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?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg and where we go

Photo; Ron Edmonds/AP

The evening of September 18, 202 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away. There is little I can say here that will be more evocative of the legacy she has left for us to be inspired by and to follow. So, I won't try.

So where do we go, given the political climate we find ourselves in? There are a few things to consider;

• We are in the home stretch of a Presidential election year in which the incumbent is trailing in the national polls and many of the battleground states.
• The incumbent President is unpopular, and has a low job approval rating especially in his handling of the COVID pandemic, and the resulting economic fallout.
• One party controls the Senate, and the other controls the House, the balance of the Senate is in doubt.  
• Since the police killing of George Floyd in Minnesota this past May, and the police shooting that left Jacob Blake paralyzed, the partisan divide among middle and working class voters has been exacerbated, to say nothing of the partisan divide among the political class.

• The Senate, in 2016 under GOP control, to refuse to even hold hearings on the nomination of Merrick Garland in an election year (on an opening created by the passing of Scalia in January 2016), and the pledge by Majority leader McConnell the night of Ginsburg's passing (less than 2 months before an election) that there will be a floor vote for a Trump nominee.

So what does all that mean, and where do we go then? Quite plainly it means the people who are on the political left need to make their voices heard. If there were a legitimate principle for Senator McConnell to refuse a vote to the Garland nomination 10 months before a Presidential election, and pledge a vote for a to be determined nomination 6 weeks before a Presidential election, I am not aware of it. 

Simply, it's about power. The GOP in the Senate has it, knows there's a significant chance that they will lose it. The modern Republican party does a good job of exercising power. The modern Democratic party does a poor job of it. Why is that? There are a few reasons. First, the modern Democrats are not of the political left. They're really absent any cohesive ideology. So we have 2 major political parties in the United States. One is determined to get power, and then exercise it to enact change in the United States that consistent with its ideology, and the ideology of its donors. The other just wants to win enough elections to keep donors happy and convinced that they're gonna turn the corner. To use analogize to the NFL the Republican franchise is a team that does everything to win; hires free agents with criminal histories, push the rules right to the edge, work the refs to no end, whatever it takes. Just win. The GOP  are the Patriots. The Democratic franchise does just enough to keep ticket sales healthy; keep popular players past their prime, don't sign players that fans don't like, continually lobby official channels about rules, and enforcement, go .500 or a little better year after year with an occasional flourish like a deep playoff run. Democrats are the fucking Bengals.

So what does the political left do? The political right has an easy answer, vote Republican. For the left it's not a plain answer. Democrats are not of the left. If you think they are of the left, you need to go back to history books, and read what actual left movements have done. Democrats haven't been politically left since the Johnson Administration. The most the the Democrats have ever been is during the Franklin Roosevelt Administration, and the New Deal is a far, far, far cry from Lenin and Trotsky. Given contemporary reality, the political has to take to Democrats to the left.

What does that look like? People in the streets now, and people in the streets after the election, and people in the streets after the inauguration. In context of the next Supreme Court Justice, it's calls and emails to your Senators supporting anything and everything; from every parliamentary procedural stunt to delay votes and hearings. If we learn anything from how Republicans exercise political power it's this; anything goes.

What?! "Anything goes?" Yup. Expect pearl clutching when from Republicans cry foul should the Democrats grow some political balls and use tricks to delay a nomination vote either in committee or on the floor. "It's the job of the President to nominate SCOTUS Justices!" "It's up to the Senate - regardless of leadership!" Call bullshit. That's what it is. Because now, all of a sudden, with 6 weeks to go before an election, the GOP says voting on a SCOTUS Justice is priority, and the voters do NOT deserve the same deference McConnell says they deserved in 2016 10 months before the election then. "Well it's different because Obama was a lame duck." Bullshit. Trump's candidacy is far from a sure thing. In fact it's dubious.

So the battle now is hold off filling the Ginsburg vacancy by any means until whomever is elected, is inaugurated.

The war, should Biden win, is for the political left to wake the fuck up, and take over the Democratic party. All the Democrats are now, by and large with few exceptions, empty suits with money and consultants behind them. There need to be actual liberal, and leftists, pushing the Democrats, and Biden to the actual left by using political power to force them to enact actual liberal policies that are broadly popular with United States voters.

Michael Brooks - Rest In Power

Michael Brooks passed away suddenly yesterday. I found this out late last night.

"Who is Michael Brooks?" You may ask.

The short answer is, a voice. That's who he was, a voice - powerful and brutally honest - in the non-mainstream media. Funny. So funny. Impressions of; Chris Mathews, Right Wing Nelson Mandela, to name a few. For as long as I've been a listener, he was a co-host of The Majority Report podcast, and host of his own podcast "The Michael Brooks Show." It should be no surprise, if you know me, that he was of the left. When I say that, you need to know he was not a Democrat. In fact he was harshly critical of the Democratic party, and the mainstream candidates, and focus group tested platform.

The more detailed answer, is he was a voice of the Left. It makes me laugh when I think of people talking about the "radical leftist Democrat party." That phrase makes me laugh. It's absurd. There is no "Left" in mainstream politics. Obamacare is not a Left policy. I don't pretend to know the political future of the world at large, or the United States specifically. I do feel that a reckoning is coming. Is it 4 years off? Is it 10? Is it more? What I do know is that listening to Michael, I heard a voice that felt the same.

If you think, or feel, a change is coming. If you are of the left. If you are not of the left, but not of the right. If you don't know who you are of. If you are tired of the toxicity of the mainstream media, and its absurd silliness. If you're any of that, listen to Michael.

Find Michael here;
https://www.youtube.com/c/SamSeder
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh2UY1hxlMr4_7Az_iQ82HQ

You're a voice forevermore now Michael. Rest In Power Michael Brooks #leftisbest

Andrew Luck is not Sandy Koufax, but.....

 
Photos from Wikipedia

Andrew Luck is not Sandy Koufax. To compare the early retirements of the two is not fair....to Sandy Koufax, or Andrew Luck. Sandy Koufax had a longer, more impressive, stay in the Major Leagues (12 seasons, 3 Cy Youngs, 4 no hitters, and an MVP) than Andrew Luck (7 seasons. and 4 Pro Bowls) did in the National Football League. But it is fair to compare the two retirements, and our reaction to them.

With apologies to the rest of the globe, Lionel Messi, and soccer, Andrew Luck, like Sandy Koufax, is a generational talent at the preeminent position of the most popular sport. Like Sandy Koufax, Andrew Luck decided to retire in the prime of his career. In 2018 he was named to his 4th Pro Bowl, and also named comeback player of the year in 2018 after missing a season due to .surgery on his throwing shoulder, and subsequent rehab. The Colts were preseason darlings of the NFL writers, Many predicted that the 9-1 finish, and wildcard berth, of the 2018 season would carry over to 2019. By comparison, Koufax retired after the 1966 season in which he went 27-- with a 1.79 ERA. After the World Series he retired due to the arthritic condition of his throwing elbow. Koufax cited living with near constant pain during his press conference as the reason for his early retirement. Likewise, Andrew Luck did the same.

Surprisingly, no shockingly, he was booed by the Indianapolis fans. Fuck Indiana. In fact, fuck everything Indiana except for Larry Bird.. Earlier in his career he missed a 9 games of the 2015 season due to a sore throwing shoulder, and later in 2015, a lacerated kidney. That was before the shoulder injury, surgery, and rehab that sidelined him for the 2017 season. The dude put it all on the field for those fans. It reminds me a little of the Packer fans booing Brett Favre, but it took Brett Favre to put on a Vikings uniform and returning to play for that. He wasn't booed for unretireing and playing for the Jets. I can't think of a parallel where fans booed a player who retired early after 4 years of pain as Luck cited "...the cycle of injury, pain rehab..."

Maybe, just maybe, we sports fans can take sports a little less seriously, and more like they're intended; as a distraction, and something to enjoy for their simple beauty. The competition, and the beauty of the athleticism that they entail, make them unique as human endeavors. The identity we transfer upon them as fans of them, really should be minimized. Taking Sandy Koufax's words of wanting to grow old with the use of both arms into context, it's really all there is to sport. We should lighten up.

But still, fuck Indiana. Bobby Knight, Mike Pence, Notre Dame, and now booing Andrew Luck, yeah fuck Indiana.

More replay........why? Just.......why?

photo; ESPN.com

Big news out of the NFL Owners' Meeting yesterday. Replay is expanding! Yay!! (not really yay). Just another step down a dumb road.

I remember being young, and playing sports. I remember being upset when a called penalty, or missed call, or bad call from a referee/umpire. What I remember mostly is Dad saying "A bad call is part of the game." Now, Dad was also a referee and umpire in my youth league games, so maybe it's a little self protection on his part for when he rung me up on strikes freshman year on a curve ball, that was plainly outside. that he, to this day, says caught the outside corner. Yeah, of the OTHER BATTERS BOX!!! But I digress......

A bad call is part of the game. It happens, and what we've heard time and again before replay was that they get the vast majority of calls right. But, hey we still got instant replay anyway. We have the technology to get it right all the time. Sure, it slows the game a little, but they can get the calls right. The only problem is, they don't, They have always gotten the vast majority of non reviewed calls correct. Let's call it 98%. I'm aware of no studies, but as an avid watcher of sports, my anecdotal number is 98% correct without replay. Now with replay. they STILL BLOW CALLS! It's not 100%. They're still caught up in language, and what constitutes "clear visual evidence" that a call must be reversed. Yet, we watch games, see a call - say a fumble - and on replay we see what should not be called a fumble. Yet the call is not reversed. Time and again, they get it wrong. Let's say they now get it right 99% of the time with replay.

I'm a Packer fan. Packer fans who support replay love to point to the 98 playoffs as a supporting point for instant replay. Jerry Rice fumbled, but the call was incomplete pass, and no fumble. It was plainly a fumble. Packer fans argue that with replay the Packers would have taken over there, and run out the clock to win. There would have been no final play TD pass to Terrell Owens. I say no. I've seen enough bad replay non-corrections. or erroneous upheld calls. to convince me that the officials would have blown that replay too.

Now like I said, a bad call is part of the game. I'm over the 98 playoffs, My point here is to offer the judgment that a 1% marginal improvement is not enough to justify replay review, but now the NFL is going to expand the scope of replay challenge to include judgment calls of pass interference, and coaches can challenge non calls that they think should have been called. This is a terrible idea. We excuse player mistakes on being human; bad pass - no one is perfect; fooled on a pitch and strike out swinging - game of failure. But for officials and umpires it's different. Collectively we call for more, and more replay, and computers calling balls and strikes. Sorry, I disagree. It's not improving the game. It's slowing the pace of play, and the marginal improvement in accuracy isn't enough to justify it. Non fumble calls are made, seen as fumbles on the replay at home, yet still not corrected. Now they're gonna ruin the game even more by throwing pass interference into the mix. Terrible idea. They should be going the other way.

I very rarely bring up freshman year baseball. A bad call is part of the game, and replay hasn't fixed it. It can't

Nationalism.....what is it good for?

Today is Veteran's Day (observed). The actual day was yesterday the 11th of November. It's the mark of a day of great importance. Veteran's Day began as Armistice Day. It's still called that in many countries. Canada has named it Remembrance Day. The Armistice ending WWI was signed on 11/11/1918, and was the original cause to be marked that we now call Veteran's Day. Veteran's Day has become a day to pay tribute to those who served in the Armed Forces, as it should. Men and women take oaths, and devote years of life, time away from family, and risk of death to defend their country. The holiday's roots are in the end of WWI, and that's important to remember.

World War I has been called the "seminal tragedy." It marked the end of the old order, and gave birth to the new order that led to the 20th Century, and all of its mad made cataclysm. All that cataclysm made so many more veteran's to salute on Veteran's Day/Armistice Day/Remembrance Day; so many more casualties to remember in tribute on Memorial Day. All of them were fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters. So many of them came from working class families, or families of immigrants, upper class families, and poor families. They all deserve to be honored for taking the oath, manning a post, and sacrificing. What were the roots or war and conflict that demanded their sacrifice? We owe it to them, and present and future servicemen and service women, to assure that sacrifice is given for a just cause.

The causes of WWI are well studied. It was still the time, in the early 20th century, or empires, monarchy, and an established order of aristocratic elites that dominated the international order. Save for the young United States, and France all major powers were monarchies. All major powers had overseas colonies, and sought to exploit them for economic wealth to the home country, Even the United States, had overseas "territories" like the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam, acquired mostly from the settlement of its win in the Spanish American War. The British crown ruled a long established maritime empire. France had colonies in North Africa, and East Asia, and sought to maintain itself as a major land power in Europe,. A comparatively young German Empire, under a young Kaiser Wilhelm II, was new to the colonial era, but aggressively was amassing a navy to rival England's. Austria Hungary was the modern empire of Hapsburgs, the dynasty that had dominated central Europe since the fall of Napoleon 100 years before..The Russian Czar held domain over the most expansive land empire in the world. The Ottoman Empire still commanded the Caliphate, and though it had been pushed out of Europe, it still held dominion over the lucrative overland routes to Persia.

The common cancer throughout the world was nationalism. Germany sought it's place in the sun. Germans saw themselves, by virtue of their leading role in science, academia, technology, and most powerful land army, as who should be first among nations. England ruled the seas, controlled vast colonial resources that fed it's industrial output, and London was the financial center of the world. England did not intend for its economic, and naval dominance be compromised. France was France. It saw itself as the center of culture, and art, and civilization. It birthed the Enlightenment. The Rights Of Man were authored there. It was the heir to the legacy of Napoleon, and it's grand past meant it should be the dominant power in Europe.

All of this nationalism came to its head in August 1914. It is, in my view, the great unlearned lesson. For even The Great War that followed, and the veterans it created, did not address it. The peace of the Treaty of Versailles did not quell it. It only justified the nationalism of the Allied victors, and suppressed the nationalism of it's losers, beneath - as if it would stay there in perpetuity. When it finally did come back, it wore the face of Fascism, and Aryan supremacy seeking to establish its dominance. Millions more veterans were created. The Versailles Peace ignored, and disrespected, the budding nationalism of the expanding Japanese Empire. It's assertion in the Pacific created the need for even more veterans.

The peace of 1945 quelled nationalism for a time. An international order held sway as Capitalism held off Communism for 50+ years, and while veterans were still created, it was not on the order of the tens of millions of the World Wars.

Now nationalism is back. Many, many voices flock behind a demagogue who says "My country first!" They see the threat to national preeminence, and his promise to fight that threat. To fight back all the "others" that seek to parasitically feed off of it. But you see, it's all short sighted. It ignores the history that "My country first!" has created. The veterans created by it that, really, should be eating dinner with their families, and going to kids softball/baseball/basketball games. We have it in our power to choose to let nationalism die. A patriot is proud of their country when it does good things. A nationalist thinks whatever their great, even when it, objectively, does bad things. We owe it to all veterans that their sacrifices are offered for truly honorable things.

Reaping the whirlwind

Jim Bourg/Reuters

"He who sows the wind, shall reap the whirlwind" Hosea 8-7

Judge Kavanaugh referred to that verse during his hearing today. It was in regard to the state of politics, and the personal attacks he perceived on his character as he was called to answer for accusations of sexual assault made against him when he was a teenager.

Judge Kavanaugh is a dedicated Republican. He has been for quite some time. He worked for Ken Starr, when the latter was Special Prosecutor investigating President Clinton. While on the Starr team Kavanaugh pushed the team to investigate the Vince Foster suicide fueling conspiracy theory that he was offed by the Clintons.

Judge Kavanaugh also supported more aggressive lines of questioning in the Lewinsky affair. He felt in appropriate to force President Clinton, and 20something intern Lewinsky answer invasive questions regarding their inappropriate affair because a sexual realtionship was relevant - then.

Full disclosure, I don't think he should be on the SCOTUS. He has not had his record in Bush Admin fully disclosed, he has dodged questions on executive authority, whether a President can pardon himself, his views on established law, and respect for precedent. This accusation of full on shittiness as a teenager. Seems unfair on the surface considering the timing of it all. But seriously, fuck it, fuck the Senate GOP, and fuck Judge Kavanaugh. Merrick Garland did not get a hearing for 200+ days. Kavanaugh may yet be confirmed. GOP has the votes as majority, and it's hard to say if Senators Murkowski, Collins, or Flake may defect. Likewise there on blue dog Dems like Manchin who may vote to confirm.

It's kind of ironic that a shit peddling little fuck that 20 years dragged us through hit conspiracies, Oval office ejaculations, and vagina cigars now gets questions about his past as a drunken spoiled little preppy grinding, and groping girls who didn't want it.

Judge Kavanaugh, your citation of Hosea is correct, but the Democrats are not sowing the wind. You, Judge, are reaping the whirlwind.