Law, Power, and Justice

Join me in trying to make sense of a complicated world.

Recent Posts

  • Ahmaud Arbery: I don’t think there can be justice…

    7 January 2022

    Ahmaud Arbery

    Sentences for the men who hunted down and murdered Ahmaud Arbery were handed down in a Brunswick, Georgia courtroom today.  Two of the men, Greg and Travis McMichael, were sentenced to life without parole plus additional years.  William Bryan was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole and a consecutive number of years.  This means, for Bryan, that after he is eligible for parole in 30 years, this additional sentenced will be added on.

    There is no way to celebrate the sentencing of men to prison, but these men participated in a crime so hateful and cruel no other alternative was possible.  It bears remembering, though, that had this case been left in the local jurisdiction, there would have been no trial, no conviction, no sentencing.

    The local Glynn County authorities tried their hardest to cover up, gloss over, minimize this case.  The District Attorney at the time, Jackie Johnson, has herself been indicted for the way she handled the case. 

    Because of the tenacity of Ahmaud Arbery’s mother and the work of various other civil rights activists, this case not only was brought to trial, but was taken out of the hands of the local authorities.   So many things had to go perfectly for a guilty verdict to have been rendered. 

    As a citizen of Glynn County I am still amazed that a nearly all-white jury handed down a guilty verdict.

    But, as the prosecutor pointed out, even though the actual chase and killing of Ahmaud Arbery involved minutes, this event was a product of years of preparation.  The men involved spent years festering in a stew of racial hatred, suspicion, and entitlement.  That has not gone away.  It was obvious from the testimony of some of the people in the Satilla Shores neighborhood that they shared the ingrained racism of the defendants.

    I do not believe that the case of the District Attorney has been taken out of the hands of local authorities.     

    When the Ahmaud Arbery case was first being tried, members of the families of others who had been violently treated by local police (and police pretenders) were present.  The parents of a young woman who had been shot through the windshield of her parked car and killed were present.  The police officers involved were protected and not prosecuted by the office of Jackie Johnson.  There are many other cases handled by the DA’s office that we don’t even know about.

    I don’t think there can be justice when a young man is hunted down and shot in the street for nothing more than being in a neighborhood where men are prepared to kill if they cannot intimidate.  We will soon see if this justice extends to the people who tried to cover it up. 

  • RUSSIAN TROOPS IN KAZAKHSTAN

    www.nytimes.com/2022/01/06/world/asia/kazakhstan-putin-russia.html

    “Vladimir V. Putin of Russia sent troops to the Central Asian nation of Kazakhstan on Thursday to try to extinguish the latest in a series of dangerous fires to engulf the lands of the former Soviet Union, territory that Moscow views as its own sphere of influence but has struggled to keep calm.”

    The arrival in Kazakhstan of 2,500 troops from a Russian-led military alliance amid continuing spasms of violent protest was the fourth time in just two years that Moscow has flexed its muscle in neighboring states — Belarus, Armenia and Ukraine being the other three — that the West has long tried to woo.

    How much this assertive role really contributes to Mr. Putin’s longstanding goal of restoring Russian dominance over much of the former Soviet sphere is a matter of heated debate.

  • How Christian nationalism drove the insurrection: A religious history of Jan. 6 | Salon.com

    Fanatical, extreme religious faith wasn’t incidental to last year’s Capitol assault: It was a central driving force
    — Read on www.salon.com/2022/01/06/how-christian-nationalism-drove-the-insurrection-a-religious-history-of-jan-6/

  • Ukraine and Zelensky Alone

    5 January 2022

    Volodymyr Zelensky was an actor when he was elected President of Ukraine in 2019.  Zelensky had appeared regularly on a TV series where he played a history teacher whose rant against political corruption vent viral and made him president.  The Ukrainians, widely disillusioned with their own politicians, were so enchanted with the fictional story they made Zelensky the real president.  The political party of the history teacher character on the television series, the “Servant of the People,” became the actual political party of Zelensky when he ran for president against incumbent Petro Poroshenko.

    Zelensky was what all disaffected voters love – an outsider at least from conventional politics.  And, he had said in his fictional viral rant, what many people knew to be true, i.e., that corruption was strangling the life out of the country.  Hopes were high for Zelensky when he won election with 73% of the vote.

    Two years later, Zelensky is struggling to fulfill some of the promises for fundamental social change he made during his campaign.  In 2014, after pro-Russian puppet Viktor Yanukovych (for whom Paul Manafort worked) was ousted from the presidency and had to flee.  Russia then seized Crimea and backed (or created) separatists who took over large areas of the region.

    When Zelensky came to power, he promised to bring peace to the region and to end conflict in the Dunbas, another region where Russian separatists were taking over.  Zelensky criticized his predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, for not negotiating effectively to end these conflicts.

    But, Zelensky has not been able to deliver on his promises of peace.  The war between Ukraine and the Russian-backed separatists continues and now there is a massive built up of troops on the Ukrainian border.

    Zelensky initially made an effort to compromise with the Russians over their territorial claims. There were peace talks between the two countries, prisoner exchanges and moves toward establishing a peace process, known as the Minsk agreement.  But, after Russia began issuing passports to the Russian-speakers in the contested territories, talks soured. 

    To make matters worse, the dictator of Belarus, Alyaksandre Lukashenka, has ceased to be a defender of Ukraine in its struggle with Russia. 

    When the Russian attack on Ukraine began in 2014, Lukashenka made great efforts to publicize his neutrality.  He refused to recognize Russia’s claims to Crimea, politically declared that he would not permit an attack on Ukraine from Belarusian territory, and ridiculed Putin’s historical arguments justifying an invasion of Ukraine.

    But, in August of 2020, Lukashenka launched a brutal response to nationwide protests over rigged presidential elections.  This made him an international pariah.  In the aftermath of the vote there were mass anti-regime demonstrations across the country.  Lukashenka appeared to be in danger of losing power entirely.  But, Vladamir Putin intervened and propped Lukashenka up with financial assistance, Kremlin propagandists and a public promise of security forces. 

    From this point onward, the dependence of Lukashenka on Putin only increased.  Lukashenka launched a prolonged crackdown on domestic opposition and escalated an increasingly acrimonious confrontation with the West.  One of the most widely publicized acts was a May 2021 incident where a commercial EU airliner was forced down while going over Belarusian airspace and a dissident Belarusian journalists was abducted from among the passengers.

    After recent talks with Putin, Lukashenka has announced plans to deploy Russian air defense systems along the Ukrainian border.

    Zelensky is making a courageous effort to confront corruption in Ukrainian society and fulfill his campaign promises, but he is also confronting a dangerous situation with Russia.  It appears that Zelensky has reached the conclusion that Putin cannot be negotiated with and given the retreat of the West from foreign conflicts, he and the Ukrainians face this perilous situation by themselves. 

    Sources:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59667938

    De-oligarchization of Ukraine is President Zelenskyy’s top priority

  • Podcast: Ukraine World

    If you are at all interested in the build up of Russian troops on the border of Ukraine, you should listen to the podcast “Ukraine World.”  It is by far the most intelligent discussion of the situation.

    The following are notes from several of the Ukraine World podcasts.

    • Ukrainian president Zelensky came to office arguing that more negotiation was needed with Russia and that the previous administration in Ukraine had done a bad job of negotiating.  Two years later, halfway through Zelensky’s term, he has come to the conclusion that Putin cannot be negotiated with and does not want peace. 
    • Even though the situation on the border is extremely serious, Zelensky seems to be also fighting major battles domestically.  As one commentator phrased it, Zelensky seems to be “waging a war against everybody else in Ukrainian politics.”  These “internal turbulences” are creating an unstable situation inside Ukraine.
    • It is unclear whether Zelensky is battling against powerful domestic players and interests for reasons of his own, or is being manipulated by others.  Who these others might be was not explained.
    • The rhetoric coming out of Russia seems to be intended to prepare the Russian population for war.  As one commentator said, Putin is almost promising that Russia will invade Ukraine.  Another commentator stated: Putin is “preparing the Russian public to the fact that the war is inevitable.”
    • It also seems clear that the West is unwilling to engage in a full-fledged war with Russia over Ukraine.  Russia perceives the West as withdrawing.
    • After the feckless and disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Biden administration is almost certain not to involve itself in another war.
    • Even though the Biden administration has made clear that there will be sanctions if Russia invades, many point out that Russia has already invaded Ukraine.  Sanctions have already been applied to Russia and the Russians have not withdrawn.
    • The Russian government has been taking steps to make the economy sanction proof, or at least more sanction proof so that sanctions are unlikely to have a significant impact.
    • In addition, meaningful sanctions would affect powerful economic interests and are unlikely to be implemented no matter how much they are touted by the Biden administration. 
    • There is extensive ideological work going on in Russia preparing the population for war.  Even on popular talk shows on television, there is discussion about Ukraine having plans to militarily take back the territories.  Russia is distributing Russian passports to Russian-speakers in occupied territories.
    • There is a distinct advantage in exporting chaos.  Conflicts rouse nationalistic fervor in Russia and help distract people from their stalled economy and decreased standard of living.
    • The underlying narrative is that there are serious external threats but also victories against those threats (such as in Crimea).  The taking of territory is a success, so don’t complain about how you are living.
    • The west was reluctant to encourage Ukraine to become a separate country after the fall of the Soviet Union.  George Bush, Sr. went to Kiev in 1991 in an attempt to calm down the Ukrainians and persuade them not to leave the Soviet Union.  The west is afraid of a breakup of the Soviet Union.  The narrative inside Russia, however, is completely different.
    • There, the Zelensky administration is portrayed as being a puppet of the West.   And, there are dire warnings that just as the U.S. left Afghanistan, it will leave Ukraine.
    • The Ukrainians in fact helped support U.S. troops in the withdrawal from Afghanistan.  At a time when it was too dangerous politically to risk U.S. soldiers leaving the airport in Kabul, Ukrainian troops went into Kabul and helped people get to safety at the airport.  Ukraine was anxious to demonstrate that it could be a helpful ally, a country that could help as well as ask for assistance.
    • Internal polling inside Ukraine indicates that if a presidential election were held today, Zelensky would get approximately 24% of the vote, but there are three parties opposing him.  Two of them are pro-Russian. 
    • The Zelensky administration is being drained by the conflict on the border.  And Zelensky’s own conflicts domestically are fracturing the country.
    • Ukrainians are understandably distrustful of their politicians.  Hopes for Zelensky when he was elected were extremely high.  Calmer souls warned that Zelensky could not possibly deliver on the promises he was making.  Now, disenchantment has set in. 
    • Corruption remains a serious problem and hopes that Zelensky could do anything about this ingrained corruption were probably misplaced.

  • Ukrainian Ex-President Petro Poroshenko Accused of Treason, Ally Says – Bloomberg

    Ukrainian Ex-President Petro Poroshenko Accused of Treason, Ally Says – Bloomberg
    — Read on www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-20/ukrainian-ex-president-poroshenko-accused-of-treason-ally-says

  • Russian demands over Ukraine

    www.nytimes.com/2021/12/17/world/europe/russia-nato-security-deal.html

  • The Fallen Mercenaries in Russia’s Dark Army – New Lines Magazine

    Ukrainian intelligence officers spent years compiling a database of Russia’s Wagner group. We found the families of those killed in battle.
    — Read on newlinesmag.com/reportage/the-fallen-mercenaries-in-russias-dark-army/

  • How They Would Survive

    It is as if Afghanistan has ceased to exist for the corporate media. If you would like to hear what the situation is like in Afghanistan, listen to this podcast.

    NYT The Daily

    https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/an-economic-catastrophe-in-afghanistan/id1200361736?i=1000545034424

  • Russia Has Already Invaded Ukraine

    There has been a great deal of discussion in the media lately about what the West will do if Russia launches an invasion of Ukraine.  But, as has been pointed out on the podcast, Ukraine Without Hype (12/10/21), Russia has already invaded Ukraine.

    The United States and the members of the G7 have threatened “massive consequences” if this current military and support structure build-up on the border with Ukraine turns into yet another full scale invasion by Russia, but what those consequences might be, has not been specified. 

    It is difficult to imagine Biden approving a military defense of Ukraine just after he orchestrated a disastrous unilateral withdrawal from Afghanistan.  Putin is well aware of this.

    And, a number of commentators are arguing that invading Ukraine now would be much less costly and risky than waiting until some future date.  Putin has made it crystal clear in an article published last summer that the Russian government considers Ukraine part of Russia, not an independent country.

    The Russian kleptocratic autocracy is working overtime to ideologically legitimate an invasion of Ukraine.  In Putin’s article (described on MSNBC as a “letter from an abusive spouse”) he clearly appeals to Russian nationalism, arguing that Ukraine as a separate entity is a fiction imposed on people who did not see themselves as Ukrainian.  This “Ukrainization” by the leaders of modern Ukraine and their “external patrons,” is a “tragedy” and “forced assimilation” and is “comparable in its consequences to the use of weapons of mass destruction against” Russia.  

    In an article published by the Atlantic Council, it is argued that in order to maintain the loyalty of elites and the population Putin has found it effective to engage in “small victorious wars.”  These distract from the fact that the Russian economy has barely grown since 2014.  Small wars are profitable and also whip up the nationalism of Russians.

    The five-day war in Georgia in August of 2008, was a great popular success in Russia.  For the first time ever Putin’s popularity figures reached 88%.  Also popular was Putin’s seizure and annexation of Crimea.  Once again Putin’s popularity rose. 

    Whatever the goal, actual invasion or mere threat, Putin already has some of what he wants, the West negotiating over the status of Ukraine in a way that would have been unthinkable in the past. 

  • The Corporate Media Complicity in Distraction: Bob Dole’s body and Ukraine

    My television is on TCM to avoid watching the celebrity orgy going on over the body of Bob Dole.  I would encourage people to think about the amount of time wasted on this coverage, and the amount of money that has been spent moving Dole’s body around, mourning over Bob Dole’s body, securing the celebrity political elite as they gather to engaging this absurd ritual. 

    Bob Dole is part of the Republican infrastructure that set the groundwork for the political disaster we are currently in.  Why anybody would want to celebrate or mourn over his dead body is just beyond my comprehension.

    Also, there is a world out there, a world that is rapidly becoming inhabitable while a useless and feckless elite dresses up and plays their part on this ridiculous celebrity exercise.

    I just cannot fathom the insularity of the bubble that allows these people to think that regular people care about watching every minute of this display. 

    While Rome burns, the political elite and the corporate media engage in this side show.  Part of the narrative is that Bob Dole belonged to a more “bipartisan” and statesmanlike era.  The Democrats showing up at this display are supposed to be given credit for their bigness of heart for mourning a member of the Republican Party.  It is all absurd.

    So while Russian troops mass on the border with Ukraine (to mention just one ongoing crisis) the political elite and the corporate media play dress up and try to convince the American people that they are 1) useful, 2) important, and relevant.  THEY ARE NOT.

    If we had a functioning media, we would have already known that Putin and the Russian oligarchy were bent on taking back Ukraine into the Russian sphere of influence.  But, instead, we are talking about Chris Christie’s new book and every minute action taken by an investigative committee designed to make a lot of noise and do nothing about a coup attempt.

    When I started listening to podcasts about Ukraine, I was astounded. 

    Specifically, commentators were talking about a public stance taken by Putin and the Russian government earlier in the year which made it evident to anybody with a brain that Russia was gong to retake Ukraine, or at least threaten to do so in order to gain concessions that wouldn’t have been even thought about otherwise.

    The public stance is argued in an article, purportedly written by Putin:

    “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians.” 

    You can read the entire article here:

    http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

    This is a long, convoluted article full of historical argument that I cannot even begin to follow and I suspect is half concocted.  The jest of the argument is this:

    • Russians and Ukrainians are “one people.
    • The “wall that has emerged” between the two countries has been constructed by enemies to divide what is “essentially the same historical and spiritual space.”
    • This division is a “tragedy.”
    • Belief in this division is a “consequence(s) of our own mistakes” and also based on “deliberate efforts by those forces that have always sought to undermine our unity.”
    • This is an effort to “pit the parts of a single people against one another.”
    • This promotion of division is also an attack on “the Orthodox faith.”
    • Putin argues that a belief in Ukraine as an independent nation state, “Ukrainization” has been often “imposed on those who did not see themselves as Ukrainians.”
    •  Modern Ukraine, Putin argues is “entirely the product of the Soviet era.”
    • Ukraine was created as a unit within the Soviet Union that was at the same time distinct, but part of the whole.  It was never intended to be a separate entity.  The very identification of Ukraine as distinct came from Soviet designation.
    • Putin continues: “we know and remember well that it (Ukraine) was shaped…on the lands of historical Russia.”
    • Putin then launches on an attack on Bolsheviks: “…Bolsheviks treated the Russian people as inexhaustible material for their social experiments. They dreamt of a world revolution that would wipe out national states. That is why they were so generous in drawing borders and bestowing territorial gifts. It is no longer important what exactly the idea of the Bolshevik leaders who were chopping the country into pieces was. We can disagree about minor details, background and logics behind certain decisions. One fact is crystal clear: Russia was robbed, indeed.”
    • So, evidently, the Bolsheviks intent on “a world revolution that would wipe out national states” was “generous” in drawing borders that they never intended to be real. 
    • Putin then claims that his “analysis is based on well-known facts rather than on some secret records.”  I have no idea what this even means.
    • Putin continues: “The leaders of modern Ukraine and their external ”patrons“ prefer to overlook these facts. They do not miss a chance, however, both inside the country and abroad, to condemn ”the crimes of the Soviet regime,“ listing among them events with which neither the CPSU, nor the USSR, let alone modern Russia, have anything to do. At the same time, the Bolsheviks’ efforts to detach from Russia its historical territories are not considered a crime. And we know why: if they brought about the weakening of Russia, our ill-wishes are happy with that.”
    • Then, Putin chides Ukraine: “You want to establish a state of your own: you are welcome! But what are the terms?”  This is a threat, a dressed up threat, but a threat.
    • Quoting the first mayor of Saint Petersburg, Putin writes: “the republics that were founders of the Union, having denounced the 1922 Union Treaty, must return to the boundaries they had had before joining the Soviet Union. All other territorial acquisitions are subject to discussion, negotiations, given that the ground has been revoked.”
    • So, Putin is claiming that any people wanting independence must return to borders determined to be valid by the Russian oligarchy.  You want independence?  Fine, but you must accept independence of a territory defined (unquestionably smaller) by Russia.
    • Then, Putin begins the characteristic victim blaming rhetoric.  Russia tried to support Ukraine  The Russian Federation “provided considerable support to Ukraine,” because this is a “single economic system.”
    • But, the ungrateful Ukrainians bragged and promised a lot but now cannot deliver. 
    • “Ukraine is Europe’s poorest country.”
    • Putin continues with the rewriting of events of 2014.  “Even after the events in Kiev of 2014, I charged the Russian government to elaborate options for preserving and maintaining our economic ties within relevant ministries and agencies. However, there was and is still no mutual will to do the same. Nevertheless, Russia is still one of Ukraine’s top three trading partners, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are coming to us to work, and they find a welcome reception and support. So that is what the aggressor state is.”
    • “Nor were the interests of the Ukrainian people thought of in February 2014. The legitimate public discontent, caused by acute socio-economic problems, mistakes, and inconsistent actions of the authorities of the time, was simply cynically exploited. Western countries directly interfered in Ukraine’s internal affairs and supported the coup. Radical nationalist groups served as its battering ram. Their slogans, ideology, and blatant aggressive Russophobia have to a large extent become defining elements of state policy in Ukraine.”
    • “It would not be an exaggeration to say that the path of forced assimilation, the formation of an ethnically pure Ukrainian state, aggressive towards Russia, is comparable in its consequences to the use of weapons of mass destruction against us. As a result of such a harsh and artificial division of Russians and Ukrainians, the Russian people in all may decrease by hundreds of thousands or even millions.”

    What Putin is arguing here is that the West and Ukrainians have attacked Russia, essentially used the equivalent of “weapons of mass destruction against us (Russia).”  Therefore, the invasion of Ukraine is an act of self-defense.

    But, we need to spend 48 hours of corporate media time listening to empty, self-serving rhetoric about Bob Dole.

  • Biden says US troops in Ukraine are off the table but promises withering sanctions if Russia invades – CNNPolitics

    President Joe Biden on Wednesday ruled out sending US troops to Ukraine to defend the country from a Russian invasion a day after laying out the consequences for such an incursion during a stern phone call with President Vladimir Putin.
    — Read on www.cnn.com/2021/12/08/politics/biden-putin-us-troops/index.html

  • UKRAINE: WHAT WE SHOULD KNOW

    Russian House of Soviets, Lenin on Moscow Square. St. Petersburg.

    Wednesday 8 December 2021

    • The 2014 uprising in Ukraine, the ouster of pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych, and the overthrow of the Ukrainian government were severe blows to the pride of Vladamir Putin and the Russian establishment/oligarchy.
    • Added to the economic importance of Ukraine is the profound cultural centrality of Ukrainian history as part of the Soviet Union, and the political significance of the independence gained by the Ukrainian people.
    • Putin has reportedly never gotten over the breakup of the Soviet Union, the independence of Ukraine or the movement of the Ukrainian people towards the West.
    • As was pointed out in the Ukraine World Podcast, Putin and the Russian oligarchy have never conceived of Ukraine as an independent state.  They have never considered Ukraine as independent and cannot now accept the status quo.
    • As Timothy Snyder pointed out, Putin and Russia have never considered Ukrainians as anything but vassals.  They do not even negotiate with Ukrainians, but with the West over Ukraine.
    • And, the status quo, as unpalatable as it may seem, may not remain the status quo much longer.
    • Putin may feel that the window of time for pressuring Ukraine back into the Russian sphere is rapidly closing.
    • Not long after Biden took office, Russia announced itself fed up with the status quo relating to Ukraine and NATO expansion.
    • Also, around the first of the year, Zelensky expressed more publicly than he had in the past, an interest in Ukraine joining NATO.
    • Since Ukraine is not currently a member of NATO, there is no automatic responsibility of the West to react if Ukraine is invaded.  If Ukraine joins NATO, however, this changes completely.
    • Note: I cannot see after withdrawing from Afghanistan, Biden involving military troops in any conflict in Ukraine.  Putin, of course, knows this and it adds to the likelihood of intervention.
    • There is, of course, a great deal of debate about whether Putin intends to invade or just threaten.  But, as has been pointed out, not only is there an unprecedented movement of troops, but also a structuring of support for an invasion, like locating medical supplies near the border. 
    • It would probably be an error to suppose that Putin’s choice is binary.  Even though U.S. officials persist in talking about the choice as either an invasion with a full scale military operation and seizure of territory, or backing down and not invading.  But, as others point out, Putin has stated that he would never invade any territory unless he were certain of victory.
    • So, a number of regional experts foresee an operation that includes pinpoint strikes and then strategic withdrawals.  The object, according to these commentators, is to destroy Ukrainian military capability.  Occupation is not the goal.
    • Putin, so the theory goes, wants to demonstrate to Ukraine and the rest of the former Soviet Block that all their efforts towards independence can be negated easily and quickly, leaving them vulnerable and back inside the Russian sphere.
    • While there have been strides in the development of Ukrainian military capability, it cannot even compete with the highly technological, mobile Russian military expertise.
    • Putin pursued economic strategies to block Ukraine from moving out of the Russian sphere of influence and toward the west.   
    • In 2014, it became evident that that strategy had failed.  Ordinary people rose and drove out the pro-Russia president who had to flee to Moscow to keep from being imprisoned.  The Ukrainians made their choice clear when they drove out a Russia friendly president and ushered in the pro-western government.
    • Putin saw this as a coup engineered by the West and the CIA to divide the Russian sphere of influence.  So, Putin seized Crimea. 
    • Putin intended to demonstrate that he cares more about the fate of Ukraine than the west.
    • Putin also sees the writing on the wall in the policies and actions of Zelensky.  In early 2021, Zelensky’s government began cracking down on Russian controlled media inside Ukraine and a Russian connected oligarch.  The government also participated in military exercises with Western forces.
    • Putin’s actions have actually alienated people in Ukraine.  Polls indicate that more people than when Zelensky first took office support joining NATO and a move toward the West.
    • Putin, evidently, does not believe this.  He has indicated that a move toward Russia is the will of the people and that Russian forces would be welcomed, regarded as liberators. 
    • And, Putin may estimate that a war now could be less costly than later.
    • While U.S. officials bandy around the threats of “sanctions” according to specialists, Putin has been sanction proofing the Russian economy since 2014. 
    • And, sanctions on Russia will affect powerful interests around the world.  In order to enact meaningful sanctions, Biden would not only have to take on the Russians, but banking and other interests internationally.  There is little indication that he is prepared to do this.
    • What Putin wants is not to annex Ukraine, but to influence it.  He wants to alter and control the structure of security in Eastern Europe.
    • While this mobilization near the border of Ukraine may be only an example of “coercive diplomacy,” the intent is to keep Ukraine out of NATO and get an agreement to limit NATO expansion in Eastern Europe.
    • If Biden agrees to this in order to avoid a war, he will violate the concept of self determination that has influenced policy in the post-war era. 

    Sources:

    Podcasts:

    The Daily, NYT (12/8/21) Interview with Moscow Bureau Chief, NYT, Anton Troianovski

    Ukraine World Ep. 58: The New Russian Attack on Ukraine.

    Ukraine World Ep. 57: Ukraine in November 2021.

  • AHMAUD ARBERY: MORAL PANIC

    “A moral panic is a widespread fear, most often an irrational one, that someone or something is a threat to the values, safety, and interests of a community or society at large….Moral panics are often centered around people who are marginalized in society due to their race or ethnicity, class, sexuality, nationality, or religion. As such, a moral panic often draws on known stereotypes and reinforces them. It can also exacerbate the real and perceived differences and divisions between groups of people. Moral panic is well known in the sociology of deviance and crime and is related to the labeling theory of deviance.”

    The prosecution should have had an academic testify about moral panic.  It is a familiar term, used all the time in sociology, especially among those who work in the fields of criminology and social deviance. 

    The people in Satilla Shores worked themselves up into a moral panic about crime in the neighborhood.  It is relatively easy to create such a panic just by word of mouth.  Social media just makes the creation of a moral panics easier.  Once people started talking about, posting about, “intruders” in the neighborhood, and items being stolen, the narrative took on a life of it’s own.

    Every unrecognized person becomes an “intruder.”  Every misplaced item becomes “stolen.” Even when individuals encounter facts which disprove the “intruder/crime” label, they rarely go around the neighborhood and tell everybody that they were mistaken.

    Several witnesses in this trial admitted that while they had heard that the owner of the construction site thought he had had items stolen from his boat, they never heard that Larry English had driven that boat back and forth to various locations and wasn’t sure himself where these items had been stolen.  English never even told the police that the items were stolen in Satilla Shores.

    It was brought out through testimony that strange cars were reported as being in the neighborhood only to later be identified as cars belonging to relatives of residents.  Items that were reported as stolen (including a supposedly loaded gun belonging to Travis McMichael) were left in unlocked vehicles.  One woman who testified whose purse was widely discussed, left her own purse in an unlocked car and it wasn’t stolen.  Somebody reported that their brother-in-law had a case of beer stolen out of a car parked in Satilla Shores.  (Folks, if you believe that one, you are really sheltered.)

    What happens when people work themselves up into a moral panic is that every misplaced item becomes “stolen” and fodder for more gossip and speculation. 

  • RACISM AND AHMAUD ARBERY.

    I watched every minute of the trial of the men who killed Ahmaud Arbery. 

    It was a weekday afternoon and the Medical Examiner took the stand.  I was tired, everybody seemed tired.  The Medical Examiner was not the most riveting witness.  He had retired and then decided he wanted to go back to work, so he came to Georgia and was hired as the Medical Examiner.  He was professional, soft spoken, and businesslike.

    Like most people, probably, my mind was wandering.

    Then, Bob Reuben, defense attorney for Travis McMichael asked the Medical Examiner (ME) if Ahmaud Arbery’s body had “long, dirty toenails.”  The ME said yes. 

    What?  My head popped up.  Even my tired ears perked up.  What the devil was that about?

    I was appalled.  What reason could Reuben have for asking such a question?  But, no more was made out of it.  I tweeted about it at the time.  What reason, I asked, other than just trying to make Ahmaud Arbery seem distasteful, could the defense have for asking this question?

    I found out the answer on Monday. 

    Laura Hogue, attorney for Greg McMichael, got up before the jury and blew every racist, fear mongering whistle imaginable.  Then, she commented that Ahmaud Arbery was wearing tennis shoes, without socks to “cover his long dirty toenails.”  Again, I was just appalled.  She drew out the words, speaking every one of them distinctly as if conveying meaning to the jury.  “…long……..dirty……toenails.”

    This was no off-the-cuff remark.  It was intentional, prepared for by Reuben asking the question of the ME.  Hogue couldn’t have used in closing something that wasn’t entered into evidence. Reuben asked the question to get it in and Hogue followed up by using it in the closing.

    Arbery’s parents were mortified.  The father left the courtroom and both parents commented on the courthouse steps about how disgusting it was for the defense to try to smear Ahmaud Arbery’s character.  I completely agree.

    Lawyers on national television criticized the comment, but then defended Laura Hogue’s right to use it.  As one attorney commented, the defense attorney has the obligation to use whatever it takes to defend the client.  But, that is just bullshit.

    It’s the kind of reasoning that allows lawyers to argue that they do not have any obligation to moral standards at all.  And, it is simply not true.  It’s the kind of argument that allows lawyers to sleep at night and be accepted at the Bar Association cocktail party.  It makes me furious.

    No lawyer had the obligation to use racist hate mongering and smear tactics to defend their client. 

    Hogue (female) has, of course, defended herself by saying that she was merely trying to demonstrate that Ahmaud Arbery was not a jogger.  I’ve got news for her.  Some people jog without socks.  And, even if you accept the no-socks defense as fair game, the “long, dirty toenails” was not.

    Trust me, the same lawyers who will gin up racial hatred and dehumanizing stereotypes will also try to pick a fascist jury, arouse fascist sentiments and dehumanizing stereotypes to defend Nazis.  It’s only a matter of time.  And they will go on national television and defend themselves and their colleagues will defend them as well.

    This behavior by the defense, and it does not only apply to Hogue (the female) was planned defense strategy. Reuben asked the ME the question to get the testimony on the record.  Hogue (the female) hit it out of the park.  All the defense attorneys in this case are part of the racist defense strategy utilized throughout the entire trial and they should all be condemned, shunned and disbarred.