How Possible is a Ukrainian Paradox?

There has been so much going on in the last couple of weeks, it was difficult to know what to write.  However, the events in the Ukraine with a presidential election vote have led some to cast a worrying glance to eastward.  A great deal has been spoken with regards to the motives and designs of Russian President Vladimir Putin, including a couple of articles on this blog.  However, with the election, the question has to be asked about the intent and abilities of the new Ukrainian president.  How does one live next to a ravenous neighbor like Russia?  The Ukraine might want to consider the path taken by Finland as suggested by some but such a path is fraught with danger.

Former Canadian Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau once compared his country’s proximity to the U.S. with sleeping with an elephant – always keeping one eye open in the event it rolls over in the middle of the night.  The Ukraine finds itself in a similar situation.  In the years after World War II, Finland under the leadership of Juho Paasikivi and Urho Kekkonen navigated its relationship with the Soviet Union through a policy of capitulation and deference while maintaining its independence.  Certainly when one compares Finland to the besieged countries of Eastern Europe, the Finns held a special status.  The Ukraine’s political leaders can certainly endeavor to mollify the Russians but the country lacks the military strength and the united population that Finland enjoyed.   

The Ukrainian government must consider this because as the leadership of the U.S. and Europe are presently constituted, there is little chance that the former Soviet republic would get military help in the event of an invasion.  Unless the Ukrainians can build up a military that can force the Russians to hesitate, a la Finland or Cold War-era Yugoslavia, they must accept Russian dominance.  By recent news accounts, the new president of the Ukraine is the chocolatier magnet Petro Poroshenko and giving his connections in the eastern part of the country, he can follow the Finnish model of first placating the Russians.  First, he must reject NATO.  The Ukraine joining NATO is not going to happen without a more aggressive Russia knocking on its doors.  Mr. Poroshenko can then incorporate a neutral approach – to become the new Switzerland of Europe.  This would require the Ukraine to also reject military cooperation with the Russians but in order to build trust with its eastern neighbors.  The more committed to neutrality the Ukraine is, the less concerned the Russians will be.   

Post World War II, the Finns accepted the idea that the Soviets needed to be appeased.  Finland had a fairly united population which made the moves easier if not still controversial.  President Kekkonen’s “Finnish Paradox” which stated the closer Finland grew towards Russia, the freer they would be can only be achieved with a unified population.  It is just not there for the Ukraine.  For one, the vast majority of Ukrainians are more westward focused.  We are not talking about a large segment of the population that is supporting the thugs in the east – even in the east.  If, however, the new president made some innocuous gestures to the Russians, that might help alleviate tensions.  President-elect Poroshenko could renew natural gas talks with the President Putin and promise to regulate the country’s interactions with the European Union.  The western, pro-Europe Ukrainians will be nervous but there is a new reality with which to deal.  

Though some pundits have brought up Finland, it is not a fit here.  The Ukraine does not have the military prowess nor the united population that allowed Finland to remain more-or-less independent throughout the Cold War.  However, there are political maneuverings and neutrality options that could ease the concern of the Russians.  This said with the understanding that the U.S. and the Europeans have neither the will nor the leadership to take a stronger stance.  Given the limited options available to the Ukraine, it could be the best course of action to take.

The Scope of Free Speech

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
           Noam Chomsky

In recent weeks, a row has emerged from the owner of the National Basketball Association’s Los Angeles Clippers – Donald Sterling.  He’s the longest serving owner in the NBA but due to a couple of well-publicized incidents, he has often been thought of (when he was thought of) as a buffoon.  Last week, a secretly recorded tape showcased Mr. Sterling’s backward thinking and racism.  In the aftermath, the commissioner of the NBA, Adam Silver, banned him for life and is attempting to force the sale of his club to the league so that they may seek a more suitable owner.  As ridiculous as Mr. Sterling’s comments were, I’m confused and alarmed by the action taken and the players’ reaction to the owner.

There are two major things about this whole fiasco that bother me.  The first is the nature of the comments and the league’s reaction to the same.  So that my affiliation is clear, I don’t subscribe to Mr. Sterling’s point of view.  He is like the drunk uncle at family gatherings whose embarrassing paradigm is stuck about sixty years in the past.  That said, the NBA’s actions are a bit dangerous to me.  In my perfect world, people like Mr. Sterling are taken care of by the market and its refusal to patronize his product.  However, not many people, let alone sports fans, have the courage of their convictions when their “team” is the question.  So, they want somebody else to do something.  In steps the commissioner.  

Mr. Silver laid down the law that Donald Sterling’s words, secretly recorded in the privacy of his own home, are grounds for immediate and indefinite suspension.  However, my problem has to do with the basis for the commissioner’s actions.  As Dallas Mavericks’ owner Mark Cuban said, it is not against the law to be stupid and backwards.  So, what is the fallout if you make it a crime?  Some might say, what is wrong with taking action against a racist?  The problem is that it seldom stops there.  History shows us that people with the power to control the masses begin with the agreed upon.  People feel comfortable with the first salvos – who is going to defend the actions of a racist?  Yet, it is a slippery slope and I’m concerned about the precedent set.   

The other matter that I do not understand is the reaction from the players and observers.  It seems we are giving way too much attention to the thoughts and actions of an 80-year-old, publically insignificant figure that people wrote off as a joke years ago.  Players turning their jersey inside out in protest – I want to know the individual who, prior to, connected the name “Clippers” only to Donald Sterling and not the men on the court.  Players emotionally declared the level of hurt and pain this has caused.  Unfortunately, it is likely these young men have suffered in the past from racism.  This is the worst?  The private ramblings of a marginalized man has caused this much distress and emotion?  I would suggest to you this man has never been given so much attention in his life.   

I don’t have the answer to racism.  Yet the attention paid to Mr. Sterling is disproportionate to its impact.  Additionally, when an organization can punish thought and privately expressed thought at that, what does that mean?  As a Jew, I learned early that even the neo-Nazis should be able to speak their mind publicly.  Forbidden speech is emboldened speech.  The protection of speech, certainly what is said in the privacy of one’s home, is paramount in a free society.  Racists and others of their ilk, in a free society, will face condemnation and marginalization.  The actions of the NBA commissioner borders on the tyranny of the majority and in the end could prove just as destructive as the racists.    

A Few Steps Back in Kansas

When I began this blog a few years ago, part of the thinking was that we needed to re-evaluate how we deal with issues and in turn, how we deal with one another.  We should discuss events, not people.  Additionally, those who have opposing viewpoints are not adversaries or worse, enemies but simply those who don’t agree – nothing more or less.  Sadly, often one can see the violation of this principle.  This past week, the ridiculousness ventured out of the world of politics and into the state of Kansas.  The target was the First Lady and the subject was a commencement address. 

In Topeka, Kansas, Michelle Obama was approached to give a commencement speech at a combined ceremony for the city’s high schools.  It is typical that during this time of year, celebrities, politicians and other noteworthy individuals span throughout America’s campuses to provide parting words of wisdom for high school and college graduates.  Throughout the country, various schools manage to provide for honored guests as well as the parents and friends of the graduates.  However, a group of students and parents in Topeka felt the presence of Mrs. Obama would prevent friends and family from attending the ceremony and additionally, take away the attention from the graduates.  Those who oppose the First Lady’s address have certainly done that.  

First of all, the First Lady is not a political figure but simply a well-known one.  The address would likely not include any political content.  So, what is the objection?  It is hard not to see this as the political salvo the protestors fear might come from Mrs. Obama.   Oscar Wilde once said that “man is least himself when he talks in his own person.”  So when students and parents face television cameras and say this has nothing to do with politics, I don’t buy it.  Call me dubious, but it seems the situation is nothing but politics.  It is not hard to imagine the uproar if the president, also approached to speak in Topeka, were the one to appear.   

Part of the reason for the appearance of such a highly-placed figure is the fiftieth anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas – the case that struck down the legality of segregation.  Whether people in Topeka have it in for Mrs. Obama or have never gotten over the Warren Court’s push toward desegregation, the message comes across the same.  During the presidency of George W. Bush, there was so much disrespect directed at the president, including a book published to highlight how to assassinate the chief executive which met with no Democratic outcry, one would think that Republicans would know the importance of respecting the office, if not the man.  However, some have decided that turn-about is fair play.   

Historically, the extraordinary partisanship of modern politics seems to have borne out of the Watergate scandal and the Robert Bork nomination process.  Since, the rhetoric has been contrarian to the point of being childish.  It needs to stop and the only way to do so is begin the respect process.  So, for all the Republicans out there seeking affirmation for their bent notion of politics and political gamesmanship, grow up.  Barak Obama is the president of the United States.  He was elected to the office not once but twice.  His wife is the First Lady and Michelle Obama deserves the respect of her position.  How can one demand respect without first giving it?  

Since the days of Jefferson, Americans have accepted the will of the people in changing the government and conservatives, throughout the years, have championed respect for the state.  Still, it was decided Mrs. Obama will speak at a separate ceremony away from the graduation.  Meanwhile, those who protested will sit in the graduation arena in May and feel smug in the notion that they kept “that woman” out.  Then, ten or twenty years later, their kids will morph into people whose jaded outlook of life will include a lack of respect in all things that should be important to Americans and they will wonder where they learned such unflattering notions.  They will be able to find their answers, provided there are mirrors in the house. 

Shadows of Munich

In 1938, a group of diplomats and leaders met in Munich, Germany.  The occasion was Adolf Hitler’s claim on the western part of Czechoslovakia – the Sudetenland.  Germany, Italy, France and the United Kingdom were represented.  The Czechs were not there; a group forced to watch in the background as their country was torn apart for the sake of peace.  The Americans were there, unofficially in the form of U.S. ambassador Joseph Kennedy, and quietly went along with the agreement.  That pact would eventually give way to the wisdom that appeasement only makes the aggressor stronger.  Against this axiom, the European powers and the U.S. made the ravenous Russian beast stronger and the implications could be quite dire. 

Since the showdown in the Crimea, events that smack of the demands for breathing room by the Nazi government, the Russians have grown increasingly aggressive towards its former state.  Russia has also tacitly approved of the actions of pro-Russian mobs who, throughout eastern Ukraine, have been pushing buttons, pushing around Ukrainian authorities and generally increasing tensions throughout the region.  The Europeans and the Americans have been content with sanctions in hopes that Mr. Putin will realize the folly of his ambitions.  However, the Russian president has been making threats of his own in the form of the gas supply to the Europeans.  If European leadership and President Obama cannot think beyond sanctions, I fear history might repeat itself.  

In the last couple of days and after weeks of pro-Russian gangs running rough-shod over the Ukrainian civil government, the Ukrainian forces struck back in Slovyansk, in the eastern part of the country.  This follows attempts by the government to mollify pro-Russian protestors with the promise of more autonomy.  However, as the mobs’ takeover increased and solidified, special forces were employed to eject the protestors from government and police buildings as well as destroy barricades and checkpoints.  The Ukrainian government has been placed in a winless scenario as pro-Russian forces within the country have created havoc and Russian forces along the border have orchestrated more threats and pressures.  

This past weekend, Sen. John McCain lambasted the president for an increasingly weak and irrelevant international voice, suggesting that sanctions are not enough.  He further suggested that what the president and the Europeans need to do is supply intelligence and weapons to the embattled government.  However, that is not happening.  President Obama has no intention to place troops on the ground as there is little to no support for such a measure in the U.S. but one must wonder why the president has seldom discussed this situation at length.  As the Democrats prepare for the 2014 mid-term elections and the party seeks to salvage those Democrats, especially in the Senate, whose re-election efforts are jeopardized, the attention seems to have drifted away from international concerns.

As an historian, I do not make references to the Nazis and Germany’s pre-World War II behavior lightly.  It is too often referred to and often, incorrectly.  However, given the level of inaction and lack of measures taken by the western powers, it does make one wonder how this farce will eventually play out.  The president has often suggested his uneasiness with the notion of the U.S. as a superpower and the authority and force that comes along.  However, it is countries like the U.S., along with the European powers, which share a responsibility.  Teddy Roosevelt said it was of little use arguing that we hold an international presence but what was most important, is what we did with the duty.  I fear we are ignoring those obligations and the Ukraine will be only the first victim. 

The Legacy of a Late-night Anarchist

I’ve never had an interest in celebrities and don’t understand the attraction.  The fact that our culture is so obsessed with celebrities makes me feel out of step with society but I’m willing to accept that.  Having said all this, there are those whose work I enjoy and those who I feel are very talented and contributed.  One of them announced their retirement this week – David Letterman.  For those who only know the more recent version of Mr. Letterman, you are missing out on some of the brilliance he displayed during his career. 

It has been often said by people more in the know than I that the careers of Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel and Conan O’Brien would not have happen were it not for David Letterman.  He introduced strange and wonderful components to his show, sometimes with little to no explanation.  “You figure it out” was the message.  It was not surprising because as television goes, Mr. Letterman was a strange man himself. 

Consider deadpan Larry “Bud” Melman who would read poetry and other ramblings for no apparent reason.  Mr. Letterman once had a rerun of his show dubbed into Spanish with Mexican actors.  Again, no explanation and if your Spanish was not up to it, you were lost.  He would host these rather strange confrontations, as when comedian Andy Kaufmann and wrestler Jerry Lawler were on the show together.  Allowing Andy to be Andy, Mr. Kaufmann yelled and screamed at the wrestler until Mr. Lawler got up and smacked the comedian to the floor.  Then there was the program where he used over ten cameras to make the show appear it was rotating 360 degrees.  The madcap king of late night was an anarchist and it was fun to watch.   

Then, there were the interviews.  He hates pomposity and loves to poke holes in the sanctity of celebrity.  He can be acerbic, biting and even cruel.  It is also Mr. Letterman at his best.  Sometimes, he simply allows people to make fools of themselves, such as Crispin Glover who gave such a bizarre performance back in the 1980s in the aftermath of his Back to the Future fame and Farrah Fawcett who he lampooned and mocked while she was in an apparent drunken state.  For those who he clearly has little interest in or respect for, he can dismiss the “celebrity” status as with Paris Hilton (“So, how was prison?”) and Lindsey Lohan (“Shouldn’t you be in rehab?”).   

Others came in with an under appreciation for the man, not understanding the intellectual wordsmith and comic mind on the other side of the desk.  Bill O’Reilly, who is no slouch in the debate department himself, nevertheless met a worthy opponent.  An angry Madonna, upset at Mr. Letterman’s suggestion that she had slept her way through the music and film industries, tried to shock him with crude behavior and a string of profanity.  The unflappable host, who had seen much more imaginative attacks, simply dug deeper and mocked the “queen of pop.”  In the process, he made her look ridiculous.   

For the former Indianapolis weatherman and stand-up comic, he could also handle the serious moments as well.  He was brilliant in this first monologue after the September 11^th attacks.  Additionally, the fiercely private man was surprisingly open after his heart attack and his infidelity.  Mostly, he kept things to himself.  After being passed over for the Tonight Show, he was on Johnny Carson’s show and the legendary host (whom David Letterman idolized) asked him, “So, just how pissed off are you right now?”  The private man did not take the bait and simply let it go.  A trait that some have said cost him his coveted ideal job – that and not sticking up for himself.  Yet, to do so would put himself out there more and that, he could not do.   

I once met Jay Leno while serving in the first Gulf War and I’m sure on some level, he is a nice guy.  Yet, he won’t take risks in his observations and comedy and for me, I was drawn to the near reckless willingness to explore options that has characterized David Letterman’s show.  He was the guy who was cool to watch and there was some status in a select club for those who watched.  What drew people in were Mr. Letterman’s sense of disorder and chaos.  He is not what he was but he will always be the man who set the standard for late night television.     

Effectual Man, Ineffectual President

The Presidential Series – Jimmy Carter, the 39^th President of the United States
                                         Democrat, 1977-81

Let us learn together and laugh together and work together and pray together, confident that in the end we will triumph together in the right.

            President Jimmy Carter, Inaugural Address, 20 January 1977

In committing to do a series on various U.S. presidents, it might seem odd and ideologically backwards (considering my blog’s orientation) to begin with the 39^th president.  However, Jimmy Carter as president from 1977 until 1981 is one of our more interesting chief executives.  He was a one-term governor of a small southern state who promised to bring a more decent and morally guided focus to the job of the presidency.  His administration is equally considered one of unprecedented diplomatic success and an abject failure.  Love him or hate him, I’ve met few who are indifferent regarding President Jimmy Carter. 

Most presidents are products of events beyond their control – Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War; Grover Cleveland and the Panic of 1893; Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression; Jimmy Carter and…well…pick one.  Upon entering office, he swore to bring honesty and integrity back to the White House after the tumultuous and frequently illegal administrations of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.  He said that if he were ever caught in a lie, he wanted to be escorted out of the White House immediately.  He was true to his roots as seen during the 1976 campaign when he would return to Georgia every weekend to teach Sunday School class at his home church.  He was different from any other president who took that mantle of responsibility.    

As president, he struggled with domestic issues.  The energy crisis that first perplexed Richard Nixon caused increased grumbling and discontent with a population waiting in line for gas.  He further aggravated the masses with a speech that lectured the Americans on their role in the crisis.  It did not go over well.  His “malaise speech” is one of the defining moments of his presidency.  Later, his presidency was challenged with a nuclear power plant meltdown on Three Mile Island in the middle of the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania.  Much was made of his navy training as a nuclear engineer but his hands were largely tied as various experts desperately tried to determine what was wrong.  Bravely or foolhardily, he went to the nuclear power plant to speak with experts, giving the impression that things were under control.  A core meltdown was avoided but nuclear energy would suffer a setback it is only now crawling out from under.

Yet, it would be President Carter’s actions in foreign policy that would cement his legacy.  While he was instrumental in the historical Camp David Accords, bringing together Egypt and Israel, a point that cannot be dismissed lightly, and pushing through a divided Congress the Panama Canal treaty, he is remembered by historians as being weak when Iranian revolutionaries took 56 American hostages in Tehran and the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Afghanistan.  He attempted to negotiate with the Iranians but giving asylum to the former shah of Iran poisoned the negotiations.  It seemed Mr. Carter could not muster a response other than strongly-worded missives.  His one attempt at rescue was an overthought, overcomplicated plan that fell apart in the Iranian desert.  Threats and boycotts of Soviet action in Afghanistan had little impact.  The Russians were simply not listening. 

President Carter’s trouble was on display this past week during an interview with Charlie Rose.  Commenting on the situation in the Ukraine and responding to the question of whether President Putin would make a grab for eastern Ukraine, the soon 90-year-old President Carter said it would not happen.  “Mr. Putin said he would not move on eastern Ukraine.  Why would he lie?”  Nothing could better illustrate the president’s naïveté – an attitude that hampered his efforts as president.  His moral compass failed to see the duplicity in others.  Why would they lie?  Why wouldn’t they?  

Reading a list of his achievements prior to and after his presidency, it is easy to see what a decent individual Mr. Carter is. Indeed, if that alone were enough, he could have been one of our greatest presidents.  Yet like Woodrow Wilson, he thought his moral paradigm would influence others – it did as less scrupulous men took advantage of what they perceived as weakness.  Jimmy Carter was trounced in the 1980 campaign by Ronald Reagan and he soon left the lime light.  However, he did not stop working.  President Carter is a good man.  He was just an ineffectual president.

A Call for Simplicity

Throughout history, there have been those who have taught and sought a simpler life.  As our lives grow more complicated, comprehensive and hectic, the idea seems more attractive to me.  What I think of and what many others have embraced is a lifestyle that allows for a more authentic existence.  In addition, questions are being asked about our world today.  What does it mean to experience?  What is our purpose?  German philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein once proposed that our existence is not about enjoying ourselves.  He was only a more recent in a long line of thinkers who have questioned the society around them and offered another vision.  It is worth considering.   

Siddhartha Gautama was a Hindu prince who, upon seeing the world and its misery around his protected palace, decided there must be another way.  The Buddha, living between the 500s and 400s BCE, felt that the only way to remove suffering was to remove desire and want.  In keeping with philosophical and religious practices, the Buddha explored many ways to eliminate want, including an ascetic lifestyle.  The Buddha endured pain and deprivation to find a purer way of living.  For the Buddha, the reward of a simpler life includes the cleaning out of our mind and soul those things that are not important.  Even in our most treasured values in the U.S. – the concept of choice, for example – the Dalai Lama has warned that within it lie a paralysis and ultimately, a misery.   

Jesus of Nazareth also warned of the dangers found within the society.  Christianity has a long tradition of embracing the ascetic lifestyle and is based on Jesus’ admonishment of those who sought to hold on to luxuries and wealth.  Instead, he said that man’s role was to serve, not to be served.  He famously quipped that a wealthy man could no more easily enter the kingdom of heaven than a camel could pass through the eye of a needle.  Jesus attempted to convince Jews that they must return to the values of their ancestors.  Similarly, the Prophet Muhammad turned his back on his more wealth-oriented clan members in Mecca and worked to convince Arabs that the traditions that existed prior to the trading wealth of the Arabian Peninsula had been forgotten and needed to be embraced once more.  Today, when a Muslim prepares for the obligations of the Hajj in Mecca, they put aside their modern clothes in order to embrace the simple and humble ihram clothing.  What exists outside of Mecca is detrimental to a clear mind and heart. 

In 19^th-century United States, a philosophical movement known as New England transcendentalism emerged in response to the growing industrialization within the country.  At the head of this movement were thinkers such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau and Amos Bronson Alcott.  In explaining what Kant referred to as “transcendental philosophy,” writers like Thoreau spoke of the struggle that existed in the U.S. between the growing technology and a simpler concept of living, typified in his book, Walden.  Like de Tocqueville, Thoreau and others questioned what was being lost with the growth of industrialization.  In such writings is an emphasis on the true nature of living – that being the forces that surround us but with which we’ve lost contact as we surround ourselves by the trappings of our age.   

When I see people goofing off on their iPhones or me on my work-mandated computer, I wonder what is being lost, what skill is not being perfected as a result.  One of the reasons I enjoy nature so much is as an exercise of getting away from everything.  I do not want my phone or any other component of modern society.  I want to engage in the world around me without such things.  Each day, I seek ways to simplify my life.  With simplification, we grow healthier and cleaner – in mind and in heart.  Without complications, we grow stronger in our abilities and in our faith.  Early observers of Japan’s age of the samurai marveled at the daily commitment to occupation and community without distraction.  Perhaps it is easier to see that Wittgenstein was correct.