Russia’s Grand Delusion – One Month In

Here we are just a shade over one month into Russia’s war with Ukraine.  All the analysts and all the pundits can’t put Russia back together again.  We can speculate ad nauseum as to what drove its President to begin this war but what we do know with some certainty is he didn’t imagine it would involve him in a protracted land war.  His experience with Georgia lasted 12-days as he annexed parts of Georgia back into greater Russia.  His takeover of Crimea, under the illusion of “self-determination” took a little over a month, but involved only a minimal amount of Russian force, when coupled with the defection of the Crimean military supposedly there to defend the Ukraine state.

In both cases Putin and Russia was condemned by the west, but little else.  European leaders continued to increase their dependence on Russian oil while reducing their defense spending.  Putin continued to enrich himself and his friends.  So how would he not think he could do in Ukraine what he had done in Georgia and Crimea?  What was different?

For one he faced a President who loved his country, more than his wealth.  He faced a people who loved their country and their president, and a military that did not defect to ensure their safety.  

We can compare his actions today with his lack of action two years ago, and say the unknown response of Trump may have delayed his choice, but I think in the end how the United States would react was only a factor of timing.  He waited until a “professional” politician was back in charge.  Someone’s whose rhetoric would outperform his actions.  In other words, a president who was predictable.

The 64-thousand-dollar question is, how will this end?  Wars always end badly.  The loser suffers the worst, but only slightly worse than the winners.  I suspect Ukraine will stand and Russia will grow weary and leave, but with Vladimir Putin that is not a certainty.  It will take western investment and a generation to rebuild Ukraine, for Russia, I’m not sure what will change.  Dictatorial rule is the only thing constant in Russia. 

Should We End Title IX?

In the words of the U.S. Department of Education, “The Department of Education is committed to expanding and protecting opportunities for students to learn. Title IX of the Higher Education Act promises equal access to education for all students and it protects them against discrimination on the basis of sex.

Title IX was enacted to ensure: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”[1]

“On March 26, 2021, the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division issued a memorandum to federal civil rights offices and general counsels addressing the application of Bostock[2] to Title IX, determining that Title IX’s prohibition on discrimination “on the basis of sex” includes discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.  See Letter from Pamela S. Karlan, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, to Federal Civil Rights Directors and General Counsels (Mar. 26, 2021).

On June 22, 2021, the U.S. Department of Education issued a notice of interpretation clarifying that “[c]onsistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling and analysis in Bostock, the Department [of Education] interprets Title IX’s prohibition on discrimination ‘on the basis of sex’ to encompass discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.” Enforcement of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.  With Respect to Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Light of Bostock v. Clayton County, 86 Fed. Reg. 32,637 (June 22, 2021”[3]

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for equal access to education (including sports) my question is simply if we are to reach the true goals of gender equity, why do we need a law outlining what we can and can’t do?  Why not simply say, a college or university receiving federal funds can only have one team in each sport and all interested players must be included on the roster?

That way everyone gets to play and get their participation trophy based on how well they do against everyone else, sex and gender choices become irrelevant.  Of course, there are those "Deplorables" who believe women should participate equally against their own sex, and men should participate against their own sex, but clearly, the courts and our Federal Government feel this is an outdated concept.

Let’s take the current controversy over Lia Thomas, who previously identified as a male swimmer, but now identifies as a female.  (Insert preferred pronoun here) began swimming and competing early in her life and was, at one time ranked 6^th in Texas.  After arriving at Penn State he began his transition and choice for a new identity.  If Penn State had a single swim team, competing in non-gender specific races there would be no issue.  But like all things nowadays conservatives take one side and liberals take the other. 

My Governor, Ron DeSantis, has declared “for Florida” we will only recognize the second-place winner of the Woman’s 500-meter freestyle as the National Champion, while NBC sports has celebrated this momentous (?) moment in women’s sports as a giant step forward for the rights of the transgendered.

Of course, we could separate sports and education as some would want by going back to colleges that only admitted certain races, or have courses that only were open to certain sexes, but I think we all agree that would be a giant step back.  Rather than have all these financially strapped colleges and universities who are barely able to get by with their billion-dollar endowments, why don’t we let them cut the number of athletic teams in half or more by only fielding one team where the fastest is on top and the lowest on the bottom?  That way sex and gender are no longer a concern and all get to compete equally.  After all, isn’t that what inclusion and equity are all about?

---

[1] https://sites.ed.gov/titleix/

[2] Bostock was actually a case regarding Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights act where the court held in a 6-3 vote an employee could not be fired for being gay or transgendered.  DOJ has issued its opinion based on what it views as an applicable cross-linkage.

[3] https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ix

A Republic, If You Can Keep It.

There is a popular story of Ben Franklin emerging from the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, and being asked by a woman ““well, Doctor, what do we have, a republic or a monarchy?” To which Ben supposedly answered, “a republic, if you can keep it.”

That statement carries significance in today’s world.  We see threats to the Republic all around us, both internally and externally.  We as citizens have allowed forces, we believe are beyond our control, to drive us into fractured elements.   All seeking our own supremacy.

We no longer seek a common ground of understanding but have chosen sides where there can be no compromise.  One side is allegedly filled with people who would destroy the republic in the name of freedom, and the other side would destroy freedom in the name of the republic.  The sadly humorous thing is neither side recognizes the risks of their position, and at the extremes both views are interchangeable.  Both extremes would destroy the republic in pursuit of their own agenda, and both would destroy the freedom to accomplish that.

I think the irony of this reality is striking and so obvious I am either insane in my vision, or the reality we face is truly being manipulated by the power brokers.  In either case, we continue our movements toward some new world reality where minorities carry a louder voice than the majority and there is no longer a sense of the common good. 

Right now, and I’ve said this to friends, I think it must feel like the world did in the 1930s, where the radical elements of Germany, Italy, and Japan moved toward world conquest, while the west sought only to maintain the peace, at any cost.  Russia, at the time, was a wild card with Stalin more worried about internal threats than that posed by Germany.

Vladimir Putin has taken on the role of Hitler.  He wants to return Russia to its former glory (I assume as it was under the USSR and not the Czars), regardless of the cost of human lives.  Meanwhile, in the west, we’ve chosen again the path of appeasement we followed when Hitler began absorbing adjacent regions in the name of a greater Germany.  We didn’t challenge Putin when he began stirring up Russian separatists in Georgia, we accepted his claim to Crimea, and only now are we beginning to send supplies to Ukraine as it fights for its independence against the Russian invasion.

The question for us in America is, is this the end of our greatness or the beginning?  It took the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and Germany’s declaration of war to bring us into the second World War, our leadership is afraid if we were to actively engage in the defense of Ukraine it would be the beginning of the next World War.  Better, they say, we quietly work behind the scenes to bolster Ukrainian defenses to help them fight this invasion.  Unfortunately for all of us the UN has no power to compel peace, it can only engage in peacemaking war if the Security Council agrees, and Russia learned its lesson the last time when it boycotted the UN and America got everyone to agree to defend South Korea.

We are rightfully afraid of a nuclear conflict, and it was only a couple of years ago the left was warning Trump would start a nuclear war.  The thing was -- Russia and China worried about the same thing, and nothing happened.  Now Trump is gone and I imagine Russia and China know the U.S. does not have the will to engage and risk that possibility.  We will be more worried about how our economy is doing, how the move to socialism is working out, and how the shift to “green” energy will save us from climate change.

Meanwhile, we can expect double-digit inflation, and soaring gas prices as this administration stick to the idea we should buy someone else’s oil rather than encourage the self-sufficient posture we were moving towards.  If we stop buying Russia’s oil, whose will we buy?  Saudi?  Iran?  Venezuela?  Mexico?  It seems according to Jen Psaki our energy policy isn’t to blame for American companies’ decision not to drill here.  She could be right, but that would be a first for this administration.

As we focus on the important things in life, like equity, diversity, pronouns, and free college for those who fail out of high school the world will go on.  The only question is will the greatness of our Republic?