of these smear campaign websites. I would not compare Rachel Carson to Stalin, I will leave such comparisons to others. However, for people of amazing wealth and privilege to campaign to end life saving treatments and poverty-relief programs is pretty awful. The fact that ill-understood environmental justifications are the basis makes it no less terrible.
What I'm denying is the thesis that (a) Rachel Carson and US enviros were worried about birds and (b) caused DDT to be globally banned which (c) led to million of worldwide deaths and (d) the enviros aren't worried because they are stupid and callous.
Rachel Carson wrote a book about the effects of DDT in 1962, after the antimalarial use of DDT had already begun to decline because of misuse and insect resistence. Her book also came after the WHO ended its worldwide eradication program for reasons unconnected with DDT. Her book arguably led to a domestic US ban in 1972, which has cost the US basically no lives at all.
There has been no global ban, and, although some countries and agencies have discouraged its use, many countries still use it. The closest thing to a global ban, the Stockholm Treaty of 2001, actually says DDT can be used as long as it is useful and cost-effective compared to practical alternatives. Some ban.
Look at this graph. Malaria plummeted everyplace but Africa, where, for reasons I don't know a lot about but involve the technical efficacy of spraying, the eradication program was never implemented. The blade part of the hockey stick is mostly Africa, where there are a lot of reasons it is surging, not resurging, among them resistence to insecticides, development patterns, resistence to medications and so on.
There have been surges outside Africa, among other places in India, where DDT is still used and has become ineffective due to resistance.
The malaria-DDT debate is complicated as heck and I'm just getting all this stuff from other websites. And some greens, who argue that it should never be used as an anti-malaria tool at all, are wrong. But the idea that the surge in malaria deaths is primarily a product of mindless green lunacy is insupportable. It is just a way for anti-enviros to jump on enviros.
For what it's worth, Carson's contribution to the debate about DDT use was to express concern that bulk outdoor spraying would render the very useful substance useless as an antimalarial agent, a point many have made and which is supported by research.
Nope. What us Bush-hating leftists will tell you is that under Saddam Hussein, who was a secular dictator, there was no significant al-Qaeda presence in Iraq. There is now a large al-Qaeda presence in Iraq, due to Bush's invasion.
And, if there is a large al_Qaeda presence due to Bush's invasion, then good. Makes them easier to kill when they are in one place.
I looked at the BBC story, very interesting about how South Africa has needed to use DDT to combat malaria. They have succeeded, indicating that there is no ban on the stuff being used in public health. Didn't S. Africa use DDT up to the early 90s?
Anyway, then I looked at the AFM website where (a) I learned the DDT is by international treaty allowed to be used for public health purposes and (b) saw a reference to an article attributing S. Africa's epidemic not to a "DDT ban" but to mosquito resistence to an alternative family of insecticides they'd been using.
The Tren stuff is at least seven or eight years old.
I'm not saying WWF was right back when they argued against any use of DDT, but they were argued out of that position years ago, and many environmental groups never held that positions.
If somebody says, "DDT should be used, carefully, to fight malaria," nearly everybody agrees. I'm on board and so are the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense and lots of others. Then it is down to complicated details.
But that is not what you said. You said, tongue in cheek a little I hope, that greens think 3rd worlders are greedy bastards for hurting the environment just to save their own lives. accuse greens of being responsible for 13.9 billion cases of malaria. Actually, not just any greens. It blames the EPA director who banned it domestically in 1972 for all those cases. This is politics, not public health. The public health argument is about other stuff.
You have simply just argued that I am indeed correct -- banning DDT is a very bad idea. You add that basically everyone already knows that. Hopefully they also know that taxing carbon emissions in the developing world is a terrible idea too.
For us its easy to think of banning sources of energy or things like DDT, but for those who are living in povery under despots with no rights and no property and no doctors and no medicines and no vaccines and no clean water, its an entirely different thing. By the way, even without an outright ban we can do major harm taking the wrong stance. If we - especially as an administration but also as the UN or as Hollywood spokespeople or as international environmental groups or as visiting ex-Presidents or in whatever form - speak out against things like DDT, we sway petty despots who might have their own reasons for refusing it to their people but need internationally recognized justification, or who might want to cater special trade deals, or who want aid from the west- yes aid which is often given only to "environmentally friendly" programs.
Let's be clear: no petty despot or even friendly tribal leader in Africa cares about DDT toxins killing wildlife and there is no evidence that it would be toxic to humans. We are the reason that they don't use it. From the evil right-wing corporate spokespeople at the NY Times (2004):
"No one concerned about the environmental damage of DDT set out to kill African children. But various factors, chiefly the persistence of DDT's toxic image in the West and the disproportionate weight that American decisions carry worldwide, have conspired to make it essentially unavailable to most malarial nations. With the exception of South Africa and a few others, African countries depend heavily on donors to pay for malaria control. But at the moment, there is only one country in the world getting donor money to finance the use of DDT: Eritrea, which gets money for its program from the World Bank with the understanding that it will look for alternatives. Major donors, including the United States Agency for International Development, or Usaid, have not financed any use of DDT, and global health institutions like W.H.O. and its malaria program, Roll Back Malaria, actively discourage countries from using it."
See also this senate report (2005): "Annex 4 provides clear evidence of international and developed country pressures to stop poor countries from using DDT to control malaria."
Hopefully this has started to change. Bush has increased USAID's support of anti-malarial DDT programs.
We agree on the important point about DDT, that it should be used where it helps. You note that you did not say there was global ban, but mocked the idea of it. You mocked it by putting advocacy of it into the mouths of environmentalists. That's what I was complaining about. It is a sensitive topic. Repeatedly, I read and here this idea that it was the environmentalists who were responsible for this and repeatedly, when you dig down, you find the story is more complicated.
For example, both the senate testimony and the Times opinion piece you link to make the claim that environmental opposition was to blame for the resurgence. Then both cite, at some length, the instructive experience of Sri Lanka in reducing malaria using DDT. I tried to look it up but as far as I can tell Sri Lanka stopped using DDT because they thought they had beaten malaria, not due to outside pressure. When the disease bounced back, they tried DDT again, but encountered a resistence problem. They switched to other methods and have to a great degree succeeded.
Also, go back and read the NY Times piece - it explains how environmental groups along with environmental ministries, aid agencies, western governments and international agencies are to blame for developing countries reluctance (or inability) to use DDT. There is plenty of blame to go around.
What is Vince McMahon's position on DDT use?
As one of my profs likes to say whenever we read a California statute, "California has never had a thought it didn't codify."
Shared, until WWF decided it was a little crowded in such a small set of initials and consulted with a trademark attorney. The wrestlers are now WWE, for World Wrestling Enterprises.
What is Vince McMahon's position on DDT use?
Tiger feint crucifix armbar, I think.
RMCACE,
I would be delighted to blog on any topic you like if you will pay my usual consulting rates for doing so. If you're interested, just send me an e-mail.
[UPDATE: All, my apologies if that came off as overly harsh. I didn't mean it that way; sorry if it reads that way. I guess I just found RMCACE's comment pretty arrogant given how much of our free time we volunteer on this blog already, and I thought a little snark wasn't inappropriate in response.]
----------
Actually, that was overly harsh. After all, isn't the academy supposed to help people understand the world? To that end, you should be grateful for loyal readers who are willing to tell you what topics interest them -- it allows you to make sure your posts are being put to good use.
Well said, but at the same time you describe what is possible, not what is likely. To do what you describe would take an international conference similar to the Kyoto treaty or WTO talks. The first didn't work that well, the second sometimes works very well.
Incorporating an additional cost into a substance to pay for a negative externality is basic economics. It is micro-economics, thus most conservatives forget about it ;) Externalities is why it it is not just important to have a free economy for a nation to become wealthy, no you also have to have other factors including infrastructure, education, flow of resources and capital to most efficient means and finally a system of fair and honest laws which allow you to accurately predict cost and returns.
Sorry, you lose. You may find your post clever, but not one word of it constitutes a response to what I said. Let's recap: You asserted that we left-wing Bush haters claim that there is no al-Qaeda in Iraq. I replied that that is not our position. Rather, our position is that: (a) there was no significant al-Qaeda presence in Iraq prior to the US invasion; and (b) there is now a significant al-Qaeda presence due to the invasion. I said nothing whatever about whether Saddam Hussein was good or bad or what the overall effects of the invasion were. The positions that you whine about are words that you are trying to put in my mouth, entirely without justification. Evidently you can't come up with a real argument on point.
Al-Qaeda was not a significant presence in Iraq under Saddam Hussein because he exerted tight control over the country and was not an ally of al-Qaeda. He had no interest in allowing an armed terrorist group that was not only not his ally but in fact opposed to all secular regimes, including his, to operate in Iraq. The invasion destroyed Saddam Hussein's control without replacing it with an effective alternative and thereby created the conditions in which an organization like al-Qaeda could operate. By pissing off Muslims and Arab chauvinists both within and outside of Iraq, the invasion also created additional motivation for Muslims of a certain stripe to join al-Qaeda and oppose the US. So, yes, the invasion is responsible for the presence of al-Qaeda, and yes, Bush's claim that invading Iraq would help in the war on terrorism was false.
Are there any plans in the pipeline for Language Log posts to try allowing reader comments? I would imagine that the readers of the blog are smart enough to foster good discussion there. Also, will Language Log ever get its own domain? I find the url unwieldy.
For what it's worth, I recommend Fiasco by Thomas Ricks to Brian G - it's a good starting point for discussion about Iraq.
I think they still hang horse theifs there. Florida should take note.
I, too, worry about UK handling of the 15 Affair.
The hope I cling to is that UK+US are playing a page from Sun Tzu:
and that an economy-size can of whupass is being taken from the shelf at this very moment.
(Obviously, feigning disorder in a way that would convince a clever enemy would also convince and infuriate one's own citizens. So for the moment, we have no way of knowing what's real and what's bluff. Time will tell.)