Oceangate Submarine Disaster: Should Luxury Tourism Be Regulated or Ended?

July 21, 2023

Deep-sea research company OceanGate Expeditions, recently made the news when their self-designed submersible, "Titan," took five souls in June this year to visit the RMS Titanic wreckage but was lost when it imploded just above the iconic ocean line on the sea floor.  It was a solemn moment to reflect on the depths (pun intended) wealthy individuals use their money for extreme and high-risk tourism adventures. This includes climbing mountains with inclement weather (like ascending Mount Everest and Mount Kilimanjaro), kayaking in crocodile-infested rivers (in the Congo for example), or seeing great white sharks up close in a diver's cage.  While it can provide life-changing thrills, sometimes these environments push back and can kill the tourists themselves.  Is it time to end this industry? Or should we have better regulation and safety standards?

___________________________________

The world was taken in by the drama unfolding 2.5 miles beneath the surface this past June when the OceanGate Expeditions DSV (deep sea vehicle) "Titan" suddenly and without warning stopped communicating with this mother ship on its descent to the legendary wreck at the ocean floor.  Simultaneously, the DSV ended its ability to "ping" its position on its way down to RMS Titanic.   One train of thought discussed by national media is that the submersible lost power and nose-dived toward the ocean floor and that those inside were aware of their impending deaths.  Media around the world immediately picked up the story and kept it in the headlines, breathlessly detailing the amount of oxygen the 5 men inside (billionaire Hamish Harding, French ocean explorer Paul-Henri Nargeolet, Pakistani businessmen Shahzada Dawood and his son Suleman and OceanGate Expeditions CEO Stockton Rush) had left for rescue before they would perish.

Sadly, the United States Navy heard what sounded like an underwater explosion near the location of the shipwreck, through a very secret but sophisticated underwater listening system around the time the Titan lost contact.  The Navy gave that information to the United States Coast Guard, which withheld this information for four days.  National media reported that rumors of "banging sounds" emanating from underwater gave some people hope that Titan's occupants were still alive.  Director James Cameron, who helmed the mega-successful film adaptation of the Titanic's maiden voyage, which captured the hearts of old and new followers, was upset that the Navy and the Coast Guard did not make public the explosion heard underwater earlier than they did.  I am under the impression that it was kept from the public because the Coast Guard wanted to ensure everything was done to search and determine if anyone survived. Once debris from the submersible was found on the ocean floor, families of those aboard were notified of their deaths.

The submersible from OceanGate Expeditions was made with different materials, such as carbon fiber unlike what was generally used before after extensive research, such as aluminum, steel, and titanium.  The window from which to view outside was also more prominent than on most submersibles.  Previous guests commented on their experiences, including details of parts falling off on dives, and hearing troubling noises during their descent.  A New York Post article (Sedacca) this month commented on the need for following industry-accepted protocols for this type of submersible operation within the company.  It was stated in various media publications that the most likely issue that caused the submersible to implode was its carbon fiber shell, which was the central location of the submersible where its occupants sat.  Over repeated dives to depths with extreme pounds per square inch (PSI), it eventually forced the material to crack and cause immense pressure to kill everyone inside in a millisecond.

Another July 2023 article (Bekiempis) in the same month in The Guardian, gave credence to those prior travelers through an interview with Rob McCallum, a veteran submersible expert.  He had taken a few dives with OceanGate Expeditions vessels and felt Mr. Rush had a 'cavalier' attitude regarding his company's mission and its previous trips to the wreck.  The Guardian also mentioned in a separate New Yorker article this year that Mr. McCallum, along with prominent members of the deep sea exploration community, tried to give their thoughts on the company's underwater vessels and stated that the government and OceanGate Expeditions did not heed or listen to their opinions and concerns.  The general theme of their complaints was that the company was attempting to be innovative by using cheaper materials and "crude designs" that had not been tested for depth pressure resistance and licensed and approved by their peers.  The article stated that Rob McCallum was asked to be part of the designing and testing of the company's new submersibles, but he opted out because of the flaws in their designs, materials, and lack of redundancy for its safety features.  The company's CEO felt their design tech and sourcing of materials was innovation in progress.

Stockton Rush did not want to have his vessel reviewed and inspected by respected industry groups and individuals who could rate and license his craft.  He seemed to dislike their input and even fired a former employee who exposed design flaws in the submersible. Mr. Rush felt his haphazard levels of "innovation" which he believed were required to buck the system, saw their feedback as a threat to his "breaking the rules to change the game" mantra in my opinion.

Of those on the submersible that perished, many focused on the deaths of Shazada Dawood and Hamish Harding, primarily due to the wealth of the two men and also the young age of Mr. Dawood's 19-year-old son, Suleman. I think wealthy individuals who want to experience things that can be thrilling, along with the rush of danger are a strong allure.  If their wealth allows them to do that with no harm or risk outside of themselves, so be it.  However, outside of Mr. Rush and explorer Paul-Henri Nargeolet, the others did not fully grasp what they were getting into.  To see the final resting place of a legendary ocean liner, with a story and tragedy that has gripped the imaginations of millions around the world for more than a century was too good to pass up.  What a real shame that Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Dawood did not have an understanding of the type of vessel they were going to be in, and probably did not have access to warnings and complaints from Stockton Rush's peers.

The occupants in the vessel would not have entered the sub (where they were sealed in with screws) if they had been aware of the submersible's design and issues.  Or, perhaps they did know the risks but decided to go down to the Titanic anyway because the chance to see the shipwreck up close was greater than any fear of the DSV operating at a frightening depth beneath the surface.  I had read that  Suleman Dawood was allegedly petrified to enter the Titan but went ahead with his participation anyway, to make his father happy. That is truly tragic if that were the case.

The main issue at hand is that wealth does not protect us from the elements or outer limits.  The manta of "Life is Short," combined with the thrills and indelible memories is a tempting mix for the elite, especially in the social media age.  Ego and narcissism are a deadly combination of this type of extreme tourism.  The late Stockton Rush was not the first (or the last) wealthy explorer who engaged in extreme tourism.  Wealthy businessmen such as Richard Branson (Virgin Galactic) and Jeff Bezos (Amazon's Blue Origin) are currently using their money to focus on space tourism, while Elon Musk's SpaceX focuses on private funding for space exploration, satellite delivery, and transporting astronauts to the international space station.  Perhaps down the road, he will charge wealthy tourists as well.  Eventually, potential tragedies could affect the tourism companies that these men created.  Careful planning and putting safety first rather than profits should lower the threshold for failure and loss of human life.

OceanGate Expeditions learned tragically that while innovation can include cost-effectiveness, with less expensive but potentially stronger materials, it requires countless years of testing, including failure, and as mentioned earlier, peer approval and licensing.  This is especially true for fields such as aviation, aeronautical engineering, and deep-sea oil exploration, which require rigorous regulation and stringent guidelines.  Going the rugged, do-it-yourself route can have some romantic and underdog appeal, but it should never supersede safety. Survival is paramount.  The deaths of the five aboard, along with the hubris of the late Stockton Rush and OceanGate Expeditions, found out the hard way. Exploration through the sea, hypersonic flight, space exploration, etc., when you test the limits, while it can be exhilarating if you are not careful, sometimes those limits push back with deadly consequences.

Does America's Foreign Policy Need a Course Correction in the 21st Century?

June 7, 2023

As of this blog entry, the war between Russia and Ukraine has slowed, but Russia seems to be in control.  China has become more territorial and aggressive in the South China Sea, while Taiwan has been given more American weapons.  Iran is getting closer to having materials capable of building a nuclear bomb, forcing Israel to plan for any measure available to stop that from happening. These are some of the current scenarios that the Biden Administration has to deal with, and invite the question: Should U.S. foreign policy adapt and change to a new world?

____________________________

Two years into the Biden Administration, we may need to re-evaluate our foreign policy, one in which the world is much different from the one we inherited from the ashes of World War II.  At that time (April 1945), America emerged as the primary hegemon, with Britain ceding that title to us after the costs of maintaining the British Empire were too much to maintain while fighting a global war.  The war also started a proliferation of the arms manufacturing industry in the United States, which to this day, plays a large part in influencing how the country conducts foreign policy, with an emphasis on military operations.  

The Senate Armed Services Committee states that America will spend $857 billion on national defense this year.  The James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act of 2023 shows that a little over $816 billion will be spent on spending for the Department of Defense, with an additional $30 billion for the Department of Energy for its custody of the nation's nuclear weapons, nuclear power, research, and disposal of nuclear waste. Combined, that is far more than the world powers spend on their defense.  A Peter G. Peterson Foundation study shows that the United States allocates roughly 40% of the world's defense spending on itself, based on a review of the FY22 defense budget (April 2023). The largest percentage of this allocation is directed toward operations and maintenance, which involves keeping ships, tanks, and aircraft functioning in preparation for deployment and a large number of military bases around the world.  The Department of Defense allocated only 14% of its 2022 budget appropriations to development and innovation. The foundation estimates that the proportion of defense spending vis-a-vis national GDP will drop below 3% within the next decade, however.

What is troubling is that despite spending so much money, the nation's return on foreign wars lately has not been very productive.  The outcomes of those wars were ambiguous at best, a colossal failure at worst. Needless to say, the results of our policies could come back to haunt the United States, which spent a little over $2.2 trillion on the combined Afghanistan and Iraq wars. The embarrassing visuals of the American-led NATO coalition fleeing Kabul were disorganized and calamitous and will shamelessly live in infamy for decades.  Iraq has a government that is sympathetic to and aligned with Shia Iran due to its own Shia majority, which complicates the American agenda there. Those upfront costs don't include interest on the borrowed funds, which could add an additional cost of $2.5 trillion by 2030. The aggregate cost could top $6.5 trillion for future generations of Americans (CBS News-August 2021).  In Afghanistan's case, U.S. policy is right back where it was before the American-led NATO invasion.

This brings us to the current state of affairs in the world in 2023 and the various hot spots around the world: (1) Russia/Ukraine, (2) China/Taiwan, (3) the greater Middle East, and (4) the Korean peninsula and Japan. 

(1) Russia's invasion of Ukraine is not going as well as President Putin had hoped.  While the Russian military has taken over certain cities, including protecting its influence in the eastern Donbas region, Putin's forces had tremendous losses in personnel, and many of its tanks were destroyed.  NATO provided weapons and training, helping the tough Ukrainians re-take control of some territory. From what I have read and viewed through media, it seems the Russians are still "in the driver's seat," and dictate their battle plans accordingly.  I sincerely hope that Russia will seek peace and leave parts of that country that they control. However, NATO should not go from covert assistance to actively fighting a "hot" war in Ukraine that may eventually lead to an exchange of nuclear weapons. That absolutely cannot happen. Peace must be the primary solution. Ukraine may have to give up some territory in the process, though.

The Ukraine war has depleted America's weapons inventory, which means the defense contractors will obviously see an increase in revenues.  Was this part of the reasoning to provide Ukraine with economic and military support? America's largest defense contractors will see their share prices increase with new defense spending, but will it be fruitful in the long run?  Unless NATO forces join the fight with the Ukrainians, the United States should work with its partners to end the destruction of that country and prevent more deaths.

(2) Another hot zone in the world is the South China Sea, where the United States and China are potential belligerents over shipping lanes, and territorial islands fought over between other nations allied with the Americans, with the most important being Taiwan.  China sees that independent nation as a wayward part of its unified destiny and will do whatever it takes to bring it back into the Chinese Communist Party's authority.  An amphibious military operation is part of that strategy, and the United States is obligated through its agreements with the government of Taiwan to render aid and support, including weapons and intelligence. It may have to provide its own military resources to defend that island nation. A war with China will have lasting damage for a generation for both nations, and the United States should aggressively seek a diplomatic solution with the Chinese to avert any loss of life and economic catastrophe.

(3) The United States under the Trump Administration removed itself from the deal that was ratified by both the United States and Iranian governments regarding Iran's nuclear program. It is standard political posturing for both Republican and Democratic administrations to extricate themselves from any policy or program the previous opposing government entered into.  The Israelis are rightfully worried that Iran's nuclear program is very close to having the capacity to enrich Uranium for multiple weapons.  Previous governments of the Jewish state had made it known publicly that if Iran does produce nuclear weapons, it will act alone if needed to ensure that possibility never comes to fruition.  Because of the nature of the close relationship between the United States and Israel, it is not beyond reason to expect America's military to join in any operation to incapacitate Iran's nuclear program unequivocally.  As always, what is the price that America and its citizens will have to pay for this conflict?  

During the Trump administration, Israel made many peace deals with countries in the region that for most of its history involved military wars and diplomatic isolation.  While this deal was welcomed after generations of conflict, it was also quite surprising.  Was President Trump really held in such high esteem that former enemies of the state of Israel would welcome diplomatic relations based on his agenda?  I think it runs deeper than that.  Iran is one of the countries with an Islamic Shia majority. Those countries that signed peace deals through the White House joined a coalition against Shia Iran and were most likely influenced by Sunni Saudi Arabia. Israel and the United States sought out this coalition to provide financial assistance through loans for joint military campaigns. While it made headlines and was a boon for the Trump agenda, I don't think this plan in the long term will play out well for those involved. This is especially since China is trying to broker peace deals of its own between those countries as well.

The Middle East has seen a period of relative peace, and it will be ruined if this secret plan comes to pass.  A war led by Israel and the United States, funded by Saudi Arabia, will create a conflagration that will draw other powers (Russia and possibly China) into this conflict. As it is, U.S. military involvement in the region (especially Syria) needs to be carefully adjudicated. Syria is backed by Russian economic and military support.  American ally Turkey sees rebels opposed to President Assad as aligned with the Kurdish Workers Party, considered a "terrorist organization" by the State Department, Turkish, and European Union (Al Jazeera-Aug 2022). This country must avoid being led down this path by those within the U.S. and Israel, who see war as a necessary step to ensure dominance in the region.

(4) In addition, North Korea continues to be a problem for the United States and its allies in that region (South Korea and Japan). Any spark on the Korean peninsula that leads to war will be catastrophic for all Koreans and many Japanese, and it would behoove our leaders to keep the gunpowder dry in that region.  Kim Jong Un should be treated as a wary pest but should not feel he will be removed by force or that this grip on power is challenged or threatened in any way. This would lead to war as a destructive and reactionary measure to protect that entrenched power that will lead to the deaths of thousands or more.

Adding to the current state of world affairs are examples of nations trying to move away from the dollar as a reserve currency.  Saudi Arabia, Russia, and recently, Brazil are trading using other currencies instead of the American dollar for business.   The dollar has substantial value as a reserve currency and is due to a robust U.S. economy, a valued and safe investment.  The American government sanctions countries (most notably Russia recently, and Iran in the past) flexing muscle if non-compliant with U.S. policy and a strategy not viewed favorably by many countries. While it may play well domestically, future American Presidents will lose this negotiating ability in international relations.

These are signs that the 21st Century is going to be drastically different from the last century. The world is gearing up for a multi-polar world, one in which there are two dominant countries (the United States and China) and balanced by several economic and minor military powers (Germany, France, England, Japan, South Korea, and Russia). Additionally, other countries will align with the two major powers as their governments see fit.  Canada and Mexico share a border with the United States and are its two largest trading partners, so they will work together in the short term, for better or worse.

American foreign policy needs a re-set.  The old method of quickly discarded soft diplomacy with an immediate, aggressive military response will not work for the foreseeable future.  The two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq showed that the use of military power has a shelf life and can only do so much.  Most Americans who can evaluate the government and its policies will list defense contractors, banks, and other conglomerates as shaping our foreign policy agenda.  Many of these corporations and their executives made (and will continue to make) enormous amounts of money financing the Department of Defense procurement of weapons and investing in the companies that have direct revenue streams tied to endless wars (Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc.) while their families are never affected by the true cost in lives.

Our current foreign policy is not sustainable for the long term. As a country we need to reduce the number of military bases across the world, leaving only those that create a "tripwire," such as South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Diplomacy and collaboration with common goals, while also leaving people alone work much better than a permanent garrison of soldiers, Marines, and airmen on foreign soil.

I sincerely hope our government will spend effectively on behalf of its citizens instead. Improving roads and highways, repairing crumbling infrastructure, strengthening our borders with a fair and equitable immigration policy and modernizing certain industries (advancements in air and rail travel especially), and providing funding for a better healthcare system would be a good priority.  Our foreign policy is rooted in protecting American hegemony in the world (and the elites of our society will benefit from this).  The fulfillment of the U.S. agenda is much more difficult to achieve in this day and age, and may even be outdated. Our primary rivals on the world stage, Russia and China, have the financial and military strength to push back against American power, albeit with less force projection.  We as citizens must push our elected officials to change our policy away from imperialism and focus more on diplomacy over conflict and the reduction of military operations around the world.  Perhaps the new dawn that is upon us will give those who run our government an opportunity to course correct and move the country in a better direction, rather than chase an old, ineffective foreign policy that doesn't yield the results it seeks.

The Indictment of the 45th President, Donald Trump. Have we finally crossed the Rubicon?

 

April 18, 2023

Based on a campaign promise, New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg filed documents to indict Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States.  This was a historic decision, in that it became the first time a former president was charged with an alleged crime after leaving office.  Until this decision, former presidents were allowed to do their jobs, regardless of what people felt about them, and then move on from their tenure.  However, the vitriol from Democrats and those in the GOP that opposed President Trump during his time as President gives D.A. Alvin Bragg wind for his sails of prosecutorial zest.  Has a divided America finally crossed the proverbial Rubicon?

__________________________________

No matter how you felt about President Trump, his four years in office resulted in accusations, impeachments, intense drama, and constant bickering with national media, Democrats, some Republicans, and influential donors around the country.  There was never a lull during President Trump's years in the White House.  It went from one issue to the next.  I can understand why most Americans, especially independents, wanted calm, and a return to "normalcy," and voted Mr. Trump out of office.  Despite this, the anger and hatred for Mr. Trump never subsided, and elected law enforcement officials (D.A. Alvin Bragg, NY State Attorney General Leticia James) ran on promises to go after the Trump Empire by any means necessary.

This current indictment of President Trump is part of that effort.  Mr. Bragg has charged the former president with 34 counts relating to payments relating to his extra-marital affair with adult video performer Stephanie Clifford (aka "Stormy Daniels"), under the guise of falsifying business transactions to protect Mr. Trump's alleged guilt in betraying his marriage.  

What is the end game here? Among the many issues that the former President is dealing with, these charges and accusations are not the most egregious.  He is indirectly related to the litigation between Dominion Voting Systems (the company that creates electronic voting hardware and software) and Fox News and may have been called to testify, had the trial actually gone forward. Instead, both parties settled today (April 18th) for much lower than Dominion had asked for ($787 million, as opposed to their initial damages of $1.6 billion, respectively).  Additionally, a former acquaintance, E. Jeane Carrol has accused President Trump of sexual assault, and the status of that serious charge is currently being deliberated by a federal appeals court.  The most damaging political issue Mr. Trump has to deal with relates to voting rights in the state of Georgia, especially the counting of votes during the 2020 election.  The former chief executive did himself no favors when a recording of a phone call with the Georgia Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, asking him to "find" little over 11,000 votes to swing the election outcome in his favor. Regardless of how Mr. Trump intended the conversation to go, the outward appearance (with audio proof) of a sitting President asking his own party's election official to "discover" votes to help him win the state is pretty damning.

If the Democrats are laser-focused on seeking any sort of justice against President Trump, there are far more serious problems he faces than dubious claims (with no prior precedent of conviction in New York to my knowledge) of trying to hide payments to a mistress using alleged campaign funds.  Why not let those issues play out first?  I feel that their spite and intense hatred of the former president clouds their thinking, and 'by any means necessary' is the mood with Donald Trump's detractors. 

I suspect though that there are other ideas at play here, some of which are discussed by the media including online publications.  One person, former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Andrew McCarthy, theorizes in National Review that political calculations play into this legal matter.  He asserts that the Democrats believe President Joe Biden is unpopular, and a vote for him in 2020 was really an anti-Trump vote, rather than an affirmation of him or his campaign promises.  Additionally, the senior leaders of the party know that Vice President Kamala Harris, though historic on many levels, does not endear party loyalists to her and that many independent voters and Republicans do not view her favorably.  

Mr. McCarthy believes that Mr. Bragg's legal charges against Mr. Trump will elevate Donald Trump in the eyes of the party's vocal and energetic base, thereby helping him win the GOP nomination in 2024, and allowing Mr. Biden an easy re-election.  His premise includes Democrats winning with many down-ballot races that will give them control of the House again and a bigger majority in the Senate. Additionally, Mr. McCarthy believes the Democrats want multiple legal battles to enter the courtroom around the time the GOP begins primaries to nominate their representative against President Biden, which is hoped will damage Donald Trump even more in the eyes of American voters.

Mr. McCarthy could be right.  After charges were filed following grand jury deliberations, President Trump's fundraising drastically increased, and polling showed that he has increased the gap between him and his most serious challenger, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.  If Andrew McCarthy is prescient about the Democrats' plan, it just might be very effective.  Having President Biden run against a polarizing former president, one who is dealing with multiple lawsuits, and investigations by politically calculating elected law enforcement officials, his bombastic and counter-punching philosophy, will surely turn away many voters who are not Biden fans.  As the last two elections have shown, Donald Trump's coattails are not that beneficial.  Many far-right Republicans who courted the MAGA ("Make America Great Again") base of GOP support went down to defeat in 2020, special elections in 2021, and may as well in the next general election cycle.  If the Republicans hope to win back the White House in 2024, the party must move forward with ABT ("Anybody But Trump").

The lasting effect of "Crossing the Rubicon" is that former Presidents are no longer untouchable, regardless of public opinion about them. Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush were polarizing to some extent, but they were never sued, or prosecuted by U.S. Attorneys or attorneys general once they left the Oval Office. Politically calculating law enforcement officials, who stand to win support from within their party to match their larger political ambitions, will forever erode trust in our political system, cause more fighting, and will lead to more "peaceful" protests and storming the U.S. Capitol by supporters of both parties.  That is why this move by Alvin Bragg is so dangerous to the country.

When Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River separating modern-day southern France (Roman province of Gaul) from the Italian Peninsula, it changed Rome's politics drastically. This move was deemed illegal by Roman law (governors of their provinces could not lead its military forces into Rome itself) against Caesar's actions and led to a civil war within the Roman Republic and ended with him becoming "dictator for life" as Emperor (Wikipedia).

These lawsuits against Donald Trump may in fact prove his guilt, but the process has not won popular support or affirmed respect based on accusations from the broader general public, or some Republicans. As former Congressman Charlie Wilson (R-Texas) once said tongue-in-cheek, members of Congress are elected by donors, not voters.  I believe these legal investigations into President Trump were encouraged by influential donors from both political parties who have an aversion to him personally.  While that may be true, the lasting damage these investigations, charges, and court proceedings will do will push many Americans into believing our run as a country might end soon.  If both political parties and their donors and supporters do not acknowledge political defeat and victory by their opponents, and leave former presidents alone, then this endless cycle will lead to more former presidents being investigated and charged.  I predict it will lead to civil unrest and violence and serious damage to our country.  We as a nation have crossed the Rubicon.  Can we prove history wrong, and cross back?

2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar: A Sweet and Sour Fan Experience

 

February 3, 2023

Last November and December, the world sat transfixed as one of soccer's greatest stars, Lionel Messi, led his native Argentina to their elusive third world title in the tiny country of Qatar.  It was a controversial moment in December of 2010 when FIFA awarded a country with no soccer history or culture, the pinnacle of the sport's international tournaments.  It turned out to be a World Cup with many underlying negative storylines (its stance on LGBTQ issues, international workers, and women's rights). Those issues still did not overshadow the incredible games that progressed over the monthlong tournament.   

______________________________

The 2022 FIFA World Cup was one of the most memorable football tournaments in recent memory, possibly ever.  The important issues being discussed before the quadrennial event were the dubious process and methods that awarded the spectacle to a tiny country with no real soccer culture or commercial appeal.  What did entice voting members of FIFA's Executive Committee was the rumored, large sums of money that were given to those who voted favorably for the gulf state. I remember reading countless online publications and watching ESPN once Qatar was announced as the winner over the heavy favorite, the United States.  There was palpable shock and surprise, and shortly after, many media pundits and sports anchors believed there was some unfortunate, backroom horse-trading that transferred votes to the gulf state.  Additionally, the specter of imported workers from poor regions of Asia, Africa, and India building these gigantic stadiums, which resulted in an unconfirmed (official) number of deaths, received a small amount of negative publicity. It was talked about relatively little in Western media (including during the World Cup by the late soccer writer, Grant Wahl), but nothing was really proposed to protect workers from these practices leading up to the World Cup.

The games themselves were full of drama, with doses of "shock and awe", and had many surprising teams pull off victories for their passionate supporters, some of whom traveled in large numbers with them.  In the group stage, viewers saw the eventual winner Argentina lose to Saudi Arabia, generally a minnow in international soccer. Japan surprisingly defeated the 4-time winner, and global powerhouse Germany along with European power Spain, which allowed them to win the tough Group E and eliminate Germany from the knock-out rounds.  Germany has not made it out of a World Cup group since 2014,  the year in which they last won it all.  That is a mind-blowing statistic for a country that produces stellar players and has a reputation for being tough opponents to beat consistently.

Another country that captured the world's attention and support was Morocco.  The north African country has never made any waves in tournaments they have played, but in Qatar, they beat Belgium (2-0), Canada (2-1), and tied 2018 Runner-Up Croatia (0-0).  They beat Group E runner-up Spain in the Round of 16 (3-0) and defeated Cristiano Ronaldo in the Quarterfinals to make a historic statement by making the Semifinals, the first time an African team has made it.  They won the hearts of many soccer fans, but their journey to mythical status was cut short by the defending World Champions, France.  They would eventually lose the 3rd place game for an impressive fourth-place finish.  They are the new bar for African teams when they participate in this tournament now.

After the failure of not qualifying for the 2018 tournament, the United States Men's National Team (USMNT) made it to Qatar with a young, talented squad that was a little "wet behind the ears." Most soccer analysts believed the U.S. team would stand a good chance of getting out of the group, but advance no farther than the Round of 16, which is what happened when the United States ran into a solid Netherlands team.  I for one had hoped the men would put up a good fight, and they did in spurts throughout the game, but three fatal failures during the run of play and on defensive lapses sealed their defeat.  Most USMNT fans feel the results were acceptable of the tournament but now hope that with the experience on the world stage behind them, the team can do great things in front of their home fans when this great tournament comes to Canada, Mexico, and the United States.  I would love for them to make a final (and even win!) on home soil, but I am just hoping for a good show and a respectable run.

The 2022 FIFA World Cup champion, Argentina, even though it was one of the favorites, did not start the tournament well.  After their defeat to Saudi Arabia, their next game against Mexico would be pivotal; this would tell soccer fans whether they had the horses to get back on track.  While Mexico provided a good test, Argentina passed with flying colors and would win their group. In the Round of 16, they held on against a tough Australia squad (who nearly equalized in injury time), 2-1.  Next up was the Netherlands in the Quarterfinals, which was a dark horse team to go far in the tournament. It was one of the best games to date.  The Dutch went down 1-0, then 2-1 until Wout Weghorst tied the game in injury time.  It was one of the most surreal endings to a soccer game I have seen in many years (outside of LAFC tying the Philadephia Union in the Major League Soccer [MLS] Final the other time). Neither team scored in Extra Time, and the game was decided in penalties, which the Argentinians won in dramatic fashion. Leo Messi and his fellow Abliceleste (White and Sky Blue) easily handled Croatia in the Semi-finals.  

The final, Argentina vs. France, matched countries that have previously won the World Cup twice, and the winner would win their coveted third star above their crest.  In the first half, Argentina set the pace, controlling possession, and keeping French striker Kylian Mbappe at bay, for a comfortable 2-0 lead at halftime.  The second half saw France exert itself, using two penalties and a beautiful third strike by Mbappe to send the game into Extra Time and giving him a hat trick in a final, something that has not been done in 60 years. This classic would go to penalties, which can go either way, but this time, whether it be destiny or luck, Argentina won. It gave Argentinians something to celebrate, lifted a huge burden off of Leonel Messi, and put him in rarified air with another Argentine legend, Diego Maradona.  It was a fitting end to this great tournament.

Now that the tournament is over, there are things that FIFA can do to ensure that future World Cups do not have any negative stigmas surrounding the build-up before the first game is kicked off. The Executive Committee should enshrine in their rules that any host country, or countries, must pass certain criteria and benchmarks that promote equal rights for all: LGBTQ and especially women. Those who build the infrastructure (stadiums, roadways, FanFest locations, etc.) must have protections so that their welfare is paramount and will not be abused during the lead-up to the tournament.  No country bidding to host the FIFA World Cup that excludes ethnic or religious minorities, people who have been historically abused or mistreated, or do not have equal rights, should be allowed to win hosting rights at all. This must be strictly enforced, no matter how much money a bid amount is thrown at FIFA's Executive Committee (I am looking at you Qatar).  This is known as "sport washing," where a country with a dubious track record of protecting human rights and authoritarianism is allowed to host global events (World Cup, Olympics, F1 racing) and launders their sins through these sporting spectacles, and buys or bullies for positive press during a monthlong tournament, like the World Cup.  Qatar and China are two countries that exhibit this idea. FIFA should be stringent in the guidelines that Executive Committee voting members must adhere to in order to vote for a country's winning bid.

The United States, which is co-hosting the 2026 FIFA World Cup with Canada and Mexico, has some of the best stadiums in the world, and along with a strong currency and economy, it should break all kinds of attendance, viewership and attendance records (that it held since the 1994 World Cup in the United States).  The U.S. Men's National Team and the United States Soccer Federation (USSF) need to get their house in order before that event arrives in America, however. Recently, it was discovered that there was tension between two families within the U.S. soccer community, those of current coach Greg Berhalter and Claudio Reyna, both of whom played soccer together for years: club, college, MLS, and the USMNT. Since Mr. Berhalter did not play Gio Reyno (son of Claudio) regularly during the recent World Cup, Mr. Reyna's wife told senior officials at the USSF that he had assaulted his wife nearly two decades ago.  This purported blackmail, so that Greg Berhalter is punished for not playing their son and not allowed to return to coaching the national team, has been a serious black eye for the men's program.  

The federation needs to remove all parties who are involved and associated with any previous misdeeds and not allow them to feature prominently for either MLS or the USSF.  The USSF needs to find a coach with a solid track record of taking a group of players and having them play above their weight, to coach the latest generation which has proved it has more talent than the teams of the past.  Hope springs eternal, and for once in 2026, it may meet expectations for U.S. men's national team fans.

What happened to the "Red Tsunami?" The Democrats bucked past precedent for parties in power.

 

December 24, 2022

The recent runoff decision for the United States Senate seat in Georgia, between incumbent Rafael Warnock and former NFL player Herschel Walker, completed the last of the elections for the 2022 Midterms.  Senator Warnock was re-elected by a razor-thin margin. It put a definitive exclamation point on results that upended conventional wisdom. Usually, the incumbent President's party loses seats during their first election cycle. This has been the norm for decades.  How did Democrats prevail despite the political winds heavily favoring the Republican party?

________________________________

The 2022 Midterm elections were shaping up to be a celebratory year for the GOP in Congress, with an uninspiring Democratic President, inflation, fluctuating oil prices on the open market, an embarrassing withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan, and Americans unhappy with the direction of the country overall. Things were looking up for the Republicans.  How did the Democrats lose only the House (barely) and hold onto their Senate majority with an equally slight advantage despite most people believing it was going to be a good night for their opposition?

I think the recent Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade played a very large part in public sentiment, despite conservatives believing that a large percentage of Americans agreed with that ruling. I am of the belief that while some women would never terminate their own pregnancy under any circumstances, a good number of others would prefer it was an option available to them if the need arose.  A large reason for success during non-presidential year elections is voter turnout, and voters turn out if they are motivated to do so.  While overturning abortion may have been on the wish list for Republican voters for decades, it possibly proved pivotal in turning out Democratic voters.

Another factor in the Democrats' favor was poor candidate selection by the Republican National Committee (RNC) in the Georgia senate race between Herschel Walker and incumbent Rafael Warnock.  Mr. Walker had a myriad of personal issues (abortions for his past girlfriends, his openness about his multiple personalities, not believing in evolution, and poor debate performance) and it did not instill confidence in Republicans in that state that he could win.  Doctor Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania was another problem candidate.  Despite his high-profile name recognition, his personal wealth, his relationship with Oprah (who endorsed his opponent), and fundraising prowess, he failed to beat his Democratic opponent, John Fetterman, who suffered a stroke before the election and embarrassed himself during their one and only debate.  The Fetterman campaign was smart in scheduling the debate a month after early voting began, thereby reducing the chances for Dr. Oz to change the minds of undecided voters.

The Republicans did see the presumptive frontrunner for the Republican nomination for President in 2024, Ron DeSantis get re-elected easily in Florida.  Additionally, the Democrats saw some of their candidates win high-profile statewide executive positions (Gavin Newsom in California, Gretchen Witmer in Michigan, Katie Hobbs in Arizona), and the party was able to prevent Republicans win a large number of governorships.  In some of those races (Witmer and Hobbs), the Republican candidates were closing the polling and enthusiasm gaps, and it appeared that the GOP would gain those seats, but in the end, the Democrats eked out those wins on election night.  

While the 2022 Midterms were not a total disaster for the Republicans, the party's leadership was clearly not happy with the final results.   The Democrats, however, didn't exhibit any tactical mastery in strategy nor did the outcome reinforce President Biden's popularity.  A lot of it came down to Republican mistakes and poor candidate choices as previously stated.  Additionally, the public embrace of former President Donald Trump (Kari Lake in Arizona), and other candidates did not have the draw or appeal that many Trump supporters thought it would.  I think the American people are tired of constant claims of "election fraud," or "re-instating" candidates who lost.  I believe that Trump's time as the power broker in the Republican party is coming to an end, and the sooner the GOP realizes this, the party can move on and find new candidates to carry the torch for their political platform.   

The 2022 Midterms were really a message to the Republican party, in that voters were tired of the antics of Donald Trump, and the drama he brings with the national media, including those who wish to monetize their animosity towards him.  The American people want their government to be competent and improve and protect the quality of life for their families.  

Conservative candidates and incumbents didn't provide any solutions for current issues either, such as illegal border crossings, and how to stem that flow of illegal migrants crossing into the United States in large numbers.  Nor was any serious thought given, with policy initiatives, to improving the economy or giving Americans hope for the future.  It's no wonder the party was not able to make any inroads with disaffected voters or gain new voters for the party.  In order to win, you have to give people something to vote for, rather than vote against a President that half the country doesn't dislike (even though his policies do not seem to win over too many people).  Candidate selection is part of it, and the other key element is proving solutions that Americans can get behind.  I believe the GOP "phoned in" their strategy for victory, which simply means they thought supportive polling and a political environment for the taking would take care of itself.  Hollow slogans do not push political parties over the finish line. Rather, it is fulfilling promises with hard choices that warrant victory.

Will the Republican party learn from the lessons of the 2022 Midterms? Will they move on from the Donald Trump era and coalesce behind a new face of the party?  Will they be better at choosing good candidates and providing them with the tools to be successful?  Time will tell what the party does to prepare for the pivotal races in two years.  The 2024 election will be a monumental election, and one whose results with have consequences for many, many years.  If the GOP is smart they will take stock of where they went wrong, admit their costly errors and come back a better party.  For if they do not, the shock of losing winnable races will culminate in losing the party's most coveted race in 2024, the White House.

Immigation Wars come to Martha's Vineyard

 

November 5, 2022

Last month Florida governor Ron DeSantis transported immigrants who entered the United States illegally and were sent to his state by the federal government, to Martha's Vineyard, a wealthy enclave where elites have weekend or summer homes, in the eastern part of Massachusetts.  Was it a brilliant move, or a shameless attempt to win points with supporters, at the expense of migrants and the immigration debate?

_________________________

The immigration war between the two rival Republican and Democrat parties and the activists for and against this contentious issue was given a new twist in this conflict. Governor DeSantis of Florida sent 50 migrants, mostly Venezuelan citizens, to the very wealthy and exclusive community in Massachusetts, Martha's Vineyard. It received a lot of coverage on national networks, especially conservative outlets like Fox News, and has drawn attention again to the impasse of what the country should do for its immigration policy.

Whatever your opinion is of the plight of these illegal immigrants, and their relationship to our broken immigration system overall, they are sadly being used as pawns between these political parties and their donors for political gain. This is unacceptable.  The United States has a myriad of problems, and finding common ground for solving this contentious issue should be a priority.

There is urgency for a resolution to this challenging issue. It is not productive for both political parties to go back and forth, placing blame on the other without trying to find a more pragmatic and humane treatment of these people. This vacillation, the lack of initiative, non-cooperation, and deferring legislation is causing serious conflict between various citizens, organized groups, and large companies. It has generated anger and conflict between American citizens who want to limit immigration rules and activist groups that argue on behalf of their desire to enter by any means necessary. It will generate vigilantism amongst those worried about the "invasion" from our southern border, where over 2 million have come across during the first two years of the Biden Administration, based on reporting by national media outlets.  Under the Trump administration, curbing illegal immigration was not successful, but inexplicably it did reduce legal immigration, according to the CATO Institute.  It seems neither party has any real or substantive record of dealing with this problem and seems to paradoxically reduce the right kind of immigration in favor of uncontrolled immigration.

Activists seem to bypass and ignore government regulations and laws already on the books and try to change those laws to bring in more illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America, in my opinion. Ignoring this aspect of the immigration issue is not healthy, or useful. It is essentially "gaslighting" (pretending a viewpoint does not exist) those in favor of sound immigration policy,  and could lead to great discord and violence if there is no resolution.  That is why hammering out a pragmatic official U.S. policy is a priority that will bring down the temperature of disagreement for all involved. More importantly, it brings about fairness for those wishing to emigrate to the United States while protecting their dignity.

Why does this problem persist with no reasonable resolution? My belief is that donors to both parties enjoy low-cost labor that does not require benefits and livable wages that rise with the cost of inflation.  This results in larger corporate profits and does not incentivize the Democrats or Republicans to work out a solution.  Listening to podcasts, national media, and reading online print publications, there is an argument made by conservatives that Democrats promote this policy because they want to provide benefits (social entitlements) to new immigrants and build relationships to promote party loyalty that produces predictable and dependable voters.  

This "demographics is destiny" idea does have weight, especially when you see it being promoted loosely on MSNBC and CNN by their media personalities and paid contributors. Fox News opposingly scares citizens into a fear of immigration from regions different from the early 20th century (people fleeing famine, war, and religious persecution in Europe) such as Central and Latin America, the African continent, India, and Asia.

What are we to do about immigration? Here are some of my suggestions:

• "Remain in Mexico" policy: Any persons seeking entry into the United States from nations south of the U.S.- Mexico border should adhere to the "remain in Mexico" policy, which would require submitting a request to the U.S. government and stating the reason for being granted entry before entering the United States. Those immigrants would then have to wait in Mexico until their own case is ruled upon by a U.S. government asylum officer. This would alleviate any issues at the border and prevent any future humanitarian crises similar to what is happening now along sections of the U.S.-Mexico border. In countries where there is a stable democracy or human rights are upheld, perhaps those seeking immigration into the United States can get on a waitlist, or seek special consideration for an expedited process? Another solution would be to send any immigrant back to their country of origin to begin a legal process to emigrate to the United States. This places the onus on Mexico's government, which may lead to discouraging illegal entry from other Central and Latin American countries to that country as well.
• Enforce indefinitely "Title 42:" The Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) instituted an emergency regulation, pertaining to health law in the country. During the Covid-19 pandemic, it was enacted to prohibit persons who may have a communicable disease from entering the country so they can be screened.  I think this should be applied to all persons who seek entry into the country so that in addition to requiring it of American citizens, new immigrants are held to the same standard. This can be done at a country of origin rather than at the United States border.
• Give priorities to high-skilled workers: Continued importance should be given to any persons seeking entry into the United States who have a skill that can be useful and productive to the communities where they will live (IT professionals, physicians, engineers, lawyers, etc.) as well as serving the American economy. Anyone who can improve their communities and bring an important, necessary skill should be streamlined against those who have no persecution as their primary reason and have lower skills. This idea should be incorporated into any new and updated immigration policy. Seeking a better life for the less fortunate is fine, but there needs to be a limit on how many of those qualify under that standard so the system of the social safety net is not excessively burdened.
• Updated Immigration Laws: Republicans and Democrats in Congress must work cooperatively for a decisive and fair immigration law that the country can use as a uniform policy, where there are definitive directives and U.S. codes that federal agencies and state governments must strictly adhere to. Anything less will incite anger and conflict.  Rules, such as "Remain in Mexico," and Title 42, must be incorporated into any new policy for it to be humane and effective. Taxpayers will likely agree to fund if this legislation meets their goals.
• Find where taxpayer money can be used for greater effect: Most immigrants who come, both legally and illegally, from Central and South America usually have family or friends already here who can provide them with some assistance (housing, food, resources, etc). I don't think housing is the real problem.  The crux is where to best spend taxpayer funds, and I think that is for healthcare, education, and job skills training. Perhaps states or municipalities can provide better data on where tax money can better be used to help immigrants assimilate and become productive in American society.
• "Encourage" nonprofits who support illegal immigration to help finance costs through taxation: One of the many problems with illegal immigration is the massive financial costs that are paid with taxpayer funds.  Since these activist groups are in favor of this type of immigration, perhaps they can be taxed and those funds used to help provide shelter, food, and any other forms of assistance to better assimilate into our communities?

The general public must push members of Congress to work on any new bills since corporate interests and activists for undocumented immigrants will be against any proposed immigration law.  The American people need to be aggressive in reminding their representatives that fixing the corrupt and broken immigration system is of enormous importance, and needs to be done in the near future.  The sad part is that for either political party, anything that is done is usually based on a two-year political cycle and whether it will affect individuals, their professional, and the party's fortunes at the ballot box, rather than what will protect our border and improve immigration for all.  Pragmatism and common sense are never motivators for progress in the halls of Congress, and that needs to change.

What is the real purpose of the January 6th Committee?

 

September 6, 2022

Over the last few months, Americans have been given the opportunity to witness the hearings of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. Various witnesses have been presented to a committee hand-picked by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with only two Republicans (Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger), both of whom have been ostracized by the GOP caucus for their participation.  In an angry and divided country, where Republicans and Democrats both trade using the power of the government for their own ends, what is the ultimate purpose of the committee itself?

______________________________

According to various media personality opinions, the committee's main goal is to bring justice to those who unlawfully entered the United States Capitol on January 6th when the 2020 election results were being certified by Congress.  It was truly a shameful day in American history, and those who were trespassing, and causing property damage while the Electoral College results were approved should be prosecuted under federal law. I fully agree with that.

However, the committee's goal does not appear to seek prosecution of those who committed any crimes.  The members do not seem to investigate the root causes of why Trump Supporters decided to storm the U.S. Capitol and voice their anger and opposition to certifying results. For the 9/11 Congressional Commission, which sought to make public errors on the part of the government, the foreign policy establishment, and domestic security entities, leading up to that fateful day in 2001, this January 6th committee isn't by comparison interested in finding the primary motive for what transpired that day. It appears that the goal of this committee does not seek out answers so this episode never happens again. I don't see any effort to put out any simmering fires of voter resentment, or mistrust in how we conduct fair elections since that day.  The committee must do more in their transparency, to strive to make assurances to a divided electorate about why our elections have become so violent in their opposition to either dominant political party, and what things can be done to lower the temperature and enforce civility for future election outcomes.  That is the most important message and purpose in my view.  

The January 6th Committee has called several witnesses, some of whom have worked in the White House at different levels of seniority, (including Mark Meadows and aide Cassidy Hutchison), and journalists embedded with the groups in the crowd (Oath Keepers, Proud Boys), election night workers, former Department of Justice (DOJ) officials, all to gather what took place in the months, weeks and days leading up to election night.  Some of the testimony that I have watched or listened to, and questions from the committee members themselves, seem to paint or imply a direct line to one person, and one person only, former President Donald Trump.  The committee doesn't seem to want to find out why people stormed the Capitol but instead wants to gather evidence to directly blame Mr. Trump.  To be fair, former President Trump played a significant role in creating the tinder for this whole affair when he made ludicrous statements that the "election was rigged," and that his rightful victory was taken from him. Is he the sole cause or the largest, most visible participant in the immense damage done to American democracy and a politically convenient figure to target?

One complaint from conservatives and Republicans is that there was no cross-examining of any of the witnesses. Since this is not a trial per se, I don't think there is any reason for cross-examination.  Witnesses provided their testimony and then were excused.  People watching the hearings may assume what happened, but since it is a Congressional, and not a civil matter, there is no requirement that any witness has their testimony challenged. Since the committee is largely skewed toward Democrats, with only two Republicans represented in Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, the GOP complaints seem valid.

What is the actual purpose of these hearings?  Will there be criminal charges levied against Mr. Trump by the DOJ?  Was the committee trying to tie some sort of Constitutional technicality on Mr. Trump to what happened on January 6th? I believe there is language in the United States Constitution that implies disqualification for anyone from running for federal office that leads to any sort of "insurrection" against the United States government (14th Amendment).  Many political pundits on television seem to tie the words "Trump" and "insurrection" together at every turn. I believe this repetition is geared toward creating a self-fulfilling prophecy and will eventually come to fruition, either through evidence unearthed through these hearings, or other factors, such as the DOJ seeking certain "classified" documents from Mr. Trump. It is to eventually convince Americans that there was something truly nefarious about his actions, and he imperiled democracy, with the smallest amount of implication and inference.

If there is evidence proving former President Trump's guilt, then let him receive justice. However, if after time, it is obvious that this is shown to be an exercise to damage or remove a prospective challenger with a real chance of defeating President Biden in 2024, then it will only further enrage his supporters and make it even harder to have impartial election results. Additionally, it could cost Mr. Biden any moral sympathy and support from independent voters.  Attorney General Merrick Garland and the DOJ must provide sound reasoning (as well as evidence) as to why they are using these drastic methods.  

In light of the recent developments where the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) raided former President Trump's Florida residence at Mar-a-Lago, things certainly have become more interesting. This event has raised the stakes, and according to national media and many online publications seem to believe that there were secret nuclear documents or sharing of "classified documents," which, if true, is most damaging to the case against Mr. Trump. The Affidavit that the DOJ used to get a warrant was released on Friday, August 26th.  Most of the text was redacted, but from what remained, there did not appear to be any incriminating behavior from former President Trump.  That could change if the redacted words are available for public viewing, but for now, the DOJ needs to make a concerted effort to show the country that there is a serious case to charge the former President.

So far, the January 6th Committee has done nothing to show who was actually behind the riot at the Capitol or provided any evidence as to what was the primary cause to get so many people to charge inside the building illegally.  I find what the committee has done so far as mostly window dressing.  For the country to approve charging a former President with a crime, the evidence must be damning, overwhelming, unequivocal, and most importantly, not for political gain. Anything less will not suffice and could damage Mr. Biden's chance for re-election.  Most importantly, the DOJ, Merrick Garland, and the White House may have charted a path that will take generations for the country to recover from, or not at all.

Will "Wokeness" cause division and conflict in American society?

 

July 22, 2022

During the period before and during the civil rights era in America, the phrase "stay woke" was to instill in its supporters a commandment to remain vigilant and not lose sight of the prize, racial and gender equality.  Additionally, it was softly spoken so as to be aware of the deception and malice by anyone toward African-Americans in general. 

Today, that has morphed into an extreme and fanatical version of political correctness. It is an over-emphasis on empathy and understanding of those marginalized communities (LGBTQIA, African-Americans, Native Americans, and others who are on the periphery of American consciousness) which has turned into a type of militant, conformist coercion from those who are the "enemy."  In many cases, the anger is directed at white people and men in particular.  This era of "wokeness" is a danger to our country.

_________________________________

Over the last few years, the term "woke" has come into formal and informal discourse amongst Americans.  The term has existed but has not been used regularly, even in the mainstream legacy media, until recently.  From what I had read, the term was spoken about by African-Americans during the fight for racial equality, and to protect future generations about the dangers of deception from outside the community.  I believe over decades the term slowly started to matriculate into the consciousness of the university system in America as well, which is the fuel for today's incarnation.

However, it wasn't until the shooting death of Michael Brown by a Ferguson (Missouri) police officer in 2014 that brought the term into the national discourse of race relations. At least, that is according to an October 2020 Vox article by writer Aja Romano. In it, she detailed how the term was used by activists to warn black people to be prepared for police violence toward African-Americans by mostly white police officers. Ms. Romano states that the term "woke" was then taken over as the main political ideology of the progressive Left, but also used as a negative connotation by the Right.  Her article goes on to imply that "wokeism" has been incorporated into progressive social justice platforms and the introduction of critical race theory into the public consciousness. This has been steadily building over time.

I believe what pushed this ideology into its current aggressive, coercive militarism was the collision of multiple political hurricanes in the form of the Trump presidency, a once-in-a-century pandemic, Americans losing their jobs and financial security, and a need for an outlet after almost two years of social isolation.  The explosive charge for all of this was the video of George Floyd being killed under police custody for a drug-related incident.  

While I feel there was a genuine sense of outrage at how Mr. Floyd was treated by the Minneapolis Police Department, and Americans generally wanted to show their displeasure against what happened, the rioting and civil unrest that followed through to Election Day in November 2020 was encouraged by hidden, monied forces in our political donor class. There were images caught on television that showed rioters leaving bags filled with bricks for other miscreants, which were intended to be used as projectiles against police in cities where riots were happening.  I remember seeing news reports of U-haul truck rentals that had shields and other weapons that were purportedly paid in cash intending for a battle by the protesters.  In my opinion, the national mood was turned into an opportunity for political gain by the Democrats against an unpopular President Trump. I feel the media took advantage of the tragedy to further inflame public sentiment against the President when in reality the political pundit class should have initiated a national dialogue on better policing, instead of pushing "defund the police" narratives.  Alas, an opportunity was overlooked.

Wokeism has led to the rise in "cancel culture," in which ordinary Americans who shared unpopular or uncouth opinions, are summarily fired from their places of work. Potential university students who were accepted at their college of choice were told their acceptances would be revoked due to their right-leaning, or unpopular, non-conforming positions.  Additionally, college professors who refused to grade students of color on lenient grading curves were chastised by students and some of their colleagues.  Some have even left the profession entirely rather than go against the idea of being able to argue their positions with students and being forced to bend the knee to the mob without any sort of protection.  Even protection in the form of tenure is being used as a carrot for coerced acceptance of woke positions.

Critical Race Theory posits that through all aspects of American life, there exists a historic systemic racial oppression by white people, especially ingrained in fields of medicine, law, engineering, and other professions especially.  The belief is that in order to dismantle these supposed obstacles to racial equality, certain racial groups (Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color-BIPOC) must be given preference, or outright bias in terms of promotion, hiring, and other support in their careers, whether they be in Fortune 500 companies and government service, including the military.  While I do think certain measures can be taken to ensure more people of color, women, and members of the LGBTQIA are given opportunities for career advancement and acceptance into prestigious universities and companies, I do not think merit should be removed entirely.  Talent, hard work, drive, and persistence should still be the characteristics that allow people to succeed in this country.  To remove merit would pose serious damage to how we as a country view ourselves affecting our prowess and would place an undue burden and resentment, on those who were given preferential treatment.  Race and gender should be considered as a tie-breaker if you will when there are many qualified candidates for career advancement,  but they should never be the primary vehicle to reward and promote talent.

Finally, wokeism has led to a trend called Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria, which are ideas and value systems that evolved from wokeness into a set of standards that companies use for their internal policies (pay structure, equal pay, relationships with suppliers, partners, etc), their business model (how they do business, mission statement), and safeguarding the environment against climate change.  It works in conjunction with ideas similar to "diversity, equity, and inclusion," which are race and gender metrics used to determine hiring, promotion, and retaining memberships in exclusive organizations. For example, Blackrock, the huge hedge fund, publicly said they will look into who they do their business with based on their ESG score, and whether race and gender barometers meet their acceptable threshold. Salesforce, a cloud computing company based in San Francisco, explained on 60 Minutes to explain the value of paying men and women the same.  These large companies are not charities or non-profits but rather, they are in the business of making large amounts of money.  I seriously doubt these practices will ever stop them from making money, and they certainly will not lose money based on this principle.  While the public relations strategy hides the profit motives, for example, Blackrock buying large swaths of real estate in concentrated neighborhoods, thereby pricing out average Americans from home ownership is not discussed on a large scale.

Even the Department of Defense favors the woke movement, creating and promoting programs to "educate" members in the usage of personal pronouns, promoting the idea of systemic racial oppression, and creating tribalism within the ranks (literally and figuratively).  A large percentage of America's military personnel hails from the Midwest and the South, and as a result, the Pentagon announced recently that they will miss their recruiting targets for the 2022 calendar year. It's not hard to fathom out why people are reluctant to serve in a military that promotes this nonsense which disregards that their lives have equal value.
 

After these tumultuous last two years, I see a backlash growing as a result of these shameful policies.  After comedian Dave Chappelle made a controversial comedy special on Netflix, protests within the company ensued to cancel his production.  Senior management sent a surprising company-wide letter informing those who were upset that creative people must be allowed to express their own ideas and thoughts, and if anyone was offended by that policy, should work elsewhere.  I was shocked when I read about the decision. Hollywood movies with an agenda to promote this idea did not seem to make money, and some were downright failures (Lightyear, from Disney's Pixar Studios, for example). Despite Netflix's brave stand, the company released data that showed the company had lost one million subscribers (although that was lower than the projected two million subscribers).  Time will tell if that pushback grows into an unstoppable force or retreats.

Wokeism is not a sudden sensation but rather, built up slowly over many decades by proponents and activists but exploded into the country's consciousness with the trifecta of Covid-19 (with isolation and depression and anger that followed), loss of jobs, and financial security due to the pandemic, and the trauma of Democrats view of the Trump presidency.  It is now fully ensconced in all aspects of our society.    

Removing deleterious aspects of wokeism is not a quick fix but must be slowly removed one day at a time and will take years, if not decades.  If the Republicans take control of both houses of Congress, they must work with President Biden to promote more opportunities for Americans, while making merit, hard work, and persistence the cornerstone for individual success.  The Biden administration or a future Republican administration must reassess Critical Race Theory, stop demonizing Americans for their personal views or their race, and return the military to an elite fighting force that focuses on mission success.  

I would recommend including race and gender as tie-breaker when selecting candidates for promotion and hiring, but it should not replace a character, moral values, or those who are deserving based on impartial criteria.  If things don't change, wokeism will become something similar to theocracies or autocratic governments in other parts of the world.  This will involve a small, exclusive group of people who will benefit, live large and happy, and determine who is rewarded with success, while the vast majority of citizens spend their time fighting, spying, and arguing with each other. The quality of life will deteriorate and the American experiment and its Dream will end.  As a country, we Americans must fight to protect what made it great while trying to constantly evolve for the better.  Wokeism is not the answer, but a blueprint for failure and must be avoided at all costs.

 

Roe v Wade Supreme Court Ruling: Why It Was Not a Shock

 

July 10, 2022

On June 24th, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) voted to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade ruling, which protected a women's right to medical privacy, which included the ability to terminate her pregnancy.  Although shocking news, many Americans were aware this was likely to happen when someone associated with the court mysteriously, but purposely, leaked a draft of the majority opinion to a sympathetic news outlet.

_______________________________

For innumerable women across the political spectrum, this was a sacrosanct procedure.  For Republicans and other conservatives, this judicial ruling was the outcome of efforts stemming from the strategy for presidential candidates to nominate strong Constitutional judges to the senior bench. Overturning this precedent and law through a court case was paramount to their passion and beliefs as conservatives.  For Democrats and liberals, protecting this precedent was vital to win the voting preferences of women, who tend to be regular, loyal, and dependable voters for the party.

When President Obama was a candidate for president in 2008, during his campaign he promised, that as one of his early endeavors, he would push through the Freedom of Choice Act, which "declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child; terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability or terminate a pregnancy after established viability when necessary to protect her life or health.  This Act prohibits a federal, state, or local government entity from denying or interfering with a woman's right to exercise such choices; or discriminating against the exercise of those rights in the regulation or provision of benefits facilities, services, or information" (Congressional Research Service).

After the recent ruling, many Democrats in Congress and their supporters want President Biden to "codify" abortion, which simply means to enshrine it into law or create a systemic federal code that protects women who choose to terminate a pregnancy. It would carry onward the language and spirit of the Freedom of Choice Act.  It is unsure at this time if Mr. Biden has the votes for this to happen.  Trying to do so before this year's midterms has high risk and reward for the Democrats at a time when their majorities in both chambers of Congress hang in the balance. In my opinion, party insiders and senior leadership feel that something needs to be done since women comprise an important demographic in the Democratic coalition, and not doing anything would jeopardize their valuable voting power.  On July 8th, President Biden signed an Executive Order which sought to protect access to abortion medication, and emergency contraception, protect patient privacy, launch public education efforts, provide legal advice pro bono, and security at facilities that provide those services (CNN.com).

Republicans felt vindicated and joyous after the ruling since it was a culmination of almost 50 years of dogged determination on their part to force Republican presidential candidates to nominate "contextual" Constitutional judges from the federal bench to the Supreme Court.  Conservative dogma belied that the 1973 ruling was not in accordance with any Constitutional protection and that it was a matter for states to determine this through their voters.  Their mission succeeded, although no one knows how this ruling will affect the political futures of Republicans and Democrats. I feel that while Republicans approve of the Supreme Court referring the matter to the states, their ultimate goal is to outlaw the procedure throughout the country.

Some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee (Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Susan Collins of Maine) felt publicly betrayed by recent Supreme Court appointees, nominated by President Trump (Judges Gorsuch and Kavanaugh), who stated during their confirmation hearings that Roe v Wade was an accepted precedent. Some, such as Representative Ocasio-Cortez, want to impeach those judges who went against what they said in their testimony, but this is a tenous idea.

Conservatives made the case that their opposition to abortion was the protection of human life and that babies and the unborn need advocacy for their "rights."  Democrats counter that if Republicans truly cared about children, they would support government services and programs for prenatal and postpartum care, childcare, maternity leave, and educational services through young adulthood to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Supporters of Democrats also point out that there is a lack of clarification (also from some corners of the GOP) of what happens when complications from pregnancy arise: such as an ectopic pregnancy (fertilized egg growing in the fallopian tube outside the uterus), or miscarriage, when terminations of pregnancy are necessary to preserve the health of the mother, would it violate the recent SCOTUS ruling?

Some conservative online platforms, such as the Dailywire.com, state that any medical procedure to protect the life of the mother for those procedures would not be classified as a violation of the overrule of Roe v Wade rule and provided proof that medical websites such as WedMD, Mayo Clinic, and Planned Parenthood do not classify those options as "abortion." Ideally, having Democratic and Republican parties work out agreed-upon language and for medical indications and procedures that are protected by law would be a good thing for the country and demonstrate insight and clarity on a passionate issue for many.

Ultimately the fight over abortion is really a conflict between "two Americas" that have been growing apart for at least a generation. There are opposing viewpoints that eschew compromise, and empathy with those who don't share their worldview.  For some Democrats and liberals, abortion is viewed as a desired option so as not to interrupt the younger generation's ambitions to achieve professions and careers.  I think if companies provided and protected maternity leave, it would alleviate fears that careers may be put on hold or ruined by having children. That is my opinion. 

Anything that infringes on that purpose, is deemed sexist or misogynist.  Conservatives and Republicans feel that abortion is a vile procedure that violates the sanctity of life, biblical orthodoxy where they believe our morals originate, and the U.S. Constitution. Conservatives believe that the Constitution does not provide any language protecting the termination of a pregnancy.  Additionally, in this endeavor, they oppose teaching of sex education, the promotion of condoms and other safe sex methods, and promoting of abstinence, an essentially ineffective and impractical alternative.  The issue of abortion is really a proxy war between two diametrically opposed and unrelenting national views, and there seems to be no going back.  One side will be victorious, one side will lose, and American will never be the same.

One hopes that a new generation of Americans will take both views and come up with a fair compromise.  Those states that allow abortion will be protected and anyone who travels from a state where abortion is prohibited is ensured a safe procedure and avoids criminality.  In return, there must be some consensus in terms of how many weeks in a pregnancy will qualify for the procedure. Preliminary polling data shows that a segment of Americans wants to protect the procedure, but restrict it to 15 weeks, which seems generally accepted at this time. For abortion advocates, there should be no limit.  I feel, however, that there must be a medical basis to avoid indiscriminate procedures and to ensure safety and compliance.

If compromise is not reached, then the abortion battles will be part of a long war (abortion, guns, peaceful transfer of power after elections, etc.) where Americans demonize each other over issues they do not want to compromise on, and which will lead to a further unraveling of the American ethos.  Absolutism is not achievable in the American experiment in democracy.  Finding realistic solutions may not make everyone happy, but gives some hope of progress toward reconciliation.  From a national viewpoint, utilizing effective methods to tackle complex problems in a collaborative effort is likely to lead to greater agreement and acceptance.  That is my hope.

Uvalde, Texas: Turning Point on America's Conversation About Guns?

June 14, 2022

On May 24, 2022, Salvador Ramos, an 18-year-old troubled teen, shot his grandmother,  crashed a family truck near a school, took a large cache of weapons, and killed 19 precious kids, and two heroic teachers in the third most deadly mass school shooting. Is now the turning point for a serious discussion between effective and pragmatic gun laws, while threading the needle of the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution?

___________________________________

With the images of the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting in 2012 fading from memory, another horrible and tragic mass casualty event at an elementary school has brought the contentious gun debate into the American consciousness front and center again. This tragedy took place at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas.  These types of shootings happen in America with troublesome regularity. The sad part is that Americans have become numb and it doesn't shock our country anymore. Before Uvalde, the nation absorbed the shooting outside of Buffalo, New York at a supermarket patronized predominately by African-Americans, which killed 10 people. Will this shooting be the episode that forces entrenched members of Congress into a serious, bipartisan movement that brings about change?  If there is change, what does it look like?

The shooting in Uvalde, Texas was made all the more jarring after the initial shock wore off, because of intense scrutiny of how law enforcement officials behaved, and it was not good.  

It appeared that Mr. Ramos started shooting after he crashed the pick-up truck, across the street from a funeral home and when staff attempted to come to his aid, he opened fire on them with his AR-15.  One of the employees contacted 911 about an active shooter.  After that incident, Salvador Ramos found a way to enter the school through a malfunctioning door that would not close.  Eventually, he locked himself inside two-adjoining classrooms and proceeded to kill 19 students in those classrooms, along with their beloved teachers.

Texas Governor Greg Abbot, after initially praising law enforcement, was angry when the timeline was exposed since it appeared that local law enforcement, including the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District (UCISD) police department, told the responding police officers to stand down once a perimeter was set-up.  The school district police chief, Pete Arredondo, who had tactical authority, believed the shooting had moved from an "active shooter" to a "barricaded suspect," and law enforcement officers did not breach the 4th-grade classrooms where the carnage took place until roughly 78 minutes later.  

Mr. Arredondo later stated through his attorney that he didn't bring his police radio with him so he could apparently use both hands for this weapon.  His actions will be continued to be scrutinized and hopefully, the truth will come out after a comprehensive investigation. It was gut-wrenching to hear that wounded students were trying to get the police to enter the classrooms as they were bleeding out but to no avail.  

One of the teachers, Arnulfo Reyes, who was part of the 18 people wounded heard his students pleading to get the police to enter the classroom, which never materialized, only to have the shooter come back and shoot additional students. Mr. Reyes said that law enforcement outside the classroom was trying to negotiate with the shooter that if he gave up and came out that he would not be hurt if he did that. Finally, a decision was made to engage Mr. Ramos.  Among the many branches of responding law enforcement to the crisis, the U.S. Border Patrol's tactical special response unit (BORTAC) decided on their own to enter the school grounds, locate the shooter and end his life.

The aftermath of this heartbreaking event brought intense scrutiny to how this tragedy was handled by local and state authorities.  Some questions to ponder:

1) Despite the overwhelming law enforcement response and numerical superiority over the lone gunman, why was there no serious attempt to locate the shooter, breach the classroom, and eliminate the threat in a shorter time frame?  

2) Why did Pete Arredondo arrive at the school and not use his police radio/scanner, which prevented him from making decisions (including coordinating with other law enforcement agencies) in real-time that could have saved more kids from death?

3) Numerous police officers, at different intervals, had opportunities to engage the shooter and save lives but waited for backup, and then still did nothing?

4) Why was the troubled young man at the center of the tragedy not given the mental health support he obviously needed?  I know it is hard to know everything about a family member or peer, but there were signs (harming cats and small animals, self-inflicted facial wounds, being bullied) that were known by residents of Uvalde, and a school official, police officer, or mental health person should have reached out to him and got him to receive mental health care.

Where do we go from here? What are the steps that members of Congress and school officials around the country can do?  While politicians, media personalities, and self-interested activists argue about who or what is at fault, for clicks, viewership, and their own sanctimony, I offer some suggestions that could improve protection for kids while trying to minimize these incidents to happen in the future.

Provide police presence at schools.  If you cannot assign an on-site police officer to a specific school, then the local police department, sheriff for cities and towns, or even state authorities must find money in their budgets to have a visible police presence, even at random times of the day throughout the week, so that potential gunmen can see that schools are no longer soft targets. Make it national law that any officer, regardless if there is backup, must engage a single shooter, and will be held accountable if they do not.  In the event there are multiple shooters, I  support that even a single police officer must challenge the shooters because there is no one else to protect those kids.

Structural reinforcement of elementary schools and high schools.  There should only be one or at most two main single-person entry points (gates or turnstiles that can lock, for example) for schools.  I know this might not be that popular, but it should be done to eliminate multiple points of entry with easy access for those who wish to cause harm. People must enter and leave through those specific locations because it forces anyone who wants to go inside to be given or granted access by school officials alone.  If it is too difficult to enter any campus, then that becomes a deterrent, albeit a small one.  Having those entry points, along with fencing that is difficult to climb over, is necessary, in my opinion.  It can be done aesthetically, and not have the school look like a prison.  Find smart people who can work together to make this happen.

There must be school programs that provide mandatory mental health for young people (especially boys).  In order to find the root causes of why young men seek gun violence against others, local communities must identify what is causing that pain, which manifests into anger that can lead to grave harm to the most vulnerable, destroying their communities. It could be a lack of positive role models, absent fathers, lack of self-worth, or numerous other reasons, but studies need to unearth the psychological reasons and solve this problem.  This must be done at the earliest stage of a child's development, formulating a plan to monitor troubled youths through cooperation between parents, school districts, and police departments as they matriculate through any school system. This would require the collaboration of the medical profession, the educational system, and lawmakers to find the best possible methods to achieve this.  It can be done.

Volunteer Guardians.  If it is not possible for local police departments to assign either an on-site resource officer or minimal presence of any kind, then I think it might help to have volunteer parents or members of a community who are licensed gun holders, with required certification for special "active shooter" training, to guard schools with the blessing of the community.  However, they must register with the local police department, take part in "ride-along" programs and any other sort of necessary collaborative training with that community's police department, and cede any directive/tactical authority to law enforcement once they engage a hostile gunman of a school shooting.

Increase the legal age to purchase a firearm. Although there will be legal challenges to this idea, I think it is good to raise the age to purchase firearms to 21 years of age.  Advocates for this position say that if you need to be 21 to buy alcohol in public, then you should also need to be 21 to buy a gun.  Since there is a serious problem with young men and violence in this country, in my opinion, I tend to agree. It might be a good idea to run a pilot program in certain states to see what type of empirical data can provide support for long-term solutions and legislation. I feel that this would be a workable first step.  

In a case like the Sandy Hook shooting, the gunman stole guns from his mother, killed her, and then proceeded to enter the school grounds.  I believe what happened with shooter Adam Lanza tends to be rare, and in most recent school shootings the gunman either bought weapons legally or was gifted them by a family member.  Perhaps anyone who wants to give a firearm as a gift to an immediate family member must accept some responsibility?  Just a thought.

In the aftermath of what happened at Robb Elementary School, emotions run high and politics ruins any potential for pragmatic solutions. Americans become too tied to shared ideological opinions and do not think anyone else has a workable solution that can protect kids.  It is possible to support the 2nd amendment and find ways to protect the lives of children in our public schools.  Some of the ideas mentioned in this blog post are just that, ideas.  The best way to find what works best is to gather as many ideas as possible, find which ones might work the best, test them out and evaluate those results.  Until this method is attempted, nothing will change too dramatically, and the declining mental health of our young men and subsequent targeting of vulnerable children in schools will collide with the same effects.

 

Ukraine is not worth the price of war with Russia

 

January 22, 2022

The last few months have seen major saber-rattling between nuclear powers Russia and the United States, not over world domination, but instead over a former member of the old Soviet Union, Ukraine.  Since its independence, the country has tried to become a semblance of a free-market economy, but that has proven difficult and it has also sought membership in the ever-expanding trans-Atlantic military alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).  Russia, to no one's surprise, is vehemently opposed to this idea because it would bring that alliance to its own border.

___________________________

Ukraine was the crown jewel, the centerpiece, if you will, of the large network of socialist states that made up the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), during the heady days of the Cold War and the Iron Curtain that fell between the liberal democracies of the West, and those countries. Collectively they became the obedient states that adhered to whatever Moscow wanted.  After the disintegration of the USSR, Ukraine became an independent state, one that sought to be part of the European community, rather than a client state of the new Russian Federation.

For most of its independence, Ukraine has trundled along its new chartered path toward democracy, but that has been difficult, rife with disputed elections and the removal and ouster of elected presidents.  Corruption is rampant and a stain on their international aspirations. Nevertheless, the Ukrainians have persisted with their European dreams, both to be part of the European Union (EU) and for security purposes, desired membership in NATO, and follow in the footsteps of their Eastern Bloc brethren Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.

Russia, having lost the ideological battle to keep those Baltic states within its sphere of influence, absolutely will not contemplate the fearful idea of losing Ukraine to NATO and American influence, which is why 100,000 Russian troops are stationed across the border.  It sends a strong message of intent.  Those are the battle lines that have been drawn, and one I think Russia will come out ahead, for many reasons.

For one, most Americans are not sold on the idea that American lives are worth any conflict with Russia.  Ukraine is a beautiful country, with citizens one can root for who seek a higher quality of life and better opportunities after decades of living under socialism.  However, America has ended two long and costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where trillions of dollars have been spent attempting to turn those countries into less volatile, but newly emerging democratic countries with rights for all.  With the recent Taliban takeover of Afghanistan (after a twenty-year absence), and Iraq being turned into a client state of Iran, due to its 69% Shia majority population, those endeavors have failed on a large scale.  A conflict with Russia, which has better trained and equipped soldiers than the Iraqi and Afghan fighters, will be far more difficult to defeat.  Not to mention, more financial resources and better planes, tanks, and artillery pieces.

The United States has been arming the Ukrainian military with mostly defensive weapons, including the Javelin anti-tank missile launcher. However, the Russians have in large supply their best weapons with offensive capabilities, and it appears the Ukrainians will be outmatched and outgunned in any armed conflict.

On another level, despite winning the Cold War, the United States and NATO are still searching for what defines their membership and its goals for the 21st Century.  During the Trump Administration, the former president chastised member nations who were not spending at least 2% of their aggregate GDP on military expenditures.  President Trump was able to get some of them to increase spending to fund their own defense and shared funding of the alliance (as of this writing, 10 of the military organization's 30 members have increased their expenditures close to 2% of their GDP, according to Stars & Stripes Magazine-10/21/20). I suspect that increase was less to do with Mr. Trump, and more to do with Russia's aggressive behavior over the last few years, which includes the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula and control of the Donbas region (southeastern Ukraine), including cities like Donetsk and Luhansk (see map).

Additionally, many European countries have good diplomatic relations with Russia and do business with Russian companies including Gazprom, which exports natural gas to Western Europe.  What complicates matters is current American President Joe Biden, who recently waived proposed sanctions on a Russian company building the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, connecting Germany and Russia. Although some in the president's party and most Republicans were against it, Mr. Biden made this decision so that he would be able to curry favor with Germany (Europe's biggest economy), at a time when he needs their support, and avoid any serious public rift with an ally.  The U.S. Department of State felt waiving sanctions against the Russian company and a notable Russian executive was in the best interests of the United States (BBC-5/20/21).

Finally, I suspect the powerful Department of Defense (DoD) and the military-industrial complex are pushing a more aggressive stance since any short conventional war will reap large profits before a cease-fire is introduced.  Who else would be pushing for this? Having Ukraine join NATO provides no desirable asset to the alliance.  The country brings nothing to the table and increases the anger and steadfast opposition of the Russian Federation. In my opinion, the most logical reason for the push to admit Ukraine into NATO is that it will bring about a continued increase in the American defense budget.  Since most of the countries in NATO require the Americans to provide the lion's share of the money, force projection, and power, the obvious "follow the money" analogy is to find out which companies will produce the weapons, which are the influential members of the military-industrial complex: Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Electric Boat, and Northrup Grumman.

Let the Russians and Ukrainians work it out.  If that means Ukraine loses the Crimean Peninsula (which has a large percentage of Russian speakers, in addition to those who have deep ties and loyalty to Russia), and the coveted Russian naval base at Sevastopol, it is a small price to pay for peace.  The United States Congress will find other ways, means, and potential conflicts to scare the American public into supporting larger defense spending.  A war over Ukraine is not in the interests of the United States, its military personnel, or NATO membership.  America should sit this conflict out, and signal to Russia that the United States will be pragmatic about this issue, something its foreign policy establishment has not done in quite some time.