Not only no more bowing before potentates or dropping billions in case for our Iranian, what? Friends? But pressuring rivals, as opposed to timidly conceding the game.

The president is regularly attacked by critics for withdrawing from the global stage and undermining the American-led world order, but his goal in Asia is consistent with that of previous administrations from both parties: preserving what the Trump administration calls a “free and open Indo-Pacific.”

Mr. Trump has energetically pursued this goal, overturning significant parts of America’s Indo-Pacific policy dating back to the 1970s. His decision to levy tariffs on $250 billion of Chinese goods made clear that Washington is dropping the fiction that China is a fair trading partner.

The U.S. military has increased freedom-of-navigation operations and flyovers near China’s new military bases in the South China Sea.

Etc.

The writer adds cautions to this applause.

Though few in Washington will admit it publicly, policy makers on both sides of the aisle see Mr. Trump’s bold stance as long overdue. Yet his Asia pivot is also risky.

Some worry he will rush into an agreement with North Korea, perhaps withdrawing U.S. troops from the Korean Peninsula in return for a promise of denuclearization. If Mr. Trump caves in to pressure from Pyongyang, Seoul and Beijing to reach a bad deal, it may be impossible to convince Tokyo and other allies that Washington won’t pack up its troops and leave them to face the Chinese threat on their own.

Upshot:

No one should be in any doubt about the stakes: Beijing is looking to hasten the day when it replaces the U.S. as the indispensable Indo-Pacific power. America’s allies in the region are watching—some fearfully—to see whether the time has come to cleave to China and support Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative. Mr. Trump’s pivot may offer the last chance to forestall such an outcome.

Seems to be so.

Long, uber-interesting piece here by emeritus anthropology prof at McGill U., much involved and drawing on years of experience, including in the field. Discussing at its end whether anti-masculinity is aimed at solving men’s problems, this:

Yes, being a man is not stress-free, and sometimes we have inner struggles. But do women not also have inner struggles, and is that not in our nature as human beings?

Feminists who simplistically argue that women’s psychological and other problems are all and always the fault of “toxic” men, are doing a very human thing: blaming others for their problems.

That such sad naivete has been adopted by our governments, scientific organizations, and schools and universities does not reflect a very sound understanding of people or the world. Even more so for psychologists, who should know better.

Ideas, conditions, behaviors toxic there are, but masculinity is not one of them.

Crafty lady.

WASHINGTON—House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) asked President Trump on Wednesday to delay his State of the Union address to Congress until the government is reopened, citing security concerns.

It is custom for the speaker of the House to formally invite the president to give a State of the Union speech to a joint session of Congress at the beginning of the year. That address is scheduled for Jan. 29.

In a letter sent to the president, Mrs. Pelosi said such a speech requires the full resources of the U.S. Secret Service and Department of Homeland Security—two agencies where employees are currently working unpaid.

Immediate guess: Won’t happen. Speech delay, that is.

Oh those Obama judges.

And what happened to him then:

Cardinal O’Malley’s latest action continues a recent trend in which he has broken an unspoken rule by openly criticising his fellow bishops, including Pope Francis. Last January, he criticised the Pope’s handling of the situation in Chile, in which the Pope accused critics of Bishop Juan Barros, who has since resigned, of “calumny”.

The cardinal’s outspokeness seems to have resulted in a loss of favour at the Vatican. O’Malley was notably not initially named among the participants in next month’s safeguarding summit in Rome. Instead, Chicago’s Cardinal Blaise Cupich, a staunch progressive and reliable papal ally, was appointed to take part.

Blaise does keep turning up, does he not?

Thumbs up from 3 out of 10.

Where are the other seven?