Category: Uncategorized

If you liked Smokey and the Bandit (1, 2, and 3) then you had to love 1978’s  CONVOY

“THERE MUST BE A MAINSTREAM MEDIA NEWS BLACKOUT – “GOOD BUDDY!!!”  WHERE’S THE WALL TO WALL COVERAGE OF – THE CONVOY!!!!!”

Ottawa

In life and in politics, there’s something called “a window of opportunity”.  It’s a simple concept:  there’s a “magic time” when all of the trends point to a single action.  For the fortunate, that manage to do the right thing at the right time; they can change the world.

The Canadian Truck protests were a prime example of the “hitting” the moment.  A small number (ten percent?) of Canadian truckers were furious with the vaccine mandates required to cross the US border.  The mandates were on both sides, both Canadian and US policies.  But the truckers protested the Canadian rules, by driving their trucks into the national capital of Ottawa, and paralyzing the town.   They wouldn’t leave.  And Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister, was loath to use offensive police action to remove them.  So the Canadian truckers got a world stage in the streets of Ottawa and at the border crossings.

Trudeau

Many felt that Trudeau should have acted sooner, and ordered the police and the tow trucks into Ottawa.  But perhaps Trudeau realized that the truckers were already “late”.  Their “window” was closing.  The science was clear that the Omicron variant of Covid was burning through and burning out.  Soon the infection, hospitalization and death rates would drop as quickly as they went up.  In short, the longer Trudeau waited, the less the truckers had to complain about.  

The Canadian truckers hung around for almost a month.  Finally Trudeau declared a national emergency, and with very little violence, the vehicles were cleared and “normal” life was restored.

Eastbound and Down

But the trucking protests resonated in the United States. Much of the Canadian trucker financing already came from US sources.  Canadian trucks even had pro-Trump signage.  If it worked in Canada, a country that pretty much went along with all of the Covid protocols, then it should be HUGE in the United States where Covid wasn’t seen as a public health issue at all.  It was completely politicized, divided along partisan lines.  Americans who erroneously felt that Donald Trump won the Presidency, were generally against every public health measure to control Covid.

And there is a long tradition of trucking protests, so big, that in the late 1970’s they made a major motion picture about it – CONVOY!  It  had big-time actors, with Kris Kristofferson, Ali McGraw, and even Ernest Borgnine.  It was about a “protest” of local traffic controls that became a national truck protest,  and it resonated with an America that was fatigued from the Vietnam War protests, hippies, and the upheaval of the Watergate Era.  We went from anti-war protest rallies and songs about martyred students (Four Dead in Ohio) to disco, Staying Alive, Smokey and the Bandit (1,2, and 3, the one with the elephant)  and finally CONVOY!  

Grievances

It was a perfect fit.  Some Americans were frustrated with the Covid mandates – demanding personal “FREEDOM” from masks and vaccines.  And they were truly angry that Joe Biden won the Presidential election.  They longed for a simpler time, when issues like diversity and pandemics weren’t problems —  the “good old days”, like the late 1970’s.  So a trucker protest, starting in California and unifying the entire nation as it crossed to Washington DC seemed like a perfect “vehicle” (hah!) for their grievances.

The trucks began in Adelanto, California, outside of Los Angeles, and slowly (about 350 miles a day) made their way across the country.  There were ultimately about 150 trucks, and many more pickups and cars that joined up the procession as it moved across the American interstate highway system.  The convoy was well coordinated with local and state police, and politely avoided disrupting the city centers.  

And there was support.  From many suburban and rural overpasses and exits, small groups gathered with American flags, Trump signs , and “Don’t Tread on Me” banners to show their agreement with the honking parade.  Donated feasts were laid out at the overnight rest stops by Convoy “groupies”.

Too Late

The problem for the convoy organizers, was that the “window” was already closed.  Literally as they crossed the country, state after state dropped mandatory mask mandates for their cities and schools.  That wasn’t in reaction to the Convoy, but in response to the science.  Omicron was burning out, and the mandates were no longer necessary.

Regular media stopped covering the Convoy as a political statement, and dealt with them more as a traffic hazard.  And then, Russia invaded Ukraine. All of the media “oxygen” went out of the room.

The “Convoy” is still out there, staying at the Hagerstown Speedway in Maryland, about ninety minutes west of Washington, DC.  Sunday through Tuesday, they lined up and drove I-70 east to the I-70/I-270 split to Washington.  Then onto the DC outer-belt, Interstate 495, for a sixty-four mile loop around the Capital.  Wednesday it rained, and they stayed in Hagerstown.

But they didn’t go “into DC”.  They made great efforts to prevent the unending traffic nightmare of the DC beltway from getting worse.  And their issues:  mask mandates and Covid restrictions, continued to disappear.  There’s nothing more frustrating; they missed their “window”.  The “Convoy” is irrelevant.

Below the Fold

The Washington Post moved the “Convoy” story from the front page on Sunday, to “below the fold” in the Metro section on Wednesday.  “Convoy” leaders met with Republican Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, to discuss government mandates.  But that discussion becomes more “academic” by the day.  Even the Washington Times, a conservative newspaper sympathetic to the “cause”, had only a five sentence article buried in their metro section on Wednesday morning (Wash Times).

Convoy organizers face a choice.  They can complete their week-long protest, circling the DC outer-belt with faint views of the Washington Monument and the Capitol building, then head back off into the countryside.  Or, they can try to “raise the stakes” and force their column into town, hoping to circle the National Mall.  That will get them back on the “front page”, as a traffic hazard and disruption.  But it won’t change their misfortune – their window of opportunity is firmly closed.

“Ten-Four Good Buddy – time to put the hammer down and head for the barn.  See you on the flip-side”.

Note –It’s now six essays in a row about the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  It’s not that there isn’t important things happening in the US – the Supreme Court upheld Pennsylvania’s and North Carolina’s redistricting plans yesterday – among other things.  And I’ll get back to “Our America” soon.  But the drama of Ukraine – and the risk it raises for the world, is too great to ignore.

Eighth Grade History

If you remember Eighth Grade History, you remember the Civil War.  It was usually the best part of the Social Studies year, sometime in the middle of winter, when a good history teacher could intrigue a class with the pathos of battle between brothers.  You might even remember the original battle cries: “Onto Richmond” and “Onto Washington”.  Both armies aimed at their opponent’s capitals, hoping to capture them and quickly end the war.

The list of battles “on the road” to the capitals is long: First and Second Bull Run, Seven Pines, Malvern Hill, Fredericksburg, the Wilderness, Spotsylvania and the others in the long and bloody campaign of the summer of 1864.  Both sides were convinced that capturing, and ultimately destroying the other’s capital would end the war.  Both sides committed huge resources to defending Washington and Richmond.  And, in the end, they were right.  The fall of Richmond marked the final chapter in the end of the Confederate cause.  It was only weeks before the entire War was over.

Lee’s Decision

At the end of the War, the leading Confederate General, Robert E. Lee, made a strategic decision.  He was faced with three choices.  The first was a final, all-out battle with hugely superior Union forces, one that would result in the annihilation of what remained of his Army of Virginia.  He could find no value in that choice – a final battle to the death would only result in total destruction.  There was no “up-side” for his forces, or the Confederacy.

The second choice was brought to him by his junior officers – dissolve the army.  The Army of Virginia could not escape the Union Army of the Potomac, but small groups of men without heavy equipment could evade the Union patrols, and escape to the western mountains.  There, they could continue an insurgency, carrying on the Confederate cause through what today we would call guerrilla warfare.

Lee recognized that this kind of warfare would continue for generations.  And he saw that it did not further the ideals of the secessionists, who argued a “legal” theory to leave the Union.  Insurgency would be the opposite of what the founders of the Confederacy intended.  Their “plantation society” with its “peculiar institution” could not exist through insurrection.  The “Cause” would not be furthered by it. 

So he took the third choice, surrender of his forces to the Union.  General Grant offered him a generous surrender agreement, allowing his men rations and the freedom to go home.  Lee’s Army wasn’t the last in the field for the Confederacy, but it set the precedent for what the other Generals would do.  Within two months, Johnson in North Carolina, Kirby-Smith in New Orleans and Chief Stand Watie in Oklahoma surrendered and the Civil War was over.

Kyiv

There are few strategic military targets in Kyiv, just three million citizens in the capital of Ukraine.  But the symbolism of the Russian attack on Kyiv is clear.  Take the city, and take the “heart” of the Ukrainian resistance.  While Kyiv stands independent, Ukraine remains unconquered, still a sovereign nation standing tall against the vaunted Russian forces.  Once Kyiv falls, the war will become an insurgency, a guerilla war of ambush and dissolve.

The President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is not in the same position as Robert E. Lee.  There is value in holding Kyiv.  The longer he can maintain a government there, the “worse” the Russians look to the rest of the world.  NATO and the United Nations has united against Putin and the Russians, something that might not have happened if Kyiv fell in the first few days.  

And every time a Russian artillery shell or missile or bomb falls on the millions of civilians in Kyiv, Russia isolates itself even more from the world.  Unlike Lee’s choice, the ultimate destruction of Kyiv does have meaning, if it happens.  It becomes the rallying cry for Ukrainian resistance as that resistance turns to the insurgency that Lee denied.  And it becomes the symbol that will continue to make Russia a pariah to the world. 

Lighting the Torch

So President Zelenskyy revealed his position today, sitting in his office in the Presidential Palace in Kyiv.  He is symbolically “giving the finger” to the Russians.  Just as Kyiv still stands, in spite of the massive amounts of Russian troops and tanks and planes, so does Zelenskyy.   He is challenging them, forcing them to destroy the entire city in order to “conquer” it.  Don’t be surprised if the two hundred and seventy-eight year old Palace, ironically built for a Russian empress, is flattened soon.

There will be no “cavalry” riding over the hill to save Ukraine.  With the ugliness of total warfare, Russia will destroy Kyiv (and symbolically Ukraine) building by building.  Trapped in the city will be millions of non-combatants, civilians, many of whom will be killed.  And the sacrifice of the city and the people will serve as a torch light for the Ukrainian resistance to follow.  Whatever happens to Kyiv, or Zelenskyy; Russia has already lost their war of conquest.  The people of Ukraine will never forget, and never cease to fight.  

Will the world will still stand with them?

Ukraine Crisis

• Kyiv’s Choice – 3/8/22
• The Logic of Madness – 3/7/22
• Lights Out – 3/6/22
• Ante Up – 3/3/22
• State of the Union  3/2/22
• The Guns of March 3/1/22
• Sanctions 2/26/22
• What Happens Next 2/24/22
• The Games Begin  2/22/22
• Talking with a Friend 2/18/22
• Trip Wire 2/2/22
• On the Brink 1/23/22
• The Ukrainian Dilemma 12/5/19

History Rhymes

The crisis in Ukraine brings up all sorts of historic similarities.  Putin is obviously analogous to Hitler in the 1930’s, trying to build a European empire in a world that’s no longer thinks in terms of military might.  NATO represents the former Allies of World War I, self-centered and unwilling to accept the illogic of dictatorial mania.  

And the United States is almost exactly where it was in the 1930’s:  self-absorbed, to the point we even use the terminology of the time, “America First”.  We are wrapped up in our politics,  the pandemic, and the economy.  We worry about truck “convoys” driving in circles around our Nation’s Capital.  And meanwhile the people of Ukraine are systematically being conquered, village by village and building by building.  

Pain and Suffering

Step one in understanding our current situation is realizing that Putin may be mad, but he’s not crazy.  He has determined that Russia cannot go on without Ukraine, and perhaps the other former “Republics” of the Soviet Union.  Further, he is convinced that he, and the Russian people, can endure more pain and suffering than his opponents.  That conviction means that “losing” has a whole different meaning to him, certainly than it does to NATO.  If he wins an empire, and kills millions, he has succeeded – like Hitler or Stalin.

Step two is to recognize that the strategic logic of the last three decades won’t work today.  The War on Terror strategies of  cold-blooded long range strikes with unmanned drones or cruise missiles are meaningless in this situation.  In the War on Terror we tried to put money in the game instead of blood (except for those soldiers who fought in the hills of Afghanistan or the streets of Iraq).  But we are not fighting against low tech enemies interested in causing us pain and suffering, but unable to threaten us strategically.  This would be a war of the first order, with all the weaponry of modern total warfare on the table.  

The Quiet Part

Step three is that while economic warfare, sanctions and mandates, might eventually work, its effectiveness all depends on the Russian people.  Senator Lindsey Graham voiced the quiet part out loud when he tweeted that, “somebody should take that guy (Putin) out”.   Assassination shouldn’t be a part of the national policy – but what else are we asking, with the slow-motion destruction of the Russian economy?  Aren’t we really trying to cause so much economic pain to the Russian people, and more importantly, the Russian oligarchs who represent Putin’s true constituency, that they throw him out?  

Putin’s not Khrushchev; he won’t go quietly to his dacha in the country.  To take Putin out means just that – assassination.  So while Graham was indiscreet (that’s twice last week) he not wrong.

True Madness

Madness and pain brings the ultimate weaponry into question – nuclear bombs.  The “balance” of the Cold War was maintained by “Mutual Assured Destruction”, MAD.  The final chapter of nuclear warfare is already written:  utter destruction of civilization through nuclear holocaust.  The question:  how close is Putin willing to press to that final conclusion?  Is he willing to use “tactical” nuclear weapons, “small” Hiroshima like bombs, to achieve his goals?  He is convinced the Russian people will accept more pain than anyone else, perhaps even isolated nuclear devastation.  Nuclear responses are NOT off the table.  The United States cannot unilaterally disarm – we can only offer an equal-devastating response if needed.

Putin’s current line seems to be:  I will do what I want to Ukraine.  You may not react, directly.  A US driven “No Fly Zone” would bring American and Russian fighters head-to-head.  Even more, US missiles would strike Russian anti-aircraft installations in Russia itself.  That would be a dramatic escalation, a “double jump” that would require Russian reaction and escalation.  But NATO giving Ukraine fighter jets or anti-aircraft technology to use on their own is an incremental step.  Putin will warn against it, and certainly not like it, but it doesn’t alter his basic premise.  

And it won’t change the ultimate fate of Ukraine – just increase the pain that the Russian and Ukrainian people will feel.

Line in the Sand

The NATO/US line is clear:  we will do everything short of direct involvement to support Ukraine.  And if Russia steps over a NATO country boundary, “the line in the sand”, then we will respond with full military force.  Putin isn’t convinced.  He’s not sure that NATO is really willing to go to war for the Baltic States, or even for Poland or Hungary.  He thinks his decade of undermining Western politics, and enticing Europe onto Russian energy, is enough to keep NATO at bay. 

Hitler thought the same thing.  In the final analysis, we cannot depend on the “reasonableness” of dictators to stop actions.  We can only make the vision crystal clear, that those actions will result in defeat.  But how Putin sees that depends pretty much on him, not us.  

That puts the fate of our world, and of a World War III is in his hands.  

All we can do is respond.

Ukraine Crisis

• The Logic of Madness – 3/7/22
• Lights Out – 3/6/22
• Ante Up – 3/3/22
• State of the Union  3/2/22
• The Guns of March 3/1/22
• Sanctions 2/26/22
• What Happens Next 2/24/22
• The Games Begin  2/22/22
• Talking with a Friend 2/18/22
• Trip Wire 2/2/22
• On the Brink 1/23/22
• The Ukrainian Dilemma 12/5/19

Out of Bounds

There are lots of places where it seems to be a bad idea to “wage war”.  Nursery schools and playgrounds ought to be “out of bounds” when it comes to bombs, artillery, and even ground fighting.  Two Ukrainian teenagers killed last week, hit by artillery fire, just playing soccer on a practice field.  Why target the places where it’s likely to find children, and put them in the line of fire?

There are the traditional places, the ones that the original Geneva Conventions agreed to keep safe:  hospitals and civilian shelters.  Remember the World War II movies with the white hospital ships with the big red crosses painted on their sides?  There was always outrage when torpedoes from either side accidentally found their mark. It happened far too frequently.

One way to try to protect targets was to move prisoners onto the site of enemy action.  It worked sometimes – though the American pilots held in Hiroshima weren’t so lucky.  It always came down to one of those “good of the many versus good of the few” things.  

“The rules” say don’t bomb churches, or historic sites . That didn’t work last week at the Babi Yar Memorial in Kyiv. The United States didn’t drop an atomic bomb on Kyoto, Japan, because of the cultural and historic importance of the city. 

Nuclear Playgrounds

It would seem logical that one of the highest “protected” priorities would be nuclear power plants. It’s just common sense: having a battle around a nuclear reactor is just a terrible idea.  Nuclear power plant safety is based around a series of protections from radioactive leaks, called “containment”.  Containment is literal – concrete structures designed to contain radiation leaks, and even some level of explosions that contain nuclear material.  

Bombs, bullets, shoulder mounted missiles:  all of those things can damage the containment barriers that keep the outside world safe from nuclear materials.

Even if the containment facilities aren’t damaged, the nuclear power process is based around keeping extremely hot (temperature) nuclear materials from literally becoming “too hot to handle”. If nuclear materials are allowed to interact too fully, they will reach a temperature when no material can contain then.  It’s called a “meltdown” – when the nuclear core becomes so hot it melts through everything holding it – going down into the ground.  

Contamination

That is, until it hits ground water, which explosively turns to steam and blow the core apart.  The blast spreads nuclear material across a widespread area.  How widespread?  When the Chernobyl reactor (just north of Kyiv) partially melted down, the area downwind was contaminated for a thousand miles.  Children in nearby Poland, and farther away Sweden, were given Iodine to protect their thyroids from radiation damage.

Nuclear plants have multiple “failsafe” systems that can either shield the nuclear materials to stop them from interacting, or cool a “too hot” nuclear core down.  Those systems are run from outside the “reactor” chamber, so that even if power from the nuclear reactor is lost, they can still interact with the core to stop a runaway meltdown.

All of that, the containment, the shielding processes, and the cooling processes are vulnerable to military attack.   In addition, nuclear plants require continuous supervision to keep them in balance.  It’s hard for the “second shift” to show up to work when a battle is being waged around the plant.

Lights Out

So why is it that the Russian Army is not only fighting around nuclear plants (including the scene of the world’s worst nuclear plant disaster, Chernobyl, just north of Kyiv) but targeting them?

Nuclear plants are huge industrial complexes. To build them, both road and railroad transportation is needed, capable of bringing in large machinery. That transportation ability makes it a prime staging area for troops: capture the plant, and capture the capability to use the transportation hub.

In addition, the five nuclear plants in Ukraine provide fifty percent of the nation’s electric power.  The Russian Army already controls two of those, and is approaching the third.  One way to gain control of Ukrainian life, is to control the power – and the Russian Army moving in position to do it.  It’s much harder for cities like Kharkiv and Kyiv to resist Russian occupation if they can’t see what they’re doing, or are required to use generator or battery power to maintain communication.

(Special credit to Clint Watts, former FBI agent, US Army officer and an MSNBC analyst for his lucid explanation of the military value of nuclear plants).

 Base of Operations

The Russian offensive clearly hasn’t gone as planned.  What was supposed to be a “blitzkrieg” attack to de-capitate the Ukrainian government by swift capture of Kyiv didn’t work out.  Part of this is because the Russians didn’t anticipate Ukrainian resistance, part because of surprising incompetence from Russian forces.  So Putin’s armies are regrouping, preparing for siege warfare against Kyiv, and a long drawn out fight against Ukrainian insurgents led by the charismatic Volodymyr Zelenskyy.  

They need a base of operations.  The Chernobyl site, and the newly captured Zaporizhzhia facility, are perfect (if you don’t mind exposing your soldiers to dangerous radiation levels, particularly at Chernobyl).  There’s lots of room, lots of power, and lots of transportation connections to the rest of the country.

And if you decide to – you can turn out ALL the lights.

Ukraine Crisis

• Lights Out – 3/6/22
• Ante Up – 3/3/22
• State of the Union  3/2/22
• The Guns of March 3/1/22
• Sanctions 2/26/22
• What Happens Next 2/24/22
• The Games Begin  2/22/22
• Talking with a Friend 2/18/22
• Trip Wire 2/2/22
• On the Brink 1/23/22
• The Ukrainian Dilemma 12/5/19

Americans United

Here’s one you haven’t heard for a while – the vast majority of Americans are in favor of supporting Ukraine in their fight against the Russian invaders.  Eighty-three percent say they favor sanctions (CNN).  I’m not sure the “vast majority” of Americans have all been in favor of the same thing since – I don’t know, maybe sometime right after 9-11.  

There are extremists on both sides still.  After all, we are America in the 21st Century.  On one extreme, you hear those that say this is really an “internal” Russian problem, one that we can certainly deplore, but shouldn’t act on. This, by the way, is also the stance of the China’s President Xi.  

On the other side are the Americans, motivated by the incredible courage demonstrated by President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people, who want to launch direct attacks on the invading Russians.  That forty mile column of troops, trucks, and supplies stalled outside Kyiv provides a “fat” target.  They can envision the US Air Force A-10 Warthogs ranging up and down the column, expending every weapon and leaving a scene like the road out of Kuwait in the first Iraq War. 

Playing Poker

That’s a tempting strategy.  We could follow it, what used to be called “The John Wayne” school of diplomacy.  The US can be the Cavalry coming over the hill, saving the noble Ukrainian citizens from the cruel invader.   It would “call” Putin’s bluff; we would force him to deal with the full force of American might.

To further that poker analogy, Putin might do the “reasonable” thing, and fold his hand, going to the negotiating table to try to save face.  If that happened, the US would be the hero of the world.  Or, as we watch on all those World Poker Tournaments on late-night TV, Putin might go “All-in”.  In historic terms, that’s called World War III, with nuclear as well as conventional weapons “on the table”. 

The US has already drawn the “line in the sand” for Putin.  It’s at the border of the NATO countries, and we’ve not only promised to go “John Wayne” if he crosses that line – we’ve put US troops in the way.  So before we leave the table, remember that what’s happening in Ukraine is really only the first round.

On the Margin

Most reasonable people are not ready to go “John Wayne” yet.  We are willing to impose massive economic sanctions on Russia, shutting off their banks and oligarchs from the wealth they’ve accumulated in the thirty years since the fall of the Communist regime.  We are hoping that by squeezing Russia’s economy, the pressure from the citizens and from those oligarchs will force a stand-down from the current Russian strategy; an all-out destruction of the cities and people of Ukraine.

Politicians in the United States are trying to find a way to “play the margin” of the Ukraine crisis.  Since the majority of both political parties favor supporting Ukraine, they all have to fall generally in line with the Biden Administration actions.  Even Fox News can only complain that  “…Zelenskyy moves the world to tears, while Biden gets tepid reviews,” (Fox).  So they complain that the sanctions aren’t “tough enough”.  The margin they’ve found, is that the United States, the current world leader in petroleum production, still imports millions of barrels of Russian oil.

Russian Oil

To be clear, the US government isn’t buying Russian oil, but US companies are.  They do it because it’s cheaper than trying to ship US oil from where most of it is in Texas and Oklahoma to the coasts.  So, the “margin” narrative goes, it’s the Democrats fault, because Democrats are against pipelines, and pipelines could move that oil, and that’s why we have 7% of US oil imports coming from Russia (WSJ).

The response falls right into the Republican talking point – these “tree-hugging, AOC climate change believers” have stopped the US from producing more oil and gas, and that’s why we have to take Russian oil.   There’s some truth to that, but the reality is that it’s cheaper to import Russian oil for what US companies use it for, than to move American oil to the coasts.  Could we use other oil?  Absolutely, but there’s a cost.  And that cost will be at the local gas pump, with higher gas prices.  

And that becomes the Republican battle cry, “Higher Gas Prices because climate-changers are in charge!!!!”

In the Game

The Biden Administration has a crisis in Ukraine.  But they are also aware that there is a much longer term crisis in the environment, that isn’t going away because Vladimir Putin has lost his mind.  So they will hold their ground, and not spend valuable American dollars building more petroleum facilities, when those dollars can be spent for future renewable energy resources.  It’s likely that Biden will order a ban on Russian oil, and gas prices will go up.  Biden will release more oil from the US strategic reserves to blunt the pain, but in the final analysis, Americans will have to answer a question.

Do you want to support the Ukrainian people? 

Then here’s where you get to “ante up”.

Essays on the Ukraine Crisis

• Ante Up – 3/3/22
• State of the Union  3/2/22
• The Guns of March 3/1/22
• Sanctions 2/26/22
• What Happens Next 2/24/22
• The Games Begin  2/22/22
• Talking with a Friend 2/18/22
• Trip Wire 2/2/22
• On the Brink 1/23/22
• The Ukrainian Dilemma 12/5/19

Call it Out

So let’s call this out up front – Joe Biden is not a great public speaker.  He’s no Barack Obama, or Bill Clinton, or even George W Bush.  Joe Biden stutters, he gets in a hurry, he steps on his own applause lines.  The last ten minutes of the State of the Union last night were bullet points, each important, but each squashed in the hurry of presentation.

And he said Ukrainians over and over and over again – correctly.  But once, he did said “Uranians”.  

It’s the same guy that got elected two years ago, the same Vice President and Senator who was known as “Mr. Gaffe”.  My right-wing friends can sling together Fecebook posts about how much he staggered, and the right-wing media will put together YouTube clips of his mistakes.  It’s inevitable in our toxic world.  

But they watched the State of the Union last night.

Embarrassing

They say it’s “embarrassing” that the President of the United States stutters.  Some claim that it’s a sign of some form of dementia.  I guess twelve year-old Joey Biden was demented when he was practicing in front of his mirror.  It all comes from the place where it’s “OK” to  make fun of disabled reporters, or the way people dress.  They are right about one thing, it is embarrassing, almost as embarrassing as Greene and Boebert – I’m embarrassed for them.

To bend another famous Biden gaffe – “it’s not a f**king big deal”.  President Biden communicated to the American people last night.  He demonstrated the leadership that united the free world (and some places that are not so free) against Russia.  And he went out of his way to NOT “push the buttons” that disunite us.

Back to Unity

There was no mention of the January 6th Insurrection last night, nor mention of “truck convoys”, either in Canada or Indianapolis (where the US version stayed last night, taking a break – probably so they could stay up and watch the speech).  In fact, there were very few references to the Trump Administration.  Biden made the point that when he arrived at the White House, NATO had to be rebuilt.  And he noted that Trump passed the trillion dollar tax cut that inevitably benefitted corporations and the wealthy. 

But the first and last thirds of his speech were about Americans working together.  With the exception of the extreme “Carlsonites”, most Americans, even Trump supporters, are backing Ukraine against Russia.  Sure there’s lots of niggling about what Biden should have done differently to prevent Russia’s actions (none of which would have worked) but the American people are “on-board” to support Ukraine.  

And at the end of his speech, the President went out of his way to press a “four point” plan that most Americans (and both Parties in Congress) can agree upon:

•             beat the opioid epidemic
•             take on mental health
•             support veterans
•             end cancer as we know it.

Who’s against these?

Go Get ‘Em

Joseph Biden, President of the United States, is leading a coalition of the world standing up to Russian aggression.  This is not the Eisenhower-Kennedy era:  the United States was not the default “leader of the free world” three years ago.  US leaders intentionally stepped back from that role, focusing on “America First”.  If we are searching for what might have emboldened Putin to take the apparently unhinged action of invading another country, that might be the first place to look. 

Joseph Biden, President of the United States, last year led America to create more jobs than any other year in history. And, as ugly as it is, he led the nation to the point where a world pandemic, that has cost almost a million American lives, now is to the point where, “We will continue to combat the virus as we do other diseases” (SOTU). Take off your mask and go to work.

Biden turned the standing joke of the previous Administration, “Infrastructure Week” into “the Infrastructure Decade”.   And – as he mentioned last night – he’s encouraging the development of “American” industry, including the twenty billion dollar Intel project, being built in New Albany, just down the road from me.  

Oh, and he just nominated the eminently qualified, first black woman to serve as a United States Supreme Court Justice.

That’s just some of what he’s done in the past year. 

Important 

He’s not a great speaker. Joe Biden is an older man, doing the toughest job in the world. If you are a liberal, you might be frustrated with all of the “lost opportunities” of the past year – like making life better for American workers and securing voting rights. Biden’s frustrated too. But in a political world where the Congress is just as divided as the Nation, and every Senator (and every four Congressmen) holds a veto on every piece of legislation – Biden’s getting a lot done.

And that’s a big f**king deal.

• Ukraine Crisis
• State of the Union 3/2/22
• The Guns of March 3/1/22
• Sanctions 2/26/22
• What Happens Next 2/24/22
• The Games Begin 2/22/22
• Talking with a Friend 2/18/22
• Trip Wire 2/2/22
• On the Brink 1/23/22
• The Ukrainian Dilemma 12/5/19

The Guns of August

Barbara Tuchman wrote a seminal book in 1962 called “The Guns of August”.  It made history “readable”, and explained the series of events that ended with an unintended consequence  – the First World War.  The book’s impact was immediate.  President John F. Kennedy and his aides read it, only months before the Cuban missile crisis began.  After nuclear war was narrowly averted, he mentioned that the book’s explanation of the unforeseen consequences of decisions made him even more wary as he picked his way through the crisis.

The essence of Tuchman’s book is that while each step leading to World War I was foreseeable, no one at the time believed that a final catastrophic war would occur.  My eighth grade classes from the 1980’s got their own version of “The Guns of August”, my favorite lecture.  It defined all of the inter-actions that ended up in the meat grinder of trench warfare and millions of casualties. 

The British Had Ships

 Those students are now fifty-something year-olds, trying to help children and grandchildren with history.  I’ve heard from some, that their class chanting the lesson still echoes: 

 “The British had Ships, the French had Guts,  the Germans had Plans, Russia was Slow, the Italians were Switch-hitters, Austria-Hungary was Confused, Belgium wanted to be left Alone, Turkey was Sick, and then there was little, tiny, Small, Serbia”.   

The story is complex.  Britain, France and Russia were allied in the “Triple Entente”.  Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy and Turkey were in the “Triple Alliance”.  Each of those nations also had “side treaties” with smaller nations in Europe.  If it all sounds like NATO and Russia and its allies today, it should.

The “spark” that ignited a world conflagration war happened in Sarajevo, the capital of a province of the Austro-Hungarian Empire called Bosnia.  It was in an obscure part of the world, but it set off the dominos that brought the whole world to war – even the United States was ultimately dragged in.

Courageous Citizens

Our media today is filled with the courage of “Small” Ukraine defending itself against the might of Russia.  There is no question that the Russian invasion is an exercise of military conquest, with no legitimate cause.  Russian President and authoritarian leader Vladimir Putin wants to reconstitute the Russian Empire (or the Soviet Union), and Ukraine is the first step.  

But we are in a different world, one that absolutely cannot allow a “small” war in Ukraine, in Kyiv, turn into a world conflagration.  The difference between now and 1914 is the same that Kennedy faced in 1962, nuclear weapons.  Russia and the United States are two of the “big three” of nuclear warfare. Any moment those three are directly engaged with each other creates the ultimate risk at stake.

I’m watching the moment-to-moment coverage of the Ukrainian resistance to the Russian invasion.  It’s an incredible story of courage:  the massive might of forty miles of Russian vehicles coming down the highway to Kyiv, as the  Ukrainian citizens make Molotov cocktails from wine bottles and gather their hunting rifles (and their US supplied Javelin anti-tank missiles).  It’s not that the ultimate result is in question – but the free citizens of Ukraine will extract every ounce of Russian blood before they fall.

Stand for Democracy

We Americans are always for the underdog.  Rightfully, we stand up for democracy against authoritarianism, both here and in Ukraine.  And the courage of Ukrainians demands that we act in their support.  But that support must be tempered by tactical and strategic reality.

Tactically, there is no place for United States ground forces in Ukraine.  It is a simple issue of supply lines – our lines would be stretched across oceans; the Russians are fighting in their own “backyard”.  And strategically, there is no place for American Air Forces in Ukraine.  It’s not that we can’t get there; our NATO bases in Turkey, Poland and Germany are all near enough to support air attacks.  

We could declare a “no fly zone” – and try to keep all of the Russian air-support on the ground.  That would be of great benefit to the Ukrainians.  The Russian columns are clearly stacked up along the highways, a Ukrainian helicopter or ground-support aircraft would devastate them.  The only reason it isn’t happening now is that Russia controls the skies over Ukraine.

Strategic Engagement

But a NATO (or US) “no-fly-zone” puts US aircraft in direct combat with Russian aircraft.  And that “crosses the line” of strategic engagement.  It puts our two nuclear powers directly at each other’s throats.  We engage their aircraft.  They (reasonably) attack our air support bases in NATO countries.  We (reasonably) have to respond in-kind, attacking Russian bases in Russia. Neither side can ultimately be defeated – because that would require their use of nuclear weapons to “even” the score.  The slippery slope to nuclear conflict is terrifyingly steep.

“The Russians had tanks, the United States had planes, and they both had bombs.  And then there was “little” Ukraine, the nation with guts”.  

That’s the “chant” today.  As we watch the invasion of Ukraine, the United States should do everything we can to support them.  Economic sanctions, military supplies, compassionate aid all make a difference.  And we should make clear to Mr. Putin that Article Five of the NATO agreement means what it says:  we will come to the direct military aid of NATO countries should he decide to invade them for his “Russian Empire”.  There’s the reason US troops are in Poland and the Baltic countries.  They are a “trip-wire” to trigger a direct US response to Russian aggression.  

But we cannot send US aircraft into Ukraine.  We can only make it clear what the cost of invading NATO nations will be.  And we can support democracy in Ukraine by every other means we have.  Those should be the lessons of the “Guns of March”.  

Midwest

If you grew up in the Midwest you might not be familiar with the concept of a  “third rail”.  Public transportation was buses, and even the light rail in Cleveland used overhead electric cables to provide power.  But if you grew in the “big city” you know what it is.  On those Subway trains the electric power is provided by a third rail (two for the wheels, one for the power) located in between the tracks.  

Touch the third rail and you’ll get a jolt of 750 volts of electricity. That’s seven times the current that comes out of the plugs in your house.  Touching the third rail is deadly.

In American politics it used to be Social Security that was considered the “third rail”.  If you tried to alter the social security system, increase the retirement age or reduce the benefit; every person over the age of fifty would consider you an absolute threat.  And since that is one of the highest voting turnout groups in the nation, you’d lose the next election.

God, Guns, and Trump

But for Republicans, particularly those that intend to run for higher office, there is a new “third rail” in politics.  His name is Donald Trump.   How critical do they see Trump to their candidacies?  Look at the latest ad for Republican Senate candidate Josh Mandel of Ohio:  “Pro God, Pro Guns, Pro Trump” (not making that up!!!).

I watched Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas on This Week, the ABC Sunday news show.  Cotton is taking a tough stand on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, demanding that every possible sanction be placed on Vladimir Putin and Russia – TODAY.  He wants arms shipped to the Ukrainian Army “yesterday”, and is adamant that Putin is a world danger.   He’s getting as far “beyond” the Biden Administration as he can, trying to “out support” them for Ukraine.

But when he was asked about Donald Trump, the titular leader of the his own political party he failed to answer. Trump called Putin “smart and very savvy”, Cotton dodged a rebuttal.  George Stephanopoulos asked him over and over again about Trump’s Putin-supportive speech at the Conservative Politic Action Committee. Cotton said he “refused to comment on other politicians”.  Of course, that refusal doesn’t include Joe Biden.

A Rock and A Hard Place

Cotton isn’t the only Republican Senator (and potential Presidential candidate) who decided to shy away from the “third rail”.  In fact, the list is so long, that it’s easier to name the Republican Senators who aren’t “afraid” of Trump:  Romney, McConnell, and Portman.  That one of them is retiring and the other two are in “safe” seats with no further ambitions, makes them “immune” from Trumpism.  Romney even said, “…(H)ow anybody in this country who loves freedom… can side with Putin; it’s almost treasonous”. 

So the Republican Party is stuck between the proverbial “rock and a hard place”:  “Putin and Trump”.  The reasonable sense of the American people (Tucker Carlson excepted) is that Putin is leading a war of conquest against democratic Ukraine. Even renegade Democrat Tulsi Gabbard agrees.  We Americans know a bully when we see one, and the tanks move across the border remind us of the Cold War.  We knew who “the enemy” was then, watching tanks roll over people as revolts were put down in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.  And we know it now, as Putin literally cannot personally stand the “scent” of democracy on his own front door step.  

Cold War

So it’s easy for Republicans (and most Democrats as well) to fall into the old Cold War language and reactions.  And, by the way, it’s the right thing to do.  But the former President has somehow set himself in the position where he cannot find any “good” in the Biden Administration.  To paraphrase Trump; “Putin is smart, NATO is not so smart, and the current Administration is ‘very dumb’”.  So if Biden is “wrong”, then Putin is “right” – and for those Republicans who need Trump voters to get re-elected, there is that crushing feeling of the walls closing in.

At least Tom Cotton simply refused to comment.  Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was effusive about Putin:  calling him talented, savvy, and a capable statesman.  In fact, Pompeo went on to say, ““He was a KGB agent, for goodness sakes. He knows how to use power. We should respect that,” as if the Soviet secret police was an admirable institution (Kansas City).

Most Americans – Democrats and Republicans alike, rise to defend democracy against oppression.  Ukraine is not Afghanistan, President Zelenskyy did not get on a plane out of town at the first hint of trouble, and the Ukrainian Army is being joined by their civilians as they fight against the Russians.  We, in the “free world” (more Cold War terminology) are doing the right thing – standing with them.  

The former President in Mara Lago  stands with Putin. Maybe, he’s finally found a way to get “left behind”.  Other Republicans should take note.

Playground Bully

It always seems “not enough”.  When a nation-state acts like a bully, attacking less powerful nations, the obvious response is for an even stronger nation-state to step-in and stop them.  It’s just like the school playground.  The Bully can only be countered by anti-bully force.  The vaunted “outreach” of modern militaries, that can drop paratroopers and missiles on a dime, and infiltrate “special operators” in the night, should be enough, to deter the bully-nation.

But reality is so much more complicated than that mythical playground.  There really are places where forces cannot go.  And the old military maxim:  you can’t send an army where you can’t feed an army, still holds true today.  So when Russia invades Ukraine, while it “feels” like the thing to do is send in the 101’st and 82nd Airborne and the Third Marines and the rest, reality is that Russia is fighting from their home base. Even supplying from Europe, we are a long way from home.

Old Lessons

And there is the critical lesson of the Cold War to consider.  There are three nations in the world that need to avoid “head-to-head” confrontations.  The United States, Russia, and China are all capable of destroying each other, and everyone else, with nuclear weapons.  There is no such thing as absolute military defeat of those nations – because in the last analysis, to back them to that wall means a totally devastating nuclear assault.  

So the “playground” rules don’t quite apply to those nations.  If they act as bullies, they can be countered, but they can never be swept from the field.  The end result of that is too terrible to contemplate.  Vladimir Putin reminded us of that when he spoke of moving nuclear weapons into Belarus, closer to the NATO countries.  With nuclear weapons; distance really isn’t so critical. Our current level of targeting capabilities make proximity unimportant.  But it’s the discomfort of bombs ready to be launched, only fifteen minutes away.

Money Talks

The real lesson of the Cold War, and the fall of the Soviet Union is that it was not achieved on the battlefield.  It was won by a very “American Capitalist” strategy.  The US simply spent so much money, that the Soviet Union couldn’t keep up.  We built missile submarines and aircraft carriers, “Star Wars” anti-missile satellites (that didn’t work) and M1 A1 Abrams tanks.  We raced the Soviet Union to see who could build the “best” weapons, but the race wasn’t about the weapons.  It was about the resources spent to build those weapons.  The US spent nearly 6% of its Gross Domestic Product on weaponry.  

But we forced the Soviet Union to spend nearly 20% of theirs.  It ultimately wrecked their economy, and the Soviet government fell.  the United States won the Cold War by destroying the Soviet economy.

One World

We are a “world economy” today.  We know that gas prices here in Pataskala are likely to go up as the Russian oil supply is cut.   Russia is dependent on the world economy to move it’s natural gas and oil, and to get their computers and cell phones.  If the world stops trading with Russia, the Russian economy will wither and die.

It won’t happen overnight.  It’s a “cold revenge”, not the more satisfying hot action of confronting force with force.   And sanctions work best like a vise, gradually tightening, cutting off sources in succession, over time.  Just when they think things can’t get worse, they do.  So the “west” cuts off some of Russia’s largest banks but doesn’t ban Russia from the world monetary system.  That comes later.  The major natural gas pipelines are closed, but some smaller ones remain open.  The vise will close on them further.

The world will sanction those powerful Russians who support Putin, but why not Putin himself?  Once you sanction Putin, personally attacking his money and his family, how can you then get him to “the table” to negotiate an end to the madness?  In an authoritarian government like Russia’s, if you “take out” the top, there is no one left to talk to.  So Putin is allowed to keep his wealth, as all around him, and his nation as a whole, suffers.  The people of Russia will see that, and grow to resent his “fortune”, literally.  The vise closes even tighter.

Keep Paying

Fighting a long-term war in Ukraine is expensive, and the drain on the Russian economy won’t be financed by Russian oil and natural gas.  Sanctions will dry up those funds, even as the rest of the world adjusts to removing those sources from the market.  The Russian military won’t be able to access the funds they need to replace the bombs they drop, or the replacement soldiers they need to train.

Putin embarked on a military “adventure” in Ukraine this week, for the purpose of fulfilling his own dream of rebuilding the Russian Empire.  As a dictator, he didn’t ask the “permission” of the Russian people, only of the Russian cabinet already beholden to him for their power.  Russians are going to suffer:  economically and personally, as the caskets of fallen Russian soldiers return for burial.  Even if the Ukrainian Army falls, the Ukrainian people will continue to make their captured nation difficult to control.

The Danger

The danger is that before Putin fails at home, he will launch an attack we cannot ignore.  Article Five of the NATO agreement demands that all of the nations of NATO respond to an attack on any one of them.  That obligation has only been invoked once:  after Al Qaeda’s attack on the United States on 9-11.  Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Hungary are all NATO members, and are all at risk of Putin’s expansion.  

Eventually, over months and perhaps years, the final lesson of the Cold War will be taught once again.  The Russian people will suffer enough.  And just like Christmas of 1991, they will make a change in their government.  Let’s hope that happens before Putin puts the world in a head-to-head conflict we can’t ignore. 

Putin

Vladimir Putin, an authoritarian leader of a powerful nation, invaded a smaller neighbor today.  He’s using Russia’s overwhelming military might to attack the sovereign nation of Ukraine.  There was no “false flag” operation, no trickery.  The missiles fired, the helicopters took flight, the jets dropped their bombs.  It was the first, “punch in the nose”.  

Here in the 21st Century, it hard to imagine what 1914 or 1939 felt like.  We thought we were beyond “tanks at the border” or “occupation forces”.  Wars were relegated to outlaw regimes, strikes against the likes of Saddam Hussein or the Taliban in Afghanistan.  But President Putin of Russia has committed massive forces, nearly 200,000 troops, to the ultimate conquest of Ukraine.  It’s not the “shock and awe” of the 1992 US attack on Baghdad.  It’s the early beginnings:  destroy command and control centers, anti-aircraft sites, and border defenses.  

But even now, the growl of tanks, missile launchers and troop carriers is heard at the Ukrainian border with Russian-allied neighbor, Belarus.   Last night Putin made it clear that this was an invasion, his “first-step” in rebuilding “greater Russia”.  To paraphrase John F. Kennedy in a different era:  Putin is willing to, “…pay any price, bear any burden,” to fulfill his self-described destiny of bringing back the Soviet Union.

Echoes of History

The citizens of Ukraine aren’t “shocked”.  There was plenty of warning.  But they line up at the gas stations and ATM’s, and fill the highways with cars bound away from the city center in Kyiv.  Ukraine is no small nation – as broad as the distance from New York to Chicago, as wide as Toronto to Charlotte, North Carolina.   Even on a normal day, the drive across country takes many hours.  And it’s hard to say where to go – Russian troops are to the North, East, South, and on the Northwest and Southwest borders.  There is no easy exit, no “safe zone”. 

For old history teachers like me, the names echo other wars and times.  Ukraine was the battle zone of the twentieth century.  The “front” between Russian and Austro-Hungarian forces swept back and for across Ukraine in the First World War. In the Second, the Nazi juggernaut battled through Kyiv and Karkhiv and Donetsk on its way to its ultimate disaster at Stalingrad in Russia.  The Ukrainian people bore some of the worst suffering of that War.  And  Jewish Ukrainians faced extinction.  More than 33,000 were killed in just two days at Babi Yar, outside of Kyiv. 

Response

That was another generation, a time we thought was long gone.  But the tanks are lined up at the border.  And the nations of the “west” can do little to help the Ukrainian people.

What can “the west” do? (Using the term “the west” is falling back into old Cold War language, the “west” versus the Communist “east”.  Even Putin’s press secretary echoed that language – saying the Russia “will not live behind an ‘Iron Curtain’”.  And of course, Putin brought back the specter of nuclear holocaust, reminding the world that his is one of the largest nuclear forces in the world).  The “west”, the countries allied in NATO (another reminder of the Cold War), can disentangle their economies from Russia.

We can cut them off.  Russia offers mostly oil and natural gas – we can “bear the burden” here in the United States.   The world oil supply will shrink if we cut off supplies from Russia.  That reduction will inevitably raises prices, even if the “west” can pressure the Saudi’s to increase oil production.   

American Way

The United States is self-absorbed.  We wrap ourselves up in our politics and our social issues.  Even the threat of a world pandemic divided us from each other.  So how will the American people respond to the “burden” of supporting Ukraine?  Even more, what will we do if Putin goes “all-in” and tries to attack those former Soviet states that are in NATO, those that we are obligated to defend by treaty.  

Some politicians and “media personalities” (I don’t know how else to characterize Tucker Carlson) have already taken Putin’s side.  They somehow see common purpose with a Russian Empire, and think they can make political “hay” here in America by defending his aggressions.  So it’s an open question whether the American people will unite against Russian expansion, and be willing to make sacrifices for that cause.

It doesn’t seem like the “American Way” anymore.

The people of Ukraine have made a choice.  They face invasion and occupation, but they are standing against Russia.  How long they will last, it’s hard to say – but Ukraine has a long tradition of resistance to occupiers.  While their government may be driven into exile, it’s likely the citizens will not make it easy on Russia.  And in the meantime – what is the rest of the world willing to offer to protest and defend against further Russian incursions?  What of Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, and rest of the countries who languished behind the real Iron Curtain for forty-five years?

What will the American Way be then?

IF

The Governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, is one of the Republicans who would, “Run for President: IF…”. IF Donald Trump decides not to run in 2024. Abbott has to be prepared, to, like his rival in Florida, Ron DeSantis, step into the “breach” should Trump decide to opt out. Stepping into that breach means that Trump voters, the ultimate controlling authority in today’s Republican Party, will turn to Him as the heir to the Trumpian legacy. And to get that done, both Abbott and DeSantis need to have a record of Trump-like pronouncements and achievements.

DeSantis has “made his bones” in the anti-Covid, anti-vaxxer, anti-masker world.  He is leading the state of Florida in “personal FREEDOM” (please see Mel Gibson with blue face paint and a kilt every time you hear that expression).  That his leadership has cost Florida, the retirement state, thousands of lives isn’t really important.  DeSantis has found his niche in the Trumpian world.  He’s even out “anti-vaxxed” the former President himself.   And he’s made a healthy political profit in the process, “anti-vax” but absolutely pro-monoclonal antibodies.  Florida was the state with drive-thru antibody treatment tents.  After all, the producer of that Covid drug therapy is a leading contributor to the DeSantis war chest.

Compassion

So Abbott needs an issue to stand out in his own way.  And while Texas has made a great performance of tightening their voter laws without evidence of voting corruption, it hasn’t really made the impact he’d like.  Add to that the fact that Texas, with the longest Mexican border in the nation, hasn’t managed to build a wall, or make that traditional Trump talking point into a positive “Abbott” position.  

There’s one thing you may not know about Greg Abbott.  The sixty-four year old man is confined to a wheelchair, the result of a freak accident.  While he was practicing law at thirty-one, the former high school track athlete took a break and went out for a jog.  A large oak tree splintered as he went by, and fell on him.  It shattered his spine and made him a paraplegic.  His own website tells the story:

As he lay in a hospital bed, throttled with incomprehensible pain, doctors worked to piece his vertebrae back together. They inserted two steel rods near his spine, which will remain there for the rest of his life. During his harrowing recovery process, Governor Abbott was reminded of lessons he’d learned all his life, especially the lesson of perseverance.

The last politician in a wheel chair with Presidential aspirations was Franklin Roosevelt. It is said that being paralyzed (Roosevelt as an adult from polio) taught him to be more sensitive, more compassionate, and more aware of disabilities and the unanticipated differences that change lives. Abbott may have learned perseverance from his tragic injury. But, at least on one issue, Abbott is demonstrating his complete lack of compassion.

The Issue

The science of gender has made enormous strides in the past decades. Science now knows that “gender”, male or female, is more than just genitalia and X/Y chromosomes. Gender is determined by the brain as well as the body, and we now recognize the reality of someone with the body of one gender, may have the brain of the other. Even more, that difficult realization comes early in life, often in childhood, and is a significant cause of childhood depression and even suicide.

The experts, the doctors, biologists and psychologists; all recognize this is a valid medical and psychological condition.  But it goes against the “grain” of traditional American (and particularly) fundamentalist Christian views.  As one of my acquaintances wrote on a Facebook post, “Marty Dahlman, it’s not my biological (view), it’s God’s!”  

Parents struggle to help their child who realize they are transgendered.  For those who recognize it early, support for the child can help them avoid the depression and self-destructive behavior that can come from societal condemnation.  And for those who are firmly transgendered, adolescence is a tortuous time.  It’s when the body defines itself, regardless of the brain.  A transgendered boy is betrayed by his own anatomy, developing into a female.

Legal medical practice prevents surgical interventions until adulthood.  But those children can be given drugs that block one side of sexual development, and encourage the other.  It can allow a “boy” to live as a boy, and a “girl” to live as a girl, regardless of their birth gender.  

Bully Pulpit

But Greg Abbott is trying to put an end to that in Texas. And he’s found a “bully pulpit” attacking trans kids. He wants to declare the practice of prescribing those medications as “child abuse”, and require designated reporters, those who by law are required to report to law enforcement possible child abuse, to “out” those children who might be receiving those drugs. Parents and doctors could end up fined or in jail.  

Abbott says he is doing this to “protect” youth.   There are approximately 2.5 million 12 to 18 year-olds in Texas (Kidscount).  In the United States, approximately 0.7% identify as transgender (Williams).  So out of the millions of teenagers in Texas, maybe 17,500 identify as transgendered.  Most are not treated by puberty-blocking drugs, which means that Governor Abbott is making headlines as the expense of less than a thousand children.

Abbott, like DeSantis, has been an advocate of “personal FREEDOM” (blue face again).  And both Abbott and DeSantis have gone out of their way to demand that individual parents determine what their children learn in school (and what is banned).  They wouldn’t want them to be “uncomfortable” by the realities of American History.  But when it comes to determining the right medical course to protect transgendered kids – Abbott KNOWS that the STATE OF TEXAS is better prepared to tell them what medical treatment they should have. “FREEDOM” (blue face), except when it might not win Presidential primary votes for the Governor.  

He’s playing politics by bullying the most vulnerable.

Too Soon for History

It’s far too early to try to write the history of our era.  The three crises of our time:  political and societal polarization, growing world authoritarianism, and the pandemic; aren’t over.  Any analysis would struggle to summarize and evaluate.  Today, we are still in the “play-by-play”, without knowing what the outcomes will be.  To use a sports analogy:  were in the third quarter, and the Bengals are ahead.

But we have learned about individuals:  we can look at their actions and draw some conclusions about human behavior.  The obvious subjects are the leaders, but it’s “too soon” to talk about Presidents.  Donald Trump is such a toxic subject, that even mentioning him in this paragraph will stop some from going farther.  And while Joe Biden doesn’t create the same visceral reaction, any discussion of him will end up being simply current events.  So while those two are fascinating, it’s for another time. Maybe in a couple of decades when the mere mention of their names doesn’t generate emotion. (How old  do you have to be for the name “Nixon” to generate anger?).

We can look at the recent past, the original crisis of the Trump Administration, and learn a lot about right and wrong, success and failure, courage and cowardness.  Our intelligence and law enforcement agencies faced a question. Was the Trump Campaign and then Administration somehow infiltrated by Russian Intelligence?   What is critical for this essay is how two individuals faced up to the question.  Let’s look at them, dropped into the white-hot furnace of Russiagate:  James Comey and Rod Rosenstein.  

Comey

James Comey was Director of the FBI as the 2016 political campaigns began.  A highly accomplished US Attorney from the University of Chicago, he rose through the ranks of the Justice Department to become the Deputy Attorney General under President George W Bush.  He demonstrated a strict moral compass even then.  When his boss, Attorney General John Ashcroft was desperately ill and in the hospital; Presidential Counsel Alberto Gonzalez tried to gain his signature on a 9-11 plan to further infringe on American privacy and rights, Comey literally stood at the bedside and told the man acting in the name of the President, no.  

Comey believed strongly in that compass, and in the inherent strength of the FBI.  So when he saw a “flaw” in the Obama Justice Department, a perceived conflict of interest in the Hillary Clinton email investigation, he took it upon himself to mete out justice.  Instead of following his own agency’s policy of not commenting on investigations or interfering in electoral politics, Comey gave his famous “speech” castigating Clinton’s handling of classified materials, and then declining to proceed with any charges.

Crossfire Hurricane

From a solely FBI perspective, Comey’s compass with correct.  Attorney General Loretta Lynch seemed compromised by her meeting with former President Clinton.  Her Deputy, Sally Yates, didn’t “take charge” of the situation.  So Comey stepped in, to protect the “process” and the FBI.  That he was stepping into the middle of the Presidential election seemed to be a tertiary level concern.

At the same time, Comey was acutely aware that his FBI was investigating a much more serious allegation, that the Trump Campaign was compromised by Russian Intelligence.  Operation Crossfire Hurricane was at full speed, closely monitored by Comey and his Deputy, Andy McCabe.  But as open as the Clinton investigation was, Crossfire Hurricane was one of the best kept secrets in FBI history.  We didn’t even find out about it, until the New York Times printed a story in February of 2017.

Compass versus Scale

Comey followed FBI policy to the letter, recognizing that open knowledge of the investigation would have a tremendous impact on Trump’s chances.  While this met his strict compass, he seemed to be without a scale to measure the fairness of what he was doing.  Every move:  the Email press conference, the secret Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and the final devastating public letter to Congress reopening the Clinton investigation were all “correct”.  But when weighed on the scale of fairness and history, he failed.

That compass needle maintained its strict reading when Comey was asked to pledge “fealty” to the new President, and refused.  The President waited until Comey was across the country in Los Angeles, then fired him by tweet.   Comey, dissed by the President he unintentionally helped put in office, became the symbolic figure who lost his job but kept his soul.  But there remained the flaw:  the strict compass without the scales of justice.  Perhaps that’s the reason that “Lady Justice” is blindfolded. 

Crumbled

The man who helped fire James Comey was Rod Rosenstein.  Rosenstein was the Harvard educated Republican US Attorney for Baltimore, brought in to become the Deputy Attorney General.  He was unwillingly elevated to national prominence, when Attorney General Jeff Sessions, recused himself from involvement in the Russiagate investigation.  That left Rosenstein in charge of the Justice Department for these matters.

Rosenstein got his first taste of Trumpian government, when he was called on to write a memo detailing why James Comey should be fired.  A dutiful lawyer writing for his client, the President, Rosenstein created the document that served as the basis for Comey’s removal.  He later claimed that he didn’t realize that would be its purpose.  But Comey was fired non-the-less.

After Comey was fired by the President, Rosenstein was faced with a crisis in the FBI.  The new Acting Director, Andrew McCabe, was also the direct supervisor of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation of the Trump campaign.  The pressure of those days was obviously great.  McCabe wrote that Rosenstein broke into tears in meetings about what they should do.  The use of the 25th Amendment was discussed – and whether Rosenstein as “Acting Attorney General” in the Russiagate matter might have a vote in the process.  There was even a conversation about Rosenstein wearing “a wire” to get “the goods” on the President.

Only a Face 

Rosenstein seemed to hold firm publicly, and became the “face” of the Justice Department standing against the Administration.  With Comey gone and McCabe conflicted, Rosenstein brought in the highly respected former FBI Director, Robert Mueller, to be Special Counsel in charge of the investigation.  He removed direct FBI leadership, though many of the actual investigators remained.

But the Acting Attorney General than proceeded to hamstring Mueller.  Rosenstein restricted any investigation from going into Trump business, personal or campaign finances.  The old adage from the Watergate years, “follow the money”, was off the table.  Instead, the Mueller team was required to try to “make a case” without financial information.

And Mueller himself established a second standard which restricted the scope of his research.  He determined that regardless of what was found, the President of the United States could not be indicted in Court.  And since it was “unfair” to raise charges without the opportunity for trial, Mueller simply refused to answer any question of whether the President might have committed crimes.

So while publicly Rosenstein seemed to be the “White Knight” standing for Justice, he was carefully arranging for a pre-determined outcome.  Whether he also recognized that Robert Mueller was struggling personally is unknown.  But it certainly didn’t hurt Rosenstein’s apparent choice of outcome that the Special Counsel (Mueller) was in fact, of diminished capacity.

And when Jeff Sessions finally resigned, and William Barr took over as Attorney General, Rosenstein was happy to stand (literally) in the background, and allow Barr to finish the job of torpedoing Crossfire Hurricane and the Mueller Report.   It seems that the White Knight was merely a placeholder, unwilling to risk the opprobrium of the Trump Administration or his fellow Republicans.  

Failed

Two men, one of character, one who merely acted like he was.  In the end, neither “rose” up to the level of the challenge they faced.  One failed from having a too narrow view.  And the other failed by having too little courage.  They both let down our country in a time where we needed them most.

Nothing Changed

Yesterday, Russian President Vladimir Putin formally recognized the “independence” of two Eastern provinces of Ukraine, and offered them military assistance.  This is “no big news” in one sense.  Russian troops have been in the Donbas region since 2014.  Of course, they haven’t flown the Russian flag or worn Russian uniforms, but they are a major part of the “partisans” that revolted against Ukraine during the Sochi Olympic Winter Games.  

But by formalizing “treaties” with these territories, Putin officially supported breaking off this part of Ukraine.  A high percentage of people in the Donbas region regard themselves as ethnic Russians, with over 70% speaking Russian over Ukrainian.  The historic analogy:  1938, when Hitler decided that a portion of Czechoslovakia was too ethnically German to remain outside of the German Reich.  So he took over the Sudetenland, a move that was formally agreed to in Munich by the other nations of Europe.  We all know where that ended up.

Proportional Response

The NATO countries, led by the United States, have to make a decision.  Realistically nothing on the “ground” in Ukraine has changed.  The Donbas was under Russian control, Putin has just made it official.  But on the other hand, by making it official, he dismantled a part of another sovereign nation, Ukraine.  How will the NATO countries react?

There are “terms of art” when dealing in diplomacy.  The first one is the theory of “proportional response”.  Some in the United States, on both sides of the political aisle, want the US to respond with a full array of the economic sanctions available.  The problem with that:  Putin has almost 200,000 troops, tanks, artillery, and planes surrounding Ukraine on three sides.  None of those who moved across the borders.  So while “on paper” the situation has changed, it hasn’t altered on the ground – yet.

And NATO is NOT committed to respond militarily to an invasion of Ukraine.  The members of NATO are committed to each other in “mutual self-defense” through Article Five of the NATO agreement.  That article has only been invoked once – after 9-11 when the NATO membership rose in support of the United States.  Ukraine is not a member of NATO.  While the NATO countries are committed to aid, they are not sending in troops.

Sanctions 

So if NATO won’t respond with military force to armed incursion into Ukraine, the only tools left are economic. The nations of the world can refuse to interact with Russia economically, including preventing Russia from using the world banking systems.  In addition, Russia’s major exports are natural gas and oil.  If those exports are cut, then Russia will quickly be in an economic crisis.  Cutting those exports will also cause hardship in the European countries, and an increase in world prices.

But all of that might not be enough to stop Putin from invasion.  A “proportional response” would call for a more moderate punishment for changes “on paper” that aren’t real changes “on the ground”.  So NATO countries are working to respond, but not to overdo it.  They are saving more serious responses for more serious provocations.

A New Empire

Putin has made it very clear that he considers all of Ukraine, not just the Donbas, as part of “greater Russia”.  He published a 5000 word essay on the topic not too long ago.  And Putin feels the worst moment in modern history was December 25, 1991 when the Soviet Union officially dissolved.  Clearly his ultimate goal is to reconstitute the Soviet/Russian empire.  His new “treaty” of yesterday, is with the “People’s Republic of Donetsk and the People’s Republic of Luhansk,” echoing the language of the Soviet Union.

If Putin wants Ukraine, and he’s willing to pay the economic and military price, he’ll have it.  Casualty estimates are over 50,000 soldiers injured or killed, with millions of civilians displaced as refugees.  A conventional war between Russia and Ukraine won’t last long, but a subsequent guerilla war will be long and bloody.  And the sanctions will create long term damage to the Russian economy.

And if Putin want’s to further “reconstitute” the Soviet Union, the next steps are now under the NATO umbrella. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are all members, protected by Article Five.  And the rest of Eastern Europe, vassal states to the Soviet Union for forty-five years, are also in NATO now.  Ukraine may well fall to Putin, at a high cost in blood and treasure.  But if Putin’s goal is to achieve his new Russian Empire, the cost will be World War III. 

Bob Saget

Bob Saget, comedian and star of the 1980’s classic television show Full House, died a few weeks ago.  He was sixty-five, a couple of months older than me, and he was alone in his hotel room after a stand-up comedy show.  Saget died from brain damage caused by a fall.  Originally it sounded like he “tapped” his head, then died in his sleep.  But the coroner’s report showed massive damage from whatever happened to him.  The family has asked for privacy, but there are still a lot of questions about what happened to Bob Saget.

All of that led me to think about how many times I’ve gotten hit in the head.  So here’s today’s Sunday Story, a litany of literal “mind numbing” events.  

Young Knocks

I was three years old in 1959, and one of the most popular televisions shows was Superman starring George Reeves.  To a three year-old there were few options for flying, but the nearest one was the toilet.  So I climbed on top of the seat, and jumped into the air.  Unlike Superman, I didn’t take flight – but I did show some power as I crashed my face into the floor.

My biggest remaining memory of that event was laying on a hospital table staring into a huge bright light, surrounded by darkness.  A masked figure leaned into the light. It was Uncle Howard! – and that’s all I’ve got.  My parents’ friend Howard Shriver sewed my lip back up.  Was I concussed – hard to say today.

But the first for-sure concussion was in 1964. We were at my friend David’s house, wrestling in his bedroom. I’m not quite certain how it happened, probably a “double-bouncing event”, but I took a header off of the bed, and hit my head on the bed stand as I went to the floor. I remember seeing all sorts of exciting lights, then had a serious headache. The treatment for mild concussions hasn’t changed much in almost sixty years. I was confined to bed, in a darkened room. Mom wouldn’t give me much to eat, but I remember being allowed to have all the Coca-Cola I wanted. I was only in there for a few days, then it was back to the world.

Head Rush

It was in sixth grade in 1967 that I nailed my noggin again.  I was eleven, and like many growing kids had occasional “head rushes”.  A “head rush” was when I stood up too fast, or stretched too “hard”, and got light headed and dizzy.  It was kind of a thing that all of us boys had one time or another, and we never thought of it as a problem.  In fact, we had a “method” of creating head rushes.  One boy would take a bunch of deep breathes, then another would squeeze him from the back so hard that the first would black out.  I spent a few moments unconscious on a restroom floor one day. That was a “sixth grade thing” I guess.

Sex Day  

But that wasn’t the bad one.  It was on the day (just that one) we were supposed to learn about “SEX” in school.  They wouldn’t talk about it in class, but there was an evening assembly when we sixth grade boys were brought back to “have the talk”.  We already had a “back of the bus” understanding of the topic, but there would be a film presentation and a lecture.  That was the height of excitement during the day.

So I was sitting in Mrs. Ralston’s class, and I leaned back to stretch.  I immediately got a “head rush”, and I quickly brought my head back to my desk.  But I missed the desk, and went forehead-first straight into the linoleum floor.  I was out cold for a few moments, and came-to looking up at my teacher. She was an older woman, and big – NFL linebacker big. My next memory is her towering over me.   Somehow, (I don’t remember) they got me to the office, when I realized that I couldn’t see anything but colors, swirling in front of my eyes.  I must not have communicated that well, because they put me on the green-scotch plaid cot in the nurse’s office to wait for Mom to come pick me up.  That plaid made my head really swim!

No ambulance was called, but Dad and Mom rushed me to Dayton’s Children’s Hospital, to meet with our Pediatrician, Dr. Harry Graubarth.  By then my vision was coming back, and I realized that my ONLY opportunity to learn about SEX was on the line.  I complained to the Doc that I couldn’t miss it, and he laughed as he gave me a shot.  As I faded out, he promised I’d find out soon enough.

I woke up at home, two days later.  And I had to wait until eighth grade to get the “school talk”.

Wrestle Off

I was a pretty active teenager.  I swam, wrestled, played some football, and, of course, ran track.  In that era before contact lenses and full face masks,  I had the freshman football team record for breaking my eye-glasses over my nose, six pairs.  And since I couldn’t wear glasses in the pool, my flip-turns were always an adventure.  There were a couple of times when I didn’t figure out the wall, and flipped my forehead into the side.

But it was in wrestling that I probably had my next concussion.  I was a junior, defending my 126 pound varsity position in a wrestle-off, when I shot in for a double-leg takedown.  My opponent countered by kneeing me right in the face, smashing my nose to the side.  I hung on for a few seconds, trying to clear my head, then continued the match.  After all, it was a varsity wrestle-off!  I finally won on points, and came off of the mat. My friend Jack asked, “what happened to your nose?” I reached up – and missed.  My nose was no longer straight on my face, but flattened off to the right side.

My Face

It wasn’t bleeding – and it didn’t hurt too much. It was early in wrestling season. So as a fifteen year-old varsity wrestler, I figured that my nose could wait. I showered up, and headed for home, figuring no one would notice. I managed to get through the back door, and into the family room, before Mom dropped a tray of glasses and screamed in her best English accent – “WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR FACE!!??” Dr. Sidney Peerless was the “nose guy” in town, and was known for working late into the night. I was in his waiting room at 10 pm, and surgery was scheduled for a day later.

I remember laying on the gurney, waiting in the pre-op room.  The guy next to me was still unconscious, and I heard the staff talking about how they had mistakenly taken out all the good teeth and left the bad ones in.  I was glad I only had one nose!

School of Hard Knocks

As I survived into my twenties, I don’t remember too many head trauma events.  But I did have an exciting “head rush” event, at eleven thousand feet on a mountain in New Mexico.  I was sitting uphill from the fire, warming myself on a cold night at altitude.  When I stood up, I “grayed out”.  I stumbled downhill – straight into the flames!!!  Luckily for me, I just kept stumbling, and other than some smoldering rubber on the soles of my hiking boots, and a very surprised look from my trail-mates, no damage was done.  

There was twenty-five years of coaching wrestling, another broken nose, split lips, and several times when I got my “bell rung”.  But my next big “event” was while setting up a cross country course.  Part of that process includes putting fence posts, big steel pipes, into the ground to attach flags and fences.  The tool for putting the posts in is called a post-pounder.  If you don’t know what that is, think about the last cop show you watched in TV.  The big steel contraption they bust down the doors with – that’s a post-pounder.

Posts

The pounder fits over the end of the pipe, and you lift it and drop it onto the post, literally pounding it into the ground.  The only danger is lifting it up too far.  Then the pipe comes out of the “pounder”, and it catches on the edge.  And that’s exactly what happened in the August heat in the back field.  The pounder caught, got sideways, and bounced off the top on my head.  I regained consciousness laying in the sun on the grass, with a stiff headache.  There wasn’t much blood, certainly not enough for stitches, and I could still see straight. So I got myself back to work.  There was a course to setup!

Track coaching too had its dangers.  Our team tents were great most of the time, but always dangerous in high winds.  The tent would flap up, and the poles would come lose, and crash to the ground.  I don’t remember much about the Whitehall Relays one year after getting one on the head, and I almost lost a hurdler at the Conference meet at Hilliard Bradley to pole impact.  But the worst was when a tornado hit our “accordion” tent, throwing it into the air and into the face of one of the Assistant Coaches.  That was a mess.

War Ball

But the final blow was in a track game, and all my fault.  It was a February practice, and we had the gym for indoor track.  The high jump and pole vault pits were inside, and at the end of practice we had a team “war ball” game.  War ball, was like “bombardment”, you tried to knock your opponents out of the game (not out cold) by hitting them with the ball. The team with members still on the field at the end, wins.  But we added a twist, the high jump mat sections as hiding spots in “enemy” territory.

I had the absolutely brilliant idea of jumping up behind the mat, grabbing the top, and throwing the ball, all at the same time.  What I didn’t expect was that the mat would tip over backwards on top of me.  One hand had the ball, the other the mat.  So I went backwards, with mat in tow, right onto the back of my head.   My team didn’t win the game – dammit!

That event was good for about three days of “vagueness” in life.  And the kids who gave me messages (Austin – “I won’t be at practice on Monday”) didn’t understand why I was so mad come Monday when they didn’t show.   I don’t have much recollection about the meet that weekend either.

So I try not to get hit in the head anymore.  And I try not to think about Bob Saget’s accident too much.  I’m just glad that “Google” has all my memory on record!!!!

• The Sunday Story Series
• Riding the Dog  – 1/24/21
• Hiking with Jack – 1/31/21
• A Track Story – 2/7/21
• Ritual – 2/14/21
• Voyageur – 2/19/21
• A Dog Story – 2/25/21
• A Watkins Legend – 3/7/21
• Ghosts at Gettysburg – 3/14/21
• Lessons from the State Meet – 3/28/21
• More Lessons from the State – 4/4/21
• Stories from the Road – 4/11/21
• A Bear Wants You – 5/1/21
• My Teachers – 5/9/21
• Old Friends  – 5/23/21
• The Gift – 6/6/21
• Echoes of Mom – 6/20/21
• Stories of the Fourth – 7/3/21
• Running Memories – 7/25/21
• Lost Dog of Eldora – 8/1/21
• Dogs and Medals – 8/8/21
• The New Guy – 9/5/21
• Stories of 9-11 – 9/12/21
• The Interview – 9/26/21
• Night Moves – 10/3/21
• Funeral for a Friend – 10/11/21
• National Security – 10/24/21
• Boots on the Trail – 10/31/21
• Taking Care of Mom and Dad – 11/14./21
• Dogs Found and Lost – 11/21/21
• Watching Brian 12/12/21
• Stories from Shiloh – 12/19/21
• Team Trips – 12/26/21
• Uphill, Both Ways  – 1/9/22
• Old Trophies – 1/30/22
• The Last Time – 2/7/22
• Olympic Miracles – 2/13/22
• Mind Numbing – 2/20/22

Generations

I had a conversation with a younger friend of mine the other day.  He asked very serious questions:  why should the United States get involved in a conflict, far away in Eastern Europe?  Why aren’t Russian concerns about being “encircled” by hostile alliances just as valid as our worries about the Caribbean or Central America?  Shouldn’t our European “friends” spend their treasure and blood to deal with Russia, instead of the US standing in as the “world’s policeman?”

Frankly, I am always ready to answer those questions.  I am a “Boomer”, the child of World War II veterans.  That label is an honor, not an insult. My generation was the “prize” that our parents earned with their sacrifice.  I was raised in memories of their world that tried to bargain with Fascism rather than stand up to its expansion.  My parents steeped me in the loss and sacrifice of their generation, of the friends who disappeared in the air or on the battlefields.  They understood that there was no turning away from that fight – it would still come and find you, ready or not.

Realization

But it was his next question that caught me unprepared.  He phrased it a little differently, but it basically went:  how can I trust a government who spent twenty years in Afghanistan to no avail, then simply turned and walked away?  The accusation in his tone wasn’t for the leaving, but for staying with no good result. 

 And today, I watched the Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, lay out the case against Russia in the United Nations Security Council.  His words were persuasive, just as tellingly solid as the last time our highest foreign minister warned of impending war in that same body.  That was an even more respected Secretary of State:  General Colin Powell, laying out the case against Iraq.

Experience

And then I realized why my thirty-something friend was so adamant against war. In his lifetime, Americans went into Afghanistan after 9-11 with good cause, to punish the Taliban and destroy Al Qaeda.  But when we achieved both, we didn’t declare victory and leave. We instead stayed for two decades and tried, using George W Bush’s phrase, to “nation build”. My friend’s compatriots were the last to stand on the ridges of Helmand Province, fighting to no avail.  They are suffering today the devastating mental effects of that war.

 And in the midst of that, we determined to invade Iraq as well.  With all respect for General Powell, who was force-fed bad information at Presidential order: he lied about why we should invade the country.  And while getting rid of Saddam Hussein might have been a laudable goal, we opened up a world of conflict that his iron fist controlled.  The suffering in the region spread, from Iraq to Syria, and continues even today.

My friend has no experiential reason to “trust” that the United States is making a valid decision about Russia’s actions in Ukraine today.  “Where is OUR interest, so far away, in a nation where we couldn’t fight, even if we wanted to?”  He speaks with the authority of recent history, and a podcast fueled omniscience.  I get it.

Doomed to Repeat

But I look at a wider history than just the US military failures of the 21st Century.  In the 1930’s, there were two world powers; both authoritarian regimes, and both wanted to expand their hegemony in separate spheres.  They found alliance in their enemies.  One was recovering from an utter collapse at the end of World War I.  The other was seeking domination of Asia.  

The United States, embroiled in its own calamities, ignored both.  The European nations tried to negotiate with Germany, giving away chunks until there was no choice but to fight.  The United States then stood as the only power facing Japan.  We ended up fighting both, with the Greatest Generation bearing the brunt of the sacrifice.

Today’s crisis in Ukraine is not attempting to “democratize” tribal nations without foundation.  Ukraine is not Iraq or Afghanistan, it is a nation-state wishing to be autonomous from Russian control.  And if it falls, is it Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, next?   Then what? What about China expanding into Taiwan, the Sea of China, the “Pacific Sphere of Influence”?

History would have been different if we had backed Europe, standing up to Hitler at the Anschluss, or at Munich.  What if the world had stood against Japan in Korea, or Manchuria?  But even back then they said, “Where is OUR interest, so far away, in a nation where we couldn’t fight, even if we wanted to?”  OUR interest whether it’s Hitler and Tojo then, or Putin and Xi today: it is better to stand for democracy and against authoritarianism early.  

If not, then you surely will have to stand against it later.

Phenom

She’s a fifteen year-old girl.  And she’s (arguably) the best figure skater in the world.  Kamila Valieva is a Russian phenom.  And – she’s tested positive for three different drugs, which, used in combination,  has the effect of increasing endurance by impacting the heart muscle itself.  Sure skaters need strength.  But in a five minute performance, requiring multiple athletic jumps and turns – endurance definitely helps.

If she was a sixteen year-old boy who was legally prescribed an asthma inhaler by his doctor that contained a banned stimulant, they would strip him of his medal and ban him from the Games.  That’s the precedent.  Ask Rick DeMont, the American “phenom” who won the Gold in the 400 meter freestyle in Munich in 1972.   They took his medal away, and sent him home (Daily Advertiser). 

I remember that well – I too was a sixteen year-old swimmer, though nowhere near the class of DeMont.  But I related to doing “what the doctor told me to do”.  I did get to see an Olympic Gold Medal from Munich.  It was around the neck of the fifteen year-old girl who sat behind me in class – Deanna Deardurff.  She won the gold and set a new world record in the 400 Medley Relay.  Deanna was required to compete as a “boy” on our high school team – there was no girls high school swimming at the time.  

That crisis was soon eclipsed – first by the five medal performance of DeMont’s teammate, Mark Spitz.  And then by the terrorist attack on the Israeli athletes that killed twelve.

Banned from the Games

But the International Olympic Committee established the precedent then:  young age is not an “excuse” for testing “dirty”.  You lose what you’ve won, and you are banned from the Games.  Following a doctor’s orders isn’t an excuse either.  And certainly making a “mistake” by mixing your grandparents’ drugs with your own (sounds like a likely story) even at fifteen, shouldn’t get a pass.  We would spank a five year-old for that – do we expect less from a fifteen year-old?

Except – for Kamila Valieva.  She’s already won a Gold Medal for the Russian Olympic Committee in the team event.  Now, she’s favored to win another Gold in the individual contest.  And every other athlete (and all those skaters are amazing athletes) on the ice knows, that if SHE tested positive, she would never be allowed in the building, much less on the ice.

A Russian Problem

The title “Russian Olympic Committee” exists, because Russia has a chronic athletic drug abuse problem. In 2014, even the Russian Security Services were part of cheating on drug tests at the Sochi Games. Russian athletes provided “clean urine” far before the Games. Then they used performance enhancing drugs. When they won Medals, the “dirty sample” was literally passed through a secret hole in the testing lab wall, and replaced with the “clean” sample.

And figure skating has had its share of scandal.  If you’re old enough to remember when the judges held up cards scored 1 through 10 to score a performance, you’ll probably remember the old joke:  “…and the scores are – 9, 9.5, 9, 4 – that was the Russian judge, 9, 9.”  The Russian attitude is always win, at all costs.  The only failure is in getting caught.

The Russian National team has been banned from the Olympics since 2014.  But the “Russian Olympic Committee” can still field contestants, just not under the Russian flag.  And here we are again:  another Russian athlete with a positive drug test, competing in the Olympic Winter Games.  

Unfair Break

Why does she get a “break”?  Why did the International Court of Arbitration for Sport allow her to continue in the competition?  They claim that this could be an “accidental poisoning”, and that the fifteen year-old shouldn’t be held to the same standard as an adult.  They suggest that perhaps the adults, the coaches, should be held responsible, rather than the fifteen year-old (Sports Illustrated). 

Or maybe it’s because she’s on the Russian team.    The American Olympic Team would have banned her from even getting to the Games.  Sha’Carri Richardson never even got to the Court of Arbitration.  She tested positive for marijuana –  a drug with no athletic benefit to a 100 meter sprinter.  She was banned from the US team for a month, by US authorities.  That was long enough to remove her from the Olympic Summer Games in Tokyo last summer (NYT).

Or perhaps the Court is afraid that if Valieva is banned, Russia’s President Putin will invade Ukraine.  That’s not as far-fetched as it seems.  Putin’s actions at the Ukraine border already are on the knife-edge of war, it wouldn’t take much.

So the medal award ceremony has been postponed.  Just in case the Court changes its mind, after the Games are over.  Or Putin doesn’t invade.

Sun Rise

This is an old coaching expression – “no matter what the outcome of the contest, the sun WILL come up tomorrow”.  Life will go on, win or lose; so whatever the outcome: take the credit or the loss, and move on.  I know that the Cincinnati Bengals will struggle with their Super Bowl loss.  But I also know that they are incredibly successful athletes, honed by years of effort.  They will suffer the loss, but they will also use that suffering to motivate the next effort.  The sun came up on Monday, so “Who Dey!!”  Get to work.

Klaxons

But it was a more literal sun rise this morning.  Today was a “sub day”, when I struggled to get out of bed to the 5:30 am klaxon alarm. Into the darkness I wandered through the house, and let the dogs out into the back yard.  All of us, three dogs (two slept on) and I, had sleepy, half-closed eyes.  

The dogs wandered back out of the darkness, the icy yard; and quietly waited at the door for me to let them in.  Meanwhile, I downed the first cup of the first pot of coffee for the morning.  While caffeine has an absolute definite physical impact, even the first sip clears cobwebs from my brain.  That must be a matter of “placebo effect”; no way the caffeine can hit my system that fast.

The other two dogs made their sleepy appearance, the oldest smiling with half open eyes.  So there are five, looking for breakfast, waiting for the “treats” of the morning (bits of cheese with the meds, bits of carrots for the rest), their morning hors-d‘oeuvres before the regular meal.  All but one finally ate (really – 5:45 is far too early for a pit bull puppy to eat, especially when she can lay her head to the fire) and then I started to get myself together.

Early Light

By 6:45 I was out the front door, starting the Jeep to warm up against the ten-degree cold.   Then I noticed:  the sky was lightning.  There was no need to leave the porch light on – I could see around the car, and up the stairs.  Spring will come, not the fake spring of  the day after tomorrow when the temperature will approach sixty, but real spring, leaves coming out and grass growing spring.  It’s on the way.

I drive to school into a red sunrise.  Sailors might take warning, but it was beautiful, uplifting.  Sure there’s still a month of snow and ice to go, and this week’s warmup is really a false hope.  But the sun is coming up earlier, and while the geo-physics that create the seasons are inexorable, it’s still good to see the evidence.

Dis-Heartened

Last week I wrote an essay that seemed hopeless.  The extremism that has infected America is using the Covid virus to infect other countries.  Some Canadian truck drivers, anti-vaxxers, are fouling the roads, using their vehicles to block commerce and daily life.  Ninety percent of Canadian truck drivers are vaccinated, so, like the Insurrectionists of January 6th, it’s dangerous to infer a broader movement from the actions of a few.

But millions of dollars poured into Canada to support the protestors.  Extremists here in the United States bragged how much more the “truckers” raised than either of the two Canadian political parties.  But the parties raise their money from Canadians. It is the US extremists, interested in exporting their movement, that are donating across the border.  I suspect most Canadians aren’t appreciative of another American incursion into their lives.

The Canadian Way

The Canadian government is taking it’s time.  No need to provoke violence, they are carefully winnowing down the protestors, getting to the hard core crazies that may require force and incarceration to move them out of the way.  Canada isn’t interested in a spectacle, of Canadian police being beaten with Canadian flag poles (purchased with US money).   So they’ll move cautiously, courteously.  It’s their way.

And there are protests in Europe, the spread of a right-wing nationalism using Covid as the excuse to be anti-government.  I’m sure US money is behind that as well. Steve Bannon is getting his “dream-shot”, an autocratic union of the “white Northern Europeans”.  It’s what he talked about since he emerged as “Trump’s Brain” in 2016.  It was in one of my earliest essays, when “Our America” was called “Trump World”, back in February of 2017 (The Bully and Bannon).  Whether he’s “behind” all this or not, he’s definitely enjoying it.  The sun came up for him, even after the election of 2020.

Robins

But I didn’t publish my sad, dis-heartened essay last week.  It was a day, not a season, and a day I didn’t want to become a legacy.  So it wrote it, and buried it in the files.  Because the sun came up, and the Canadians are handling their extremists in the “Canadian Way”, and Omicron is diminishing, and the Supreme Courts of North Carolina and Ohio seem dead set to making voting districts fairer.  

We’ve had our “red sky” warning.  But just as spring is eternal, so is hope.  So I’ll bury dis-heartened, and believe this morning’s sunrise, and in the hope that we will continue to be a nation dedicated to becoming “more perfect”.  No matter there will probably be a blizzard next week.  The sun will come earlier, and the grass will soon grow.  Last week I saw the robins flocking in my neighbor’s tree.  They are fat – they’re going to make it through this winter.  

And so shall we.

Dis-Heartened

I’ve been – well – the correct term might be “dis-heartened”.  As any frequent reader of “Our America” probably knows, I  am consistently, some might say overly, optimistic about the future of our nation:  “The arc of the moral universe bending towards justice,” and all that.  And I still believe in American exceptionalism, in the idea that our nation, founded in Revolution by flawed men, can still become a “More Perfect Union”.  

But the “perfecting” is taking a hell-of-a-long time.  Maybe it’s the “Medicare thing”, the idea that at sixty-five, I may no longer see a time when we will be a Nation without strife.  I am confident that the United States will be better, but right now all I see is it moving backwards not forwards.   I’m not so sure how long it will take to change direction again – maybe beyond my Biblical three score and twelve (that’s only seven more years).  

Marching Backwards

We, as a nation, are marching firmly towards the past.  We have a Supreme Court that is turning the control over a women’s body to state governments, many dominated by right-wing male legislators only interested in pursuing their own wealth.   The Court is doing the same with the rights of what will soon by the majority of our Nation, those of color.  And state by state, the white minority is consolidating power.  

The contrived controversy over “Critical Race Theory”, created by the right-wing “think-tank” the Manhattan Institute, has convinced millions of parents their children are unable to “handle” the sins of their fathers.  Just a question:  how can we become a “more perfect union” without reckoning with the imperfections of the past?  Ignoring those flaws, is of itself Un-American.  But don’t dare teach children about those imperfections – or allow them to express their own views.  And they called us liberals “snowflakes”.

Idiocracy

The idiocracy that determines it’s better to ignore a pandemic than follow the science is not just frustrating, it’s immoral.  We are quietly approach 930,000 deaths from Covid,  “the World’s Number One” as a former President would say, and are so divided that nothing will stop us from reaching a million.  I’m reminded of the movie Meatballs, so many Americans are chanting with Bill Murray, “It just doesn’t matter, It just doesn’t matter.”   They are resigned to incapacity, and now are using trucks as the weapons of “FREE-DOM”. They just deny.  They go on with their lives – those that don’t die or aren’t affected by the losses.

There is a commercial for the travel site, Kayak, where they make fun of families split by “Kayak-deniers”.  It’s far too soon to be funny, and far too real.  There are too many families divided and friendships lost, to trivialize by commercializing the division.  I resent the ad, and I resent that it probably amuses folks on all sides of our polarized society.   But, like it or not, it does symbolize our national septicity.  

Don’t Look Up

I didn’t like the “in vogue” movie, Don’t Look Up, either, because I don’t like nihilistic stories without hope.  I didn’t like the popular Netflix series, House of Cards for the same reason.  That’s never been my view of life. But there is a whole lot of “not looking up” going on around here, a focus on internal life to the exclusion of everything else.  

Here in Ohio, a politician took a $60 million bribe from an energy company to get the state to pay for a failing nuclear plant.  And now, two years later, the politician hasn’t been tried for his crime. He’s even thinking of running for office again. And the company is still getting paid by the state.  “Don’t Look Up”, you might see that even the thieves in government are out in the open.  They are brazen, and guiltless, and Teflon.

It doesn’t seem like there’s much “bending towards justice” yet.

Geometry

It’s easy to think – well, just wait for another decade, when the Mitch McConnell’s and Donald Trump’s and, as my younger friends would say, the “old white dudes” will be dead.  But the thrust of our current universe seems to be going in the wrong direction, one of division instead of unity, ignorance instead of knowledge, hate instead of faith.  The arc of the moral universe looks suspiciously like an ellipse. 

I know optimism will return.  I’m subbing in a school, and down the hallway I hear the voice of Dr. Martin Luther King, speaking that last night in Memphis.  He went to the “mountain top”, and saw the “Promised Land”.  After all he had been through, he still had faith in America – the arc bending towards justice. If he could be optimistic in 1968, how can I be less in 2022.

This is another in the “Sunday Story” series.

“That’s right, I start crying. Because another human being, a species that I happen to belong to, could kick a ball, and lift himself, and the rest of us sad-assed human beings, up to a better place to be, if only for a minute… let me tell ya, kid – it was pretty goddamned glorious. It ain’t the six minutes… it’s what happens in that six minutes.” – Vision Quest – 1985

Lunatic Fringe – Red Rider

Sports Fan

I am a sports fan.  So, I was fired up – the Olympic Winter Games (don’t dare call it the Winter Olympics, I don’t know why) started on February 3rd.  I was ready to spend days watching events I know little about, from figure skating to what looks like roller derby on snowboards.  And of course, there is the inevitable hours trying to figure out curling.  It’s easy to write curling off; it’s an inscrutable event.  What looks simplistic from the outside, must be a highly complex skill on the inside. 

The first few days didn’t grab me.   I was waiting for the “Jean Claude Killy” moment.  It was back in the winter of 1968, not the best year of our American history.  The Winter Olympics were in Grenoble, France, and I was an eleven year-old who knew little about winter sports.  But here was this seemingly out-of-control Frenchman, flying down the mountainside. Even at eleven I recognized that the difference between winning and catastrophe, Gold or out, is a razor thin edge. And  Killy, arms flying, seemed bound to crash into the barriers.  But he didn’t – his willingness to put everything on the line brought him the Gold.  That’s a lesson I learned – for sports and for life.

But the first few nights of the 2022 games didn’t have it.  So we moved our viewing away, back to the unending grind of the “news”.  We even read through a whole evening.  (It isn’t that we don’t read, but usually it’s during the day.  Evening reading usually means early sleeping).

Athletic Choices

Wednesday night I tried one more time.  It was the finals of the women’s snowboarding half-pipe competition.  The competitors drop down a twenty-two foot wall into the “pipe” then use that momentum to fly up the other wall – perform flips, turns, and things I can’t even follow, switches and “940’s”. Then they try to land and do it again on the other side.  It’s incredibly complex, and obviously dangerous.  

But what caught me was the choices those athletes had to make.  The scoring is the best of three attempts (a lot like track and field).  If you fall – you fail and that run doesn’t score. The strategic thinking is about how to weigh out the efforts:  go for it all from the beginning and pressure the field or get a safe run in, then build on that momentum.  And, after the first run, the “safe” run, they all got out on that “ragged edge” of Gold or failure.  They tried “tricks” that were so hard that the success percentage was low.  They fell, and yet they went back up and tried it once again.  

Citius, Altius, Fortius

Chloe Kim is the American champion.  Her runs were incredible, tricks that seemed undoable followed by clean landings into another amazing effort.  And when she had won it all, and could just “mail it in” on her final run, she didn’t.  Chloe took her third run and tried tricks that had never been done in competition before.  She tried to raise the standard of her whole event, and to risk that last Olympic moment as a failure.  And she did fail – but in the attempt personified the Olympic spirit – Citius, Altius, Fortius, (faster, higher, stronger) – even with the Gold medal already around her neck.

And after the women’s half-pipe, came the men’s figure skating.  The athleticism involved in jumping, spinning, and twirling on the ice is incredible.  And again, I watched athlete after athlete risk their entire performance, give up the “safe” program, to gain the Gold.  For me, who watches figure skating once every four years, the incredible change is the “quad”.  They leap from the ice, and spin four times in the air before they land.  And it’s not just once, it’s four or even five different quads in a performance.  At least, if you want the Gold.

They fell, one after another.  The only path to Gold was through the quad.  Only one finalist, Jason Brown of the United States, didn’t attempt it.  His was an impressive performance, surely a medalist effort in the 1990’s or early 2000’s.  He knew what he couldn’t do, so he gave everything he could.  He got sixth.

Chen

And then there was the other young American, Michael Chen.  He attempted five quads, four of them seemingly perfect, one flawed but still successful.  And the rest of his performance was incredible, from interpretation to athleticism.  His was the “Killy” moment, when he could take all of his gifts, all of his work, and channel it into a single effort.  He won the Gold medal by over twenty points.  I don’t really know the difference between a salchow and a triple toe loop, but I know an amazing, world class, dedicated athlete when I see one.  Michael Chen is one.

So I’m back watching the Olympic Winter Games.  Last night it was the men’s half-pipe, then the women’s Giant Slalom.  The incredible Sean White made his last Olympic effort, and in true Olympic style, risked it all on his final run.  He was fourth, and it required even more tricks to gain a medal.  He tried and fell:  then showed incredible “class” as he stood with his younger competitors and cheered on the final medalists. 

I’m glad I came back.  They’ll be more sports this weekend – and another athletic oddity– the Bengals in the Super Bowl?  (Coach Sam Wyche’s daughter is bringing his ASHES in a silver football to watch the game – not making that up!!). No wonder the world seems so confused.  But as a Cincy native, an original Bengals fan from the beginning in Nippert Stadium – Who Dey!!!!  Or as a young announcer named Al Michaels said in the 1980 Olympic Winter Games – “Do you believe in Miracles?”

The Sunday Story Series

• Riding the Dog  – 1/24/21
• Hiking with Jack – 1/31/21
• A Track Story – 2/7/21
• Ritual – 2/14/21
• Voyageur – 2/19/21
• A Dog Story – 2/25/21
• A Watkins Legend – 3/7/21
• Ghosts at Gettysburg – 3/14/21
• Lessons from the State Meet – 3/28/21
• More Lessons from the State – 4/4/21
• Stories from the Road – 4/11/21
• A Bear Wants You – 5/1/21
• My Teachers – 5/9/21
• Old Friends  – 5/23/21
• The Gift – 6/6/21
• Echoes of Mom – 6/20/21
• Stories of the Fourth – 7/3/21
• Running Memories – 7/25/21
• Lost Dog of Eldora – 8/1/21
• Dogs and Medals – 8/8/21
• The New Guy – 9/5/21
• Stories of 9-11 – 9/12/21
• The Interview – 9/26/21
• Night Moves – 10/3/21
• Funeral for a Friend – 10/11/21
• National Security – 10/24/21
• Boots on the Trail – 10/31/21
• Taking Care of Mom and Dad – 11/14./21
• Dogs Found and Lost – 11/21/21
• Watching Brian 12/12/21
• Stories from Shiloh – 12/19/21
• Team Trips – 12/26/21
• Uphill, Both Ways  – 1/9/22
• Old Trophies – 1/30/22
• The Last Time – 2/7/22
• Olympic Miracles – 2/13/22

True Compass

I’ve enjoyed Whoopi Goldberg’s comedy for decades.  And I’ve been impressed with her acting, in The Color Purple and in Ghost, when she won the Academy Award.  But in the end, I know Whoopi Goldberg best from her recurring role on Star Trek, the Next Generation (yes, a Trekkie here).  She played a knowing and insightful bartender in the restaurant/lounge of the Starship Enterprise, who had a special friendship with the Captain, Jean-Luc Picard (purely platonic).  In that role, I always felt that Whoopi played herself; explaining time distortions and alien civilizations and acting as a compass pointing to truth and fairness.

And when I’ve listened to Whoopi Goldberg in panels as herself, that same compass always seemed to come through.  She was direct and clear, and was able to cut to the core of an issue and hold her ground. 

Definitions

So it was with some surprise that I heard last week that Whoopi was embroiled in controversy about the Holocaust.  In this time when battlelines are drawn on almost every issue, the Whoopi Goldberg I knew could never be a “denier”.  And she’s not.  But she has fallen into a rhetorical “trap” about the Holocaust, one that I often had to explain to high school students when I taught about that horrific chapter in history.  I hope that teachers today can still have those conversations with their classes.  But it’s understandable that some may be frozen in fear by our battlefield culture. 

It’s a bit of an esoteric conversation:  was the Holocaust, the murder of six million Jewish people (and four million others) by the Nazi death machine, a racial issue?  After all, Whoopi isn’t wrong, the Nazis were Caucasian, and most Jews were Caucasian as well.  So it was a “white on white” attack, a genocide to be sure (“mass killing of a nation or ethnic group).  But was it a “racial” genocide?

Race or Religion

Jews are not defined as a “separate race”.  After all, people can “become” Jews just like they can become Catholic, at least they can become Reformed or Conservative Jews, not Orthodox Jews.  Traditionally, Judaism was “passed” from one generation to the next through the mother (so, though I am “half-Jewish”, since my Dad was Jewish and my Mom was Catholic, I couldn’t be an Orthodox Jew.  However, the Reformed Temple would welcome me in).   

On the other hand, Jews were isolated throughout thousands of years of history.  At first it was a tribal thing in the Holy Land, but later, it was a cultural/religious law.  Jews could only marry Jews, and outsiders weren’t allowed.  On the other hand, Jews were also persecuted and often isolated by other cultures ( in the Russian Pale, or the Jewish Ghettos in European cities). There was limited interaction between Jews and non-Jews.  So there are “racial” characteristics of those who are “culturally Jewish”, whether they are religiously Jewish or not.  

So “cultural Jews” share genetic characteristics, “looks”, certain diseases, and a long heritage of discrimination.  Whoopi’s not wrong:  Jewish people aren’t “a race”.  But they are more than just a religious group, more than the Southern Baptists down the street or even the Roman Catholic Church my mother grew up in.  She was English, born of a father of Irish descent and a mother of Scottish heritage.  So she was English, Irish, Scottish; and Catholic.  

But in much of the world, Jewish people were considered Jews, who lived in England, or Ireland, or Scotland.  And that reversal in order made all the difference.

Nazi Ideology

The “racial” aspect of the Holocaust was an outgrowth of that difference, and so much uglier.  German Jews fought for Germany in World War I at a greater percentage than regular German citizens.  To those Jews, Germany was their homeland, deserving of defense.  But after the loss of the War, and the economic catastrophe that followed, the Nazi Party used Jews as the scapegoat for all the nation’s troubles.  Jews were “at fault” for losing World War I (they weren’t), and Jews were ruining the economy (they didn’t).  

The Nazi racial theory placed the German “Aryan” race, with proto-typical blonde hair and blue eyes and Nordic descent, at the top of their “racial pyramid”.  And they placed Jews as a “sub-human” race, whose existence threatened to contaminate the “Master Race” at the top.  As the Nazi’s gained power, they began to take action against German Jews.  It started as simply identifying them throughout the nation, then moving Jews out of positions of power.  It was accompanied by a national propaganda campaign to convince the rest of the German nation that the Nazi actions were “OK”.  After all, they were “just” Jews.

Nazis’ Choice

We all know how that turned out.  Of the fifteen million Jews in Europe before World War II, six million died in the Holocaust.  They weren’t the only “racial” group to be consigned to the ovens:  as many as half a million Roma were also killed.  And they were accompanied by political prisoners, the physically and mentally handicapped, and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Whoopi Goldberg might be “technically” right about the definition of race.  But she missed the point.  Her definition didn’t matter in the Holocaust.  It isn’t important to the lost six million.  The Nazis were in power – and they determined that Jews were “a Race”:  one to be eliminated.  To those six million, and to those who understand the Holocaust today, that’s the only definition that’s important.

I hope Whoopi will get the message.