Ukraine Has A History... It's About To Be Unleashed on Russia

For the last couple of weeks, I've been waging an inner war with myself over Ukraine. 

Odessa Pogrom of 1905

Grandma Bessie, aka Grandma Don't (whom I've written about before) was from Odessa in Ukraine having fled, as she put it, after one pogrom too many, specifically the Odessa Pogrom of 1905. When I could get her to talk about something other than seeing the four Grand Duchesses disembark from The Standart, she would, if pressed, talk about the Cossacks. Having shared my room with her whenever she visited, I can also tell you she had nightmares about the Cossacks burning down our house. She called anyone one behaved badly a Cossack, including me on occasion. Until her dying day, Grandma Bessie was afraid of Cossacks. 

She had good reason to be afraid of Cossacks. They rode through the streets of Odessa's Jewish quarter killing whomever they came across. They broke into houses, including hers, to steal everything and then set fire to it. She told me how they had a place to hide when the Cossacks came. She also told me she was terrified of Easter because they said the Jews killed their Jesus. And she could not understand any Jewish person celebrating any sort of Christian holiday for any reason because the Cossacks came to kill them in the name of their religion. My mild, laidback Grandma had a tipping point, and it was Cossacks. Never once did I ever hear her refer to herself as Ukarinian; she was always Russian. 

For the record, Fiddler On The Roof hit real close to home for her. Not only was it implied that Anatevka was in Ukraine, Perchik the Revolutionary Suitor was from Kyiv. The pogrom depicted in both the show and the movie were very nice pogroms. They didn't really show you the sword wielding Cossacks mowing down Jews in cold blood. 

The pogroms in what was then called The Ukraine didn't stop when most of the Jews left. And the Ukrainians didn't stop hating Jews after the area was pretty much Jew-free. Nope. They turned lots and lots of Jews, including my Great-Aunt Sarai Schwaidel and her family over to the Nazis for ground fodder at Babi Yar. From the Wikipedia article on Babi Yar:

According to the testimony of a truck driver named Hofer, victims were ordered to undress and were beaten if they resisted:

I watched what happened when the Jews—men, women and children—arrived. The Ukrainians led them past a number of different places where one after the other they had to give up their luggage, then their coats, shoes and over-garments and also underwear. They also had to leave their valuables in a designated place. There was a special pile for each article of clothing. It all happened very quickly and anyone who hesitated was kicked or pushed by the Ukrainians [sic] to keep them moving.

— Michael Berenbaum: "Statement of Truck-Driver Hofer describing the murder of Jews at Babi Yar"

Feel free to read all about Jews in Ukraine. Wiki provides a pretty good timeline. It's worth at the very least a glance.

But now, the President of Ukraine is a Jew. 

That's almost as remarkable as knowing the Ukrainian people elected Volodymyr Zelensky, a well known comic and actor for president. He had a great comedy series called Servant Of the People where he played a high school history teacher who finds himself elected President of Ukraine. Oddly enough. I've watched the first 2 episodes and its actually pretty funny. I plan on watching the whole thing. And if that doesn't bring you joy, he's the voice of Paddington Bear, AND he's a Ukraine Dancing With The Stars winner! The guy may be an actor, but he is not a buffoon.

Seems like there's nothing this guy can't do....and that includes leading his nation through this nightmare war. Zelensky is proving himself to be a strong leader for his country. He has drawn the line and he is not about to abandon it. 

Although Zelensky has been offered asylum by other countries, including the US, he and his family are refusing to leave; instead, he said, "I need ammunition, not a ride." He is out in front with the population of Kyiv and the rest of Ukraine leading the battle. He has refused to cross the border to Belarus for peace-talks because he will not leave the front line. He does not have to be in the room to be in the room. Belarus, while well intentioned, cannot guarantee his safety from assassination. According to a variety of news outlets, some more reliable than others, something called The Wagner Group has been instructed to take out Zelensky. From The Independent:

On Monday, an anonymous source told The Times newspaper that the Wagner mercenaries in the country were part of a scheme to assassinate Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and other senior officials – a scenario that experts say would be a stunning departure from the group’s modus operandi.          

Oh, I'm not so sure about that being a departure. Hmmmm. And even if it is, it still sounds like a movie script. 

And another interesting tidbit on this conflict. Neutral Switzerland is not so neutral this time. According to the NY Times, Switzerland will freeze Russian assets. 

Switzerland said it was departing from its usual policy of neutrality because of “the unprecedented military attack by Russia on a sovereign European state,” but expressed a willingness to help mediate in the conflict. It also joined European neighbors in closing its airspace to Russian aircraft, except for humanitarian or diplomatic purposes. But said it would evaluate whether to join in subsequent E.U. sanctions on a case-by-case basis.

That great tax haven Monaco is also freezing Russian assets. That's saying something.  

Meanwhile, back at the dacha, the ruble is plummeting and the ones hardest hit by the sanctions will be the Russian populace. The question then becomes whether or not the voice of the Russian people protesting this fictionalized war will be loud enough to drown out the bees buzzing in Putin's head. 

The world has been pretty forthcoming in telling Putin this is NOT okay. That Putin has put his nuclear arsenal on high alert may be disconcerting, but frankly, I think it's the ultimate dick wave. He's playing chicken at a new level and so far, most of the world has been telling him not that is needs to stop, but that is will stop. I'm guessing Putin's only supporters at this point are China and North Korea, and China is not exactly jumping on the bandwagon here. Hell, even the Afghans, betrayed by their own government, are supporting Ukraine and calling Zelensky a hero.

Former Miss Ukraine Lenna

Which makes me wonder about the sanity level of Putin. Did he really believe the world would appease him with the human sacrifice of Ukraine? Does he not understand Cossacks are really good at fighting? Whilst they may have fought for Russia once upon a time, now it's their homeland under attack. Even the former Miss Ukraine, Anastaslia Lenna, is armed and out there. Grandmas are armed with Molotov cocktails. Mothers are hitting the streets to defend their families. Fathers have pretty much all enlisted. You think your army will stand against that, Vlad? Russia, you might be a bear, but you just dumped a brand new nest of angry bees on top of your own head. 

This is why, We, the People, have a moral and ethical obligation to stand with Ukraine...along with the rest of the civilized world. Putin cannot be permitted to wave his nuclear penis at Europe or the rest of the world and walk away unfettered, if not dead. Unlike Iraq, this nutcase actually has WMD and is threatening to use them. Global outcry didn't happen in 1938 or the subsequent years. Did We, the People of this Planet learn anything from that? One can only hope.

Not okay, Vlad, and you're about to find out how NOT okay this is. 

BONUS COMMENT: Pravda Brewery, based in Lviv, Ukraine, has suspended its beer brewing operations and is now making Molotov cocktails for residents to use against invading Russian forces. The labels on the bottles say “Putin is a dickhead.”

The Wifely Person's Tip o'the Week

For the record, Israel is taking over 200,000 Jewish refugees out of Ukraine.

This has two purposes:

One: to get them out of harm's way

Two: to keep them out of harm's way in the event Ukraine falls.

It's Ukraine. The president is Jewish

They will blame the Jews. 

Been There, Done That, Got The Tank Decals

I've been wondering when someone was gonna take a look at Watergate and hold it up as a lamp against the brief but horrid reign of Feckless Leader. 

I'm not only old enough to remember Watergate, I'm old enough to have spent a couple of days at McGovern's K Street campaign office in D.C. stuffing envelopes during the summer of 1972. Heady times; I saw Warren Beatty in the flesh and he was hotter in person. That was, if you can wrap your head around this concept, 50 years ago. Yup. A half-century. And we said not to trust anyone over 30. This is a breath-stealing realization, y'know. It positively gives me the vapors! 

I listened to Garrett M. Graff on PBS Newshour tonight. He said Watergate wasn't a single event, it was a series of events, some of which bordered on high treason. He explained that a new examination of Watergate had not been done since former FBI director William Felt came out as Deep Throat. He also pointed out that some material is now unclassified and readily available to the public. He also posited that the differences between Tricky Dick and Feckless Leader are not so great, and we do our country a disservice if we don't compare and contrast. The book, Watergate: A New History was published this past week, and might very well be worth reading. (I'm #3 on the list for my library.) Over the last few years, the difference/similarities between the two presidencies has weighed on my mind. For the moment, I have concluded that Nixon was a power grab for political US power. For Feckless, it was all about personal wealth. He didn't give a shit about We, the People; that may have been a suspicion for a long time, it moved into fact territory as information about how he handled documents has come to light. 

Which makes me think about the Feckless-Putin Handshake. Just look at the two hands. They are grasped tightly. This is a deal. And not a savory one at that. I'll pull out to the big picture in a moment. When you grasp someone's hand like that, one of two things is happening: either you're going to jerk his arm and bring him down, or you've just become best friends.; it's a push-pull. Think about how you shake hands with people. This is not rocket science. Everyone has a preference for the grasp, the shake and the release. Putin was getting something he wanted in that push-pull clasp.  The question is what? 

We do know he was hoping there would be a second term for Feckless. I imagine the loss to Biden was pretty hard to swallow. Biden, for whatever his shortcomings, is an America First kinda guy, the real kind who knows about stuff like diplomacy and negotiation. Putin knows Biden isn't going to turn a blind eye. This forces Putin's hand. 

His hard-on for the Ukraine is not news. He already annexed the Crimea. Now, he's going after "liberation" for Luhansk and Donetsk. Can you say Czechoslovakia and Hungary, boys and girls?

No, not Czech Republic. I'm thinking more like Hitler's annexation of Czechoslovakia in1938 and Hungarian Revolution of 1956. Lots of parallels are being drawn with what's unfolding in Ukraine. 

The really big question on everyone's mind right now is whether or not NATO and/or the rest of Europe will attempt to stop Putin. Neville Chamberlain, The UK's PM, was reviled for his attempt to appease Hitler. Will the heads of state on the continent step up to say, "No, this will not happen?"

I'm not so sure. No one ever wants to confront a bully, and this bully has been on the block since 1918.

Putin is far from stupid; he is cagey. He learns from the past, from past mistakes, and he calculates his risks carefully, so that in the unlikely event he loses, he retains his ability to spin history. He feeds his population a steady diet of plausible fantasy, and they, just like a whole lotta GOP folks do with Feckless, just lap it up. Which makes them just about as dangerous as the lemmings here. 

On the other hand....maybe this is nothing more than a winkie-measuring, pissing contest. It's perfectly plausible that there's an amusement factor in playing chicken with the world. I mean, who is gonna bell this cat? Is there a single world leader out there who is willing to put his/her money where his/her mouth is? Probably not. 

Putin claiming that he is sending peace-keepers into the regions seeking independence is troubling; it's as if he thinks words will make it okay.  What happens to the Ukrainians? Will they go the way of the Uyghurs in China? Some insiders say Putin will go after the noisemakers and send them to labor camps. 

But here's the thing. IF and only IF the peoples of Luhansk and Donetsk can have an honest referendum to decide their own fate, what good is all the western action in the world. What IF they want their own republic? Who are we to say no? That's assuming Putin isn't there to swallow them whole as a toehold for something bigger. These are not easy answers, and I still think the local population should get a vote. We cannot be telling those folks what to do. 

Let me say that again: there are no easy answers. The people of Ukraine get to decide their own destiny. The allies of the continent should be able to help shore up the existing nation while listening to the voices of the locals. 

Mostly, what none of us want to see is a push-pull war with Russia with the rest of us standing impotently at the center. Someone has to be the adult in the room. 

From CNN - BREAKING NEWS - 9:52 PM ET

Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered Russian troops into two separatist pro-Moscow regions in eastern Ukraine after recognizing their independence on Monday. 

 

The US expects Russian troops could move as soon as tonight or tomorrow into Donbas, a senior US official familiar with latest intelligence said.

 

 

US President Biden plans to impose new sanctions on trade and financing in the territories, the White House said. The executive order will also allow the US to place sanctions on anyone operating in those areas.

Sit back and breathe. Now it's a game of chicken playing out in real time. I don't know about you, but I'm not amused. 

The Wifely Person's Tip o'the Week

The market is going to go crazy. 

Sit back. Don't panic. 

Just keep breathing. 

The First Amendment: A Primer on Free Speech

Lady Justice at the Supreme Court

Last week, a few readers took issue with whether or not Joe Rogan's show is a freedom of speech issue. I heard from both sides. It's probably worth a closer look at the First Amendment: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The establishment clause alone can fill libraries. Peaceful assembly is another catchall phrase that cannot be easily defined. But today, I am only interested in the one in the middle: freedom of speech. The Founding Fathers weren't terribly specific about what constitutes freedom of speech.In the American Bar Association's Human Rights Magazine (October 2018,) Stephen Wermiel cites Nadine Strossen in his article, The Ongoing Challenge to Define Free Speech, suggesting there is a somewhat nuanced difference:

American Civil Liberties Union national president Nadine Strossen notes in her article, there has long been a dichotomy in public opinion about free speech. Surveys traditionally show that the American people have strong support for free speech in general, but that number decreases when the poll focuses on particular forms of controversial speech.

That is where the metaphorical rubber meets the road, folks.

[Note to my gentle readers: For the purposes of today's episode, I am using Cornell University's Legal Information Institute  (heretofore CULIL) page on the First Amendment for basic legal definitions. ] 

How does one decide what is controversial and possibly unprotected speech versus freedom of speech as protected in the First Amendment? Over the last couple o'hundred years, SCOTUS has heard lots of freedom of expression cases. But it's safe to say that over time, there has been a standard set for what cases can go up the food chain. 

One also has to be aware that while community standards do evolve over time, the courts must also weigh those changes in considering which cases will be heard. The best example I can present is in the idea of obscenity. What was shocking in 1822 was clearly different by 1922...just look at women's hemlines....versus what is shocking in 2022. There is no way to uphold a century old standard! But the courts are faced with that consideration:

Currently, obscenity is evaluated by federal and state courts alike using a tripartite standard established by Miller v. California. The Miller test for obscenity includes the following criteria: (1) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ appeals to ‘prurient interest’ (2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (3) whether the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (CULIL)

That contemporary community standard has changed exponentially with the advent of the internet and instant news. Surely that which is an acceptable community standard in New York or LA might not be acceptable in Des Moines or Jackson. Does the court have to take into account regional proclivities? Yes and no; they have to be "culturally" aware and understand the circumstances in which the potential violation occurs. Which means that the standard, whatever it is, is actually rather fluid. 

The CULIL states:

The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. Generally, a person cannot be held liable, either criminally or civilly for anything written or spoken about a person or topic, so long as it is truthful or based on an honest opinion and such statements. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. 

The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more on unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place.    

So where does hate speech fall, or, more importantly, what constitutes hate speech?

In their position paper on Freedom of Speech, the ACLU points out 

If we do not come to the defense of the free speech rights of the most unpopular among us, even if their views are antithetical to the very freedom the First Amendment stands for, then no one's liberty will be secure. In that sense, all First Amendment rights are "indivisible." 

Censoring so-called hate speech also runs counter to the long-term interests of the most frequent victims of hate: racial, ethnic, religious and sexual minorities. We should not give the government the power to decide which opinions are hateful, for history has taught us that government is more apt to use this power to prosecute minorities than to protect them. As one federal judge has put it, tolerating hateful speech is "the best protection we have against any Nazi-type regime in this country."

In these cases, the parameters do not include unprotected speech. Congressional Research Services lists those categories as specifically: 

• 1 Incitement. 1.1 Incitement to suicide.
• 2 False statements of fact.
• 3 Counterfeit currency.
• 4 Obscenity.
• 5 Child pornography.
• 6 Fighting words.
• There are two other categories that are not protected: 
• Speech Threatening the President
• Speech owned by others

Hate speech only becomes unprotected speech if/when it directly incites criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group. (from the ALA website.)

So the issue with Joe Rogan is not if he is protected by the First Amendment...clearly he is...but whether or not a non-governmental company like Spotify should be broadcasting his podcasts. This probably has more to do with what his contract says than what individuals want. Sure, Spotify can terminate a contract, pay out the penalty, and move on, but what message does that ultimately send to listeners/subscribers? 

If you read my stuff regularly, you already know I'm all about the messages we telegraph to the casual observer.

Well, the only way you get to express an opinion is to cancel a subscription and refuse to patronize their site, much the same way artists are voting with their feet.  Let management know. Publish something on that dreaded platform called social media. Rant on Reddit. Post terrible reviews on Yelp or FaceBook. Do whatever it is you do this week to display your displeasure. If enough people do that, they have to listen. Same thing goes for artists pulling catalogs. Enough of them do, it's a movement. 

For the record, I suspect the real artistic issue with Spotify is neither Joe Rogan's COVID nonsense nor his use of the N*word; it's all about royalties and fair payment/licensing for music. But that's a totally separate issue.

My belief remains firm that unless speech meets the "litmus" test of unprotected speech, he gets to say what he wants. IF, as in the case of the COVID advice, he's promulgating dangerous habits, shut him down. But if he's asking guests on his program to explain their positions and advice, then it stays, preferably with a disclaimer.  As horrid as it is, his use of the N*word might be abhorrent, it remains protected speech. IF he is as contrite as he says, and IF he changes those language patterns, then doesn't he get a chance to redeem himself? I mean, isn't that what the critics want? Admission, repentance, and improved action going forward? IF he screws up again, yank 'em. 

I saw a meme about book banning that really made me stop to think not just about books, but speech and press as well. The last line said something to the effect that people who ban books are never remembered in history as the good guys. 

We know this to be very, very true. 

The Wifely Person's Tip o'the week

If you save the cards your Valentine gives you,

take a moment to read them together. 

I really, really miss that annual activity.

Welcome To The Cancel Culture Club

Over the weekend, another Joe Rogan story broke, this one about his use of the "N" word on his podcast...

 

Rogan used the word more than 20 times in the clips from different podcast episodes, which he said were compiled over a span of 12 years. In his apology, Rogan said it's the "most regretful and shameful thing" he has ever had to address publicly.   (From CNN)

...which got me thinking about a number of things, including why this is just coming up now? I'm not arguing that the slur is not offensive, it is, but why has it taken 12 years for someone (like Spotify) to notice? Or since he's already being pilloried for COVID, is he now just under greater scrutiny? Or is it because he comes off as a conservative? In interviews, he maintains he is a liberal but politically independent. 

Can you imagine what they'd do to Howard Stern if someone went through his shock-jock files?

So I got to wondering about the desired outcome of this push to punish Rogan. IF (and that's a BIG if) he is a shock comedian and that has been his modus operandi for a long time, then the language is still not justifiable, but perhaps more understandable. Is he a devil's advocate stimulating conversation....or is he spouting garbage to hear himself be censored?

One of my cousins posted a meme today that really pulled me up short. Okay, I'm already short enough, but this struck me as not a great equivalency. I don't think there is a real comparison here; more apples and oranges than two like objects. However, it's that discordance that made me stop and stare. 

Book banning takes many forms. Most recently it's the removal of "controversial" books from school curricula and libraries. The issue has a great deal more to do with what is permitted to be taught in a classroom and what a teacher is not permitted to even say. 

Removal of books attempts to guarantee that kids will not be exposed to some serious moments in history. I happen to think that is totally deranged thinking. The list of ideas this ideology embraces include really subversive topics like sex ed, civil rights, and the Holocaust, all topics we don't want young, fragile minds to know about...even though those same kids play a variety of Marvel and DC comic based games with superheroes vanquishing villains, but it's just a cartoon, right? It's not real, right?

Not as real as kids with guns in schools, right? Last week a kid was shot right outside his school by two older kids...who are now charged with murder.  People want to ban books....but are not willing to ban guns. Forget I said that. That's another rant.

Meanwhile, back on the radio, Joe Rogan has been spouting off for a while. His rhetoric isn't news. Over a bunch of years, he's used "the N word" repeatedly. He admits he did. In fact, he pulled episodes in his catalogue where it was used. He's basically admitted he's an idiot shock jock, and he's doing his penance. Is it genuine? Who knows? But he's doing it. He pulled the offending episodes himself. I should think admitting you're an asshole is 3/4 of the battle. Spotify seems to be of the mind that canceling voices is a slippery slope. From the New York Times:

“I do not believe that silencing Joe is the answer,” Ek wrote in the memo, which Spotify provided to The New York Times. “We should have clear lines around content and take action when they are crossed, but canceling voices is a slippery slope.”

I have to agree with them on that. Yeah, the COVID statements were moronic, and the N-word nonsense should've been stopped long ago. Assuming his repentance is honest and complete, why fire him? Where do you draw the line?

Do we stop thinking something is funny or moving or transformational because the deliverer of said information is flawed or disgusting or a criminal? Does young Bill Cosby's take on fatherhood become any less funny because in his later years he was a sexual predator? Does someone get to say all his books, films, and specials are now verboten because 30 years later he did heinous stuff? Is ANNIE HALL any less of a masterpiece because Woody Allen was accused of who knows what sexual misconduct but was exonerated? Or do we dismiss/ban/censor his work even though the court found him innocent on all charges?

And not to leave out my favorite pedophile saint, Shlomo Carlebach, the question of what about the music must be asked. You can't deny he gave a rich, exuberant sound to Jewish voices of the 60s and 70s. Do we forbid his music in synagogues? Do we give him an asterisk in Wikipedia? Or do we acknowledge he is a sexual predator who was also a talented composer?

The Cancel Culture Club is really getting to me. I listened to Art Spiegelman (yes, that Art Spiegelman) on a zoom meeting hosted by the Jewish Federation of Greater Chattanooga. There appeared to be a really strong turnout from the community. The questions the school kids asked at the end were great. One of the things he said in response to a question about why MAUS was being targeted was exceptionally spot on. He explained it was, of course, about parents and other adults wanting to control the flow of information to students, that on some levels this could be viewed as parents wanting to protect children from being inundated by evil. However, it must also be seen as an attempt to control future outcomes with those kids. In other words, if you don't introduce them to seriously ugly topics, they will never learn how to respond. Instead of protecting the children, they are ultimately putting them at significant risk. 

That's the biggest risk of all. When you deny kids the opportunity to learn what went horribly wrong, you doom them to repeat it. I would bet that if you asked the Capitol Hill rioters if they knew about the Reichstag Fire, they would think it was for toasting marshmallows. If kids are not exposed to world history in all its gory glory, they will never know what to look for in the demise of democracy. These are our future leaders. 

Why would anyone want them to be naive and dumb?

As my dad would say: Perish the thought. 

The Wifely Person's Tip o'the Week

Here on the tundra the temps have been sub zero a lot. 

KEEP YOUR GAS AT MORE THAN HALF, IF NOT COMPLETELY FULL.

This will prevent condensation and gas line freeze,

neither of which is a pleasant experience for your car.