Like an inaugural gown, a wedding cake is an expression of its designer’s “values” and “point of view”—even if the dress contains no words and no symbols specifically referring to Trump. It is the event at which the dress (or cake) would be used that supplies the expressive context—not necessarily anything particular to the dress (or cake). Like dress designers, Phillips distinguishes between selling off-the-shelf items to a customer on a retail basis and “making one-of-a-kind garments [or cakes] for individuals.”
And just as there are many designers “who would happily, and without reservation, create a splendid wardrobe for the first lady,” the record in the Colorado case shows that there were dozens of bakers in close proximity to Masterpiece Cakeshop who would happily create a cake for their occasion. This means there is no practical burden on Melania or on the couple from the denial of service—only the insult that comes from knowing that another human being disapproves, which is precisely what the dressmaker and the baker wish to communicate, and the government has no right to prevent.
Provided by the The Strait Times, they are…
1. Ensuring Party leadership over all work.
2. Committing to a people-centred approach.
3. Continuing to comprehensively deepen reform.
4. Adopting a new vision for development.
5. Seeing that the people run the country.
6. Ensuring every dimension of governance is law-based.
7. Upholding core socialist values.
8. Ensuring and improving living standards through development.
9. Ensuring harmony between human and nature.
10. Pursuing a holistic approach to national security.
11. Upholding absolute Party leadership over the people’s forces.
12. Upholding the principle of “one country, two systems” and promoting national reunification.
13. Promoting the building of a community with a shared future for mankind.
14. Exercising full and rigorous governance over the Party.
NEW DELHI: India and Vietnam agreed to cooperate on nuclear energy, trade and agriculture as Prime Minister Narendra Modiheld talks with the President of Vietnam, Tran Dai Quang here on Saturday. Vietnam is one of India’s closest strategic partners in the Asean region.
The two sides decided to explore co-development projects in defence sector and boost ties in oil and gas exploration, including with third countries. “We will jointly work for an open, independent and prosperous Indo Pacific region where sovereignty and international laws are respected and where differences are resolved through talks,” Modi said in remarks to the media.
In response, the Vietnam President said it supports India’s multi-faceted connectivity with Asean, adding there should be freedom of navigation and over flights in the region. While India, the US and several other world powers have been pressing for resolution of the dispute on the basis of international law under UNCLOS, China has favoured a bilateral framework with different countries. Modi said India and Vietnam will also look for a trilateral partnership in the oil and gas sector. India already has two blocks for oil exploration in the South China Sea (SCS), despite criticism from China.
That is one bit form the Indian Times.
China is indeed a partial power with many natural rivals in its own neighborhood. A Vietnamese-Indian alliances is just one element complicating the Chinese pursuit of regional hegemony.
The rest can be read here.
…Such docility might be good industrial policy—after all, it creates jobs in key congressional districts, provides corporate welfare for America’s defense companies, and helps maintain the defense industrial base. But it makes for lousy foreign policy. The United States will continue to pour money down a rat hole until Congress and the executive branch better understand why these problems keep recurring and muster the political will to fix them. Based on our experience in the State Department, here is our diagnosis of the problem and some remedies for what ails U.S. military assistance in the Middle East.
The context is American aid to our Middle East allies and the compliant is that despite the large amount of aid distributed year after year, the United States seems to have very little control over the domestic politics of the recipients.
Here is one bit.
A second and related problem is that the U.S. government does a poor job of holding allies and clients to account for behavior that runs counter to American interests. There is no systematic review of what U.S. military assistance accomplishes. The key questions that rarely get asked, let alone answered, are what does the U.S. want and expect from the assistance we provide and how does this aid help or hurt America’s ability to achieve these goals? If the U.S. cannot identify actions that the recipient would not have otherwise taken as a result of this assistance, then it is nothing more than a welfare program, and has two pernicious effects. First, it encourages “moral hazard”—recipients to do whatever they want with the assistance without having to fear the consequences of their actions. Second, it creates “reverse leverage”— Washington bends over backwards to keep relations smooth and the assistance flowing, rather than leverage the recipient’s dependence on U.S. military support and political commitments.
You can read the rest here.