Anti-Zelenskyy isn't Pro-Putin!?!?!? WTF!??!?!?!

Where to begin?

There has been much made of the shit show in the Oval Office last Friday (March 28, 2025) as Trump and Vance went total dick on Zelensky, so I won't here.

One of the dumbest things I heard regarding it was from someone I know, who said that being anti-Zelensky wasn't pro-Putin. That might be the dumbest bit of pedantry I've ever read.

Let's be truthful here. Both of those men are leaders of their respective nations. One presides over an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation. The other presides over a nation fighting back against said invasion. That's as basic as it gets, but there's important context. So let's go there.

Ukraine is a country in Eastern Europe. It borders the Black Sea to the south, Russia to the north and east, and Belarus to the north and west. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, Ukraine declared independence. Before that, Ukraine had been an SSR (Soviet Socialist Republic) under the control of the greater Soviet Union. It was not part of Russia, as many declare (out of ignorance). 

Prior to the Soviet era, Ukraine was briefly independent after the fall of the Russian Empire in 1917. During the Russian Civil War, there were partisans for the Red Army (that sought to join the revolution that the Bolsheviks began), the White Army (that sought to reestablish the Empire and Monarchy), and Ukrainian Separatists. To say that Ukraine has always been part of Russia, as Putin has asserted, is plainly false.

Let's return to the Ukrainian declaration of independence in 1991. During the Soviet Era, Ukraine's geography made it strategically important. Its agricultural output also made it a vital piece of territory. Ukraine declared independence, which was, in turn, recognized by most of the world, including the United States. Fun fact here: Ukraine at the time of independence had one-third of the Soviet nuclear arsenal. In the interest of world peace and nuclear non-proliferation, Ukraine agreed to surrender the warheads in exchange for security guarantees. This agreement is known as the Budapest Memorandum. In it, the United States (and other nations) guarantees Ukraine's borders in exchange for the surrender of the nukes for destruction.

So historically, Russia has tried to subsume Ukraine into Russia going back to the 19th century, and at the same time, Ukraine has sought independence from Russia.

So, "being anti-Zelenskyy isn't the same as pro-Putin" is plain dumb. People in the conspiratorial camp like to note that Zelenskyy is a dictator because he canceled elections during a war. Guess how many elections England held during WWII. Zero. Does that make Churchill a dictator? Dumbass. They also like to point to his stealing the money conspiracy. One, we're not sending money; we're extending credit to buy our extra weapons (because we'll just buy more from us). It's a huge benefit to defense contractors and their employees. And, if he was stealing money, why is he staying in a war zone? Seriously. Do better

Putin's Russia invaded Ukraine. That's all that matters. Being anti-Putin is the point, and to borrow the comparison, being anti-Putin doesn't make you pro-Zelensky, but any sensible person should be anti-Putin. Focusing on any other related topic is a diversion, plain and simple. Russia invaded a sovereign country without provocation, and seeking closer relations with the EU or NATO isn't provocation. It's a nation's right of sovereignty to seek its own way. 

Russia's war is a war of aggression. Doing nothing is akin to the world doing nothing when Germany invaded the Sudetanland unprovoked or when the world did nothing when Italy invaded Abyssinia unprovoked or when the world did nothing when Spanish Nationalists overthrew an elected government and established a military dictatorship.

We're the appeasers this time. We're Chamberlain. How does that feel?

It's been a busy couple of days.

Since Monday a lot has happened.

Tony Dungy said this in regard to Michael Sam. Now, I don't think it's a homophobic thing to say, and it definitely doesn't make Coach Dungy a homophobe. He's, quite publicly, a conservatively religious man, and that's fine. What he did say is more chickenshit that hateful. "...wouldn't want to deal with it." Come on Coach. That's weak. Here's all you need to say to the media member who eventually wants to go down that road.

"I'm the coach of this team, and Michael Sam is a player trying to make this team. I will answer any question about football. Questions about Micheal's sexuality are not going to be answered. That's his business. If you want to ask him go ahead, but I'm only going to answer football questions."

So, in short, with all due respect Coach Dungy, chickenshit.


I don't confess to being an expert on economics, but I do try to understand it as well as I can. I did see this thing this morning. If the economy is growing slowly, and if wages are stagnant in terms of real dollars (keeping pace with inflation at best), then why is executive compensation rising at a double digit percentage rate? Also why does there seem to be no relationship between executive compensation and a company's performance? This does seem to counter any "trickle down" dogma, and that execs "earn" their packages. I'm confounded that anyone still believes in supply side, and statistically execs don't "earn" their packages.


I don't know what to make of the crisis in the Ukraine. I do think that Putin is a bad guy, and his government, by supporting the separatists, is responsible for the downing of MH17. I think it's hyperbole to call him the next Hitler, and thankfully the talking points have not gone that far. What I do think is happening is he's shitting his own diplomatic bed, and is on his way to pariah status. I also don't think he particularly cares. I do think that war in that part of the world will not be pulling in other countries. Europe we know does not have an appetite for a war in Russia (which historically never works out well), and Americans don't either after the Iraq experience. We'll see is all I can say. I'll need to spend more time thinking on this.

As to the immigration related crisis; seriously, make Mexico a state.

Lastly, LeBron James - the most hated man in sport a scant few weeks ago is giving cupcakes to all his neighbors. What a great way to move home! Who doesn't love a cupcake?

Those who fail to learn the lessons of history........

I saw this. I have to say, if there's one phrase that should discount Mr. Chalabi and the future of Iraq - more precisely the future of the territory formerly Iraq - it should be "Cheney's old pal." I'll leave it to the linked piece to detail all of the red flags regarding Mr. Chalabi. I will say again that Mr. Cheney, and the rest of the neo-cons, should never again be consulted on foreign policy. I mean, how wrong do you have to be before you stop getting invited to give an opinion?

I have an idea, and it's regarding the old "appeasement" argument. History tells us that the mistake the world made in the 1930s was appeasing Hitler, and that's a good lesson. That's not the only lesson that history teaches us, and it's not the most important. We have so overemphasized the appeasement lesson to the detriment of others. After the assassination of the Arch Duke Ferdinand in 1914 the world rushed headlong into World War I. That's pretty much the opposite of appeasement. We have fallen woefully short of appreciating that lesson.

To be clear, in the dichotomous political climate we live in today, I'm not advocating 1930's style appeasement, but I do think that somewhere between appeasement, and "We have to show these guys we mean business." is where the sweet spot is.

Take the latest development in the Russia/Ukraine crisis - the shooting down of MH17. There is little doubt that it was done by the separatists backed by Putin's Russia. Most of the information released indicates that the separatists received the hardware and training to show down aircraft from Russia. That said, there is still an investigation to do, and separatists hindering the efforts to do that only make them look more guilty, but can we start by talking to credible people about the area, and groups involved? That's be a good idea. One more thing, can we talk about what has happened in past comparable occurrence, and not the political mythology?

What I'm saying is that maybe we should heed the lessons of the advent of WWI, and not jump to conclusions, and make decisions that are not thought out thoroughly. There are 3 really big crises going in the world right now; Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Palestine, and the continuing fracture of Iraq and Syria and ISIS. Making a snap decision, and then building a case supporting that to show everyone "we mean business" is foolhardy, and short sighted. Cherry picking information and building up those that support that cheery picked data is what wasted lives and US fortune in the Iraq fiasco. If there's a lesson history can teach us it's that. Being so recent you'd think it'd be reasonably clear. We need to gather information first, THEN make a decision.

So please, stop talking to Dick Cheney.

Ukraine - a few thoughts

There is, unless you've spend the past 2 weeks doing research on the Bachelor contestants, or watching all movies nominated in all the categories for the Academy Awards (and really, how do you appreciate sound editing?) a huge crisis in Ukraine.

Here's a summary of the past few weeks; There has been a popular uprising since late January leading to massive demonstrations in Kiev, the capital city of Ukraine, against the sitting President. He was seen as a puppet of the Russian government led by Putin. After swearing, and promising he would not step down, after hundreds died in huge demonstrations in Kiev - he stepped down. On the 23rd of Feb the Ukrainian Parliament appointed an interim President until new elections. February 28th is when Russia says "Screw that." Invades the Crimean peninsula to "protect" ethnic Russians (although they were not in danger really) It was a bullshit rationale to invade a sovereign nation.

This is a real crisis, with real people affected, with life, death, and liberty at stake for Ukrainian people. Ukraine is on the western edge of Russia. It's the most European of the former states of the Soviet Union. Its capital - Kiev - is a historically significant city in Russian history. The seat of the Russian Czars was there before being moved to Moscow. It was a pretty autonomous state under the old Russian Empire, although it did remain subordinate to the Czars. Under the Soviet Union it was strategically important during the Cold War. It was a hub of Soviet armed forces, and was densely armed with nukes. When the Soviet Union collapsed after the Cold War, Ukraine became independent. In exchange for its independence it gave up all nuclear weapons to Russia. Russia paid Ukraine the value of the uranium. A treaty was signed by Ukraine, Russia, United States, and United Kingdom recognizing Ukrainian sovereignty. So, no way is Russia right in it's invasion.

To hear the conservative punditocracy the biggest reason Putin felt he could do this was because Obama is not decisive, or tough enough. Never mind that when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 there was a different President who, for whatever his faults, was very decisive and tough. Right there the argument is exposed as red team bullshit. This issue is way bigger than the red team/blue team political paradigm that out lazy media finds the need to put everything into.

If there were a President Romney right now, and if events played out in Ukraine as they have the past few months, the crisis would be here in current shape. If you think differently, you're either stupid, or not paying attention. If you think tough talk will change anything, you're foolish. If you think US forces should be there to support Ukraine, I suggest you crack a history book, and look up "land wars in Russia." If there's anything Putin is counting on it's Congress and the President NOT working together, and playing politics with this as they have since 2010.