Category: Uncategorized

Chapter Two

War Crimes

The Russian invasion is not over.  Even though there seems to be a “pause”, while Russian troops committed to the failed “decapitation” attack on Kyiv are withdrawn, Putin is not done.  The Ukrainians have scored a “tactical” and moral victory, but Russia is just starting.

To understand that, you simply have to look at what Russia forces have done in Ukraine.  The war crimes; intentional infliction of civilian casualties, the blatant targeting of children, the “scorched earth” destruction of villages and cities:  all signal a long-term commitment to “winning”.  No nation can intentionally commit those acts with the idea that they can then withdraw to the original lines.  Things will NEVER be the same, between Russia and Ukraine, and with the rest of the world.

And the truly evil Russian strategy is now apparent.  The choice they are offering the Ukrainian people is either submit to Russian control, or die.  It’s not about battles between armies, but a World War II view of total civilian devastation.  Russia’s done this before:  in Chechnya, Georgia and Syria.  The difference this time, is that the Russians haven’t won the battles, so they can’t write the story.  

Ukrainian Defense

The Ukrainian defense is brilliant.  But just as brilliant is the Ukrainian public relations campaign.  President Zelenskyy, a product of mass media, is leading his nation in making their case to the world.  The mayors of the cities, the young members of the Ukrainian legislature, the troop commanders; all are widely accessible to the world press.  And clearly, they are all on the same “page”.  Their message:  more aid, better supplies, bigger weapons.   And just as importantly:  cut Russia off.

The world will not come to Ukraine’s rescue militarily.  NATO’s message to Putin is also clear:  the alliance will do everything it can to support Ukraine short of direct military involvement.  That is, as long as Russia keeps the military action within the borders of Ukraine, and keeps weapons of mass destruction “off the table”.  

What’s left for the world to do?  Completely cut Russia off from world trade, most importantly from the world oil and gas markets.  It’s not just about Europe and the United States; India and China are long-term Russian fossil fuel customers.  While Ukrainians are sacrificing their homes and lives and families, they are asking the rest of the world to commit to sacrifice economically.  Higher fuel prices worldwide would be the result.  

The Next Phase

The next phase of the Russian Invasion will be to consolidate their gains in the Donbas region, and break those eastern provinces away from Ukrainian control.  Then they will try to castrate the Ukrainian economy by capturing the entire Black Sea coast, cutting off sea routes into the nation.   The siege of port city of Mariupol is part of that strategy, though little of the city of almost half a million is going to be left when it’s over.  But whatever the fate of Mariupol is, the next Russian offensive will be from the territory they already control in Crimea against the city of Kherson.  

Kherson is the key  to the western Black Sea coast, and the ultimate goal for Russian control: Odessa.  That’s the major port city serving Ukraine, and a Russian conquest there would signal total control of the Ukrainian seacoast.

Victory’s Cost

The longer Ukraine holds out, the more impact Western sanctions will have on Russia. The question isn’t about the determination of the Ukrainian people, nor of Putin’s resolve to continue the attack. The question is – how long will the western nations continue their whole hearted support for Ukraine? As most of those nations are democracies, their support will be contingent on the continuing backing of their populations.

There will be lots of elections held in the Western democracies.  The peoples of those countries will be offered a choice:  sacrifice for Ukraine, or let Putin achieve his goals.  The forces of division and authoritarianism aren’t just restricted to the United States (and Fox News).  France, Great Britain, and several of the Eastern European nations have similar issues.  If sacrificing for Ukraine becomes a “political” issue (and these days what isn’t) then even Zelenskyy’s best media efforts won’t be enough to get the true support he needs.  He knows he has to win a victory in Columbus and Pittsburgh, as well as Kherson.

The fate of Ukraine is up to the Ukrainians, but it also is up to us.

Essays on the Ukraine Crisis

Talking Dirty

Law and Order – SVU

So here’s a strange question: what’s up with the “right” and talking dirty? I mean, there were times in the Jackson Supreme Court nomination process when I wanted to turn off the TV and go wash my hands. Hawley, Cruz, Cotton and Graham were intent on describing cases of child pornography in graphic detail. They had the audience squirming in their seats, like those incredibly awkward moments of confession in Law and Order SVU when Stabler (in the early days) looked like he was going to beat the suspect. And the Senators were doing it intentionally, to a judge who sent those same pornographers to Federal prison for years, and added decades of restrictions and labels.

It wasn’t about her punishing them, it was about whether she punished them “long enough”.  So we all get to share in pederast stories.

Don’t Say G*y

And then there’s the Florida politicians (and now Ohio) who are trying to convince us that our kid’s kindergarten teacher is trying to teach them about sex.  Good Lord, they’re doing their best with the “ABC’s” and math (yep, Kindergarteners are supposed to read and do math before first grade now).  Sure, those teachers have to deal with sexual “identity” – which kids go to the “little girls” room, and which go to the “little boys”.  But they certainly aren’t in the business of discussing the nuances of gay, straight, trans and queer.

The “right” is using a “sex” term we learned on Law and Order SVU.   Teachers supposedly are “grooming” kids in the classroom to be LGBTQ.  Reality from the classroom – that doesn’t happen.  Teachers are far too busy documenting, teaching standards, testing-testing-testing, and making sure kids are “OK” to “groom” anything.  And if they did, it doesn’t take a  new law against it.  The entire world of education would fall on them. 

What “sex stuff” might regular teachers discuss?  An primary teaching friend had to explain to Johnny, in the simplest (and briefest) way possible, why his penis was stiff.  Sex was NOT the answer, just a brief “this is a normal boy’s body” kind of thing.  

Divorce and Gay Marriage

When I was in first grade in 1962, we found out about something called a “divorce”.  Divorces were rare in those days, and when a kid in class had parents that were getting divorced, it posed a “threat” to all of us.  I don’t remember Miss Fox going into details, but she did find a way to make the child whose parents were divorcing, and the rest of us, understand that it wasn’t the child’s fault.  That kid found acceptance in class, at a time when he needed it most.

Today, almost half the kids in class are from divorced families.  Good or bad, it’s a common part of our culture, one that kids share.  Today’s equivalent to 1962’s divorce, is parents of the same sex.  But if the Miss Fox of 2022 tries to find a way to make those kids feel “OK”, then is she violating the “Don’t Say Gay” law in Florida, or the one proposed now in Ohio?  To the best I can tell, the answer to that question is, Yes.

Kids are smart, especially when it comes to the adults who impact their lives.  They know when the teacher isn’t talking about something, when they are leaving silence where explanations usually occur.  And kids make the connection – if Miss Fox won’t talk about it, then it must be a bad thing.  A message is sent, and received.

Trans Hype

And then there’s this hyped-up issue of transgendered women competing in high school sports.  Utah’s Governor Spencer Cox vetoed a proposed participation ban in his state (though his veto was ultimately overridden).  He pointed out, that out of the over 85,000 kids competing in Utah high school sports, four were transgendered women.  A law, written, debated, hyped, vetoed and overridden:  for four kids.  

The reality – transgendered kids are trying to find a social place in the world, and athletics can help.  Out of the entire nation, with millions of kids participating in athletics, critics can point out about four cases where transgendered women are “succeeding” against biological women.  But Fox News gives near-daily updates on their success, ginning up the base, and targeting one of the most vulnerable groups in our society:  transgendered kids. Look, studies indicate that 80% of transgendered folks have considered suicide and 40% have attempted it, mostly as youth (National Institute of Health).  I’m sure that a law that specifically impacts the four kids in Utah won’t help that statistic.

Why Sports

I was a coach for forty years – cross country, wrestling and track, high school and middle school, girls and boys.  I am proud of the dozens of kids who left our programs and went on to compete at the collegiate level, and the very few who made a national impact on their sports.  But for the vast majority of those thousands of kids on “my” teams over the years, it wasn’t about medals and scholarships.  

It was about being a part of a team, a family.  For some of those kids, it was the “best” family they had.  And it was about accepting the physical challenges of practice and competition, and finding ways to improve.  Those kids learned how to do more than they thought possible, and found the relationship between hard work and improvement. And they learned the joy of sharing a common struggle, effort and goal with their teammates.

LGBTQ kids often need that “family” more than anyone else.  The LGBTQ kids I worked with certainly did.  Politicians standing on a soap-box and drawing a red-line on their participation only hurts them more, and sends a clear message to every other kid.  Rejection is real – and that’s what the “right” is doing for political gain.  The hurt and loss that causes will be real too.

The Ohio Way

Retirement

I am a retired teacher.  I worked for thirty-five and a half years, and got what I thought was a great deal when I retired.  It was “part of the plan”.  No one was going to get rich teaching public school, but there was always the “promise” of a great retirement system at the end.  It was so good, that when I started teaching, they exempted us from Medicare and Social Security.  Instead, we paid a greater percentage of our salary into State Teacher Retirement, and our School District matched the amount.  

The promise:  a great retirement system – one of the best in the country.  Today Ohio Teacher Retirement is rated 36th in the Nation with an “F” grade (Bellweather). (And Ohio teachers today do have to pay Social Security and Medicare.  They earn Medicare benefits, but while they also earn Social Security they only get a small portion of what they earn – the rest are taxed away as a “windfall”). 

Old Deal

What was my “deal”, the retirement “contract”?

I worked more than thirty-five years.  I could have retired at thirty years with two-thirds of my income.  But there was a teacher shortage and they encouraged us “old” teachers to hang on. By working the extra five years, I retired with 88% of my annual income.  (I was one of the last for that deal – now it’s 77% thirty-five years).  And as I planned my retirement, I was promised a 3%  annual Cost of Living Allowance increase (COLA) for the rest of my life.  

I got my 88%.  But a couple years before I retired, they cut the COLA to 2% instead of 3%.  And the year before I retired, the put a five-year hold on all COLA’s.  And then five years later, they determined to not give COLA increases at all.  (Last month, they finally did approve a one-time 3% increase).

New Deal

I’m lucky, my wife retired with great health insurance and I’m on her policy.  If I were on teacher’s health insurance, I’d be paying a lot more.  Like everyone else, I purchase Medicare (Part B), the “doctor care” part of it.  But since I never paid into Medicare, I never “earned” the biggest part of Medicare, hospitalization (Part A).  If I had to buy that, it’d be almost $500 a month, in addition to all the other insurance.  So much for the “great deal” there.

Now the “new deal” is:  live on what you made almost a decade ago.  I can do that, but with inflation, it’s worth 21% less than when I retired.  I’m now effectively living on 70% of my annual income. 

So I’m doing some substitute teaching, just to cover the “difference”.  Substituting doesn’t pay what teaching pays, and it shouldn’t.  A sub isn’t grading papers, making lesson plans, or participating in conferences and meetings.  You walk in, pick up your packet from the office, and supervise kids.  When the bell rings to end the day, your work is done. On an hourly basis, I’m making less than a third of what I made on contract.

And that’s fine too – it’s a choice I make when I substitute.  But there’s even a “hitch” to that.

My Work – Their Money

As a substitute teacher, the School District is still required to take 14% of my substitute salary out for “retirement”. (Ohio has the highest percent withholding in the nation, more than 2% greater than any other state).  State Teacher Retirement takes that 14% and puts it in an “annuity for me”, paying a small annual interest as long as I continue to substitute.  Once I stop, the interest payments stop as well, and State Teacher Retirement “encourages” me to remove the annuity (and pay taxes on it).  In addition, the School District matches my 14%, just as they did when I was on contract as a teacher.

But THEIR 14%, paid for MY work, just goes into the general retirement fund.  I don’t get it, I don’t benefit from it, and neither does the School District.  Money paid BY the School District, FOR MY WORK, is paid like a “fee” to the State Teacher Retirement to do with what they will.

If I wasn’t a retired teacher, that “fee” would go to my retirement.  But since I’m drawing my retirement, it’s a “penalty” paid because I’m teaching again.  I work for it, but I don’t benefit from it.  And neither does the District.  They are paying into a State Teacher Retirement “black hole”.  

Ohio’s Way

There are over 20,000 substitute teachers here in Ohio.   While exact numbers aren’t available, a substantial number of them are retired teachers.  And all of those retired teachers are paying  into a retirement system “for the privilege” of working while drawing retirement. They are being penalized – even though it’s the School Districts that are paying the penalty.  

Abraham Lincoln, in his debate with Stephen Douglas said: “You toil and work and earn bread, and I’ll eat it.”

“You do the work, State Teacher Retirement will get the benefit” – it’s not the American way.  It shouldn’t be Ohio’s way either.

Drive the Wedge

I have found “my place” through political ads – a “liberal swamp person”(is that a movie?) who is/was a “leftist indoctrinator” of children in education (obviously not a successful one). Oh, and I didn’t hold my nose to vote for Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg (in the primary). I was proud to vote for all!!

Splitting Logs

In “the old” days, splitting logs was an athletic experience.  Instead of just feeding them into a log-splitting machine, the axe-man had to place a heavy wedge shaped piece of iron or steel into the top of the log, then drive it in until the log split. The wedge caused the split, but it was the axe-man driving it home that broke the log into pieces.

Wedge issues are nothing new in American politics.  We’ve been “split” since even before the ratification of the Constitution in 1786.  Supporters of the new document were “Federalists” (including Madison and Hamilton on the same side) while those opposed  (best known, Virginia Governor Patrick Henry of “…Give me Liberty, or Give me Death!!”) were anti-Federalists.  Political division is as American as the Founding Fathers, the Fourth of July and the Bill of Rights.

Ohio’s Issue 1

One of the best examples of using a wedge issue to drive-up the vote for one side, was in 2004’s Presidential election in Ohio.  It was only eighteen years ago (though it seems like a whole different age). President George W Bush was running a close race to gain re-election against Democratic Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.  Ohio was a critical source of electoral votes for both sides.  And while there was a concerted effort to smear Kerry (the “Swift-Boating” attack), it wasn’t the smear that drove voters to the polls.

Ohio’s Republican Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell of Cincinnati, found a way to make sure that the conservative vote in Ohio showed up.  It wasn’t about the Presidential race, rather Blackwell placed a proposed Ohio Constitutional Amendment on the ballot that restricted marriage in the state to between a man and a woman.  It banned gay marriages in Ohio.  The Amendment passed by 61%, but more importantly voters who supported the Amendment also overwhelmingly supported George Bush, who won the state by a narrow 51% to 49% margin.

Alternative Truths

So while there is nothing new in using particular issues to drive voting blocks apart, in our day of metastasized social media, “driving wedges” is even more effective.  And while in the past most issues in American politics had some basis in truth, some of today’s wedge issues are “beyond” truth, more akin to the alternative facts best known from the Trump Administration.

Obviously, “Stop the Steal” is one of these issues.  About thirty percent of Americans believe that Joe Biden and the Democrats somehow “stole” the 2020 Presidential election.  And while thirty percent is nowhere near the majority needed to win a general election, that number represents a majority of Republican voters.  So whether a candidate believed that the election was stolen, is a wedge in hotly contested primaries.  

Trump

And for Democrats, Donald Trump himself becomes a wedge, driving the voter turnout up.  But, to alter rhetorical implements for a moment, using Trump as a wedge is a “double-edged sword”.  If Trump himself is running, Democrats show up in droves, but so do Republicans.  The 2020 election was the largest voter turnout in US history, despite the Covid pandemic.  And Democrats have discovered that if Trump isn’t on the ballot, but used as a “specter” hovering over the election, it doesn’t always work out well.  The Virginia Governor’s election, where Democrat Terry McAuliffe tried to “hang” Trump around his Republican opponent’s neck didn’t get Democrats out to vote.

What did work in Virginia was the faux issue misnamed “Critical Race Theory”.  Republican Glenn Youngkin used the false “fact” that public schools were trying to “indoctrinate” children into radical beliefs to motivate his voters to the polls.  He claimed that schools were teaching white children were all “racists”, or were encouraging children to “become” gay or transgendered.  In a debate McAuliffe made the obvious but dangerous statement that “parents shouldn’t tell schools what to teach”.  That helped Youngkin drive his wedge home.  

The current US Senate race in Ohio will test the “Trump” theory.  All but one of the seven Republican candidates are trying to run in Trump’s footsteps.  One even has the campaign slogan – “Pro God, Pro Guns and Pro Trump” (all on an equal footing).  His closest opponent claims to be a successful businessman, “…just like Trump, only better”.  Whoever wins the primary, they will have a tougher time hiding from the Trump label than Governor Youngkin did.

Fake Issues

And almost all Republican candidates are still following the Trump lead of running, “on the border”.  While you don’t hear so much about “THE WALL”, candidates are still using the threat that “illegal immigrants” are going to “TAKE YOUR JOBS”.  The problem with that:  right now employment is at an all-time high, with an unemployment rate of 3.6%.  So while there are still lots of folks at the border, and the Covid restriction that kept them from entering are soon going to be lifted – it’s not a “real” issue.

As part of the “backlash” against social progress, Republican state legislatures are passing a series of laws restricting what is taught in schools.  Teachers who try to explain why a child has two mothers could be sued in Florida.  The Republican talking point is that somehow those teachers are trying to “groom” children to be gay, or transgendered.  And a portion of their base believes it.

Real Issues

But what may be a game changing wedge issue is now in the hands of the US Supreme Court.  Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health is a Mississippi case which could overturn the national abortion ruling of Roe v Wade.  Mississippi would restrict almost all abortions to sixteen weeks or less.  Roe (and the following case, Casey) didn’t allow limits until twenty-four weeks.  If, as it seems likely, the Court overturns Roe, and allows states to create their own limits on abortion rights, it could be a huge wedge issue driving voters out to defend women’s rights, by voting for Democratic candidates.  That ruling is likely to come down in late May or early June.

But inflation could be the deciding issue of the 2022 election.  There are strong economic reasons why a post-pandemic economy would be inflationary.  Reasonably, both Democrats and Republicans tried to cushion the fall of the pandemic by spending money.  Now that money is “in the market”, and driving prices up.  There are even stronger reasons why the Russian sanctions could raise prices.  But, like the Carter Administration in 1980, the President (and party in office) during serious inflation will take the blame, regardless of who is at fault.  Joe Biden and the Democrats didn’t cause inflation, but Republicans will do all they can to hang it around his neck.

That may be the ultimate wedge.

Garland’s Dilemma

Insurrection

Attorney General Merrick Garland has a dilemma.  For many Americans, the events that transpired from election day on November 3rd 2020 through the January 6th 2021 Insurrection at the Capitol, are some of the darkest moments in US History.  But for many other Americans, those same events are seen in the exact opposite light.  They are convinced that the election was stolen, and they see those who fought to reject the results as heroic.

Not all of the 72 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump believe the election was stolen by Democrats.  Recent polling suggests that about thirty percent of all Americans think “Stop the Steal” was real (Politifact).  A quick “crunch” shows that around 40 million, more than half of the Trump voters,  think the election was stolen.

The Attorney General’s decision to pursue criminal charges should not be impacted by public polling.  What Americans believe should be irrelevant to the law, or decisions about enforcement. But Merrick Garland is no “blind justice” statue, balancing the scales of criminality without regard.  He is well aware: no matter what he does, indict Trump and his team members or not, a huge proportion of Americans are going to be outraged.  

Criminality

Last week, a Federal Judge in California ruled that Trump lawyer John Eastman could not use the “attorney-client confidentiality” privilege to withhold evidence of his interactions with  then-President Trump.  Judge David O. Carter ruled that the “crime/fraud” exception to confidentiality applied . He found that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that Donald Trump committed felony obstruction of Congress and conspired to defraud the United States (NYT).   

Congressman Mo Brooks stated that Trump was still attempting to overturn the election as late as September of 2021.  Ample evidence of disrupting the election process was also revealed by the January 6th Committee of the House of Representatives. Messages displayed the out-sized role that Senator Ted Cruz played.  Even Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, was actively involved in the planning.

The pressure is growing on the Attorney General to act.

Precedence

But there is a lot of momentum against indicting a former President.  First, never has the winner of the White House brought charges against the loser.  There is a “banana Republic” aspect to that:  the winner enters the Presidential Palace and the loser is soon in jail. That happens in the Caribbean and South and Central American countries.  It’s not “done” in the United States, no matter the possible transgressions.

And second, there is a tradition of protecting Presidential actions and privileges by the Department. That’s not surprising, the Department of Justice is part of the executive branch, and ultimately answers to the President.  The famous “memo” from Watergate days states that a serving President cannot even be indicted.  Perhaps the greatest example is when President Gerald Ford granted a blanket pardon to his predecessor, Richard Nixon, for any crimes he may have committed as President.  That decision generated a lot of outrage at the time, but in retrospect is seen as “good”, moving the country beyond Watergate.

Recent History

In fact, the most recent episode of “historic immunity” is part of the direct experience of the current Department of Justice leaders.  When Barack Obama took office in 2009, there was a lot of discussion about holding the Bush Administration accountable for the illegal rendition and torture of accused terrorists after the attacks on 9-11.  The Bush Justice Department itself issued an advisory approving “enhanced interrogation techniques”, torture by any other name, including waterboarding and prolonged nudity and “stress” positions.  

President Obama soon shot down attempts to hold the former executive legally responsible, but re-wrote the rules to prohibit further actions.  That “precedent” is deeply ingrained in today’s decision makers.

Balance the Scale

On the other hand, there are even more Americans who see a failure to prosecute the Trump leadership as dangerous.  In their view, the rules have NOT been rewritten.  Nothing has changed to protect the electoral process.  In fact, many states have written laws making it even more difficult to vote. They are “fixing” an election security problem that never existed in the first place.  

If the illegal actions of 2020 and 2021 remain unpunished,  they feel it encourages the same folks to try it again, even “better” in 2024. It’s not about the past, but what is being planned for the future.  Donald Trump himself continues to press the “Stop the Steal” story.  And belief that the election was stolen has become a litmus test for current Republicans seeking nomination for future office.

When President Biden appointed Federal Appellate Court Judge Merrick Garland to be Attorney General, his primary goal was to “de-politicize” the Department of Justice.  The Trump Attorney Generals, Sessions, Whittaker, and Barr; all bowed to the whims of the White House.  Barr blatantly pardoned Trump’s friends and prosecuted his enemies.  Not since the Nixon-Watergate era, had the President’s thumb been so heavily placed on the scale of justice.  

And everything about Trump and “Stop the Steal” is political, exactly where Merrick Garland does not want to go.  So it should be no surprise that he seems more than reluctant to enter the fray.

Justice and justice

But justice does need to be served.  In the Nixon pardon, it was clear to the vast majority of the nation that Nixon had “done wrong”, and was getting away with it.  But the vast majority also wanted to get past the two years of “all Watergate, all the time”.  The corruption, and the cure, were clear, whether Richard Nixon himself ever stood before the Bar or not.

The same cannot be said about Trump.  The era of “Stop the Steal” didn’t end on election night in November. Nor did it end on the Capitol steps in January.  In many ways, “Stop the Steal” is stronger now, with more widespread political support, than it had eighteen months ago.  Only Justice, and justice, can balance the scale and protect the American democracy.

Track Weather

It’s been a few weeks of “serious” essays on Sunday. But today, it’s back to the on going “Sunday Story” series.

Ohio

It’s March in Ohio.  Today we started the morning at twenty degrees.  Tomorrow we will end the day in the seventies.  What else is there to say?  I was a track athlete for six years, and a track coach for forty.  Even now in my “old age”, I’m still out on the track as a track official. (The scary part of that is I’m one of the “younger” officials!). 

So I still check the daily forecast, to see what is ahead for my day, or evening, out on the track.  Here’s some stories about Track and Field, Ohio, and the weather.

Princeton Relays

I ran for Wyoming High School in the north suburbs of Cincinnati, and one of the “huge” meets of the year was the Princeton Relays at nearby Princeton High School.  Wyoming was a smaller sized school, but at Princeton we were up against the biggest schools in the state.  So our little sprint squad was excited to get the chance to go against the best.

Excited, that is, until we woke up on that Saturday morning, scraped the ice off of our cars, and drove to catch the frozen bus in front of the school.  Just like this morning, it was in the twenties, but back in the 1970’s track meets were never cancelled except for lightning (and sometimes not even then).  So we went to the crowded Princeton campus, where dozens of teams were in little huddled refugee groups trying to keep warm.

The Wyoming sprint squad were no fools – we hid out in the heated restroom while we waited for our chance to hit the track.  Back then, there were no “high-tech” running tights or shirts to  maintain warmth.  We were track athletes in our track uniforms; thin blue nylon jerseys with a diagonal white stripe with “Wyoming” on it.  And thin-thin blue shorts, hitting somewhere around the upper thigh, barely covering what needed to be covered; though it was so cold it really didn’t matter.  

Frozen Radiator

I remember standing on the backstretch, the second man on the 880 relay, when I realized that my ¼ inch track spikes weren’t penetrating the “all-weather” track surface. It felt more like concrete than an expensive rubber-asphalt blend.  It was frozen, and so was I, and there seemed to be no way to warm-up enough to even find a normal stride length.  But that didn’t stop the gun from going off, or our lead-off runner from flying down the backstretch. 

I did my job, moving the baton around the turn and passing guys up the front stretch to deliver to our third man.  It was a solid exchange, keeping up our velocity, and he sped off around the curve.  We held our own against the “big guys”, not winning, but placing in the top six in the state-class meet.  Then it was back into the restroom to wait for the 440 relay. 

How cold was it?  When we got back to Wyoming High School, my car radiator was frozen. 

Return to Princeton 

When I was coaching in the 1980’s I took my Watkins High School teams back down to Princeton for a few years.  Watkins was a little bigger than Wyoming, but we still were up against “the big boys” when we showed up as unknowns at Princeton High School.  The first year we went, we won the slow heat of every sprint race, placing overall in the top three, but never getting to challenge the “big guys” in the fast heat.  The legendary coach of Cleveland John Adams, Claude Holland, found me on the backstretch towards the end of the meet, and gave me a word of advice.  “Coach, you’ve got a great little team, but you’ve got to learn to lie better!”  

He was right.  We were in the “slow” heats because I entered our relays in the times we had run, not what we “hoped” to do.  But since all of the other coaches were “enhancing” their entry times, we got left in the slow heats, unable to directly compete against the best.  I learned my lesson, thanks to Coach Holland, and realized that if you wanted to compete, you had to be part of the “liars’ club”. 

Road Trip

Our last year at Princeton was a “road trip”.  I took twenty-six kids, and put them all in my parents’ house in Wyoming the night before.  It was a giant sleepover, with kids sprawled out all over the recreation room floor (the seniors got the beds upstairs).  And the next morning we all got up for a light breakfast, and found four inches of snow on the ground.

We drove over to Princeton, and the competing school coaches walked around the track.  There weren’t lanes, or even a distinction between the track and the field – just snow.  One of us used that famous track line, “…sometimes we run in this, sometimes we don’t”, but the forecast was for several more inches, and we decided it was best to let this meet go.

I was still a young coach, and my next move was a bad decision.  We had twenty-six kids, now disappointed about the cancelled meet, but definitely all starving.  Bob Evans Restaurant was just down the street, so we decided to get breakfast before we started back up the road to home.

It snowed three more inches during the meal.  The two hour trip home took six, with almost zero visibility on I-71.  When we finally made it back to Watkins, we had to push the kids cars out of a foot of snow in the parking lot.  We were lucky to make it home, safely.  

That was Saturday.  Sunday, it started to warm up, and I was out shoveling the runways at the track.  We had a dual meet against nearby Granville on Tuesday. By then it was in the sixties. Welcome to Track in Ohio.

The Sunday Story Series

Zelenskyy’s Choice

Stalemate

Russian President Vladimir Putin hasn’t said a word.  But his Deputy Defense Minister re-wrote the history of their ill-conceived invasion of Ukraine.  He claimed that the Russian attacks were simply to preserve the “independent” sovereignty of the eastern Ukrainian Donbas region, allowing them to break away.  It’s not where this invasion started, but it is a “fig-leaf” to cover the naked aggression of Putin, and more importantly, the abject failure of the “mighty” Russian Army to defeat the Ukrainians.  

So the Ukraine War has reached a bloody stalemate.  Russia is unable to capture Kyiv, or Kharkiv, or even Mariupol.  Their encircling movements are stymied by Ukrainian forces, and by Ukrainian civilians who simply won’t quit.  But those same civilians are bearing the brunt of the attack now.  Since the Russians can’t take the cities, they are sitting back and blowing the Hell out of them.  Stores, apartment blocks, neighborhoods, theatres, schools and hospitals are all “fair game” for the Russian artillery, missiles, and bombs.   

Negotiations

Ukrainian and Russian representatives are sitting across the table from each other in Istanbul.  President Erdogan of Turkey is hosting the talks, aimed at reaching some sort of agreement to end the bloodshed.  But there’s nothing collegial about the discussions.  The Russians and Ukrainians won’t shake hands, and the Ukrainians have been warned not to eat or drink or even touch the tables.  The fear of Russian poisoning is that strong.

And there’s a real possibility that the negotiations are just another Putin “fig leaf”, covering a needed regrouping and resupply of Russian columns.  Give it a few weeks, and a reinvigorated Russian Army may once again begin marching towards the city centers.  Maneuvering heavy equipment in the verdant fields of Ukraine in the spring mud has trapped too many armies of the past.  Time may be on Russia’s side.

 The Ukrainians are well aware of that possibility.  They too are regrouping and resupplying, trying to get as much military materiel from the NATO nations as possible in preparation for a second Russian offensive, especially as spring ends and the fields dry out.  

What Deal

Frankly, the less likely scenario is that the Russians are really at the table to negotiate, and that the Deputy Defense Minister is actually speaking for Vladimir Putin himself. But it’s possible. Perhaps Putin is looking for the “exit ramp” from his “adventure” in Ukraine, a way to staunch the Russian bleeding and death.  And more significantly for Putin, a way to maintain the sale of Russian natural gas and oil products to Europe, the last financial lifeline left for the Russian economy.

But if Russia is really looking to end the war, what would they be willing to take to declare victory and get out?  And just as importantly, after the amazing and gallant defense of his country, what is President Zelenskyy of Ukraine will to give?

The loss of Ukrainian provinces in the Donbas region, and the Russian “unification” of the Black Sea coastline (they already control most of it); with a Ukrainian promise not to join NATO, is likely the Russian “starting” position.  Essentially, it says to Zelenskyy:  give Russians what they already have, and promise not to make an alliance to defend yourself from them again.  Then the Russian forces will withdraw from the other parts of Ukraine.

What Ukraine Earned

It’s not a good result from an amazing Ukrainian defense.  But the internal pressure on President Zelenskyy must be intense.  Millions of Ukrainian citizens have fled the country.  Millions more are in the crosshairs of Russian weaponry.  More than a hundred thousand are trapped in Mariupol, starving in the basements and bomb shelters, with no way out of the destruction.  

So maybe Zelenskyy responds with an agreement not to join NATO, but retaining the ability to sign mutual defense pacts with the United States or Germany.  Ukraine may seek the economic protection of the European Union rather than the military defense of NATO.  And maybe there’s some arrangement for “autonomy” of the Donbas, short of independence.  Perhaps even some Russian reparations for the damage done in the cities.  After all, the Russian ruble is hardly worth the paper it’s printed on, there’s plenty to give away.

It’s not likely that any of this is important.  Odds are, Putin is simply buying some time to regroup.  His political position may depend on total victory in Ukraine, regardless of the cost in Russian blood and treasure.  But, if Putin is looking for the “off ramp”, it is really Zelenskyy’s choice what happens next.

Essays on the War in Ukraine

Out-Sourcing the Law

The Law

Our governments make laws.  It is a core function; making rules for how our society works.  My city of Pataskala just raised the speed limit on a Mink Street from 35 MPH to 45MPH (it’s about time).  The ordinance was passed, and the signs will be changed. Our local police department will enforce the new limits, just like they enforced the old ones.

Some laws, like the higher speed limit, are common sense.  There’s only a couple of houses in the area, otherwise it’s a “country road”.   Others are more politically contentious. Ohio just passed a law allowing any citizen (not under felony restriction) to carry a concealed weapon.  No license, no classes: head to the gun store (or Vance Outdoors) and plunk down your cash. Once you pass the instant background check, you’re “packing” a gun.  And if you do something illegal with that gun, the police and the courts will enforce those laws.

Enforcement

But there is a new legislative trend in the United States, that deals with some of the most fractious issues of our times.  The legislature passes a law, just like every other that regulates our behavior.  But rather than the government enforcing the law through police or civil fines, the enforcement is “outsourced”.  Instead of making violation a misdemeanor or felony, punishable by community control or fines or prison; these laws put the “violator” at risk for civil suit for any other citizen.  

So instead of facing a court to dispense criminal justice; some other citizen, who might not have any direct relation to what you did, is empowered to sue. An action violates the law; it is prima facie evidence of “guilt”.  The penalty is to lose the suit and pay “compensation” in the form of civil penalty and court fees; a cash amount, to the winner.

In this way the “state”, can pass a law and not be responsible for enforcing it.   The other “citizens” of the state, and even of other states, become the “enforcers” and the civil courts become the venue for dispensing punishment.  

Controversy without Consequences

Frankly, most of the laws using this novel concept of enforcement are coming from the conservative right.  The most familiar: the Texas law limiting abortions to six weeks, and the new Florida law banning any discussion of gender issues in primary classes.  But there are proposals in California to ban assault weapons using the same enforcement process, so it’s not all “one side” or the other.  

Today’s essay isn’t about the “Don’t Say Gay” law or why assault weapons should be banned.  It’s the process of enforcing these laws that gives me serious concerns.

Vigilante Justice

This concept creates a whole new level of vigilantism. It’s a governing state like the Soviet Union of old, when neighbors spied on their neighbors to find failures to live up to Communist ideals. And it begs for “organizations” to come in and profit by becoming the “enforcement agency”. Private businesses with the bankroll to file multiple suits, can sue and collect the “fees” from transgressors.  

It’s kind of like the companies that contract for red light camera enforcement.  They put up the cameras, they watch the videos, they send the tickets out and they take their cut of the fines.  But at least the tickets still went through the regular traffic court process, where drivers could dispute them.

In these “outsourced” laws, the government essentially washes their hands of the matter.  It becomes an issue for the civil courts, like a property dispute in the neighborhood.

Dodging the Fed

Some of the attraction for “civilian enforcement” is that it is more difficult for the Federal Courts to rule on their Constitutionality.   When “the government” enforces a law that violates a Constitutional right, there is a direct cause of action in the Federal Courts.  For example, when Ohio passed a “heartbeat bill” restricting abortions to before a fetal heartbeat could be detected, the Federal Courts immediately prevented enforcement.  But these “outsourced” laws are more difficult to bring to the Federal bar, since the state government is not involved in  “enforcement”.

There are other similar situations in the law today.  There is a group out of Wisconsin, the “Freedom from Religion Foundation”, that acts as an “enforcer” towards public schools that cross the First Amendment “religious line”.  A typical case, is one where the school allows the Ten Commandments to be displayed in the lobby of the high school, or where school authorities lead a prayer before graduation.  But there are a couple of critical differences between these “enforcement” activities, and “outsourced” laws.

First of all, the “Freedom from Religion Foundation” has to have a “client” with the legal standing to sue in that particular school district.  And, rather than sue for money, these suits are usually for “specific performance”: the school takes down the display or skips the prayer before the ceremony.  

Everyone has Standing

But the “outsourced” laws give EVERYONE standing to file suit.  A woman has an abortion after six weeks in Texas, everyone in the country has the “right” to sue.  A second grade teacher tries to explain why Bobby has a Mommy and Daddy, and Johnny has a Mommy and Mommy, and we all have “standing” in Florida court.  

It creates an “unlimited class” of folks with standing to sue, and a slam-dunk case to win.  It becomes “profitable” to become these “law enforcers”.  

It’s not what the American legal system is about.  Pitting citizen against citizen to do the job that the legislature is afraid to do (or to avoid Federal oversight) is just wrong.  It really doesn’t matter what issue were discussing, or which side you take.  If Florida really believes it should keep the teacher from talking to primary kids about “gender”, then the Florida legislature and Governor should enforce it themselves.  The same with Texas and abortions, and California and assault weapons.

We pass the buck enough.

The Gaffe

Biden’s Mouth

Joe Biden – he’s  legendary.  He’s been “gaffing”, saying surprising and sometimes extraordinary things in the middle of more “mundane” moments, for decades.  Up until this week, the most famous Biden gaffe was the “hot mic” whisper to then President Barack Obama at the passage of the Affordable Care Act: “This is a big f**king deal!!”.  And there’s even a “top ten” list of Biden’s gaffes, going back to 1987 (Time).

Some critics claim that it’s now some kind of dementia, a loss of control in the near-eighty year old man.  But the reality is, if this is dementia, then he’s been demented for the last half-century.  And supporters recognize that Biden has struggled with a stuttering disability throughout his life, and sometimes in that struggle – things slip out.  Maybe they’re right about “slips”, or maybe the gaffes are just a reflection of his inner thoughts.  

Truth Speaks

I think Biden is of sound mind, and knows full well what he’s saying.  He uses his “gaffes” to say the things he’s “not supposed to say”.  The Affordable Care Act was a “big f**king deal”.  So this weekend in a dramatic speech in Warsaw, the President laid out the case for world democracies to stand up to Russia.  He talked about the fate of the refugees now leaving Ukraine, and the terrible destruction of cities and civilians throughout that nation.  And Biden ended by saying about Vladimir Putin, “…for God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power”.  

You could feel the oxygen get sucked out of  seventh floor of the US State Department headquarters in Foggy Bottom.  The President of the United States violated one of the premier rules of diplomacy:  never call for “regime change”.  And there are good reasons for that.  Once you say the “King must die”, then it’s going to be even harder to negotiate a peace with that “King” later on.  It’s the reason we didn’t bomb the Japanese Emperor’s Palace in World War II.  If we killed the Emperor, who would have the authority to surrender to us?  

Return to Normalcy

And the world (outside of Ukraine) looks to an end to the conflict, and a return to normalcy when Russia is among the “civilized” nations of the world.  Besides, Russian natural gas is a big part of the European economy.  How can we get back to normal if the leader of the free world, the President of the United States, calls for the removal of the Russian leader, Vladimir Putin?

The question Joe Biden poses is a simple one.  When a world leader starts a war of conquest that has sent ten million people from their homes, destroyed cities, and ultimately will cause the deaths of a hundred thousand people or more; how do we go “back to normal”?  What price is going to be paid for the war crimes of the Russian invasion, by the man who is directly responsible for those acts? 

Even if Putin  withdrew his tanks and stopped his bombings today, does the world go “back to normal” tomorrow?  I hope not, and I hope that world doesn’t think so either.  Joe Biden is speaking for us all when he says – “…this man cannot remain in power”.  

Consequences

This doesn’t mean we are sending a cruise missile to destroy the Kremlin.  And it doesn’t mean that the US President is calling for revolution in Russia.  But is does point out the obvious:  the world changed when the tanks went across the Ukrainian border and the first cruise missiles struck the Baba Yar Memorial in downtown Kyiv.  Being the leader of a major world power like Russia requires responsibility, and the actions that leader takes have consequences.  If the Russian people can’t hold Putin to account for those actions, then the rest of the world must.

We are already doing so.  The sanctions have wrecked the Russian economy.  The ruble was worth more than $.20 a few months ago, today it is worth less than a penny.  In the next several months, the last financial lifeline, the natural gas lines from Russia into Europe, will be replaced from US sources.  All of Russia will suffer for the singular decisions made by their authoritarian leader.

Responsibility

President Biden, in his Warsaw “gaffe”, has put the responsibility directly where it belongs.  Vladimir Putin directed this invasion, and bears complete responsibility for the results.  If he is not held personally liable, then, in the end, the world somehow white washes the destruction and the death.  

Biden spoke for every common man in the civilized world when he said that Putin cannot remain in power.  He told Putin that he cannot use the veneer of “diplomatic immunity” to commit war crimes.  And, in that brief phrase, he told the world that we cannot “go back to normal” just because the shooting stops in Ukraine.

And that’s no mistake, no gaffe.  It’s a big deal.

Ukraine Crisis

Putin’s Choice

Changing Strategy

The Associated Press reported this morning that Russia “may” change strategy in Ukraine. The month long invasion is stalled: the divisions surrounding Kyiv seem unable to close in on the city and are actually being pushed back from the northwestern suburbs. And while Russian long-range artillery, missiles and air attacks are still laying waste to civilian targets, killing thousands; Ukraine shows no signs of surrender. Even the hundred thousand starving in Mariupol refuse to give up.

The AP speculation comes from the Russian Defense Minister who changed “the message” from Moscow. Instead of “de-Nazifying” all of Ukraine, all of a sudden he speaks of “consolidating” the Eastern Provinces of Donbas as “independent” of Ukraine and continuing to control the critical naval bases in Crimea. In short, Russia is talking about keeping what they already had, before the tanks rolled across the borders and the missiles attacked civilian targets.

But one man speaking from Moscow is NOT a change in strategy, unless that one man is Vladimir Putin. So there’s nothing certain for Russian forces in Ukraine. What is certain: Ukrainian resistance has embarrassed the “second greatest” power in the world. They did not retreat, they did not fold, and the Russian Army is faced with many thousands of soldiers killed and wounded, for little gained.

Russian History

Those facts are not lost on Putin.  He has only to look back sixty years into Russian history to foresee his future.  In 1962, the Premier of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev, determined to counter US nuclear weapons in Turkey by placing Soviet missiles in Cuba.  The technical reason was a request for mutual defense from the Cuban government.  Cuban leader Fidel Castro was fresh off a US sponsored invasion at the Bay of Pigs, an attack that failed miserably and left the new Kennedy Administration looking incompetent and weak. 

Khrushchev followed up with massive military aid to Cuba, and secret development of missile launch sites on the Island.  American U-2 spy planes revealed those sites to the Kennedy government, and the young President was faced with a dilemma.  No US President could allow hostile nuclear weapons ninety miles off the coast.  But attacks on the missile sites were guaranteed to cause Soviet casualties, and could trigger a nuclear launch, and World War III.

Missile Crisis

The resulting confrontation is known as the Cuban Missile Crisis.  The world teetered on the brink of nuclear disaster, as US Naval ships and Soviet submarines were head-to-head in the Caribbean.  Premier Khrushchev realized he had “overreached”, and while the ultimate solution included removing the US missiles from Turkey, it was the public removal of the missile bases from Cuba that became the headlines.  The Soviets were defeated and worse, humiliated on the world stage.  Kennedy out-maneuvered the Soviet leader.

Both Kennedy and Khrushchev would be out of power within two years.  Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas in November of 1963.  His assassin had rumored connections to the Cuban government.  Khrushchev was removed from office at gunpoint by the senior Soviet leadership in October of 1964.  There were multiple reasons for the ouster, but his failure in the Cuban Missile Crisis loomed large.  He spent the remaining seven years of his life isolated in a country “dacha”, living on 400 Rubles a month ($1300). 

The Cost of Adventure

Putin is the authoritarian leader of Russia, just as Khrushchev was in 1962.  He led his nation into a military “adventure” in Ukraine that was only going to last a couple weeks.  Now more than a month later, that invasion cost thousands of Russian soldiers lives, the destruction of the Russian economy, and caused the re-vitalization of the NATO alliance against Russia.  At this point, Putin’s “adventure” has weakened Russia in almost every category. It’s become his Cuban Missile Crisis.

It is possible that Putin recognizes the position he is in, and will cut his losses in Ukraine.  But it is just as possible that he will “double-down” on his Ukrainian strategy.  NATO has made the boundaries fairly clear:  no chemical or nuclear weapons, no attacks outside of the boundaries of Ukraine – and NATO will not directly intervene.  And the current humiliation of the Russian military may not be something that Putin can “live” with – both in principle, and perhaps, in reality.  He may not have a political choice to withdraw.

Without a Fight

Is the Defense Minister’s message signaling a crack in Russian leadership?  Or is it just another feint, another layer of propaganda to cover the mass destruction of the civilian population of Ukraine?  And, if it’s a valid proposition, will President Zelenskyy of Ukraine accept the loss of the Donbas and Crimea as a price for peace?

Ukraine is winning against the Russian invasion, even though the price of victory is extremely high. Perhaps they too will “double-down”, and demand that the territories “detached” in 2014 return to Ukrainian control. It’s difficult to imagine that Putin could swallow such a political humiliation, or survive it.

His “dacha”, more of a palace, is located in Novorossiysk, on the Black Sea, just a few hundred miles from the battle lines today.  But it’s hard to see that the former KGB officer would accept involuntary retirement there without a fight.

Essay on the Ukraine Crisis

We Weren’t Looking

This Week

It was a busy week.  Putin’s War in Ukraine got uglier.  The Russian losses on the battlefield were paid for with Ukrainian civilian losses.  We watched cities like Mariupol leveled, blocks of apartments and office buildings literally nothing but rubble.  The Ukrainians continued their demands for more aid and more action from the NATO countries.  They earned the right to be heard with their successes on the ground, and their sacrifices in the cities.  And President Biden weighed how far the United States could go without triggering World War III, or whether, as President Zelenskyy stated, it’s already begun.

Back in Washington, the first Black woman was nominated to a seat in the United States Supreme Court.  The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings with incredibly moving oratory about this moment in history.  But those hearings also demonstrated the depths some are willing to go to further their political careers, and the inherent racism that still exists.  Two steps forward – a Black woman on the Supreme Court.  One step back – the fact that she might have empathy for those who stand before the Court is explained as a failing, and reason why her nomination should be denied.

And finally, the United States lost a great patriot, a woman who stood against the growing Authoritarianism in the world.  Madeleine Albright broke the “glass ceiling” as the first woman to become US Secretary of State under President Clinton, and mentored an entire generation of American Foreign Service diplomats.  Her efforts to maintain democracy will be sorely missed.

So it was easy to miss two important advances in the investigation of the January 6th Insurrection. 

Ongoing Crime

The first was from a major figure in the actual rally that preceded the attack on the Capitol.  Congressman Mo Brooks of Alabama spoke at the rally. “Are you willing to do what it takes to fight for America!” Brooks yelled before telling rally attendees to “carry the message to Capitol Hill” and that “the fight begins today.”  He was so ready for a fight, he himself was wearing body armor.  His Congressional staff was part of the organizers of the January 6th events – ostensibly before the Insurrection itself.

Brooks did everything he could to overturn the 2020 results in the months after the election, and keep Trump in office.  Trump “returned the favor” by withdrawing his endorsement Brooks for the Senate seat from Alabama last week.  Brooks’ entire campaign was based around his MAGA connections and the Trump endorsement, so the flip-flop was a body blow.  

Brooks revealed why the endorsement was withdrawn.  In September of 2021, nine months after the inauguration of Joe Biden, Trump asked Brooks to have Congress “…overturn the (2020) election results and re-install Trump as President”.  Brooks told Trump there is no Constitutional method of doing that, once the Electoral votes were certified – but Trump demanded it anyway.  It was the cost of his endorsement.

The “bottom line” of this story:  Trump continues to try to overthrow the elected President of the United States.  It didn’t end on January 6th, or 20th – that sedition continues today.

The Justice’s Wife

Ginni Thomas has been a conservative activist for a quarter-century.  In the months after the 2020 election, she was active in the movement to overturn the election results.  She sent dozens of text messages to Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, suggesting ways to continue the “battle” to maintain Trump in office.  Thomas completely “bought in” to the “Stop the Steal” theories put forth by Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell.  She was constantly sending advice and support to Meadows, declaring that Meadows should “…do anything to overturn the election”.  

Her husband is the Senior Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas.  In spite of his wife’s deep involvement in the events of January 6th (she was in attendance at the rally, though she says she did not go to the Capitol), Thomas was the sole dissenting vote on the January 6th Committee’s attempt to get documents for their investigation.  There are no set rules requiring Justices of the Supreme Court to recuse themselves from cases where they have personal involvement, each Justice decides for themselves.  But it would seem that Ginni Thomas’s intimate participation would require him to withdraw.  He did not.

Not only does this raise questions about Justice Thomas’s ethic, but it also demonstrates how deeply the “Stop the Steal” movement was inculcated in the Republican and conservative leadership.  The January 6th Committee is preparing for public hearings, to lay out the evidence they have found of the planning and execution of the Insurrection.  It will be difficult to find a time when the events of the world won’t overwhelm their message.  

But we still need to listen.  For some, the Insurrection isn’t over.

Dear Judge Jackson:

Congratulations on your nomination to become a Justice of the United States Supreme Court.  There is no higher honor our nation can bestow on an attorney and judge.  And there is no one more deserving of that honor than you.  I cannot say it better than Senator Booker did yesterday; you have earned this appointment in every single way. (Readers:  if you want to be uplifted – take the time to watch Senator Booker’s statement to Judge Jackson). I am so proud that I live in a nation that in my lifetime has come so far, from Jim Crow Laws to the nomination of a Black woman to the Supreme Court.  We are, in Madison’s words, becoming “more perfect”. 

And I guess it should come as no surprise that that “perfecting” process generates opposition and even hate. We saw it in sports, from Jesse Owens to Jackie Robinson, Mohammad Ali to Hank Aaron. As each changed the world for the better, they were confronted by hate along the way.  They were transformative figures in American history.  So are you.

What really bothers me though, is the “jack-assery”, as Republican Senator Ben Sasse put it.  There are several Senators who have tried to make your nomination hearing a stage for their political future, or use it for retribution for perceived “wrongs” of the Trump years.  In doing so they had to search for some “flaws” to attack.  They tried to make it sound like you don’t “care” about child pornography, as if they were against it but you were somehow in favor.  Of course, that’s not true. You handled their blatant grandstanding with poise and grace and patience beyond belief. 

I don’t speak for the “American people”, I just speak for this one citizen.  But as a citizen of the United States, I apologize.  What should be a legitimate exploration of legal views, became a spectacle for political gain. I am embarrassed for our country that you (and we) were put through that “jack-assery”.  And even in that, I am also so proud of your courage to sit through it all.  A lesser person would have “taken the bait” and tried to lash back.

I’m sure you look forward to the end of the hearing process.  I am excited to see your hand raised, swearing once again to “…support and defend the Constitution”, and to “…administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and rich…”.  And even more, I look forward to seeing your work on the Court, in the majority and minority.  Your opinions will add a whole new texture to the American legal process.

Recently there have been times when it was easy to not love America.  But you:  your career, your legal acumen, and your potential to add to our Nation’s History; reaffirms our reason to love America.  Thank you for your service, and congratulations again.

Day One

Senators Hard On Kiddy Porn

Listen, child pornography is bad.  It’s hard to imagine there’s a “political issue” about children used in pornography. There is no “affirmative” side.  But then there’s Josh Hawley, Senator from Missouri with Stanford undergraduate and Yale Law degrees. He seems to think that he’s on “one side”, and Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson (Harvard undergraduate and Law) is on the other.  

This isn’t an issue.  Judge Jackson is as opposed to child pornography as Hawley. But the Senator thinks he can “catch” the Judge as “soft on kiddy porn”.   His case in point, an eighteen year old high school kid who collected enormous amounts of child pornography on his computer.   Judge Jackson sentenced him to three months in Federal Prison (as an eighteen year old), then decades of community controls and sanctions.  But Senator Hawley thinks she went too easy on him, and is trying to score political points.

Hawley isn’t the only one stuck on child pornography.  Senators Cotton and Cruz are also “concerned” about where the future Justice stands.  And while her record shows, that she is as abhorrent of children being used for pornography as anyone, it’s not going to be enough.

Why?

Paybacks and the Presidency

Because it’s the only “wedge” these Republicans can find to try to attack her nomination.  And attack they must.  They have to prove to the future Republican voters of the 2024 Presidential election that they are on the “right” (get it?) side.  And they, along with their comrades-in-hurt Lindsey Graham and Chuck Grassley, want “payback”.  Payback for Democrats fighting tooth-and-nail against Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, the last two Trump appointees. 

Child pornography is a legal issue, and Judge Jackson’s long record is “fair game”, I guess.  But Lindsey Graham demanding that Judge Jackson rate her Christianity on a “scale of 1 to 10”. That would get any “normal” job interview thrown right to the Human Relations department.  Graham doesn’t really care about Jackson’s faith.  He is getting his “payback” for the Amy Coney Barrett hearings. That’s when questions arose about her adherence to a particularly extreme Christian religious sect – far different than Jackson’s “mainstream” Christianity.  But Graham too must score his “points”.  

The Winner

So who was the winner of the Jackson’s first day (and night) of nomination hearings?  Judge Jackson, the legal scholar who will become the first Black woman on the Supreme Court.  She parried with the Senators, carefully keeping her cool even when questioned about whether a school where she serves on the board teaches that babies are born “biased”.  Senator Cruz made sure that the other Republican “wedge” – the erroneously named “Critical Race Theory” issue – was placed in front of the first Black woman to be nominated for the Court.

Ketanji Brown Jackson echoes Jackie Robinson, the first Black man to play in major league baseball.  When the Brooklyn Dodgers brought Robinson “up” to the team, it wasn’t just because of his skills on the ballfield. Robinson, a UCLA grad (with varsity letters in four sports) and 2nd Lieutenant in the World War II US Army, was able to keep his cool in spite of the ongoing racial slurs and discrimination from the other teams and the grandstand.  In the same way, the underlying racism of some of the Republican questioners hasn’t cracked Judge Jackson’s demeanor, even after almost twelve hours of questioning.  Both showed grace under pressure.

A Reason to Celebrate

Barring some incredibly damaging revelation, or, Joe Manchin losing his mind, Ketanji Brown Jackson will become the first Black woman on the US Supreme Court.  Her arrival won’t change the balance of the Court. The six conservative Justices are in full control of the Court’s decision making.  But she will bring a unique perspective to the conference, as a woman, a Black person, but most importantly as a brilliant legal scholar. She is one of the best, bar none, in the nation.  

Republican and Democratic Senators can argue who “politicized” the nomination process.  Republicans go back as far as the failed Robert Bork nomination in the 1980’s, Democrats look at McConnell’s manipulation of the process in the last years of both President Obama’s and Trump’s administration.  There is no question that there’s enough blame to spread around.

But it’s unfortunate that we cannot celebrate how far the United States has come.  Judge Jackson, is one of the top jurists in the nation, regardless of race or gender.  The United States will be better for her being on the Bench.  And she is proving her judicial “temperament” every additional hour she sits at the witness table.

Book of Common Truth

High Episcopal

I was raised an Episcopalian, but it was not a “generations” family tradition.  Mom was raised in England in the Roman Catholic Church,  Dad was raised in Cincinnati in the Jewish Reformed Temple.  There was no easy way to “mesh” their backgrounds, but their love for each other overcame all.  Dad didn’t want us raised as Catholics, but wasn’t all that concerned beyond that.  So, after World War II when Mom and Dad moved back to Cincinnati and had kids, Mom decided to turn to the most familiar Church she could find.

The Episcopal Church is the American version of the Anglican Church of England.   A very brief history:  the Anglican Church was created when England’s King Henry the VIII (of the six wives) was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church for divorcing his first wife, Catherine of Aragon.  Henry decided to establish an English version of the Catholic Church with much the same liturgy, led by the Archbishop of Canterbury in England rather than the Pope in Rome.  Henry himself appointed the Archbishop, so that empowered him to “run” his own church.

When America revolted against England, the American version of the Church broke away from English regulation, thus creating the American Episcopal Church.  So while our Episcopal Church in Cincinnati down on Clifton Avenue was two “degrees” from the Roman Catholic Church, much of the symbolism and ceremony was the same.  Mom got us in a Church as close to Catholic as she could find. 

Calvary on Clifton

From the earliest times I can remember, we all dressed up on Sunday morning to go to Calvary Church, sit on the hard wooden pews, and squirm through prayers and speeches.  Mom and Dad often enjoyed Reverend Hansen’s sermons, though my father had the “Dahlman gene” of being able to fall asleep at any place, at any time, in any position.  Elbowing Dad to stop his snoring was part of the “fun” of Church!

And, as I learned later, there were two books on the back of the pew in front of us.  The first was the Hymnal so we could all join in for the songs.  And the second was the “Book of Common Prayer”.   When Henry the VIII broke away from Roman Catholicism, one of the first changes was to allow “regular folks” access to prayers, in English, instead of the Priests praying in Latin.  So the “commoners” got a book of prayers they could use in services.  That book has been used and revised ever since, with the Episcopal Church in America ratifying their own, similar version.

Whether you are sitting in Calvary Church in Cincinnati, Canterbury Cathedral in England,  St. Mary’s Cathedral in South Africa or the Church of the Holy Spirit in Florida; the prayers are virtually the same.  There is a common base of reference, a common set of words and beliefs, that everyone in the Church recognizes and acknowledges.  Unlike the prayers of the Priesthood, these were the prayers for the common man.  I no longer belong to a faith, but when I do happen to go to an Episcopal Church for weddings or funerals, the prayers still ring familiar.  They bring back all those memories of dress pants on wooden pews, smothered giggles and stern warnings; and a faith I failed to find.

Information

We live in a world of information.  What used to only be available to those willing to delve into the “stacks” of academic libraries, now is right in your own home, just a few strokes of a keyboard away.  The outdated “priesthood” of academics with special knowledge of history, now is accessible to everyone, in every home, at any time.  That should generally be a good thing.  My parents paid a stiff “fee” for my access to the “stacks” at the Denison University library.  Knowledge should be as available as possible, not hidden behind a tuition “paywall”.  

There is a phrase:  “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”.  But with the immense flow of information available today, there might need to be a corollary phrase: “Too much knowledge without understanding can be a dangerous thing as well”.  We have “fire hoses” of information coming at us, all the time:  on our phones, on our computers, on our televisions.  It seems that there’s so much information, that  only the loudest and most extreme views stand out.

We have no common way of moderating the “fire hose”.  We have lost our “common book of knowledge”.  America, and maybe the whole world, no longer has a common set of facts we can agree on. 

It’s not that the “facts” themselves have changed that much.  Anyone who studied history gained an understanding that there were always flaws in everyone, whether it was George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln or Booker T Washington or John F. Kennedy (or even my hero, Dr. Fauci).  The difference today is that the “bad” of each of those figures is presented as “cancelling out” the good.  If every good is cancelled out, then where is the “common understanding” we need to be a “congregation”, a nation.

Teaching History

When I taught history, it was always important to be honest with my students.  I presented the flaws of our predecessors, but all as a part of the reality of their humanity.  The “American common story”, was that out of their flawed lives, they produced amazing results that furthered our country.  No one was perfect then, and no one is now either.  As the teacher, I served as the “moderator”.

Today there are those who “discovered” the flaws in our history and say it negates all of the good.  And there are those who are so afraid of those flaws, that the don’t want our story “moderated”, they want it sanitized, without flaws at all. Neither of those choices are good for students, or for America.  What we need is a common understanding of the good and the bad, the personal failures and the national triumphs.  

We need a “common book of truth” that includes all.

Far From the Front

Today in History

It is the 20th Day of the Third Month of the 22nd Year of the 21st Century.  I always have to think carefully about that:  the very first century was the “0” century, but it still counts.  And the “00” year (2000) is technically the end of the last century, not the beginning of the new one (though we celebrated like it wasn’t 1999!!).   It just like a ten-year-old isn’t considered a “pre-teen”, but an eleven year old is.  So it is the 22nd year, but it’s actually one more century then Twenty.  Glad I got all that off of my chest.

A Wireless World

Folks born when I was, 1956 and thereabouts, thought the world would be totally different by now.  It’s not “The Jetsons” scenario, flying cars and robot housekeepers, but we really did think it would be altered more than it is.  Yes, I am typing now on a Macbook Pro that has more power than the computers that launched the Apollo Moon Missions, and carry another powerful computer with instant worldwide access in my pocket, my IPhone. 

 And I spent Saturday morning battling with electronic equipment and Spectrum (my internet provider), trying to determine why the multiple wireless devices around our home are running so slow.  Spectrum blamed my home network, I blamed their router. After lots of conversations and no conclusions, all of a sudden everything is back humming along again.  I don’t think it was my futzing with the plugs, Spectrum did something that unblocked whatever was clogged.

But the scenes on the television (sure it’s 55” and 4HD and doesn’t take fifteen minutes to warmup) are closer to the images my parents’ generation saw.  The Russian war machine is slowing chewing through Ukraine, killing civilians not as “collateral damage”, but as targeted punishment to try to force the Ukrainian Government to beg for mercy.  All our modern technology has given us the “insider view” of war, down to the bombs falling on the children’s hospital.  

History Rhyming Again

We are watching Manchuria in 1932 or Poland In 1939.  Regular people, just like you and me, with kids and pets and yards they took care of, are being swallowed up as “spoils” of war.  Three weeks ago they were watching the same internet sites, playing the same video games.  There was an interview with a young woman, who, like my son, is a DJ; developing and playing her own music in clubs.  She literally had to give it all up, not just the DJ-ing (obviously not a lot of night-life in a war zone) but the music.  No good listening to the music on her earpods – she might miss the air raid warning of the next bombing.

There are over a thousand women and children buried under a bombed out theatre in Mariupol.  The building was targeted, despite the word “CHILDREN” painted large in the parking lot.  It’s like the words made it a “higher value” prize for the Russian bombers.  It’s in the middle of a warzone, and still local firefighters and others are trying to pry folks out; but it doesn’t sound promising.

Forty years ago when I thought about the 2020’s, I didn’t think about the rise of Authoritarianism both here in the United States and overseas.  I didn’t think that dictators would again try to build empires and wreak savage conflict on civilians, children; just to fulfill some long forgotten dream of their “racial” place in history.  That wasn’t what the future was supposed to look like.

Prophecy 

Oddly, much of the science fiction I read as a teenager actually did prophesize one more world cataclysm, somewhere towards the turn of the 20th century.  Even in the show Star Trek there were the “Eugenics Wars”, that ended in a world industrial collapse, recovered by the invention of the “Warp Drive” engine to introduce humanity to deep space.  In other books there was a final brush with nuclear annihilation.  I always read those as fatalistic, that mankind hadn’t learned the lessons of World Wars the First or Second time.  Now, looking at Ukraine, maybe those guys were right.

I had a front yard conversation with our neighbor the other day.  He asked an interesting question:  what are WE doing to prepare for war?  I was a little taken aback, I don’t anticipate Russian T-57 Battle Tanks coming up Broad Street to take control of Dairy Hut and McDonalds.  But that’s not what he meant.  

All our life is connected through that same internet I was fighting with this morning.  There’s but a single paper dollar in my wallet.  The water, gas and electric meters aren’t “read” anymore, just a signal picked up by the utility.  Almost every aspect of our life is now controlled through web connections.  It wouldn’t take a physical invasion to disrupt American life, just someone running a computer program in an obscure building in St. Petersburg.  Our “cards” would stop working, our electricity stop flowing.  That would be enough to change everything.

Prepping

He suggested that we be ready to go back to a “cash” society;  maybe stick $1000 in twenties in the fireproof bag hidden in the house.  We should stock up on food supplies, in case the electric doors and check-out lines at the Kroger’s fail.  And maybe we need to make sure there’s an extra can of propane for the grill, an extra five gallons of gas for the generator, in case this conflict goes “cyber”.  After all, the Russian ruble is almost worthless, Russian retaliation against the US dollar might just be in the virtual world we all live in.

Does my neighbor sound a little like a “prepper”, one of those folks who head for the woods with their hunting rifles to take care of themselves when the “apocalypse” arrives?  Sure, and he admits that’s true.  But something to keep in mind.  Did we ever think we would see what’s happening in Ukraine?  Wasn’t that all in grainy black and white films late at night or in some history classroom?  It was something we learned about, but never expected to experience ourselves.

Today it’s real.  Who knows what the next “reality” might become.  I’m no “prepper” either, but there are a few more cans of soup and vegetables in the pantry, some extra gas in the shed.  And maybe there will be more than just one dollar in my wallet for a while. 

Essays on the Ukraine Crisis

The Next Step

David and Goliath

Ukraine is fighting a “David versus Goliath” battle against the second biggest military power in the world – Russia.  What the Russians, and the world, thought would be a surgical dissection of Ukraine, ending in the quick fall of Kyiv and the death or exile of President Zelenskyy, failed to occur.  Instead, the Ukrainians are fighting for every inch, and forcing Russia back into their “old” playbook from Afghanistan and Chechnya and Syria: destroy everything so there is nothing left to defend.

President Zelenskyy is speaking to many of the liberal democracies of the world – live from his office (or bomb shelter) in Kyiv.  He spoke, clad in a khaki t-shirt, to the United Kingdom’s and Canada’s Parliaments, the General Assembly of the European Union and the United Nations, and yesterday, to the Congress of the United States.  In each speech, he has picked a point of that group’s history and compared Ukraine’s battles to their own.  The speeches themselves are important, but what is more significant is that they provide “proof of life”, of Zelenskyy,  of the Ukrainian government, and Ukrainian resistance.

Anaconda Plan

The United States continues to ratchet up economic sanctions against Russia.  The Russian banks can’t participate in the world, the Russian stock market remains closed, even the Russian oligarchs are finding their luxury homes and yachts seized.  But it’s all in-direct action.  We are providing pain try to influence Russian plans.  But that pain is nothing compared to the pain Ukraine is inflicting.  Estimates are that as many as ten thousand Russian troops are dead.  

Ukraine is paying the heaviest price.  Thousands of Ukrainian soldiers are also dead, as well as many thousands of Ukrainian citizens, some caught in the crossfire, but many more intentionally targeted by the Russian military.  That is the new “Russian Strategy”:  we will destroy your cities and your people until you can bear the cost no longer.

The Ukrainian city of Mariupol is being leveled.  400,000 civilians remain in the battle zone.  It’s not a Russian mistake or strategic necessity.  It is the price they are making Ukrainians pay for daring to defend their own country.

The world sanctions against Russia will ultimately destroy their economy.  But it’s a slow process, an “Anaconda” plan of gradually choking out economic life.  Economic sanctions cannot keep pace with the horror occurring on the ground.  The demands by the free citizens of the world are growing; more needs to be done.

What Weapons

The United States is rounding up weaponry from around the world to slip to the Ukrainian military. It’s not simple.  The Ukrainian Army is a mix of “NATO” style and Russian weaponry.  It’s no good to give them weapons they are unable to use.  But the US is directly giving them “simple” high tech weapons, the Switchblade armed drone that looks like a toy but can loiter over a target, and then explode on it like a bomb.  

President Zelenskyy is asking for a NATO “no-fly” zone, clearing the skies of all aircraft over Ukraine.  He believes his army can hold its own, IF, he can control the skies.  But that tactic would cause a direct confrontation between NATO (US) and Russian warfighters, a major step towards World War III.  That final step is still one to avoid.  But Zelenskyy, and the Polish government, has offered an intermediate step that we should do – now.

Ukraine’s No-Fly Zone

Give Zelenskyy the tools to create his own “no-fly zone”.  If the Ukrainians need fighter jets, then we should give them fighter jets.  The Poles have the fighters that Ukraine needs, MiG 29’s and 27’s; fighters that the Ukrainian Air Force knows how to fly.  Poland has already offered those fighters up, but the “deal” was nixed by the strategists in the US Pentagon.  Their fear was that it was a NATO escalation that could trigger a Russian attack into a NATO nation – World War III.

That might have been a good call two weeks ago, but it hasn’t “aged” well.  Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has made it clear that he will use the most egregious tactics against non-combatants in Ukraine.  We, to this point, have given him free rein to do so.  NATO and the US must find a way to raise the stakes again, beyond slow economic strangulation.  

So what does that all mean?  Poland will transfer the fighters to a US base in Germany.  Ukrainian pilots will slip out of Ukraine and accept the planes there.  Here’s the rub:  US forces will arm the planes, loading the missiles and other weapons, for their flight back to Ukrainian airbases.  Without the arms, then the whole exercise is a waste of time, and a death sentence to the Ukrainian planes and pilots.  It is inevitable that Russian air  defense forces will try to interdict the Ukrainian fighters along the way in.

Essentially then, the US base in Germany will be the launch site for forces used against the Russian Air Force.  That’s the Pentagon’s concern – and escalation towards direct conflict.  What if the Russians respond by a missile attack on the US Air Base?  

Putin’s Choice

If Putin intends to start World War III, he’s going to do it.  If his invasion of Ukraine was a “test” to see how far NATO would go in response, he’s got his answer.  The real question is – either he’s a “rational” actor, unwilling to start a World War he cannot win, or he’s not.  If he’s not rational, then World War III is probably inevitable.  If he’s rational, he won’t cross the line of a direct attack on NATO.  Either way, that’s out of our control.

What we can control, is our response to the ultimate sacrifice that Ukrainians are making.  It’s time to take the next step. The world demands it, and Ukraine has earned it.  Send them the MiG’s.

Ukraine Crisis

Dean Ramsey

I lost an old friend the other day.  Dean Ramsey died last week, at the great age of ninety-one years old.  Dean, the son of the Pataskala local hardware store owner,  graduated from Pataskala High School, a few years before it was consolidated into the Southwest Licking Local School and high school kids were sent to Watkins Memorial.  He went on to The Ohio State University to become a landscape architect, then into the Air Force during the Korean War.

Dean came back from his service, and began a career in Kansas City.  But he soon returned to become the first University Landscape Architect of Ohio State, and spent a career there at his alma mater, retiring in 1988 as an Assistant Vice President emeritus.

Everybody knew him as a Buckeye.  But Dean was even more dedicated to the place where he grew up, Pataskala, Ohio.  The little farm town where Dean was born during the Great Depression, was going through tremendous changes, as Columbus spread out and farm fields became suburban housing developments.   Dean helped the town through that process, dedicating a big portion of his life to kids through Boy Scouting and his work in the schools.

I met Dean early in my career at Watkins.  His son Brooke was a runner, (we met on the track when I was a student teacher and he was a hot-shot eighth grader), and was part of the track and cross country programs through high school.  Dean always followed Brooke’s career, and was always there with words of encouragement both for his son and this young coach and teacher, just a few years older.

But where I really got to know Dean Ramsey was through Scouting.  Dean was involved in the local Pataskala Troop, 21.  Scouting had always been a big part of my life, so while I was an Assistant Track Coach out at school, I was also an Assistant Scoutmaster, and for several years helped out in that program where I was most familiar. 

One of our “Good Deeds” was to clean up the town after the annual Pataskala Street Fair ended at eleven on Saturday night. I remember getting “chewed out” by Dean – I was picking up a broken bottle – “we don’t pick up broken glass without GLOVES, Marty!!” He was taking care of folks, even then – in the middle of the night. 

Dean was always my vision of “old time” Pataskala.  He married his sweetheart in 1952, and Ann worked as a secretary at the Middle School for much of the time I taught there.  It was Ann’s gentle voice that was on the phone call at 7:30 in the morning – “Marty, Mr. Gardner (the principal) wants to know if you’re coming in to school today”.  It was such a gentle way to wake up to the terrifying reality – you slept through the alarm, and kids were already in your classroom.

Dean knew everything about the school and the town.  He designed the stadium at the “new” high school (that’s the 1955 school, not the 1980 school or the 2022 school), and when we wanted to find where some drainage was blocked, or how the wires were run, Dean was usually the answer.  He was part of the community group that built the field (and the new all-weather track) in 1977.  The National Guard came out to help, and stayed at the school (it was the year before I arrived, but I heard stories – beer kegs rolling in the halls?).  They built the second all-weather track here in Licking County.  It was awesome as a student-teacher and first year coach.  I remember when the snow melted and I finally saw “our” eight lane “super-highway”.

I’ve been part of building two tracks on that site since then, and I understand both the pride and the ownership you feel for that quarter-mile piece of asphalt and surface. And when we were trying to re-do the facility, Dean always had the answers we needed, like what to do about the drainage that created “Lake Watkins” (I actually windsurfed it once behind the visitors bleachers).  Dean usually remembered off the top of his head, or he went home and found the precise landscape architectural plan that showed the answers.

Dean served on the school board long before I came to Watkins, but he was on the County School Board for a number of years during my career.  And he was always supportive when it came to passing school levies.

So I knew Dean through track, through school, and through Scouting.  And I also knew Dean through his work at the West Licking Historical Society.  He and a number of his “peers” from “old Pataskala” compiled a huge history of the area, thousands of pages of what life was like in the town where they grew up, and what life was like in the present as well (around 1990).   It was all encompassing.

Everyone in “old” Pataskala probably has a “Dean Ramsey story”.  Here’s mine.  Back in 1988 I had a pole vaulter named Chris, an all-state athlete, who also was a brilliant student.  He loved pole vault, and he loved art and music as well, and wanted to find a way to combine those into his senior art project.  

He decided to build a set of bag-pipes, and asked me if I knew of anyone who knew about the instrument.  And I did – Dean Ramsey was a “piper” in the Scottish rite,  and I arranged for Chris to meet him.  Dean was incredibly generous with his time, and whole-heartedly helped with the project.  They created ceramic pipes, and installed all of the proper “bags” to make it work.  As I remember, they may have been the heaviest set of bagpipes ever made, but they did play.

I don’t know this for sure, but knowing Dean Ramsey I bet he and Chris had conversations that went beyond bagpipes.  Maybe in that discussion, they talked about design and architecture.   Anyway, Chris graduated and went off to pole vault for Yale and work towards an engineering degree.  But he soon found the way to combine his skill in math and physics with his artistic drive.  He became an architect, and designed buildings all over the world.  He’s still doing that today.

That was Dean, always willing to help, always supportive, always a strong “pillar” of our community. Even when he was older, it was always good to have a fifteen minute conversation in the coffee aisle at Kroger.  I never have to look far to think of him – his drawing of old “downtown” Pataskala in the “good old days”, with Ramsey’s hardware in the center, is hanging on the wall in our kitchen.  Dean was a good man, always with a story about his kids or grandkids, and even when his health was starting to fail, always wanted to know what YOU were doing.  

Pataskala lost a pillar, a friend, and a link to the past, last week. He will be missed.  

Downtown Pataskala – 1940’s

Thinking the Unthinkable

A few days ago, a Soviet style drone with explosives crashed in a field in Croatia. It flew 700 miles, over the NATO countries of Romania and Hungary, to explode near Zagreb, the capital of NATO member Croatia. It might have been Russian or Ukrainian. Neither country has accepted responsibility (BBC).

MAD

At the height of the Cold War in 1962, an American theorist named Herman Kahn published a book; Thinking the Unthinkable.  It was about strategies of nuclear war, beyond the widely accepted “MAD Theory”.  “MAD” meant mutually assured destruction, that no matter what kind of attack one nuclear power made, the “attackee” would have a remaining strike capability that would create unacceptable losses to the attacker.  That strike capability was called a “second strike”, and was a critical pillar of US nuclear strategy.

We had missiles in silos spread out through the United States.  We had nuclear bomb equipped aircraft on “ready alert”, prepared to fly to Failsafe positions around the Soviet Union on a few minutes notice.  And finally, we had nuclear missile submarines, almost untraceable, hidden in oceans throughout the world, ready to launch on order.  It was the “triad” defense, and it made the point – if you attack us, no matter how many missiles, how many bombs, how much nuclear destruction; there will still be enough weapons left over to destroy you.

Acceptable Losses

Herman Kahn was thinking about how the  United States could “protect” enough of its population to make a Soviet second strike “survivable”.  He theorized that there could be an acceptable nuclear war, if “only” twenty percent or so of the population was lost.  In those days, that meant casualties of twenty to thirty million.

Other strategists didn’t find those losses “acceptable”.  In fact, the Civil Defense movement of the 1950’s and early 1960’s phased out because it was seen as moving towards an “acceptable loss” view.  (If you’re my age or older, you remember the black and yellow Civil Defense signs, all over the place). And in the 1980’s, the Reagan “Star Wars” anti-missile defense program was considered dangerous because it threatened the balance of MAD.

Article Five

Sunday, Russian non-nuclear missiles struck a Ukrainian base, just twelve miles from the Polish border.  The United States is pledged under Article Five of the NATO agreement to defend Polish soil is if it were our own. US Troops are already there, as well as in the Baltic States, held at the ready for a Russian attack.  There are over 100,000 US forces in Europe.

President Biden made it clear in his speech last week.  The United States will supply and support Ukrainian forces, but will not fight in Ukraine.  That’s as long as the Russian invasion remains “status-quo”.  As Biden said, US forces against Russians is the definition of World War III.  But Biden also made it clear, that we will fight World War III against Russia, if they decide to attack any NATO country.  

And what happens if the “status quo” changes?  Biden left open what the US would do should Russia decide to use chemical, cyber (or nuclear) weapons in Ukraine. 

Putin’s Goals

We know what Vladimir Putin wants.  He’s made it clear:  he wants to reconstitute the Soviet empire, both the “states” of the USSR (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Moldova, Belarus, Ukraine) and the “Warsaw Pact” Russia leaning Eastern European countries.  What we don’t know, is how far Putin is willing to go to achieve that goal. 

It’s clear that Russia thought the invasion of Ukraine would be swift and devastating.  Their “plan” called for a quick decapitation of Ukraine by capturing Kyiv, taking the eastern part of the nation, and cutting off access to the Black Sea.  But what they thought would be a week long campaign has entered a fourth week, and the battle is deteriorating.   It’s now an ugly street to street and house to house slog, losing thousands of soldiers and millions of dollars of equipment. It has backfired to the world:  uniting NATO, the European Union, and the vast majority of countries in the United Nations against Russia.

Now that the operational plan in Ukraine has failed, and much of the world is united, what will Mr. Putin do? 

Fulfill His Destiny

He likely will fight to fulfill the Ukraine strategy – take Kyiv, take the east, and block the Black Sea.  It will then turn into a dangerous war of occupation, one that will suck the life out of the Russian Army, just as Afghanistan did thirty-five years ago.  Common sense would dictate that he would stop there:  the next step would be too awesomely terrible to contemplate.  

But we can’t be sure of that.  No one is “in” Putin’s head.  After more than twenty years in power, we don’t know to what lengths he will go to “fulfill his destiny”.  And with his autocratic power, it is an individual decision, one that will be made by him and him alone.

The NATO countries are suppling weapons to Ukraine.  If Russia decides to interdict the supply lines outside of Ukraine, NATO needs to respond in kind.  For every missile or bomb that lands in NATO, the NATO countries led by the United States must not only take out the launch site, but interdict Russian supply lines in Russia and Belarus in a similar fashion.  And that means American war-fighters will be at risk against the Russian military.  By the President’s definition – it’s World War III.

Limited Warfare

But, to “think the unthinkable”, this can be an incremental war, that need not rise to nuclear standards.  If Russia launches an actual invasion of Poland or the Baltic States, the US and NATO must respond with more than equal force to repel that invasion.  And once those forces are repelled back into Russian boundaries, the US and NATO must stop.  The goal must be to keep Russia in place, not destroy Putin’s regime.  If we try to do that, we risk all of the Mutually Assured Destruction nightmare scenarios contemplated for generations. 

One theory of warfare among nuclear nations is the “slippery slope” theory.  It states that no matter how incremental the warfare, once two Nuclear Nations are at war, they will ultimately  use their nuclear weapons, rather than lose.  That is why “losing” cannot be total. Going to war can only be incremental, force level to force level.  Once we cross the “threshold” of direct confrontation, the world steps onto that slippery slope.  It would be easy to fall, or to force the opponent to fall as well.  Even leaders of good will could fall into a MAD consequence.  That is why containing Russia to its borders, or pushing their forces back, is all we can do.

That’s the danger we face from the Ukraine situation, the danger that Putin himself has created.  But to fail to act is truly just as dangerous.  An unfettered Russian aggression holds few bounds except those we are willing to place on them.  President Biden has clearly drawn his “line in the sand”.  Let’s hope that Mr. Putin gets the message.

Essays on the Ukraine Crisis

Et Tu, Ohio

Don’t Say Gay

The big headlines aren’t from Ohio.  Florida is passing legislation to ban teachers from talking about sexual orientation issues to students, particularly primary grade kids.  That might seem like it makes sense – primary grade kids aren’t usually sexually aware, even in this digital age.  But it’s an insidious way of “teaching” little kids “right and wrong, good and bad”.  Little Bobby can talk all he wants about Mommy and Daddy with the teacher, but Johnny can’t talk about his two Mommies, or Jenny about her two Daddies.  

Kids are intensely aware of what the adults in their lives say, and don’t say.  The fact that one of the most influential adults in their lives, the teacher, will talk with kids whose parents are two genders, but not kids with parents of one, won’t “get by” them.  And if teacher won’t talk about it, then there must be something wrong, bad, about it.  The silence will deliver the message.

The opposition to the bill calls it the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, and that’s what teachers may be forced to do.  Much like the Texas anti-abortion legislation, the “Don’t Say Gay” bill doesn’t create criminal penalties.  But it invites parents to file lawsuits against teachers who “violate” the law.  A teacher who does discuss Johnny’s two Mommies could be sued by any parent in the class.  The law makes that teacher liable for damages.

Texas History

Texas has already passed a law costing over $14 million a year, to “train” teachers how to discuss “controversial” issues – making sure that they present “all sides” of such “controversies” as the Holocaust, the Civil Rights Movement, or even slavery.  And if a teacher is “uncomfortable”, then by law, “…(the) teacher may not be compelled to discuss a widely debated and currently controversial issue of public policy or social affairs (Texas Trib)”. 

 Looks like no more history discussions in Texas.

You might think that Ohio is “above” this wave of crazy restrictive legislation.  After all, Ohio has a fully Republican legislature, state executive and judicial branch, yet the Supreme Court is ruling against the Republican gerrymandering plans – multiple times.   And while Ohio does have an anti-abortion bill “on tap” should the US Supreme Court overrule Roe v Wade and Casey, the state legislature hasn’t gone “wild” like Texas or Missouri and tried to double jump the current Roe holding and ban abortion.

HB 327

Ohio House Bill Number 327 is twenty-one pages long.  Most of the bill deals with the recognition of private charter schools and state education funding, an issue which drives public school advocates crazy.  But that’s not what the “controversy” of HB 327 is about.  It’s in the first four pages.

The short title is:  “A Bill to amend…the Revised Code to prohibit school districts, community schools, STEM schools and state agencies from teaching, advocating, or promoting divisive concepts”. 

What’s a divisive concept, here in the Buckeye state?

Divisive Concept Definitions

  • That one group is inherently superior to another*
  • That the US is fundamentally racist or sexist
  • That one person, by belonging to a group, is consciously or unconsciously racist*
  • An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of their group*
  • Members of one group cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to their group*
  • An individual’s moral character is determined by their group membership*
  • An individual, by virtue of their group, is responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of their group*
  • That meritocracy or a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or created by one group to oppress another group*
  • Any form of race or sex stereotyping or any other form of race or sex scapegoating
  • *group means “nationality, color, ethnicity, race or sex.

And if a school district teaches one of these “divisive” concepts?  Then the Department of Education will withhold part of their state funding until they stop.

In the Classroom

I was a Social Studies teacher, living and working in a suburban school district.  Our district was largely white, middle class, and Christian.  As an eighth grade history teacher – I taught about enslavement, the Holocaust, women’s suffrage, the civil rights movement, and the equal rights movement.   All of those are “divisive” issues.  Can today’s teacher still teach them?

Well – sort of.  

It’s OK (section D of the bill says so) to discuss “divisive” concepts in an objective manner “without endorsement”.  And it’s OK to have an “impartial” discussion of controversial aspects of history.  And finally, it’s OK to give “impartial” instruction of historical oppression of a particular “group”. 

Oh, and it’s all right to talk about national motto, national anthem, the Ohio Constitution, the US Constitution, the Revised Code, Federal Law, and US Supreme Court decisions.  Those are the ones listed – I wonder how much trouble the Emancipation Proclamation might create?

How Impartial

So when I taught about the Three Fifth’s Compromise in the Constitution, would I need to be “impartial” about the fact it counted slaves as a fraction of a person for the purpose of how many seats in Congress a state received, but not for voting?  Am I supposed to take James Madison avowed view; that recognizing them as a fraction was better than not recognizing enslaved people as humans at all?  Is that “impartial” enough?

Impartiality is in the eye of the beholder.  That first year of eighth grade history, I had a Holocaust denier in class.  I soon realized that most of my students only had a vague understanding of what the Holocaust was, (or American enslavement, or the Indian removal).  So I took some extra class time to give them more than just a casual understanding of those events. I wanted them to understand that while there’s lots of good in the world, there’s lots of evil as well.  

Was I being impartial while teaching historic inhumanity?   Oh Hell no.

More Perfect

 The United States was founded by flawed men.  Many of them didn’t recognize an entire race as being completely human.  The Declaration’s “…all men are created equal” was a very limited concept (and it’s not on the list anyway).  And they didn’t believe women were “equal” either. I believe in American Exceptionalism – but America is a nation flawed from its inception.  What makes America exceptional is its growth, overcoming the flaws that were there in the beginning, and some that are still here today.  As Madison himself wrote:  “We the People of the United States, in order to form a MORE perfect union…”.  

It is in the act of becoming “More Perfect” that America is exceptional.   But that’s probably “divisive” – and shouldn’t be taught.  

It Doesn’t Have to Pass

HB 327 isn’t a law – yet.  And the language is so convoluted that it’s hard to see how it will be enforced.  But that’s not really the point, is it.  HB 327 up for debate and vote for two reasons.  First, it fits in with the current political “trend”, erroneously called Critical Race Theory.  One political party has found this “wedge” issue to drive their voters to the polls – and this legislation is all of that.  

And second, whether 327 becomes law or not, it is part of the larger message to teachers and students:  don’t question the “standard” lesson, don’t challenge students to think “outside the box”.  It might be divisive, make students uncomfortable, and it might cost the teachers their jobs.  A vocal minority wish to silence teachers.  They want to go back to the history books of the 1950’s, when the Civil War was a dispute over states’ rights, not slavery, and all of the heroes were white men. (If you don’t know – the Civil War was all about slavery). 

HB 327 pretends that the US is already Perfect.  And that’s the first mistake.

Russian Oil

Into the Weeds

The United States government has banned the import of oil from Russia, as part of the sanctions for invading Ukraine.   Russian oil represents about 7% of the oil imported to the United States.  The United States, though, is a net-petroleum exporter.  So why were we importing Russian oil in the first place?

First thing to remember, the government of the United States is not the “entity” importing oil.  The United States is a capitalist country, and private companies buy oil, not the government.  That doesn’t matter whether it’s imported or domestic, or even oil coming from US Government owned lands.  The United States government does not drill or sell oil.  It does buy some to place in a strategic reserve, but that’s about it.

It’s About Price 

The cost of gasoline is getting higher – setting “world records”.  There’s no question that Americans are frustrated:  more and more of their income is going into the gas tank.  One factor to consider is that we “got used” to artificially low gas prices during the pandemic.  Folks weren’t going places, so the supply of gas was high and the demand low – prices went down.  Then, starting in January of 2021, we began to go back to pre-pandemic life.  Gas demand went up, and prices went right up with it.  That was all happening before Putin invaded Ukraine.  

Gas prices were already high because of supply and demand – and then Ukraine happened.  That impacted the world oil “futures” markets, even before Russian oil was banned.   And that  jacked prices up even more.  None of that is attributable to Joe Biden, or even Donald Trump.  The pandemic low was a consequence of a world where fewer people went to work, or on trips, or out to the movies.  Need another example – check out the cost of an airplane flights now compared to a year ago.

Russian Oil

Why does the US import oil from anybody?  The answer is simple and complicated.  The simple answer is that it’s cheaper to bring Russian oil to the east coast of the United States, then it is to move US oil to the coast from where it’s found.  Moving oil from the Southwest to the Northeast by pipeline is expensive.  Moving it by boat is even more expensive – especially because of a law that allows sea transport from one US port to another only on US flagged and owned ships,  the Jones Act.   All of the “supertankers” are registered in Panama, to avoid US safety and labor restrictions.  

And there are only a few places in the United States where a supertanker could actually land to off-load their cargo.  So to move oil from Texas or Oklahoma or Alaska to the northeast United States is expensive.  Refineries in the northeast use imported oil because it’s cheaper than US oil would be.

Keystone Won’t Help

The second thing you’ll hear, is that we could complete the Keystone XL Pipeline from Canada, and have plenty of oil.  There are problems with that as well.  The XL Pipeline isn’t near completion,  only 8% done (Reuters). And even if it was, that pipeline is shipping tar sand oil from Canada, the dirtiest oil available.  To refine that into gasoline for cars is expensive, and polluting.  It definitely isn’t a short-term solution to replace banned Russian oil, and it’s not a good long-term solution either, in terms of global climate change.  

Is it possible for the US to generate more oil production?  Absolutely, though keep in mind the US government doesn’t drill for oil – oil companies do.  The places where they haven’t drilled for oil yet are more remote and expensive, and will take a while to produce product.  That’s not a short-term solution, and even in the medium term, oil coming from there would cost more to produce, and so cost more to buy.

But the United States government does have a strategic oil reserve, 714 million barrels of oil kept in salt caverns along the Gulf of Mexico.  (There’s a vision of steel barrels of oil stacked on top of each other, but the oil is pumped into the caverns, not stored in barrels).  To gain some perspective, the US uses about 20 million barrels of oil a day, so the strategic reserve is about a thirty-six day supply.  And the US production is about 11 million barrels of oil a day, so with just internal production and the oil reserves the US would last about eighty days (USDoE).

Keep Your Enemies Close

So what are the other alternatives?  We could get more oil on the market, by encouraging currently banned countries to produce oil:  Venezuela and Iran.  Of course, that kind of forgives Venezuela for overthrowing their democratic government and installing a dictatorship.  And when the US backed out of the Iran nuclear deal, Iran proceeded to ramp up production of weapons grade nuclear material.  So buying oil from them rewards them for that .

The ”traditional” American move would be to get Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to increase oil production to make up the difference and lower world oil prices.  But more oil is not in those countries best interest – they have oil, and it’s worth more today than it was three weeks ago.  Why should they produce more now, simply to lower the cost?  Where’s the profit for them? 

It Ain’t Easy Being Green

And one final factor to consider.  The United States is committed to becoming a “clean-energy” nation.  The “short-term” crisis in Ukraine does nothing to change the longer-term crisis the entire globe faces from climate change.  The number one pollutant is fossil fuels – coal, gas, and oil.  Reducing our dependence on those fuels is and should be a national  goal – and will have a short-term cost, whether we do it to hurt Russia, or to protect our children’s future. It’s called “chewing gum and walking” at the same time.

So banning Russian oil is going to raise prices for every American.  Gasoline, electric power, and even natural gas all have a relationship to oil prices, and those prices will likely go up.  That’s going to push Americans to find ways to conserve and reduce the amount of oil they use.  By conserving, we will take steps towards improving the environment, intentionally or not.  It’s a financial burden, but it’s something Americans ought to do for our children, anyway.

More importantly, it’s what we can do to support the Ukrainian people, who are suffering for all democracy loving peoples. Frankly, it’s the least we can do for those who are fighting the first battle on the edge of World War III. 

 Let’s hope it’s the only one.

Ukraine Crisis