Here are two great pieces which more than adequately address the knee jerk criticism of the president.
Who’s the Villain Here?
Blaming Obama First
I don't get it. Half of their base is libertarian now and doesn't give two shits about Ukraine. Ah well, any excuse to bring up Benghazi...
Friday, March 07, 2014
Thursday, March 06, 2014
Is The Ukraine Situation A Fight We Can't Win and Russian Can't Lose?
John A. Mazis posits this question in a recent column in the Strib and while I don't agree with everything he writes, he does have a voice that needs to be heard.
While President Vladimir Putin is not a democratic leader, he is elected (voting irregularities notwithstanding) and is still popular in Russia. His reasons for intervening in Crimea, and maybe elsewhere in Ukraine, are grounded in concrete security concerns as well as in history. His intervention aims at securing the safety of Ukraine’s sizable Russian minority and safeguarding his country’s dominance by keeping the West from encroaching on Russia’s traditional sphere of influence.
This is the heart of the matter, really. Ukraine wants to be part of Europe, not Russia. Pro-Russian forces within the country and in Russia. This is more of a European issue than a United States issue. Of course, President Obama is being measured for his manliness right now by some (not all, thankfully) in the Republican Party in how he responds to this crisis. I think that the barometer should be placed firmly on how the EU, particularly Germany, responds. They are the ones on the hot seat, not the president.
While President Vladimir Putin is not a democratic leader, he is elected (voting irregularities notwithstanding) and is still popular in Russia. His reasons for intervening in Crimea, and maybe elsewhere in Ukraine, are grounded in concrete security concerns as well as in history. His intervention aims at securing the safety of Ukraine’s sizable Russian minority and safeguarding his country’s dominance by keeping the West from encroaching on Russia’s traditional sphere of influence.
This is the heart of the matter, really. Ukraine wants to be part of Europe, not Russia. Pro-Russian forces within the country and in Russia. This is more of a European issue than a United States issue. Of course, President Obama is being measured for his manliness right now by some (not all, thankfully) in the Republican Party in how he responds to this crisis. I think that the barometer should be placed firmly on how the EU, particularly Germany, responds. They are the ones on the hot seat, not the president.
Wall Street Journal: Affordable Care Act Effects Account for Most of Income, Spending Increases
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Affordable Care Act is already boosting household income and spending.
The Commerce Department reported Monday that consumer spending rose a better-than-expected 0.4% and personal incomes climbed 0.3% in January. The new health-care law accounted for a big chunk of the increase on both fronts. On the incomes side, the law’s expanded coverage boosted Medicaid benefits by an estimated $19.2 billion, according to Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. The ACA also offered several refundable tax credits, including health insurance premium subsidies, which added up to $14.7 billion. Taken together, the Obamacare provisions are responsible for about three-quarters of January’s overall rise in Americans’ incomes.
Wow.
The Commerce Department reported Monday that consumer spending rose a better-than-expected 0.4% and personal incomes climbed 0.3% in January. The new health-care law accounted for a big chunk of the increase on both fronts. On the incomes side, the law’s expanded coverage boosted Medicaid benefits by an estimated $19.2 billion, according to Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. The ACA also offered several refundable tax credits, including health insurance premium subsidies, which added up to $14.7 billion. Taken together, the Obamacare provisions are responsible for about three-quarters of January’s overall rise in Americans’ incomes.
Wow.
Wednesday, March 05, 2014
Two Close Shaves in Two Days
 |
| 951 Gaspra |
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory tracks these Near Earth Objects (NEOs) on a web page anyone can access. Over the next two months more than 80 asteroids will pass by Earth with an average of 40 lunar diameters (9 million miles) at closest approach. That's two or three a day.
Most of them aren't that close -- 9 million miles is a tenth of the distance between the earth and the sun. But that's a lot of junk floating around in space near us.
All of these are too small and dim to be seen with the naked eye. But that doesn't mean they aren't potentially dangerous: five of these 81 asteroids may be as much as a mile across. A strike by an asteroid of that size on earth could kill a lot of people and drastically change the weather.
These asteroids are still being discovered by the hundreds each year. As of March 3rd, JPL was tracking 10,665 NEOs. Even though these asteroids aren't currently on a collision course with earth, we need to keep an eye on them because their orbits can be perturbed by interactions with other asteroids and big planets like Jupiter, which has a tendency to yank asteroids out of the asteroid belt and send them careening across the solar system.
So, no Armageddon this week. But keep your eyes on the skies.
The Minimum Wage, Corporate Welfare and Kids
The Minnesota legislature is currently debating a bill that would increase the minimum wage to $9.50. Recently the president increased the minimum wage for federal contractors to $10.10.
The problem is that the current minimum wage isn't a living wage — especially if you have a family to support. Many minimum wage earners have to turn to the government safety net — public housing assistance, food stamps, Medicaid, home heating assistance, earned income tax credit, etc. — to be able to survive.
By not paying their employees enough to live on, companies are getting subsidies from the government to keep their costs down, and therefore increase their profits. This is corporate welfare, at the taxpayers' expense.
The minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation; in adjusted dollars it pays far less than when it was first introduced. If the minimum wage had kept pace with worker productivity, it would be $18. The United States has one of the lowest minimum wages among developed economies: $7.25, compared to $9.25 in Japan, $9.57 in the UK, $9.76 in Canada, etc., up to $15.75 in Australia (in 2011, some of these have increased since then).
Opponents of an increase to the minimum wage are slowly yielding to logic, but they still want an exception: a lower minimum wage for workers under 18.
Yes, they want child slaves.
They justify this in a number of ways. "Kids don't have any responsibilities, they don't have to pay any rent, buy food or support children." Or, "Kids don't really need money. They just need a little pocket change to pay their cellphone bills and buy a t-shirt every once in a while." Or, "Kids are so unreliable, I have to train them to get to work on time, they're not worth that much."
The reality is that there are plenty of kids who do have real responsibilities. They have to help their parents — often single moms — pay the rent, buy their own and their siblings' food. But those aren't rich suburban white kids, so they fall beyond the ken of the people who oppose the minimum wage increases.
When I was in school I "lent" my dad money — the real estate market was a bear in the seventies — so I can attest to the fact that kids really do give their parents money, even white kids.
I don't mean to denigrate suburban white kids — they need money too. Have you looked at the cost of college these days? College students are frequently saddled with onerous amounts of debt after four years of tuition — colleges are really expensive these days. The more money they can save before they go to college, the less they'll have to borrow.
The silliest canard is "I have to train them to get to work on time." The average 16-year-old has been going to school for a decade, and has been getting up at 6:00 AM, turned in hundreds of homework assignments on deadline. Many have participated in hundreds of team practices and critical matches, where the success of their team hinged on their actions. They have been dealing with the whims and demands of parents, teachers and coaches their whole lives. It's preposterous that employers think they are teaching these kids anything they haven't been exposed to a thousand times before.
It's a fact: a lot of kids are unreliable. Just like a hell of a lot of adults. They know what they're supposed to, and when they're supposed to do it. If they can't do the job on time or to your satisfaction, just fire them. Why should the good workers get paid less just because you have problems with the bad workers? Firing them may be the best lesson you can give them.
But if you can pay workers peanuts and invest nothing in them, you don't really care how bad they are, just as long as you can get a minimum amount of effort out of them. Yes, raising the minimum wage will result in some job losses: bad employees who aren't worth what they're being paid will be fired. You will get more work out of your good employees because they'll be more motivated. These are good things: unemployment is still too high, and there are plenty of people who need jobs and are willing to work hard.
Businesses that have good employees making a higher minimum wage will either have to cut their own profits or executive compensation packages (I'm looking at you, Walmart), or raise prices. Companies will have to charge prices for products that reflect the cost of producing them in an economy where everyone can afford to live on what they get paid, instead of depending on the government to step in and prop them up.
Some small number of businesses will fail, because their owners aren't competent to compete without screwing over their employees, or because they're selling products that no one is willing to buy for what it costs to make them — that is, they have a failed business model.
In either case, what's the problem? Those companies are just the corporate version of bad employees.
The problem is that the current minimum wage isn't a living wage — especially if you have a family to support. Many minimum wage earners have to turn to the government safety net — public housing assistance, food stamps, Medicaid, home heating assistance, earned income tax credit, etc. — to be able to survive.
By not paying their employees enough to live on, companies are getting subsidies from the government to keep their costs down, and therefore increase their profits. This is corporate welfare, at the taxpayers' expense.
Opponents of an increase to the minimum wage are slowly yielding to logic, but they still want an exception: a lower minimum wage for workers under 18.
Yes, they want child slaves.
They justify this in a number of ways. "Kids don't have any responsibilities, they don't have to pay any rent, buy food or support children." Or, "Kids don't really need money. They just need a little pocket change to pay their cellphone bills and buy a t-shirt every once in a while." Or, "Kids are so unreliable, I have to train them to get to work on time, they're not worth that much."
The reality is that there are plenty of kids who do have real responsibilities. They have to help their parents — often single moms — pay the rent, buy their own and their siblings' food. But those aren't rich suburban white kids, so they fall beyond the ken of the people who oppose the minimum wage increases.
When I was in school I "lent" my dad money — the real estate market was a bear in the seventies — so I can attest to the fact that kids really do give their parents money, even white kids.
I don't mean to denigrate suburban white kids — they need money too. Have you looked at the cost of college these days? College students are frequently saddled with onerous amounts of debt after four years of tuition — colleges are really expensive these days. The more money they can save before they go to college, the less they'll have to borrow.
The silliest canard is "I have to train them to get to work on time." The average 16-year-old has been going to school for a decade, and has been getting up at 6:00 AM, turned in hundreds of homework assignments on deadline. Many have participated in hundreds of team practices and critical matches, where the success of their team hinged on their actions. They have been dealing with the whims and demands of parents, teachers and coaches their whole lives. It's preposterous that employers think they are teaching these kids anything they haven't been exposed to a thousand times before.
It's a fact: a lot of kids are unreliable. Just like a hell of a lot of adults. They know what they're supposed to, and when they're supposed to do it. If they can't do the job on time or to your satisfaction, just fire them. Why should the good workers get paid less just because you have problems with the bad workers? Firing them may be the best lesson you can give them.
But if you can pay workers peanuts and invest nothing in them, you don't really care how bad they are, just as long as you can get a minimum amount of effort out of them. Yes, raising the minimum wage will result in some job losses: bad employees who aren't worth what they're being paid will be fired. You will get more work out of your good employees because they'll be more motivated. These are good things: unemployment is still too high, and there are plenty of people who need jobs and are willing to work hard.
Businesses that have good employees making a higher minimum wage will either have to cut their own profits or executive compensation packages (I'm looking at you, Walmart), or raise prices. Companies will have to charge prices for products that reflect the cost of producing them in an economy where everyone can afford to live on what they get paid, instead of depending on the government to step in and prop them up.
Some small number of businesses will fail, because their owners aren't competent to compete without screwing over their employees, or because they're selling products that no one is willing to buy for what it costs to make them — that is, they have a failed business model.
In either case, what's the problem? Those companies are just the corporate version of bad employees.
Obama A Go Go
I've heard a lot of President Obama rage of late. Hatred of this president become a cottage industry. It ranges from the usual conservative rag about how he is commie bent on being an totalitarian dictator to somewhat bizarre liberal mouthfoam regarding how is a magic puppet who dances for an evil cabal of wealthy corporatists who seek to depopulate the earth. Honestly, I have trouble telling who is left and who is right. They all sound the same when their blood gets up.
Yet, if you look at this actual record, you see what you see with most presidents. A list of impressive accomplishments, mistakes, and projects in the works.
In looking at the first link from Washington Monthly, I simply don't understand how anyone on the left can accuse him of being a puppet. He's pissed off a lot of people with these policies so I can see why some on the establishment Right don't like him. But the left? One would think they would be happy. The second link shows his mistakes as well his achievements. Again, not perfect but part of some grand conspiracy? Where is the evidence?
Yet, if you look at this actual record, you see what you see with most presidents. A list of impressive accomplishments, mistakes, and projects in the works.
In looking at the first link from Washington Monthly, I simply don't understand how anyone on the left can accuse him of being a puppet. He's pissed off a lot of people with these policies so I can see why some on the establishment Right don't like him. But the left? One would think they would be happy. The second link shows his mistakes as well his achievements. Again, not perfect but part of some grand conspiracy? Where is the evidence?
Tuesday, March 04, 2014
Do Rapists Only Pretend to Be Drunk?
When there are accusations of rape, alcohol is frequently involved. Because of that, many rape cases are never reported, many never go to trial, and many prosecutions fail because the cases devolve into he-said she-said arguments. Defense attorneys claim that both perpetrator and victim were drunk, everything was consensual, no one's at fault and there was no crime.
Even if they believe the woman's accusation, judgmental jurors may decide to punish the woman for going into bars and getting drunk in the first place, or for being a "tease." Women jurors may be the least likely to believe the victim.
But a study conducted by the universities of Toronto and Washington seems to counter some of that narrative:
Young women are often the targets of aggression when they're out in bars, but the problem isn't that guys are too drunk to know better.That is, the perpetrators of sexual assaults may be cynically pretending they were drunk as an excuse for crimes they commit while in full possession of their faculties.
Instead, men are preying on women who have had too much to drink.
Men may perceive intoxicated women either as more amenable to advances or as easier targets who are less able to rebuff them because they don't have their wits about them, the researchers say.I believe the intent may be even more sinister: if their victims press charges, they know that intoxicated women are less likely to be believed, and that people will think they deserved whatever happened to them.
I admit I have no personal experience with this; my personal anecdotes about alcohol involve my paternal uncles dying of various diseases caused by alcoholism, the disintegration of my sister-in-law's marriage from alcohol and prescription drug abuse, and my wife's cousin who went to prison after shooting his brother in a drunken fight. I don't drink and I don't frequent bars. They're too loud, too dark, and for most of my life they were smokey. Drunk people get into nasty arguments and brawls. And they kill people by the thousands on the highway.
All I have are the statistics from the National Institute of Health, which indicate that a quarter of all American women have been sexually assaulted, half of all sexual assaults involve alcohol, and 80% occur in social situations.
I am in no way blaming the victims here, but if you're a woman who wants to reduce your chance of being raped, the single best precaution you can take is to not drink in public or on dates. Not only do you keep your wits about you, it deprives rapists of their best excuse, and warns them immediately that you're not easy: they will just seek easier prey. That may mean you won't get as many dates, but you don't want to go out with those guys anyway.
There's a theory that farming was developed not to grow grain for food, but to produce beer, which allowed the development of civilization. If so, it's about the only good thing that came from booze.
Calling Out The Inflation Obsessives
Paul Krugman's recent piece on the inflation obsessives is absolutely correct. Worth of highlighting...
What accounts for inflation obsession? One answer is that obsessives failed to distinguish between underlying inflation and short-term fluctuations in the headline number, which are mainly driven by volatile energy and food prices. Gasoline prices, in particular, strongly influence inflation in any given year, and dire warnings are heard whenever prices rise at the pump; yet such blips say nothing at all about future inflation.
They should know this but they seemingly don't.
They also failed to understand that printing money in a depressed economy isn’t inflationary. I could have told them that, and in fact I did. But maybe there was some excuse for not grasping this point in 2008 or early 2009.
It's nothing really but willful ignorance. It's fundamental economic fact.
The point, however, is that inflation obsession has persisted, year after year, even as events have refuted its supposed justifications. And this tells us that something more than bad analysis is at work. At a fundamental level, it’s political. This is fairly obvious if you look at who the inflation obsessives are. While a few conservatives believe that the Fed should be doing more, not less, they have little if any real influence. The overall picture is that most conservatives are inflation obsessives, and nearly all inflation obsessives are conservative.
It's also emotional and rooted in profound insecurity. Why are they like this?
In part it reflects the belief that the government should never seek to mitigate economic pain, because the private sector always knows best. Back in the 1930s, Austrian economists like Friedrich Hayek and Joseph Schumpeter inveighed against any effort to fight the depression with easy money; to do so, warned Schumpeter, would be to leave “the work of depressions undone.” Modern conservatives are generally less open about the harshness of their view, but it’s pretty much the same.
The flip side of this antigovernment attitude is the conviction that any attempt to boost the economy, whether fiscal or monetary, must produce disastrous results — Zimbabwe, here we come! And this conviction is so strong that it persists no matter how wrong it has been, year after year.
It's truly bizarre. The continue to be wrong...clearly...and yet they continue to assert they are right. I suppose that's the bubble for you:)
Krugman doesn't paint a very rosy picture of the Fed either. At least it's rooted in fact and not moutfoaming moonbattery.
What accounts for inflation obsession? One answer is that obsessives failed to distinguish between underlying inflation and short-term fluctuations in the headline number, which are mainly driven by volatile energy and food prices. Gasoline prices, in particular, strongly influence inflation in any given year, and dire warnings are heard whenever prices rise at the pump; yet such blips say nothing at all about future inflation.
They should know this but they seemingly don't.
They also failed to understand that printing money in a depressed economy isn’t inflationary. I could have told them that, and in fact I did. But maybe there was some excuse for not grasping this point in 2008 or early 2009.
It's nothing really but willful ignorance. It's fundamental economic fact.
The point, however, is that inflation obsession has persisted, year after year, even as events have refuted its supposed justifications. And this tells us that something more than bad analysis is at work. At a fundamental level, it’s political. This is fairly obvious if you look at who the inflation obsessives are. While a few conservatives believe that the Fed should be doing more, not less, they have little if any real influence. The overall picture is that most conservatives are inflation obsessives, and nearly all inflation obsessives are conservative.
It's also emotional and rooted in profound insecurity. Why are they like this?
In part it reflects the belief that the government should never seek to mitigate economic pain, because the private sector always knows best. Back in the 1930s, Austrian economists like Friedrich Hayek and Joseph Schumpeter inveighed against any effort to fight the depression with easy money; to do so, warned Schumpeter, would be to leave “the work of depressions undone.” Modern conservatives are generally less open about the harshness of their view, but it’s pretty much the same.
The flip side of this antigovernment attitude is the conviction that any attempt to boost the economy, whether fiscal or monetary, must produce disastrous results — Zimbabwe, here we come! And this conviction is so strong that it persists no matter how wrong it has been, year after year.
It's truly bizarre. The continue to be wrong...clearly...and yet they continue to assert they are right. I suppose that's the bubble for you:)
Krugman doesn't paint a very rosy picture of the Fed either. At least it's rooted in fact and not moutfoaming moonbattery.
Are GOP Governors In Trouble?
Unless they go full on moonbat, the GOP has a good chance of making considerable gains in the Senate. But what about the Governor races? Take a look at some of the polls.
It looks like most Democratic challengers beat Tom Corbett in Pennsylvania. Wendy Davis is going to make a serious run in Texas, especially with Abbott running around with Ted Nugent (someone please give him more chances to open his mouth!). Kasich is going to have a tough fight in Ohio. Rick Scott is going to lose. Period. And Snyder is going to struggle in Michigan.
2010 was the year when the states went red in terms of state government. It looks like that's going to change in 2014.
It looks like most Democratic challengers beat Tom Corbett in Pennsylvania. Wendy Davis is going to make a serious run in Texas, especially with Abbott running around with Ted Nugent (someone please give him more chances to open his mouth!). Kasich is going to have a tough fight in Ohio. Rick Scott is going to lose. Period. And Snyder is going to struggle in Michigan.
2010 was the year when the states went red in terms of state government. It looks like that's going to change in 2014.
Monday, March 03, 2014
Fannie Mae Pays Back With Interest, US Makes Profit
Fannie Mae has paid back the United States government all of the $116.1 billion dollars it borrowed after posting an eighth straight quarterly profit. Earnings were at $84 billion dollars, the highest ever for the firm. The total amount paid ended up being $121.1 billion dollars.
“Obviously, it’s good news for taxpayers that Fannie Mae is profitable,” Chief Executive Officer Timothy J. Mayopoulos said on a call with reporters.
“For the last five years, the employees of Fannie Mae have come to work with the goal of reaching this accomplishment for the taxpayers,” said Mayopoulos, 54. “I’m very proud of what our employees have achieved and I’m very, very happy for the taxpayers.”
I seem to recall shrieks of doom and rolling in boiling pits of sewage over Fannie Mae. Hmm....
“Obviously, it’s good news for taxpayers that Fannie Mae is profitable,” Chief Executive Officer Timothy J. Mayopoulos said on a call with reporters.
“For the last five years, the employees of Fannie Mae have come to work with the goal of reaching this accomplishment for the taxpayers,” said Mayopoulos, 54. “I’m very proud of what our employees have achieved and I’m very, very happy for the taxpayers.”
I seem to recall shrieks of doom and rolling in boiling pits of sewage over Fannie Mae. Hmm....
Ukraine and Private Sector Foreign Policy
There are a lot of histrionics over Ukraine now, as Russia's invasion is complete. A couple of points to put the situation into perspective.
The Crimea, which is the focal point of Russian action, has long been a flashpoint. The Crimean War was fought by Russia on the pretext of saving Orthodox Christians. Famous for Florence Nightingale and the Charge of the Light Brigade, the Crimean War pitted Russia against an alliance composed of the Ottoman Empire, Britain, France and Sardinia. The war ran from 1853 to 1856.
After the Russian Revolution and the bloody Civil War that followed in which White Army fighters were massacred after they surrendered, the Crimea was made an autonomous republic and part of Russia. Stalin deported the indigenous Crimean Tatars in 1944 to central Asia for supposedly collaborating with the Nazis, along with Armenians, Bulgarians and Greeks.
In 1954 the Supreme Soviet transferred the Crimean Oblast (area) from the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (RSFSR) to the Ukrainian SSR. This was a symbolic gesture on the 300th anniversary of Ukraine becoming part of Russia. Ukraine is viewed the birthplace of Russia, Rurik's Kievan Rus'.
Today Russia's Black Sea fleet is based in Sevastopol. This warm-water port has long been coveted by Russia, with Peter the Great (Putin's idol) failing twice to seize it. In 2010 Russia extended its lease on the port with Ukraine until 2042. The population of Crimea is dominated by Russians, with many retired military officers living there, and many holding dual passports. It's warmer there, and a lot of regular Russians also retire there; if Sochi is the Russian Miami, the Crimea is the Russian version of the Florida panhandle.
With its own autonomous parliament, Crimea is for all intents and purposes a separate Russian enclave. Probably all the Russians in Crimea are in favor Russian troops coming in. They have swallowed Putin's line that western Ukraine is a puppet of Europe and America.
Putin's justification for acting in Crimea is the protection of Russian Christians. This plays into the historical context leading back for centuries. If he were to cite an American analog to justify his actions, he would point to Ronald Reagan's invasion of Grenada in 1983, when Reagan claimed that American students were in danger.
The recently deposed president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovich, is an authoritarian tyrant who was stealing the country blind. In addition to his gigantic mansion near Kiev, where reporters have found incredible opulence and many incriminating documents, he was building a huge palace on the Black Sea. Yanukovich has been "privatizing" state assets and selling them to himself, his family and his cronies.
Some of the people who tossed Yanukovich out are louts just like him, only they're Ukranian rather than Russian, and they're only slightly less corrupt. The people who were protesting in the streets aren't happy to see those clowns come into power, but then anyone is better than Putin.
Putin could well be biting off more than he can chew. He already has a problem with Muslim terrorists. Now he's antagonizing Ukranians, many of whom live in Russia. Russia's anti-gay laws are just one symptom of his increasing intolerance and arrogance. He seems to think he's the second coming of Peter the Great.
Given these facts, castigating President Obama for "doing nothing" is short-sighted. There's nothing to do, militarily. Crimea has been a Russian colony for a century, part of Ukraine in name only. There's absolutely no justification for us to take any kind of military action, if Crimea is the end.
However, if Russia moves on the rest of Ukraine, that's a different story. At that point it will become extremely serious. To prevent that, the international community needs to show the Russians that they aren't going to sit idly by. We have to hit the Russians where it hurts: the wallet.
Western governments should immediately put economic sanctions on Russian accounts, and not let up until Russia leaves Crimea. At the same time we should also act as guarantors for the safety of Russians in Crimea and affirm Russia's right to the Sevastopol lease.
Why are economic sanctions any kind of threat?
Since Putin's ascension, corrupt oligarchs who have profited by sweet-heart oil and gas contracts and "privatization" of state assets have been sending billions of dollars into western banks and offshore tax havens. They've bought hundreds of billions of dollars worth of real estate and businesses in London, Paris and New York. American and British bankers have been kowtowing to Russian tycoons for years; many New Yorkers have come to hate the rich Russians who have bought up apartments and condos and driven real estate prices into the stratosphere.
As much as two-thirds of the money leaving Russia is derived from criminal enterprises, by the Kremlin's own analysis. American hawks complain that economic sanctions are toothless against Iran and North Korea, but those countries have relatively weak ties to western economies. The Russian oligarchs have sunk all their ill-gotten gains in the west because they don't trust that Putin will let them keep it: if they look at him sideways he'll throw them into jail and take all their money -- which has already happened to a couple of tycoons who crossed him.
Western countries thus have the capability to destroy the oligarchs who prop up Putin. Instead of carping about what the president should do, American and British business communities should start applying some moral judgments about who they do business with.
Since two out of every three dollars coming out of Russia is from a criminal enterprise, American bankers with Russian customers have to know they're dealing with crooks. Now is the time for them to practice a little private sector foreign policy and and let regulatory agencies know of any suspicious activities they might have noticed.
If Putin's pals start hemorrhaging cash they may not be so sanguine about military adventures in Ukraine.
The Crimea, which is the focal point of Russian action, has long been a flashpoint. The Crimean War was fought by Russia on the pretext of saving Orthodox Christians. Famous for Florence Nightingale and the Charge of the Light Brigade, the Crimean War pitted Russia against an alliance composed of the Ottoman Empire, Britain, France and Sardinia. The war ran from 1853 to 1856.
After the Russian Revolution and the bloody Civil War that followed in which White Army fighters were massacred after they surrendered, the Crimea was made an autonomous republic and part of Russia. Stalin deported the indigenous Crimean Tatars in 1944 to central Asia for supposedly collaborating with the Nazis, along with Armenians, Bulgarians and Greeks.
In 1954 the Supreme Soviet transferred the Crimean Oblast (area) from the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (RSFSR) to the Ukrainian SSR. This was a symbolic gesture on the 300th anniversary of Ukraine becoming part of Russia. Ukraine is viewed the birthplace of Russia, Rurik's Kievan Rus'.
Today Russia's Black Sea fleet is based in Sevastopol. This warm-water port has long been coveted by Russia, with Peter the Great (Putin's idol) failing twice to seize it. In 2010 Russia extended its lease on the port with Ukraine until 2042. The population of Crimea is dominated by Russians, with many retired military officers living there, and many holding dual passports. It's warmer there, and a lot of regular Russians also retire there; if Sochi is the Russian Miami, the Crimea is the Russian version of the Florida panhandle.
With its own autonomous parliament, Crimea is for all intents and purposes a separate Russian enclave. Probably all the Russians in Crimea are in favor Russian troops coming in. They have swallowed Putin's line that western Ukraine is a puppet of Europe and America.
Putin's justification for acting in Crimea is the protection of Russian Christians. This plays into the historical context leading back for centuries. If he were to cite an American analog to justify his actions, he would point to Ronald Reagan's invasion of Grenada in 1983, when Reagan claimed that American students were in danger.
The recently deposed president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovich, is an authoritarian tyrant who was stealing the country blind. In addition to his gigantic mansion near Kiev, where reporters have found incredible opulence and many incriminating documents, he was building a huge palace on the Black Sea. Yanukovich has been "privatizing" state assets and selling them to himself, his family and his cronies.
Some of the people who tossed Yanukovich out are louts just like him, only they're Ukranian rather than Russian, and they're only slightly less corrupt. The people who were protesting in the streets aren't happy to see those clowns come into power, but then anyone is better than Putin.
Putin could well be biting off more than he can chew. He already has a problem with Muslim terrorists. Now he's antagonizing Ukranians, many of whom live in Russia. Russia's anti-gay laws are just one symptom of his increasing intolerance and arrogance. He seems to think he's the second coming of Peter the Great.
Given these facts, castigating President Obama for "doing nothing" is short-sighted. There's nothing to do, militarily. Crimea has been a Russian colony for a century, part of Ukraine in name only. There's absolutely no justification for us to take any kind of military action, if Crimea is the end.
However, if Russia moves on the rest of Ukraine, that's a different story. At that point it will become extremely serious. To prevent that, the international community needs to show the Russians that they aren't going to sit idly by. We have to hit the Russians where it hurts: the wallet.
Western governments should immediately put economic sanctions on Russian accounts, and not let up until Russia leaves Crimea. At the same time we should also act as guarantors for the safety of Russians in Crimea and affirm Russia's right to the Sevastopol lease.
Why are economic sanctions any kind of threat?
Since Putin's ascension, corrupt oligarchs who have profited by sweet-heart oil and gas contracts and "privatization" of state assets have been sending billions of dollars into western banks and offshore tax havens. They've bought hundreds of billions of dollars worth of real estate and businesses in London, Paris and New York. American and British bankers have been kowtowing to Russian tycoons for years; many New Yorkers have come to hate the rich Russians who have bought up apartments and condos and driven real estate prices into the stratosphere.
As much as two-thirds of the money leaving Russia is derived from criminal enterprises, by the Kremlin's own analysis. American hawks complain that economic sanctions are toothless against Iran and North Korea, but those countries have relatively weak ties to western economies. The Russian oligarchs have sunk all their ill-gotten gains in the west because they don't trust that Putin will let them keep it: if they look at him sideways he'll throw them into jail and take all their money -- which has already happened to a couple of tycoons who crossed him.
Western countries thus have the capability to destroy the oligarchs who prop up Putin. Instead of carping about what the president should do, American and British business communities should start applying some moral judgments about who they do business with.
Since two out of every three dollars coming out of Russia is from a criminal enterprise, American bankers with Russian customers have to know they're dealing with crooks. Now is the time for them to practice a little private sector foreign policy and and let regulatory agencies know of any suspicious activities they might have noticed.
If Putin's pals start hemorrhaging cash they may not be so sanguine about military adventures in Ukraine.
Sunday, March 02, 2014
Nominee For Best Picture: Gravity
Gravity is still the best film of the year. The images and story of one woman's struggle for survival still haunt me months after seeing it. Hands down, the performance of Sandra Bullock's career and that's saying a lot considering her tun in The Blind Side. And I am just a giant geek for space stuff!
I hope it wins tonight!!
Nominee For Best Picture: Nebraska
I found many familiar people and scenes in Alexander Payne's Nebraska. For those of us who live in the upper midwest, the sight of men staring blankly at a TV set and eventually falling asleep is commonplace. Bruce Dern is so fucking good as Woody, a man convinced he has won a publisher's sweepstakes prize of one million dollars.
Nominee For Best Picture: Philomena
Did the Catholic Church engage in slavery in Ireland in the 1950s? Yes they did and the results were devastating to single women who were simply exploring their sexuality. Phiolmena is both charming and sad as Judi Dench plays Phiolmena Lee (based on a real woman) searching for her son who was given up for adoption by evil nuns. It's worth it just to see Steve Coogan thunder away at a nun in wheelchair.
Nominee For Best Picture: Dallas Buyers Club
Dallas Buyer's Club should be the Tea Party pick of this year's nominees as it is most decidedly anti-government. But with good reason as the federal government's response to the AIDS epidemic in the early years (in particular, the FDA) was abominable. Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto are brilliant.
Nominee For Best Picture: Wolf of Wall Street
I am the most open person about sex that I know and have no filter whatsoever between my mouth and brain when it comes to carnal matters. But I blushed several times when I saw Wolf of Wall Street. Leo's performance is exhausting to watch and after 3 hours, I felt as though I'd ran a marathon. He's my fave for Best Actor.
Nominee For Best Picture: American Hustle
I think David O. Russell has followed in the footsteps of Martin Scorsese and decided to make a career of telling right to the very core American stories. While American Hustle touches on the Abscam operation in the late 70s and early 80s, it's really a story about how desperate and fucked up we are as a nation. All of the actors in this film are simply outstanding!
Saturday, March 01, 2014
Nominee For Best Picture: Her
Can you be in love with someone who doesn't have a body? Can you have sex with them? If we create an artificial intelligence that evolves, have we become God? These are the questions I asked myself after I saw Her.
I don't have any clear answers as of yet.
Nominee For Best Picture: 12 Years A Slave
I found people's reaction to 12 Years A Slave to be both sad and amusing. They were shocked (!) at how awful slavery really was and couldn't believe that plantation owners were that harsh. The film certainly doesn't pull any punches but it's pretty much what I expected. How quickly people forget their own history...
Nominee For Best Picture: Captain Phillips
I enjoyed Captain Phillips a great deal and thought that Tom Hanks was great as he always is. The last 45 minutes of the film did an excellent job of capturing the tedium of hostage situations. But what was very wonderful about this film was how they showed the life of an average Somali near the coast and the near constant pressure they are under in their daily lives from barbarians. It was a very balanced film and not so pro-American hoo rah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)