Poking the Bear

Despite harsh words, stern faces, and economic threats by the West, Russia has not backed down in its claim on Crimea or its actions in Ukraine. More than a few people have been asking why Russia has been able to thwart Western efforts to curb its recent aggressive actions. Russia's obstinacy is frequently presumed to be because the West has been too diffident and dithering in its response and should take a harder line and act more aggressively. The error the those people are making is that they are underestimating Russia's resolve and resiliency. Basically, the reason Russia is able to thumb its nose at the West is because, unlike Libya, Iraq, and Iran, Russia is a scientifically advanced country. It is a developed country with a large and diverse economy that is deeply entwined with Europe's and has natural resources that are much in demand around the world, not the least of which is natural gas. It is a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. It can make life miserable for the U.S. around the world. It believes itself immune to Western military intervention because it has a potent military that, if unable to beat the West, can certainly bloody it. As if all that weren't enough, it can also incinerate the U.S. and Europe if it has to.

 

Certainly the West has economic leverage with Russia. The European Union is Russia's largest trading partner and accounts for nearly $300 billion in trade. The EU is the most important investor in Russia. It is estimated that up to 75% of foreign direct investment stocks in Russia come from EU Member States. The problem, however, is that EU imports from Russia are dominated by raw materials, in particular, oil (crude and refined) and natural gas which cannot easily or conveniently be replaced by other suppliers. Any significant rupture in trade could easily throw Europe's fragile economies into a tailspin and cause unrest.  An economic struggle with Russia would come down to a contest of whose economy would buckle and whose population would take to the street first, Russia's or Western Europe's. The question then is how much economic turbulence Western European nations are willing to accept for the sake of Crimea and making a point with Russia. If recent history is any guide, Europe has shown little stomach for economic austerity and even less for foreign adventure. It is doubtful, to say the least, that Europeans would cheerfully tighten their belts further, let alone muster the will for any military adventure in the East, especially if one looks at the track record of Western adventures in Russia.

 

 

The U.S. and its allies have become accustomed to being able to bring wayward nations into line through a combination of economic actions, military threats, and political maneuvering. Despite the impressive results those actions have achieved around the world, it is unlikely such actions would cause Russia to yield in Crimea. Crimea is too important to Russia economically, politically, and more importantly, psychologically to surrender it. The favored, i.e. bloodless, measures that have proven effective in bringing other nations around are unlikely to work with Russia. Russia is simply too big, too powerful, too important, and has too many options to be bullied.

Throughout history, the Russian people have endured suffering and hardship in defense of their nation unimaginable to most in the West. They did so for czars, despots, and tyrants, not because they felt beholden to their government or their leaders, but because the Motherland called them to. Consider what they endured under Stalin. Despite the horrors of the 1930's, Russians still fought and died by the millions against Nazi Germany. So far the West has been careful in its response by carefully targeting unpopular "oligarchs" and politicians for sanctions. In frustration with the results, it is considering expanding sanctions. But it had better be very careful. If the West errs by overplaying its hand and thereby forcing Russians to choose between their country or their standard of living we risk rousing the Russian people and in doing so making the world a more dangerous place to live in.

The West should take a stand and lecture Russia. After all, it has an reputation to maintain. What the West should not do is get carried away by its rhetoric and step into a conflict that no good will come from.

Clinton's Blunder

Hilary Clinton recently likened Russian activities in Crimea to those of Hitler's early expansionism in Europe during the 1930s. In doing so, Clinton made a blunder of epic proportions. Clearly Clinton has not paid much attention to the war on the Eastern Front in WWII. If nothing else, Clinton failed to appreciate the effect of WWII on the Russian psyche. The "Great Patriotic War", as it is known in Russia, was fought on a scale unimaginable to most in the West. From 1941 until the end of the war in 1945, the USSR bore the brunt of the fighting in Europe. The war on the Eastern Front claimed between 21-28 million Soviet lives, most of them civilians (the U.S. Army, by contrast, lost 141,000 dead in the battle for Europe). The Battle of Stalingrad alone cost the Russians well over 1 million casualties, including 40,000 civilians. Over the course of the war, millions of Soviet civilians were executed or sent to perish in Nazi labor camps. Crops were burned or confiscated leaving untold thousands to die from starvation. Villages, towns, and cities were destroyed leaving tens of thousands more to die from exposure during the harsh Russian winters. The war in the East was fought with a savagery unimaginable to the comfortable Western mind. It was a war of annihilation.

For Clinton to compare Russia in any way to Hitler and Nazi Germany is an outrage to the millions of Russians who died fighting Hitler. If Clinton was searching for an analogy to shock people into action she would have done better to choose Stalin to make her point. But she didn't. She chose Hitler because Hitler is always an easy target. By doing so she made a statement sure to mobilize the Russian people into a unified indignation. The only way Clinton could have done worse would have been to claim that Israel's settler policy is analogous to Hitler's call for "Lebensraum". Even then, she would not have done much worse.

Meanwhile, the U.S. military is boosting its NATO presence in eastern Europe to bolster the defenses of U.S. allies in the region as a response to Russia's actions in the Crimean Peninsula. To that end, a Defense Department official confirmed that the U.S. will "augment" NATO's mission in Baltic countries. The U.S. has stationed four F-15s to the Baltic Air Policing rotation, a loose collection of NATO and local air forces policing the Baltic region, and plans to send more forces. "This action comes at the request of our Baltic Allies and further demonstrates our commitment to NATO security," the official said. In doing so, the U.S. is expanding its sphere of influence further eastward into territory long considered by Russia to be its prerogative.

Some have taken to comparing the recent series of events in Ukraine with the events that led up to WWII. It is nothing of the sort. If anything, it is like WWI where a complex web of treaties and political miscalculations led to a local conflict blossoming into a world war that no one wanted. By taking on further obligations in Eastern Europe, NATO increases the chances of a conflict with Russia. We should also be careful of fanning the flames of nationalism, which is what we are doing whenever we support a tribe, a religion, an ethnicity, or a race in its struggle for autonomy and self determination. Nationalism has caused more wars, violence, and suffering in Europe than any other factor except, perhaps, religion which itself can be considered a variety of nationalism. Clinton's choice of words will only exacerbate tension in Crimea and elsewhere in and near Russia. Russia increasingly feels beleaguered. It is not a good time to humiliate or insult it. Crimea is not Kazakhstan, Moldavia, or the Baltic States. It has been part of Russia for over 300 years. It is a jewel in her crown. It is one of her children.  Like any mother, "Mother Russia" has always been disinclined to part with her children. The nearer those children are to her, the more dear they are. She will not give up Crimea without a struggle.

Remember the U.S. once had a region that sought to break away. I am sure everyone remembers how that turned out.






 

               

 

Not Courageous at All

Speaking at the recent Human Rights Campaign's "Time to Thrive" conference for LGBT counselors, actress Ellen Page made what many have called a "brave decision". She decided to be open about being a lesbian in the hope that doing so would make a difference to those who are tired of "lying by omission", as she put it. Why is it that when a celebrity comes out and declares to the press and to the world that he or she is gay they often act as if they are taking a controversial step or somehow putting themselves in jeopardy? Ellen Page wasn't being brave. She was not taking a risk.  She will not be black listed. She faces no recrimination.

Ellen Page is not jeopardizing her career by announcing she is gay. If anything, she is advancing it. She is in the papers and on the web. Not only are people talking about her, she now has the cache that comes with coming out of the closet and announcing one's alternative sexual preference to the world. How many celebrities have announced their preference to have sex with people of the same gender as themselves? 100? 500? More? How many of them have suffered for doing so? Pastors and politicians might face repercussions for announcing their sexual preferences, but celebrities don't, unless perhaps they depend on the Family Channel for keeping their careers afloat. Page has merely taken a place alongside all the other notables who have come out of the closet.

Page, like most others who preceded her and will follow her, declared that her revelation was meant to encourage others, to give them hope and lend them support. I am not so cynical to believe that there was no good will or a desire to provide comfort to others in Page's actions. What I take issue with is the characterization of Page's actions as courageous. They were nothing of the sort. Courage is only required when there is risk. Page faces no risk. Her career is in no jeopardy. Indeed, it is quite likely that she will benefit from her actions by acquiring the sheen that attends to coming out in Hollywood.

What Page did can be applauded (if your sensibilities run in that direction). She can be commended, perhaps even praised for doing something she had no obligation to do. Let's just not call what she did "courageous." We should save that word for people who put something more on the line than Page did.

Forward to the Past

According to news reports, the situation in Egypt is becoming more volatile each day. Despite the military's heavy hand, things are getting worse as the opposition reorganizes and turns toward a resumption of violence. For this, the Egyptian military has no one to blame but itself. They have given the Muslim opposition every reason for violence. The Brotherhood cannot take its grievances to the ballot box because the new government has outlawed it. By toppling the elected government and outlawing protest, the military has made criminals and terrorists of those who oppose its rule. If the military had acted more prudently, much of the turmoil could have been averted. Egypt could simply have waited out the Brotherhood. If the Army had just acted to preserve the integrity of electoral process rather than seizing power, things likely would be settled at the next election. Certainly, things would have been turbulent, but so long as the electoral process was kept intact, nothing the Brotherhood could have done would be irreversible. Should the Brotherhood have proven to be as incompetent and divisive as its critics claim it is, they would have been voted out and discredited as a political force. But the military chose not to wait. They decided to act and to act forcefully. They deposed the government and quickly pushed through a new constitution assuring the military's place atop Egypt's political order.

Even though the new government declared the group a terrorist organization last month and brought a heavy and down upon its head, Muslim Brotherhood supporters have continued their protests. The government refuses to relent and has gone so far as to threaten to arrest anyone who attends Muslim Brotherhood protests or provides financial support to the organization. Because of the military's actions, the Muslim opposition has no political options and therefore every reason to shun the political process and non violent opposition. They can point to the coup and the subsequent crackdown on their leaders and party as proof that democracy doesn't work and force is the only way to achieve change. The current government can point to popular opposition to Brotherhood rule as the reason for their action but the fact is that the military acted to preserve its power, privilege, and position. If nothing else, the decision by Assisi to run for president and the expansion of the crackdown to include other, non Islamic opposition groups confirms the determination of the Egyptian military to maintain its position as the paramount power in Egypt regardless of the changing political landscape.

Assisi's decision to run for president also confirms that the military has no intention of entrusting the government of Egypt to the people. Assisi will win and the military will remain astride the government and poised to act wherever and whenever it sees fit. Yet, it was decades of military rule that kept Egypt a politically ossified, economically stagnant, second world nation. With the military's take over, it is unrealistic to assume anything will change. That is not really a problem for the U.S., hence our cautious and measured response to the military takeover. A politically centralized, economically and socially moribund Egypt is to our advantage because it makes it predictable and dependent. Democratic regimes have frequently proven to be precarious and unreliable partners to U.S. goals in the region and require more resources and diplomatic finesse than we would prefer to apply. We will cluck about restoring democracy and protecting civil liberties but we will not apply any significant pressure on the government in Cairo. We will issue statements but our admonishments to restore popular rule will be subordinated to our homage to order and stability.

Giddy at their success after so long in the wilderness, the Brotherhood overreached. But, rather than rebuking or checking the Brotherhood, the military decided instead to crush it, and, by all accounts, it is achieving its goals. But by pushing the Muslim Brotherhood out of power and back underground the Egyptian military is making the Brotherhood once again unaccountable to the people of Egypt and free to brood and plot in secrecy. More importantly, it has freed the Brotherhood from the burden of creating, which has always been a far more difficult task than destroying. Out of power, they will be on familiar ground. The Brotherhood has a great deal of experience as an underground group operating in the shadows. They will be abandoning their weakness and returning to their strength. Egypt's generals can be thanked for that.

Of Ducks and Heresy

The A&E network suspended Phil Robertson, the patriarch of “Duck Dynasty” — cable’s top reality show — last week after a GQ interview in which he compared homosexuality to bestiality. He also grouped gay people with “drunks” and “terrorists” and said that African-Americans were perfectly happy before Civil Rights. After crunching the numbers, A&E reversed course and decided to reinstate Phil. Critics decried the decision. GLAAD responded to A&E’s decision to lift Phil Robertson’s “Duck Dynasty” suspension by calling for a meeting between Robertson, African-Americans, and gays.  Many other groups are fuming.

What is overlooked in the commotion is that Robertson is not violating any one's rights. Robertson is not threatening anyone. If he were, there is ample recourse. There is no evidence that Phil has acted in furtherance of his beliefs. He is not calling for action. There is no evidence that Phil has committed any wrong or against African Americans or homosexuals. There is no evidence that Phil has acted in furtherance of his prejudice. Phil did not use his show as a platform to advance his beliefs. He spoke in a church. What Phil is being condemned for are his thoughts and words. It is irony of a high order that the forces of free speech and toleration would pillory a man for speaking his belief and insist that he be silenced. What the issue is about is that Phil holds beliefs that others find offensive. It is the fact that Phil is a heretic. He has violated the cannons of progressive thought and he must be punished lest he lead others astray.

Had Robertson not given that fateful interview and kept silent about his beliefs there would be no controversy. Since they have nothing to do with his TV show, the public would be unaware of them. "Duck Dynasty" has in no way been a platform for Phil to expound on his opinions regarding race and sexuality. If it had, it would have been cancelled a long time ago. Indeed, it would never have gotten on the air.

Critics of A&E declared that "Phil Robertson should look African American and gay people in the eyes and hear about the hurtful impact of praising Jim Crow laws and comparing gay people to terrorists,” the group said. They went on to add that "if dialogue with Phil is not part of next steps then A&E has chosen profits over African American and gay people – especially its employees and viewers." Let's face it, the critics are correct, A&E's decision was about money. A&E is running a business. It decided they would lose more money if they got rid of Phil than if they kept him. Integrity and "principles" have nothing to do with it. Networks, like all businesses, exist to make money. To that end they calculate costs and benefits. A&E feared they would lose a great deal of money if they kept Phil on the show. As it turned out, they stood to lose more money if they got rid of him, even if just for a season or two. So A&E decided to change course and keep him. Naturally, they sought cover by issuing a statement making clear their disagreement with Phil's comments. As if often the case with business and social issues, A&E feigned to act on principal but in actuality, they acted out of self interest. A&E should not be faulted for that. Businesses exist to make money. Little is gained if a business chooses to fall on its sword. Moreover, they were correct. Phil's comments were his own.

It is not Phil's actions that are riling people, it is his words and beliefs.  Phil is a heretic and he must be punished lest his heresy fester and spread. Progressives want Phil excommunicated and exiled from public life, not for anything he has done, but for beliefs he holds and words he has spoken. Progressive Inquisitors will insist that Phil be banned unless Phil repents and serves pertinence. They might still get their way.

What's the Big Deal?

"What's the big deal about the debt?" a lot of people ask. I will tell you: last year the U.S. government spent over $400 billion in interest on the debt. Not a nickle went toward the debt itself. That's $400 billion that could have been used for welfare, social security increases, heath care, tax cuts, cleaning up the environment, cancer research, you name it. That money did nothing but buy us time. President Obama wants to run the debt up even more, a lot more. If he gets his way, and he will, our interest payments will be even higher next year. 

You want to know what the big deal about the debt is? Washington currently spends more in interest on the debt every year than it does on housing, education, and transportation combined. The bigger the debt, the more in interest we pay. The more in interest we pay, the less we have left over to take care of things in this country that need taking care of. 

Interest Expense Fiscal Year 2013:
September $19,843,542,012.01
August $25,487,831,947.93
July $25,076,777,459.95
June $93,031,790,187.97
May $24,378,480,861.09
April $35,951,751,963.63
March $23,472,400,737.30
February $16,901,310,565.17
January $17,816,590,831.57
December $95,736,594,801.52
November $25,068,968,472.99
October $12,922,741,407.27
Fiscal Year Total $415,688,781,248.40
 
That is well over $400 billion right out the window in one year. Not a nickle was applied to the principal. That is what the big deal about the debt is. So sure, let's pile a few hundred billion more on top of what we already owe. We can figure whose throats have to be cut to make debt payments later when we draw up the new budget. Well, maybe not. Maybe we can just keep on borrowing until we find some platinum meteors to lasso.

A lot of you went to college. Many of you have credit cards. Perhaps some of you have taken loans from the bank or taken out a mortgage so I am sure you know the mechanics of borrowing money.  Borrowing money is not the tricky part of debt. Paying it back is what can kill you. At some point the government is going to have to start paying down the debt if it is to avoid bankruptcy. It simply cannot keep borrowing in perpetuity. That is not a political position. It is an economic certainty.

The problem we have at them moment is not political. It is economic. It is the solution that is political. The longer the government bleeds red ink the more difficult the solution will be. Difficult decisions and hard choices will have to be made. Vagaries and vows will not be enough. Making those decisions is the job of politicians. The inability of Washington to address the issue head on is not due to the diffidence of Congress, it is due to the diffidence of the public. It is the public that will bear the consequences of higher taxes and budget cuts. Cutting the budget will take no food off the table of elected officials in Washington. Losing their job might.

What good news there is regarding the problem usually comes in the form of arguments that the U.S. can afford to carry the debt it has, and can even increase the amount many trillion more without undermining the economy. This may be good news in regard to the current financial crisis. The country will not collapse tomorrow or next year if the debt limit is raised. Even if it raised many more times in the future the U.S. should be able to find a way to carry the additional debt. But that news is only good for the time being.  Experts may disagree where the wall is, but none can deny there is a wall and if a solution cannot be found that we will eventually hit it. Others tell us that things are going to change for the better soon, the economy will improve therefore tax receipts will go up. But no one is forecasting a recovery large enough to overcome the deficit. Like the savings predicted as stimulus spending wound down and bailouts ended, any impact on the deficit is problematic. It presumes that any increased revenue will be applied to paying down the debt and not simply spent elsewhere.

Sooner or later the government is going to have to show some black ink. There is no other way out of the problem. If and when that black ink appears, any net revenue will have to be applied to the debt and not spent. That cannot be relied upon. There is too much ambition and pent up frustration in Washington for there to be no pressure for a surplus not to be distributed. If history is any guide, the political will to stiff arm constituents cannot be relied upon.

Buying time by borrowing ever more money only makes the solution more difficult. Lurching from crisis to crisis will not solve anything. A plan is needed. What that plan might be has yet to be decided upon. Whatever the plan will be, it will have to eventually include the cessation of borrowing. You cannot borrow your way out of debt. By the time you go to bed tonight the national debt will be over $17 trillion. Many millions more will be added to it by the time you awake. Sleep tight.

Whistling in the Void

In a recent editorial in the Dallas Morning News, columnist Gordon Keith rose to the defense of the new Atheist church coming to Dallas. He argues that the new church will be a useful resource in the community by providing a sense of "community and clarity", as if the church will be little different than the Kiwanas Club or a local debating society. Ah, but perhaps I am being too judgemental or quick with my thoughts. The church being proposed will not be established on garden variety atheism, but what has come to be called "spiritual atheism".

Unlike true atheists who acknowledge the emptiness and meaninglessness that results from their lack of belief, "religious" atheists seek transcendence and purpose in the void. But in the atheist universe there is none to be found. Purpose and meaning must be created, cobbled together out of the desideratum of existence. They collect the emotions, thoughts, and feelings that appeal to them and reject the unseemly and the cruel. The difficulty is that religious atheists offer a transcendence that cannot be justified in the void. They can only assert an innate beneficence and urge people to demonstrate kindness. They pluck Jesus' commandment to love your neighbor as yourself and do unto others as you would be done unto out of context and thereby deprive it of any imperative. It becomes a caution, a hedge against future misfortune.

Without God or religion, there is no imperative to behave with kindness, show compassion, or demonstrate any other moral act. There is no call to transcend our selfish impulses. Acts of kindness, charity, and compassion depend entirely on noble impulse which, more often than not is dormant in humanity, buried beneath the exigencies of life and the pursuit of self determined ends. Moreover, there is no penalty for disregarding them. The disapproval of others for whom one has no regard is no disincentive to vice or immorality.

Pan Moralists hold out a genteel atheism of love, shared values, and tolerance. They offer a polite, middle class spiritualism better suited to conversation than salvation. They hold a sapless moral and ethical system built on the shifting sands of sentimentality. But there is also the brutal atheism of Nietzsche and Marx. Those who assert we can love and respect others in the absence of God can offer no reason why their vast, untethered morality should triumph over nihilism outside the consciences of the genteel atheist mind.

There can be no such thing as an atheist church for there is no transcendence in atheism.  At best you can have some sort of well mannered spiritual society for those seeking to fill the spiritual void left behind when God is rejected. For those not so well brought up or who lack the sentiments of comfortable, well behaved atheists, there is only the the world and the brief time we have in it to satisfy our desires and achieve our ambitions. Those who appeal to nature as source of morals wear blinders. They see harmony, coexistence, and beauty. They ignore the brutality and cruelty of nature. The see lionesses nurturing their cubs but ignore the hyenas tearing those cubs to shreds. Nature is a machine that cares for nothing and no one. Nature will kill us all.

The thin gruel of "values" cannot sustain the human soul. Man requires substance for his spiritual and moral health. The object of religion is to bring men closer to God, not to be a source of social harmony and justice. All the good that flows from religion, love, charity, compassion, mercy, are its fruits. You cannot chop down the tree of religion and still hope to gather its fruit. There can be no atheist church because there is nothing at its center. There is nothing to set the church on. To attempt to infuse atheism with a sense of transcendence and spirituality is a fool's errand. To worship nature or a set of feelings and ideas is not a religion. It is a cult.

Pan religionists and moralists are often more concerned with concord than truth. Yes, different faiths can get along if they try, but there is no need to gut a faith or dilute it into a thin broth to satisfy the demands of those who have become wary, or even rejected the idea of universal truth. If there is truth you recognize it. If you do not have truth you seek it. If you can't find it, make do with what you can cobble together. Religious atheism is an echo of real religion. It is a sentimental yearning for what it left behind.