Exclusive: Obama Regime Declares War on Tenant Rights

(Note: occasionally I still get a chance to do some original reporting, which in days of yore was my most award-winning skill. The following is a genuine scoop. I offered its first refusal rights to Marc Ash at Reader Supported News, but his response was to ignore my query. Hence I'm breaking the story here. Perhaps other media will pick it up and give it the widespread dissemination it deserves.)

***

IN A STARTLING reversal of public policy, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has sided with a national landlord lobby that seeks to add the expense of bed-bug extermination – and possibly of all pest control – to tenants' already-soaring housing costs.

The move by HUD may be the first documented instance in which a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) was able to reach directly into the Obama Administration to obtain a nearly immediate favor – a favor that is hugely beneficial to landlords and potentially so ruinous to clients it could result in a nationwide wave of evictions.

It may also be another blow against the Democrats' dwindling prospects for success  in the November congressional elections. That's because HUD's new anti-tenant stance is sure to further inflame President Obama's critics on the Left, who already accuse him of deliberately concealing Republican ideology beneath a Democratic disguise. 

HUD says its rental facilities shelter about 1.2 million households.  Based on the 2010, two-persons-per-apartment demographics of Manhattan,  where virtually everyone is an apartment dweller, the new HUD policy probably impacts at least 2.4 million people – approximately as many women, men and children as live in Chicago, Kiev or Rome. 

The agency's departure from its long-established pro-tenant policies was revealed during a recent Network for Public Health Law web-seminar entitled “Addressing Bed Bugs through Law: Challenges and Limitations.” The network's post-webinar report cites two official HUD documents that reveal the agency's new opposition to tenant rights – rights that, in many cases, have long been recognized by law. 

“In Notice H-2011-20,” says the Network report, “HUD provided guidance to owners, management agents, and tenants of HUD multifamily insured and assisted properties for bed bug infestations. HUD urged owners to develop an Integrated Pest Management Plan (IMP) and to actively engage residents in efforts to prevent bed bugs. The notice set out a timeframe for responding to a tenant’s bed bug complaint and prohibited the owner from charging a tenant to cover the cost of bed bug treatment. An owner was also prohibited from denying tenancy to a potential resident on the basis of the tenant having experienced a prior bed bug infestation.”

“Eight months later,” the report continues, “HUD issued Notice H-2012-5 to supersede H-2011-20, which eliminated the “tenants rights and responsibilities” section, including the timeframe for responding to a tenant’s complaint, the prohibition on charging tenants for bed bug treatment, and the prohibition on denying tenancy to a potential resident because of a prior bed bug problem. 

“The National Multi Housing Council (NMHC), which represents owners, claims that HUD made these revisions at its urging and Congressional pressure, because the original guidance created confusion about best management practices, hamstrung the efforts of owners and property managers to prevent infestations and failed to meaningfully address the financial issues to the owner and resident related to repeat infestations. In contrast, the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) says the change eliminates important tenant protections and allows landlords to shift the cost of bed bug treatment to tenants.” 

Such costs, the public health law network estimates, can run as high as $1,500 to each tenant or tenant family – a sum that for lower-income people is devastating if not impossible, a potential precursor to bankruptcy, eviction and homelessness. 

Meanwhile, landlord response to a bed-bug infestation near Seattle, where tenants are being forced to pay the costs of extermination, is validating NLIHC's concerns. 

Equally alarming to tenants is the fact an NMHC document states landlords can now “treat resident's possessions as part of an Integrated Pest Management Program (IPM).” This means – just as has reportedly occurred in the Seattle case – landlords can invoke pest-control rights to confiscate or force tenants to destroy cherished books, artwork, furniture, photo albums, collections of phonograph records and any number of other items that might be deemed bed-bug-infested or capable of harboring such an infestation.

Moreover, NLICH says the new notice allows owners of HUD housing to “take action to deny tenancy or remove residents for causes related to infestations” – in other words, to evict tenants at will, presumably bypassing any legal protections against unjust or retaliatory eviction. 

While HUD's new anti-tenant stance has not yet been publicly acknowledged as the beginning of a campaign to require tenants to pay all pest-control costs, some health and housing professionals say privately they believe it might be just that. At the very least, they say, it's part of the ongoing national effort to minimize or abolish tenant rights. 

That this is so is suggested by the implicit ALEC involvement. ALEC is an arch-conservative organization that seeks to rewrite U.S. laws at all levels – federal, state and local – to favor the ruling One Percent by imposing additional burdens and disadvantages on everyone else. And NMHC is listed as an ALEC member. 

In this context, HUD's favorable stance toward NMHC – proven by the fact the lobbying effort bore fruit within eight months – is a significant revelation of the Obama Administration's internal ideology. So is the boast on the NMHC document cited above: that it took only two letters from Tea Party-identified congressmen to prompt HUD to reverse its former pro-tenant-rights stance. The letters, to Obama-appointed HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan, were written by Rep. Robert Dold (R-Ill) and Rep. Steve Stivers (R-Ohio).

 

Though Dold was not reelected in 2012, he is running for the office again this year. His ideology and Tea-Party connections are described here and here. Stivers' Tea-Party politics are discussed here. 

The Tea Party itself, the controlling faction within the Republican Party, is sustained by lavish funding from rich industrialists and businessmen,  as well as the tobacco industry. But the Tea Party's constituency spans the entire hard-right spectrum, ranging from Wall Street and Big Business to Christian theocrats and white supremacists – and now apparently to the Obama Administration's inner circle as well. 

***

Additional Notes:

(1)-HUD's policy-reversal is likely to (further) devastate Democratic Party chances in the November elections. Firstly, the afflicted people, mostly lower-income and/or minority urbanites who are a substantial demographic in progressive politics, are now (again) told – this time with unmistakable ferocity – the Democrats have turned against them and no longer want their votes. Secondly, local Democratic Party politicians who have remained faithful to the humanitarian principles of the New Deal are now (again) besmirched by association with by a national party that is increasingly right-wing and thus increasingly indistinguishable from its Republican counterpart. Voter turnout will suffer, and the flight of alienated voters to third parties will (again) be accelerated. Indeed, it seems Obama and his national Democratic apparatus is determined to facilitate Republican victory in the U.S. Senate, reinforce Republican domination of the House and foster Republican triumph at state and local levels as well. 

(2)-A HUD policy-reversal of this magnitude – particularly given its dire implications for the fall congressional elections – would have required upper-echelon White House staff approval, if not approval by the president himself. Therefore it is not unfair to regard it as yet another example of the t the president's obviously premeditated shape-shift from Obama the Orator to Barack the Betrayer, and his historically unprecedented Big Lie of “change we can believe in.” 

(3)-The new HUD policy and its context – landlords seizing upon the bed-bug plague to nullify tenants' rights – is a classic example of shock-doctrine capitalism in action. Quoth Naomi Klein: “That is how the shock doctrine works: the original disaster...puts the entire population into a state of collective shock...Like the terrorized prisoner who gives up the names of comrades and and renounces his faith, shocked societies often give up things they would otherwise fiercely protect.” (The Shock Doctrine: the Rise of Disaster Capitalism; Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt and Company: 2007; pg. 17.) It's precisely how Shock-Doctrine Obama,  HUD and the landlords are using the shock of the bed-bug plague to force tenants to give up their right to landlord-provided pest control. Which of course makes the HUD properties with their disempowered tenants all the more attractive for sale to real estate profiteers. 

******

Outside Agitation Outside the Notebook: three contributions to discussion threads on timely stories published by other websites:

“Crimea River, Obama's Ukrainian Blunder” Mike Whitney of CounterPunch exposes an USian Empire effort to destabilize the Crimea by insertion of Turkish-based Jihadists to inflame tensions between the secular and/or Christian majority and Tatar Muslims. Predictable denunciations by Russophobes – yes, even on Reader Supported News – prompt me to defend Whitney's work in some detail:

Firstly, non-propagandized information about the Ukrainian Crisis is available from three English-language sources besides RSN. These are Socialist Alternative; Socialist World.Net, the publication of SA's parent organization the Committee for a Workers International; and the older World Socialist Website, any or all of which Google.

 

Secondly, Mr. Whitney's analysis has to be evaluated as probably true because it applies Occam's Razor to the reported data, cleaving its tangles and assembling its diverse strands into a coherent whole that makes sense both in terms of traditional Russian foreign policy and the One Percent's plan for global enslavement that is now the core of US foreign policy.

 

Thirdly, the notion of flying squads of US-backed Jihadist mercenaries operating out of the ever-more-viciously theocratic US client-state Turkey makes sense in that it explains how the democratic impulses of the Arab Spring were so quickly perverted into zero-tolerance Islamic theocracy. (The One Percent deems Abrahamic theocracy vital to sustain capitalist tyranny.)

 

Lastly, the pending imposition of austerity on Ukraine – see the publications cited above – is sure to trigger revolution. Given Western Ukrainian history, this will likely be violent, fascist and genocidally anti-Russian. Putin is moving accordingly, much as US presidents always move to smash any socialist revolution south of the US border.

 

*****

“Republicans Seize Edge in the Fight for the Senate Majority” Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post reports on the election result most of us now recognize as unavoidable and all of us fear. (Yeah, I linked to this same piece in OAN's lead story.) When the Obamanoids continue their vehement defense of the indefensible, and one poster attacks my stance as “moral bankruptcy,” the Muse hands me the perfect response, slightly edited for republication here:

You conveniently forget that when I vote my conscience, I condemn myself to the same "damnation" you claim I would inflict on "millions of Americans."

 

As to “enabling the far-right,” the history of the Democratic Party since 22 November 1963 – Vietnam; welfare “reform”; deregulation; “free” trade; total surveillance; other nullifications of the constitution; the forever deaths of the Employee Free Choice Act and of public-option health insurance; etc. ad nauseam – speaks for itself...

 

By your “logic,” to resist oppression is to be guilty of "moral bankruptcy” if and when said resistance results in hurt or inconvenience to others.

 

Thus by the same "logic," one must suppose you would accuse the World War II anti-Nazi resistance of “moral bankruptcy,” since defiance by these inconceivably heroic men and women provoked unspeakable retaliatory atrocities by the Nazis: Google Oradour-sur-Glane, or Lidice, or Zina Portnova.

 

What a wonderfully “moral” rationale you have established for collaboration with an enemy.

 

***

Earlier on the same thread I had explained the real reason for the impending Republican landslide, Democratic acts of betrayal further underscored by the HUD policy-change on which I reported above: 

What is fueling the Republican triumph is not the popularity of their unabashedly fascist policies but rather the electorate's anger...The voters are profoundly bitter...the Democrats are now identified as the party of the Big Lie.

 

I hear it repeatedly: “At least the Republicans are honest about what they stand for.”

 

“Yeah,” I reply. “They stand for killing all of us who are poor and disabled. They stand for slashing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. They stand for ending food stamps and cutting off unemployment compensation.”

 

“The Democrats wanna do the same thing,” comes the inevitable rejoinder. “Only difference is the Democrats hide their intentions with lies.”

 

***

 

I had also pointed out the ugliest truth about Obamacare: 

If you knew anything about the Affordable Care Act, you would understand what a monumental betrayal it is.

 

What it does is create the illusion of access to health care.

 

In truth it is structured so that actual care remains unaffordable for most of the (ever-more-poorly paid) 99 Percent.

 

The function ACA thus serves is truly diabolical.

 

When a person is forced to choose between food and shelter or health care, chooses the former and dies as a result, it enables the Ruling Class to blame the victim: "s/he chose to eat and avoid homelessness rather than to get treatment; hence s/he chose to die."

 

ACA's huge unpopularity is not just because of Republican propaganda -- it's because so many of us are now forced to pay our insurance-company slavemasters thousands of dollars a year for policies the staggering deductibles and co-pays prohibit us from ever using.

 

Such is life and death in the United States – the only industrialized nation on earth wherein health care remains a privilege of wealth rather than a civil right.

 

***

 

But what really inflamed the Obamanoids was my (painfully accurate) description of USian political reality: 

With USian elections already a sham – with fascism triumphing no matter which half of the One Party of Two Names wins – the question of "getting enough votes to win" is a false question.

 

We the People have already lost. We lost our freedom when we surrendered to the coup of 22 November 1963. We lost any chance of ever regaining our freedom when we allowed the assassins to murder every other leader who might have saved us from ourselves.

 

Since then it's never been more than a choice between two fascist evils – the honestly evil Republicans and the dishonestly evil Democrats.

 

In this wretched context, the only non-evil choice is to vote my conscience – and for however many years I have left, that's exactly what I am going to do.

 

If more of us would do just that, democratic socialism – the only form of governance that's implicitly humanitarian – might yet have a chance.

 

*** 

Thus my recognition of the live-free-or-die necessity of a viable alternative:

In this dread context, the only thing that can save us is the emergence of a overwhelmingly powerful third party – for example, Seattle City Councilwoman Kshama Sawant's Socialist Alternative, albeit on steroids.

 

If that doesn't happen, we're doomed to live the remainder of our lives under fascist tyranny.

 

And it won't be just fascism. It will be fascism combined with fanatical Christian theocracy, enforced by the most formidable surveillance, military and secret-police apparatus our species has ever known.

 

That's why I'm damn thankful I'm old.

 

*****

“Robert Reich: Elizabeth Warren or I Could Run for President in 2016” Aaron Blake of The Washington Post gave me a unique opportunity to describe what has emerged as the key difference between Democrats and Republicans: 

The Republicans openly declare their fascism and govern accordingly.

 

By contrast, the Democrats lie. They get elected by pretending to be progressives, then govern like fascists, thereby rendering our votes meaningless.

 

LB/23 March 2014 

-30-

Quit Smoking to Get Healthy, Get Fat and Sick Instead

THE ORDEAL OF preparing my apartment for its quarterly premises inspection while I am afflicted by plantar fasciitis  in my left foot – which means I'm much more crippled than usual – has stolen my writing time. This week's OAN is thus limited to material I've posted on other sites.

Coincidentally – or perhaps not (because excess weight is among the chief causes of plantar fasciitis) – one of those posts was about the methodically suppressed connection between quitting smoking and inexplicable, uncontrollable and frighteningly fast weight-gain. It is a condition with which my post-smoking self is intimately, bitterly, god-cursingly familiar. But the facts about it – especially the hideousness it inescapably imposes on about 35 percent of former smokers, especially males – are carefully concealed by USian doctors, lest the dreadful knowledge encourage nicotine addicts to keep smoking.

Hence the following, an expanded version of the reply I posted two days ago on the comment thread of “5 Reasons Americans Are Getting Fatter: It's Not Just the Food,” an AlterNet report reprinted by Reader Supported News. 

While reporter Martha Rosenberg did an excellent job of rounding up the usual obesity-epidemic suspects – the long litany of for-profit additives and artificial sweeteners by which the capitalists poison our food – she wrote not a single word about the plague of post-smoking weight-gain. 

In this context it is important to understand the national quit-smoking campaign did not originate from any real public health concern. What began it is a condition unique to the USian Homeland: the fact the Ayn Rand doctrine that is the basis of USian economic policy defines health care as a privilege of wealth rather than a human right. The anti-smoking drive was therefore launched in response to for-profit insurors' anger over how tobacco-related deaths were reducing their obscene profits. In other words, the USian war on tobacco smoking started as a manifestation of capitalist greed – which is precisely why it has been conducted so relentlessly and therefore with such success. Contrast the totality of the USian anti-smoking effort with the USian effort to eradicate communicable childhood diseases. The latter is a program increasingly abandoned, with predictably catastrophic results, due to deliberately genocidal neglect of the poor combined with the ailments spread by Christian fanatics who are now granted theocratic exemptions that allow them to legally ignore formerly mandatory inoculation requirements. The difference between the anti-smoking and childhood-health programs undoubtedly lies in the bottom-line: apparently payouts for smoking deaths reduce insurors' profits far more than payouts for the deaths of children.

Though I intended my response to Rosenberg to be corrective rather than confessional, my fury at the cosmic unfairness and sadism of my post-smoking circumstances – the fact I quit smoking to get healthy but instead got grotesquely fat – made parts of my contribution uncomfortably Oprah-ish. Normally I would have deleted such lapses as inappropriate emotionalism. But on second thought, it seemed the disclosures might help others who, like myself, are now after quitting smoking forever entrapped in the mortification inflicted by balloon-sized flesh. Besides, I have nothing to lose: I am who I am, and in this instance what I am – that is, horrendously obese – combines with abject poverty, physical disability and age to ensure the female gender will never again look at me with anything other than indifference, if not outright disgust. 

The associated negative emotions – which slap me in the face whenever I look in a mirror – are intensified by the fact USian doctors generally insist you're cheating anytime you gain weight on post-smoking diets. Whether calling you a liar is prompted by ignorance or is mandatory protocol, the psychological devastation is the same. The only exception I ever encountered amongst USian medical personnel was the nutritionist I consulted through Washington state's Group Health Cooperative. She said the stress of nicotine withdrawal – which is now recognized as the longest and most wrenching drug withdrawal  known to humans – throws the body into what she called “concentration-camp mode.” Thus the body begins turning all food into the fat essential to protect muscles and bones from absorption during starvation. If this is indeed what happens – and the explanation seems as good as any I've heard – the implication is that nicotine withdrawal truly ends only at death, especially for those of us who suffer the lifelong post-smoking tendency to become circus obese. 

Unfortunately, my case is typical. I weighed 158 pounds in 1985, when, at age 45, rising blood pressure and occasional bouts of cardiac arrhythmia prompted me to begin what became a ten-year fight to quit smoking. I was in good shape, an attractive and reasonably successful middle-aged journalist, the editor-in-chief of Art Direction, an international advertising-industry trade journal. As a Manhattanite I routinely walked five miles a day – Gotham-dwellers average more miles afoot than any other USians – and my 158 pounds with its 31-inch waistline was only 10 pounds and two inches more than my best condition ever, this in the Regular Army c. 1962. But my first week off cigarettes I gained 12 pounds, my first month a total of 24.5 pounds – gains I would have dismissed as impossible but for the irrefutable testimony of my trousers, which I could no longer button, and the corroborative witness borne by my belt, which was soon extended to its maximum length. 

Within weeks I went back to smoking – mainly because I knew the fast-encroaching ugliness would end my romantic and sexual prospects forever. Then my blood pressure again soared, and I again tried quitting. Once more I tried cold turkey; then I tried Smokers Anonymous (which is where I first heard of the British studies linking nicotine withdrawal to radical obesity). I tried hypnosis; I tried gradual reduction of my daily cigarette-count; I tried various over-the-counter medications that promised to help me quit. But it seemed nothing could get the nicotine monkey off my back. 

Meanwhile I had discovered a new and even more formidable complex of barriers to quitting: without nicotine, I could not function as a journalist. I could still edit copy, but I could not converse intelligently, think clearly or write a coherent sentence. I am dyslexic; soon I came to realize it was nicotine's function as a neurotransmitter – and not any innate talent – that had enabled all my intellectual acumen and indeed my entire reporting career. 

Of my communication skills, only my photographic ability was enhanced by not smoking – this because of the vast improvement in peripheral vision and tonal sense that results from the absence of vaso-constricting nicotine in one's bloodstream.

There was no triumph in my gradually-winning battle against nicotine addiction because it was equally a forever-losing battle against becoming monstrously obese. I grew fat and fatter – ever uglier, ever more embarrassed to be seen in public, ever more inescapably lonely. I had gained weight even on the unspeakable misery of a two-week, 1000-calorie-per-day diet. Tests proved the gain was not related to metabolic deficiencies. And the failure of that diet proved the weight gain was so uncontrollable not even starvation would stop it. 

When I finally managed to quit smoking permanently – this via a combination of nicotine patches and prescription medication – I was 55 years old. I weighed 195 pounds. By then, I had learned to accept my post-smoking obesity – repugnant though it was – with the same bitter resignation with which one accepts other physical handicaps. Moreover, being grossly fat was no longer the pivotal disaster of my life. My career had been destroyed by the odium of the post-traumatic clinical depression that eventually befell me after all my life's works were obliterated in a 1983 fire, and that alone left me too impoverished to ever again be attractive to any woman. Thus my physical appearance no longer mattered – precisely the realization that finally enabled me to swear off tobacco permanently. My first day without cigarettes forever was 23 September 1995. I used my last nicotine patch sometime in January 1996. Since then I have never had nicotine in any form. Within a year I had blubbered up to 235 pounds.

It would take me nearly a decade to teach myself to write again; I will never be the fast, self-assured writer I was as a smoker. And it would be a dozen years before I could again comfortably socialize. 

But even without the obesity, quitting smoking would have destroyed my physical condition. For most of my adult life I worked out regularly: jogging, walking, the long-distance hiking associated with back-country trout fishing, the day-long exertion of upland bird hunting, various self-administered physical training programs including nearly a decade with the Royal Canadian Air Force Basic Exercise Program. Then after my spine was permanently injured by one of Washington state's defiantly habitual drunken drivers, I was prescribed a combination of physical therapy and yoga that gave me enough flexibility to work a season as engineer/deckhand on a commercial fishing vessel and kept me ambulatory until – you guessed it – I began my quit-smoking effort. 

Another of the deliberately downplayed effects of nicotine withdrawal is total disruption of sleep patterns, the result of which is a profound state of exhaustion – precisely the condition that discourages exercise of any kind. And in my case – as in many such cases (or so I am repeatedly told) – the sleep disruption has never gone away. I used to sleep like the proverbial log, but I have not gotten an uninterrupted night's sleep since I smoked my last cigarette, and now after 18 years and six months, it is obvious I will never know the comfort of a full night's sleep again in this lifetime. Exhaustion – sometimes mild, more often severe – is now my normal condition. With it comes a loathing of unnecessary exertion so intense no amount of will power – at least none I am able to muster – will overcome it enough to foster regular exercise.

I know now that without cigarettes, I will always be fat – which is to say I will always be ugly. In my years off nicotine, I've weighed as much as 275 pounds. As a result I've come to regard food as my enemy, to fear and despise it and hate myself for how it obsesses my mind and deforms my body. By constant struggle, I (mostly) manage to keep my weight in the vicinity of an (only) (moderately) repulsive 225. Like the vampires of legend, I avoid mirrors; I go out in public only when I have no choice, and never for pleasure. Such is my lot as a former smoker.

***

The documentation on the weight-gain/post-smoking connection, which I first heard of through a British acquaintance in 1986, took me years to ferret out. It surfaced, albeit in much later forms, via two papers unearthed in 2010 by the skills of a talented reference librarian at the Tacoma (Wash.) Public Library, a woman I knew only as Sarah and that only by telephone. In this instance she outdid even her colleagues at the main (Fifth Avenue) branch of the New York City Public Library, who repeatedly told me there was no such material, never mind NYPL is ostensibly the finest such institution in the nation.

Here are the two references Sarah found for me:

“Smoke-Free and Fat: the Health Hazards of Kicking the Habit”; Kent Sepkowitz, Slate: 2008. Conclusion: quitting smoking makes you fat. 

“Smoking as a Modifable Risk Factor for Type 2 Diabetes in Middle-Aged Men”; S. Goya Wannamethee, A. Gerald Shaper, Ivan J. Perry, Diabetes Care, Sept. 2001 v24 i9 p1590. (No link available.) Conclusion: quitting smoking makes you fat, thereby increasing your diabetes risk.

*****

Outside Agitation Elsewhere: It's All About the Ukrainian Crisis

Most of this material is focused on the Ukrainian Crisis because of its terrifying threat of a thermonuclear World War III. As I have said before, to me it is scarier than the Cuban Missile Crisis because in 1962 I trusted President John F. Kennedy. But now in 2014 I have learned the hard way – that is, by voting for him twice – not to trust President Barack Obama at all.

However, thanks largely to an astute journalist named Robert Parry, the debate is beginning to focus on whether Obama has been betrayed by his own advisors or whether he is (once again) demonstrating his formidable skills at deception and manipulation by minimizing his culpability in provoking the crisis.

Predictably, I argue for the latter – that Obama the Orator is merely showing another aspect of his true Barack the Betrayer self, most likely to improve the Democratic Party's abominable prospects in the November elections. The relevant links – those on which I contributed to discussion threads – are here  and here. 

Medea Benjamin's disturbing account of how she was savaged by the Egyptian secret police – obviously on orders of someone in the USian government if not in the White House itself – is also relevant. It, like the atrocities committed against the Occupy Movement, shows us the true nature of the imperial mind: all the more reason to fear the U.S. will escalate the Ukraine Crisis into World War III. 

LB/16 March 2014 

-30-

U.S. Reinforces Black Sea Naval Squadron: Coincidence, or Another Deliberate Escalation in the Ukrainian Crisis?

WAR FEARS ARE again intensifying as the United States puts additional pressure on Russia by reinforcing a U.S. naval squadron in the Black Sea. The squadron, now reportedly of three vessels, is said to include a Marine expeditionary unit, a newly added guided missile destroyer (USS Truxton), a guided missile frigate (USS Taylor) and an amphibious-operations command ship (USS Mount Whitney). An accompanying submarine escort, if any, would typically be unannounced, its existence most likely classified Top Secret.

While U.S. Navy sources claim the frigate and the command ship were dispatched to render aid if terrorists attacked the Winter Olympics at Siochi,  Robert Parry's ongoing disclosures of USian sponsorship and funding of the Ukrainan neo-Nazi coup  suggests the squadron was more likely pre-positioned in the Black Sea to provide support for the new regime in Kiev.

Though I respect Parry's work, I reject his (perhaps obligatory) suggestion Obama has lost control of his government to a neocon cabal. As I said on the associated comment thread, “the pre-inaugural immediacy of (the president's) transformation from Obama the Orator to Barack the Betrayer tells us he was the neocons' Manchurian Candidate (actually the Neoconian Candidate) from day one – that his 2008 “change we can believe in” campaign was the biggest Big Lie ever fed the U.S. electorate. Now it seems to me just as likely Obama is again demonstrating his signature deviousness, painting himself as the good guy, no doubt in hope of salvaging the 2014 elections, which as of now are a looming Republican landslide – not because of GOP popularity, but because of the bottomless, throw-the-bastards-out unpopularity of the treacherous Democrats. Meanwhile the “my advisors did it” excuse is as old as politics itself...” 

Whether ordered by the president or by his ever-more-openly aggressive cabinet and general staff, the naval squadron's reinforced presence undoubtedly intensifies the perceived magnitude of the Ukrainian coup's challenge to Russia's centuries-old policy of maintaining a warm-water seaport – that is, one not closed by winter ice – with year-round access to the Mediterranean and the world's oceans. The port in question (see map accessible via the link in the first paragraph) is Sevastopol,  in the now-contested Crimea. Despite Russia's huge land mass – she is by far the largest country in the world – Sevastopol is her only warm-water port. Not only is it headquarters of the Russian Black Sea Fleet; it is of growing commercial importance and a favorite summer resort for Eastern Europeans.

Because the United States has so many warm-water ports, there is no possibility of a directly analogous threat – nothing as legitimately alarming to the U.S. as the Ukrainian coup is legitimately alarming to Russia. But a coup installing a hostile government in Mexico, perhaps backed by the People's Republic of China and threatening reconquista of California, would surely be regarded as equally provocative, particularly given the naval and port facilities at San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Such a hypothetical scenario should thus help clarify why Russia is so troubled by the Ukrainian situation. (My apologies to overseas readers for these brief lessons in third-grade geography and sixth-grade world history, but we USian Empire subjects are so oppressed by deliberately imposed ignorance, I felt the review was essential.) 

Meanwhile, USian mass media remains notably silent on the geopolitics of the Ukrainian Crisis – so much so the apparent censorship, by which Josef Goebbels would be delighted, seems not only methodical but maliciously warmongering. That's why we should be profoundly thankful to Parry on the Left and Patrick Buchanan on the Right. Parry's work has provided most of the source material for my commentaries, and Buchanan's debunking of Hillary Clinton's outrageous denunciation of Russian President Vladimir Putin as a latter-day “Hitler”  is compelling in its own right, particularly for its wealth of historical information. 

As to Hillary herself, I have long assumed she is a female George Bush in Democratic disguise – far more intelligent than Bush of course, probably even brighter than his ideological successor Obama, but with the same I-wanna-be-Emperor-of-the-World complex that now seems to be the defining quality of presidents and presidential candidates from both the Democrat and Republican factions of the one Ruling Class Party. Hence my (slightly edited) comment on Parry's alarming report of the “'we-hate-Putin' hysteria”  being ginned up throughout the USian Homeland:

The ugly truth about Hillary, who is not only a neocon but a Christian theocrat, is revealed by Jeff Sharlet on pgs. 272-277 of The Family: the Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power (Harper: 2008). Sharlet reports Hillary secretly collaborates with the notorious Sam Brownback and his fanatical ilk to impose Biblical Law by “tunneling beneath” the constitutional wall between church and state.

That said, Hillary's Hitler analogy is clinically interesting because it is a classic psychological projection of the USian Empire's “American Century” agenda of global conquest. In this context, the so-called military “withdrawal” cited by a poster below is a Big Lie because it never voluntarily occurs until conquest has ensured the triumph of capitalism and its enslavement of the indigenous population.

Thus, just as Putin notes, the USian Empire has assumed the role of international aggressor that characterized the Berlin-Rome-Tokyo Axis. Indeed, had the Bankers Plot of 1934 succeeded in ousting President Roosevelt, the U.S. would have been the fourth Axis partner.

Thus too the genocidal (and therefore definitively neo-fascist) social-service cuts now sponsored by both ruling parties – actually one party of two names. Cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment compensation etc. are undoubtedly intended to kill those of us who no longer exploitable for profit. Killing by neglect rather than in death camps merely avoids the odium of the latter.

 

Could this – the fact a major war would exterminate vast numbers of workers rendered permanently jobless by the for-profit downsizing of the USian Homeland economy – be another reason the empire has so radically escalated its warmongering? Before you answer, remember the One Percenters, who include Hillary and her ilk, all assume they will be protected by their own posh, heavily fortified bunkers – that their obscene wealth will thus keep them safe from bombs, radioactive fallout, disease, famine and all the other horrors of thermonuclear war. We on the other hand will be abandoned – just as the African-American residents of New Orleans were abandoned after Katrina – to live or die as fate and happenstance decree.

 

***

Insurance-Company Atrocities in Obamacare: an Anthology of Horrors

Truthout's William Rivers Pitt – a man I often scorn for his refusal to admit that disciplined socialism is the only adequate response to capitalism's ever-intensifying savagery – has written a Pulitzer-class exposé of what Barack the Betrayer enabled when he killed public-option health care and thus indentured the entire U.S. population to the vampires of the for-profit insurance mafia. Entitled “Worse than the Mob: the Insurance Industry Is Organized Crime,” his detailed and heart-wrenching report of the devastating injuries Obamacare inflicted on his wife will of course win no USian journalism award nor ever be published in any mainstream USian journal. Hence – though I did not comment on its associated thread because there was nothing I could say beyond an emphatic “please read this” that in context would have been redundant – I am linking it here.  It is well done, a work of which Pitt and his publishers should damn well be proud, as fine a piece of truth-telling as I have witnessed in this lifetime. 

***

Outside Agitation on Other Websites: a busy week – the usual first-of-the-month chores drawn out by the fact I am too poor to own an automobile but reside amongst voters who despise mass-transit users in a region that officially disdains mass transit – with my time squandered accordingly on herky-jerky buses. Nevertheless...

 

“Lets Make Capitalism a Dirty Word”  Carl Gibson of Reader Supported News details the hardships capitalism maliciously inflicts on the 99 Percent and triggers an interesting discussion-thread to which I contribute three posts. The first repeats statements I've made many times: “All defenders of capitalism are either deluded or dishonest. Precisely as defined by its messiah Ayn Rand, capitalism is infinite greed elevated to maximum virtue – the rejection, with malice aforethought, of every humanitarian precept our species has ever articulated. It is therefore, as proven by its anti-humanitarian and anti-environmental depredations, the closest approximation to absolute evil yet manifest on Earth...(that's why) capitalism's momentum is always toward ever-more-vicious tyranny.” The second refutes a poster who seemed to idolize Hitler and Nazism. The third, refuting a capitalist disciple, poster notes an increasingly obvious truth about all such discussion threads: “Interesting how class war manifests even here on this website: the obvious division between those (few) who have profited via capitalism and therefore defend it, versus the masses, we the now-permanently impoverished proletarians and peasants who are capitalism's victims and angrily seek its replacement.” 

***

“Four Ways to Evolve Beyond Capitalism”  Alas, Gibson's sequel to the above piece carefully avoids any mention of socialism, a failure that, to my mind, discredits him. In fact it suggests he is yet another apologist for the status quo and possibly a clandestine operative for the (increasingly desperate) Democratic Party. I respond accordingly (the comment slightly revised for posting here): “A growing third party already exists, and precisely as Mr. Gibson suggests, it is 'building power first at the local and county level.' It is called Socialist Alternative. It has defeated huge odds to elect Kshama Sawant to the Seattle City Council, and it is increasingly active in many other U.S. cities. Its website is here. By its cutting-edge leadership in the campaign for a $15-per-hour minimum wage, SA is already a huge factor at the national level. It has scared Obama into trying to restore the Democratic Party's humanitarian image and has even frightened a few Democrats into joining its '$15 Now' campaign.” 

LB/9 March 2014 

-30-

Challenging Russia in Ukraine Could Trigger World War III

I FEAR KIEV could become – like Sarajevo of the century past – an international flashpoint. Just as the Slavic minority in Sarajevo despised the city's Austro-Hungarian overlords, so is the Russian minority in Kiev afraid of the allegedly neo-Nazi rulers of the Ukraine.  And given the new regime's alleged USian sponsors, the jeopardy in which U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry puts himself and world peace by his visit to Kiev  could therefore be extreme. Let us prayerfully hope 4 March 2014 does not acquire infamy comparable to – or possibly far worse than – 28 June 1914.

Even the politically moderate European press – though it flinches from calling the new Ukranian government neo-Nazi – is alarmed by the hard-Right Svoboda party. “(A)nti-Semitism,” says a der Spiegel report,  “is part of the extremist party's platform; until 2004, they called themselves the Social-National Party of Ukraine in an intentional reference to Adolf Hitler's National Socialist party. Just last summer, a prominent leader of party youth was distributing texts from (material) Nazi propaganda head Joseph Goebbels translated into Ukrainian. Without the nationalists' tight organization, the revolt on Maidan Square would long since have collapsed.” The more Left-leaning Guardian now reports Svoboda appointees control the new government's most powerful ministries.  To those who are familiar with the combination of means by which Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party took over the Weimar Republic, Svoboda's swiftly rising power is justifiably frightening.

As I presciently said last Monday (24 February) on a Reader Supported News comment thread, Russia – especially given its experiences during World War II – will not tolerate  the presence of a fascist state, USian surrogate or not, on its western frontier. Hence I cited three reasons this could start World War III:

(1)-Nazism has an ugly history in the Ukraine, which welcomed Hitler's Wehrmacht, then gleefully aided the SS in rounding up, deporting and killing Jews. This history imposes huge obstacles to the present-day Ukrainian quest for national identity.

(2)-Russia's strategic interest is threefold. Ukraine is the breadbasket of Europe – as vital to the Russian economy as the grain fields of the Middle West are to the U.S.; it is an invasion route to the Russian interior, hence vital to the defense strategies of the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union and today's Russian Federation. It controls access to the Black Sea, an objective of Russian and Soviet policy since the time of the earliest Tsars.

(3)-The USian Empire's apperent Ukranian strategy is a variant of Hitler's plans for eastward conquest. Its purpose seems to be imposition of a militarily friendly neo-Nazi state on Russia's frontier, for-profit seizure of Ukrainian agricultural and natural resources and obstruction of Russian Black Sea access.

To imagine Russia will tolerate this de facto invasion is to imagine the U.S. would tolerate foreign conquest of its Middle Western states. This time the neocons, with their dreams of a global Fourth Reich, may have made the same mistake their secret hero Hitler made: they have goaded the Bear in his own den.

In other words, the events in Ukraine embody what the Russians perceive as a direct threat to Rodina – their beloved Motherland. For a hypothetical parallel, imagine Mexico taken over by a coup organized by the People's Republic of China. How would the USian Empire react?

But that's only one reason this looming confrontation scares me more than the Cuban Missile Crisis did. There is also a glaring difference between the quality of U.S. leadership in 1962 and today, specifically in the caliber of the presidents. John Fitzgerald Kennedy was popular, respected and already assured of his role in history. Barack Hussein Obama is unpopular, scorned as vehemently by the Left as by the Right. A few days ago his disapproval-rate polled as high as 56 percent, an omen of sure defeat for his Democratic Party in the fall congressional elections. At the very least, Obama remains a president in search of a positive legacy. And his increasingly authoritarian demeanor – manifest in unrestricted drone warfare,  extra-judicial presidential death warrants  and ever more aggressive foreign policy  – suggests he intends that legacy to be akin to Octavian's, who declared himself the first Roman emperor.

Apropos the Cuban Missile Crisis, when its story broke in 1962, I was only days out of the Regular Army. I had served the three active-duty years of my six-year enlistment, more than half of that in Korea, but I was obligated for three more years in the reserves. The troop transport in which I returned stateside with some 3,500 other soldiers, the U.S.N.S. Sultan,  was shadowed from Hawaii nearly to San Francisco Bay by a Soviet submarine, no doubt as part of the Cuban preliminaries. Had the crisis led to war while we were at sea, we'd no doubt have been torpedoed and sunk. And had the war begun after I was a civilian, I'd have been yanked back into uniform minutes after the first shot was fired. I knew that, and as a 22-year-old man with a 19-year-old wife and my first full-time job in journalism, a sportswriter for The Knoxville Journal, I was understandably worried. Given the grotesque realities of nuclear warfare, I was also gravely concerned for the wellbeing of my wife and other family members, especially those in and around Knoxville, Tennessee – a critical target due to its proximity to Oak Ridge. 

But I trusted President Kennedy. I thought of him as “our” president, even “my” president despite the fact I had not been old enough to vote in the 1960 election. He was a president who had campaigned honestly and whom We the People had rightfully elected to office.

Now though as I approach my 74^th birthday, I have no such trust in our leaders, least of all President Obama. He lied his way into office by promising “change we can believe in.” He shape-shifted from Obama the Orator to Barack the Betrayer and immediately escalated George Bush's war against the Constitution. He betrayed his supporters in organized labor and in the movement for single-payer/public-option health care. He declared genocidal war on lower-income peoples of all ages by slashing food stamps, downsizing Medicare and attempting to cut Social Security. He is not my president, he is not “our” president (unless you are part of the One Percent or its corps of factotums), and it is most assuredly not We the People whose interests he serves.

Indeed I cannot but wonder if he seeks to provoke a war merely to boost his popularity and silence his critics, either by herding us into concentration camps or by unleashing his death squads with the extra-judicial extermination warrants he claims the right to issue at will.

At the very least – or so says Robert Perry in “Neocons and the Ukranian Coup,” the piece on which I posted the comments boldfaced above – he's abdicated control of the government (or more likely knowingly granted it) to a neo-conservative (i.e., neo-fascist) cabal that has been the real power behind the Oval Office at least since the Reagan years. “American neocons,” says Perry, “helped destabilize Ukraine and engineer the overthrow of its elected government, a 'regime change'...(with) neo-Nazi militias at the forefront.” (The link to Perry's analysis, also in the lead-in to the boldfaced paragraphs, is repeated here for readers' convenience.)

***

My original intention this week was to post comment-thread contributions as I usually do – that is, by summarizing the article and my Outside Agitator's response. But now I think the threat of war makes my comments on two of these threads relevant in their entirety. Hence the following, which the sharp-eyed reader will note is ever-so-slightly edited from the original texts:

“The 'Deep State' - How Much Does It Explain?” Mike Lofgren of Moyers and Company writes at length on what he calls the “Deep State,” portraying it as “a hybrid of corporate America and the national security state...out of control and unconstrained... (the perpetrator of) deregulation, financialization of the economy, the Wall Street bust, the erosion or our civil liberties and perpetual war.” I reply that from a socialist perspective, the term “deep state” is nothing more than another deliberately anti-Marxist euphemism to avoid such terms as “Ruling Class,” “capitalist aristocracy,” “the bourgeoisie” or “the One Percent.”

The behavior of the “deep state” is therefore typical of all ruling classes.

But the power of the “deep state” has no counterpart in human history. It is literally omnipotent, made so by a combination of three factors. The first of these is technology, which gives it capabilities hitherto accorded only gods – and only the most sadistic gods at that. The second factor is the ethos by which it is driven: capitalism – infinite greed elevated to maximum virtue – the deliberate, typically malicious rejection of every humanitarian principle our species has ever articulated. The third is the new Mein Kampf by which the One Percent rules, Ayn Rand's expansion of economic theory into a formal doctrine of statehood, governance and intention: absolute power and unlimited profit for the aristocracy, total subjugation for all the rest of us.

(A fourth factor that previously constrained even the most tyrannical states – the need to placate the masses – has been rendered irrelevant by weaponry that makes resistance not only futile but suicidal. We the people, we the 99 Percent, we the peasants and proletarians who do all the work – we no longer matter save in terms of our exploitability for profit. We are already prisoners, inescapably trapped in electronic slave pens.)

For the first time in our collective experience, our species has been subdued by conquerors so evil – that is, so hostile to human liberty and planetary life – the only metaphors to adequately describe their vileness come from mythology, religion and science fiction. Indeed they are the quintessence of evil; their triumph is the equivalent of conquest by demons or demonic creatures from outer space. And only a very few of our best writers – Chris Hedges, for example – have awakened to the bottomless horror of their moral imbecility.

Meanwhile, Mr. Lofgren's plea for a leader – someone with the “serene self-confidence” to lead us in rebellion – is nothing less than a call for voluntary human sacrifice, for yet another victim to walk the fatal paths of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy. All were potentially such leaders. Each was murdered – decades before the state followed the pattern set by Hitler's Third Reich and publicly claimed, as it does now, the right to slaughter at will. Today our only certainty is that any true defender of freedom who arises to genuine leadership will be slain by the ever-eager assassins commanded by the One Percent.

What then, as Vladimir Lenin asked so presciently in 1902, is to be done? I have no satisfactory answer. Nor, seemingly, does anyone else. Hedges suggests our only recourse is the turning to art and spirituality that has been the opiate of slaves since the advent of slavery. History – specifically the fact there is no earthly precedent for the obscene might and toxic darkness of that which oppresses us today – tells me he is probably right, that we have no other alternatives.

As I ponder this unspeakable dismal future I remember a chant of the Cheyenne Ghost Dance – “the white man's god has forsaken him, let us go and look for our Mother.” My genes -- Scythian, Celtic, Norse, Iroquoian, others of which I know not – urge me to embrace the life and consciousness reasserted by the Gaia Hypothesis, to prepare myself for her vengeance on those who would knowingly destroy her. I do not imagine many of us will survive her fury. I am thankful I am old.

*

Later a poster on the same thread questioned my understanding of Hedges' stance. I replied by citing the Hedges essay entitled “A Time for Sublime Madness.” http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_time_for_sublime_madness_20130120 In it he says, “To endure what lies ahead we will have to harness the human imagination,” which he then defines as both art and religion, with strong emphasis on the latter. (“Art” as used here includes not just visual work but music, poetry, dance, etc.)

What makes this particular Hedges essay so significant – it appeared on 20 January 2013 – is it is to my knowledge the first time he has acknowledged the true totality of our powerlessness. In so doing, he cites how other powerless groups sustained themselves. “It was the human imagination,” he wrote, “that permitted African-Americans during slavery and the Jim Crow era to transcend their physical condition. It was the human imagination that sustained Sitting Bull and Black Elk as their land was seized and their cultures were broken. And it was the human imagination that allowed the survivors in the Nazi death camps to retain the power of the sacred. It is the imagination that makes possible transcendence.”

Unfortunately – as we see in the de facto Christofascist theocracy of the USian South (and in the increasingly theocratic midlands as well) – religious imagination typically functions as opiate rather than agitation. This is true even in the case of non-Abrahamic religions. Note for example the stridently apolitical, even anti-political stance taken by so many Wiccans, who in every other sense are acutely aware of what is happening both politically and environmentally, yet cling to the New Age nonsense that collective transformation is impossible unless it is preceded by personal transformation.

To further clarify, while I believe Hedges is correct – that  “imagination” is our only recourse (simply because the genocidal technological superiority of the Ruling Class will not be defeated until it is overthrown by Gaian apocalypse) – I also regard it as a dreadful admission of defeat. Apart from the truly savage USian compulsion to religious conformity (which afflicts neo-Pagans as much as the Christofascists and the JesuNazis), our imagination has been withered to nonexistence by the slave mentality methodically imposed by the nation's public schools. One cannot make – or even comprehend – truly meaningful art when one's creative instincts have been deliberately starved to death by aesthetic ignorance. Thus we are robbed – perhaps permanently (because the only culture that can arise from ignorance is a culture of ignorance) – of even the one sanctuary Hedges suggested we might have left. Such is the totality of Evil by which we are now ruled. 

       

***

“Our Military: Fighting to Keep Its Culture of Abuse” Sarah L. Blum of Truthout reports on how the sexual and psychological abuse of women within the U.S. military not only continues unabated but – based on new statistics – is intensifying every year. I point out what I consider a major failure by mass media, the fact no widely published writer dares reveal the intimate connection between rape and the Christian fanaticism that now dominates the U.S. officer corps.

In the fanatical Christian worldview, which incidentally is shared by all Abrahamic fundamentalists, women are the (innately evil) daughters of Eve. As punishment for their alleged sinfulness, they are not only to be subservient to men, they are to be imprisoned in the homes of their fathers and husbands, their duties limited to housekeeping and child-rearing. Rape – the atrocity itself and the chain-of-command's diligent protection of the rapists -- is therefore part of “god's divine plan” to re-subjugate the entire female gender: that is, to drive women out of the military and out of the workforce in general and eventually “put woman back in her divinely ordained place.”

The troubling fact this horror-story is not being covered despite the abundant topical evidence -- the persecution of non-believers at the Air Force Academy, less-well-publicized reports of similar outrages at the other service academies, theocratic pronouncements by various general officers, major publications of at least four books discussing the theocratic threat to constitutional governance etc. ad nauseam – suggests even alternative mainstream media is now subject to theocratic censorship.

If this is not so -- if the Christian theocrats are not already so powerful they are muffling even allegedly alternative media -- then why is this story being suppressed?

(I ask not merely as a regular reader but as formerly award-winning print journalist, mostly a newspaper reporter, retired after a career spanning a half-century. Given only the publicly available sources, I could put together a basic report -- “Rape and the Christianization of the U.S. Military” -- in no more than a week. With time to cultivate inside sources and otherwise properly investigate the matter, a competent reporter could easily produce a Pulitzer-class story in two or three months.)

That this story has not already been broken is the most damning indictment yet of our allegedly "free" press.

*

In response to another poster on the “Culture of Abuse” thread, I point out I have written many times of rape and the Christianization of the military: access the TypePad edition of OAN, go to archives, then type in "theocracy" (no quotation marks).

For the record, the four books cited above are: The Family: the Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power (Jeff Sharlet, Harper: 2008); American Fascists: the Christian Right and the War on America (Chris Hedges, Free Press, a Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.: 2006); American Theocracy: the Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century (Kevin Phillips, Viking: 2006); The Age of American Unreason, especially Chapter 8 (Susan Jacoby, Pantheon Books: 2008).

The best of these is Sharlet's work. Phillips' text is interesting because he is a conservative but nevertheless is appalled by the theocratic threat, while Jacoby's work is a general exposé on the Moron Nation (as I sometimes call it) that has resulted from capitalism's methodical “moronation” (my term for “dumbing down”) of the national mentality. 

Other reliable sources on the theocratic threat include Americans United for Separation of Church and State; Theocracy Watch; Catholic Watch and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. AU's role is explained by its name. Theocracy Watch is an encyclopaedic source on the effort to impose Biblical Law on the United States, but in its fealty to the Democratic Party is blind to the Democrats' pro-theocracy efforts, for example Hillary Clinton's secret, pro-Biblical-Law  collaboration with Sam Brownback as exposed on pages 272-277 of Sharlet's book. Catholic Watch monitors the efforts by the Roman Catholic Church to buy up all U.S. health-care facilities and thereby impose total bans on contraception and legally assisted suicide, while the Military Religious Freedom Foundation fights the forcible Christianization of the armed forces. 

I think there are two reasons the predatory nature of Christianity is suppressed by publications on the USian Left. The first is elitist arrogance, which since the 1960s has been the Left's downfall, in this instance the assumption religion is irrelevant (never mind the fact the U.S. is the most fanatically religious nation in the industrial world). The second reason is political correctness: to acknowledge Christian fanaticism is to acknowledge the fanaticism of Abrahamic religion in general, which of necessity would include acknowledgement of Islamic fanaticism – which political correctness forbids – and acknowledgement of Jewish fanaticism as well.  

That said, the last and best word of this week's column comes from a dear friend's reaction to the Ukraine crisis (and Goddess grant her foresight is better than mine): “I don't think we'll get into a land war with Russia over some peninsula in the the Black Sea – strategic to others, but not to us – and I'm very sick of our continuing to clean up the messes created by the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the imperial ambitions of Europe!”

LB/2 March 2014

-30-