Ukraine, Russia, and President Obama #2

The White House has announced that President Obama held a 90 minute telephone conversation with President Putin today.    He reminded him of the various treaties and international law that he is violating and called on him to withdraw his forces back to the Russian base in Crimea.

He told Putin that continued violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity would negatively impact Russia's standing in the international community.    President Obama will be consulting with the United Nations Security Council and several other international groups, and he will suspend any further preliminary talk for the upcoming G-8 Summit meeting.

There was nothing said in the announcement about Putin's reaction.   Presumably he was not persuaded.   My understanding is that his justification, whether valid or not, is that he is protecting the Russian citizens who live in Ukraine under what he considers an illegal takeover of the Ukraine government.

This is a tense, very bad situation.   This is not the time for John McCain and Lindsey Graham to be mouthing off about taking a more aggressive military approach.   They may disagree with his measured, diplomacy-first handling of the situation;   but he is the elected Commander in Chief.     As former military officers, McCain and Graham should know that the middle of a crisis is not the time to be undermining the commander's leadership.

Ralph

Unintended consequences as a battle plan

The business community's swift backlash against Arizona's "religious freedom" bill raises the possibility for a new tactic in fighting back against the Republicans' attempt to sneak bad policy bills through disguised as good things.

This tactic arises from the "unintended consequences" -- the "discrimination is bad for business" meme that was so skillfully employed in Arizona.  It was effective not only in stopping the AZ bill -- but, overnight, similar bills in five or six other states, including Georgia's, suddenly got put on hold or dropped altogether.

So here's another tactic, along those lines, suggested by a letter to the editor from Fred Dikeman in Friday's AJC.    The idea is to use the proposed law in a way that has unintended consequences that hurt those pushing the law.
  
Here's the proposal:   As a business owner, claim your right to refuse service to gun owners on the basis of your religious beliefs, and cite the Ten Commandments' mandate: "Thou Shalt Not Kill."

But, you say, you don't intend to kill;  you just keep a gun for protection.   In other words, you're just being a gun owner, not necessarily a gun shooter.   So as long as you don't shoot your gun, I have no right to object to your being a gun owner?

Let's apply that logic to the gay wedding thing.  The photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couple's commitment ceremony did so because the idea of their being gay offended him;   it was not that he was asked to film them having sex.

Why is it not then comparable to say that, it's the very idea of a person being a gun owner that I find offensive to my religious beliefs?   It's not that I have to actually serve him while he is shooting his gun.   No, I can object just on the grounds that he possesses a gun and will shoot it at some other time and place.

I'm looking at the comparable "being" vs "behaving" in the two situations.  "Being a gun owner" and "being gay" are similar in that they are states of being, while "having gay sex" and "shooting your gun" are similar in that they are behaviors.

It's a question of "being" or "behaving."  So if a photographer can refuse to take pictures of a ceremony that is about "being gay," shouldn't I be able to refuse service to someone who is simply "being a gun owner"? 

Ralph

Ukraine, Russia, and President Obama

My view of the situation in Ukraine is that the people should be allowed to work out their government without interference from the outside, as long as there is no evidence that the rights of the people are being infringed.

Russia's militant posturing is threatening to further destabilize the country at a delicate time.  Naturally Russia has trade and economic, as well as cultural, interests in Ukraine.  But the citizens should be allowed to make their own decisions.   

This populist revolt that ousted Yanukovich arose because he suddenly turned away from closer ties to Europe and the EU in favor of Russia.  Putin does not own Ukraine.   It is a sovereign nation and should be left to make its own decisions about such matters.

President Obama's statement today was a stern warning to Putin not to intervene militarily or violate Ukraine's sovereign territory.

"It would be a clear violence of Russia’s commitment to respect the independence and sovereignty and borders of Ukraine, and of international laws. And just days after the world came to Russia for the Olympic Games, it would invite the condemnation of nations around the world. And indeed, the United States will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine."

This last point may be the most important to Putin.   Having a successful Olympic Games in Russia and being able to showcase Russia to the world was immensely important to Putin.  To be reminded that he is about to destroy the good will he gained just a few days later should be persuasive.

Ralph

And now for a light-hearted change of pace

For those readers who may be tired of reading about the terrible Republicans and about marriage equality, here's a change of pace.

Some startling factoids about the time-line of our lives that may surprise you, as they did me.  Thanks to Todd Van Luling of The Huffington Post.

1.  Bettie White is older than sliced bread.  
      (White born in 1922;  sliced bread, 1928)

2.  Harvard University was founded before calculus was invented.
      (Harvard, 1636;  calculus, 1684)

3.  The last time the Chicago Cubs won the World Series, the Ottoman Empire still existed.     (1908/1922)

4.  The pyramids of Giza were built in the time of wooly mammals.
      (pyramids 4000 years old;  woolies died out around 1700 BCE)

5.  Tyffany & Co. was founded before Italy was a country.
      (Tyffany originated in 1837;  Italy became unified into one country in 1861).

6.  France was still using the guillotine when "Star Wars" came out.
      (SW released in 1977, a few months before the last execution by guillotine)

Interesting realizations about how easily our sense of time gets warped.  Still, the most impressive realization about time lines and the pace of progress was Ronald Reagen's observation that: 

"In the course of my lifetime, man has first flown in an airplane . . . and walked on the moon."

Ralph

When money talks . . . politicians listen

Republican political operatives seem to have a bottomless pit of ingenuity when it comes to finding new ways to pander to the fears and hatreds of its ultra-right-wing base.  They tried to disguise this latest evocation of anti-gay sentiments by calling this a "Protect Our Religious Freedom" bill.

Fearful that this will brand Arizona and hurt them economically, there is widespread business opposition (Chamber of Congress, American, Delta, Southwest, and USAIR;  Apple, American Express, Intel, Pet Smart, several, hotel chains).  Some are even saying it will cost jobs and divert new businesses from locating there.   One convention has already cancelled, and the Superbowl Host Committee was watching closely and considering relocating next year's game.

What's different here in 2014 is that the backlash was swift, and it came from those in power instead of the victims of discrimination and activist protesters.   Gail Collins puts it so well in today's New York Times: 

Maybe we have reached a critical historical juncture. Struggles for human rights always begin with brave men and women who stand up, isolated, against the forces of oppression. But, in the United States, victory really arrives on the glorious day when the people with money decide discrimination is bad for business.

Yes . . . but.     Gail Collins makes a great point about where we have arrived.   But we should not forget how we got here.

Let me remind us all that people with money did not decide discrimination was bad for business until those courageous individuals, and then groups, stood up and demanded their rights.    They are the ones who changed the cultural climate and American attitudes so that discrimination became bad for business.

Ralph

"Religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value. So is non-discrimination."

Here's how Gov. Jan Brewer explained her veto of SB 1062: 

"Religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value.  

So is non-discrimination."

Gov. Brewer did the right thing, and I respect her for it -- even though it had become politically unfeasible to sign the bill.   Still, I have to respect the thoughtful and succinct statement she made.   Here, in part.

Senate Bill 1062 does not address a specific or present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona.  I have not heard one example in Arizona where a business owner's religious liberty has been violated. The bill is broadly worded and could result in unintended and negative consequences. After weighing all of the arguments, I have vetoed Senate Bill 1062 moments ago.

To the supporters of this legislation, I want you to know that I understand that long-held norms about marriage and family are being challenged as never before. Our society is undergoing many dramatic changes, however, I sincerely believe that Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve. It could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine and nobody could ever want. 

Religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value. So is non-discrimination. Going forward, let's turn the ugliness of the debate over Senate Bill 1062 into a renewed search for greater respect and understanding among all Arizona and Americans.

Ralph

Veto watch #2

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has just announced that she has vetoed the bill that has caused so much backlash from the business community, rights activists, and even Republican politicians.

Also an update on the Georgia bill:   According to what I heard on the news this afternoon, the senate bill is still alive, although the house put its bill on hold.   

The important thing I learned from this account was that the Georgia bill differs from the Arizona one in an important way:   It only addresses religious exemptions from governmental regulations and laws (such as the contraceptive-covering insurance mandate);  it does not apply to private businesses operations.

Ralph