The Tar Baby Syndrome: Absent-mindedly, America lurches toward war with Russia

 A tar baby, in popular parlance, is a difficult problem only made worse by attempts to solve it. The term comes from an Uncle Remus story about Brer Fox and Brer Rabbit. Brer Fox smears a doll with tar and tricks Brer Rabbit into striking the doll repeatedly in a futile attempt to get the doll to talk. Brer Rabbit’s punches and jabs have no effect on the tar baby, and soon Brer Rabbit is stuck in the tar.

Ukraine is President Biden’s tar baby. After Russia invaded Ukraine last year, the President believed the Ukrainians could defeat the Russians if given modern weapons and training by NATO and the U.S. Army.

Things have not gone well. After 17 months of war, Ukrainian cities are in ruins, thousands of people have died, and millions of Ukrainians have become homeless refugees. Ukraine is an environmental disaster, with land mines strewn over the countryside and the lower Dnieper valley devasted by flooding.

And President Biden continues to punch the tar baby. First, his administration delivered ammunition, missiles, and javelin anti-tank weapons to the Ukrainians. That didn't do the job. Next, America and its NATO allies sent state-of-the-art tanks and armored vehicles in support of the Ukrainians’ much-ballyhooed counter-offense. But the counter-offensive bogged down, and the Russians destroyed many of the donated tanks and armored personnel carriers.

The Biden administration admits it can't supply Ukraine with all the conventional ammunition it needs to defeat the Russians. Thus, the President has decided to send cluster munitions outlawed by more than 100 countries, including many of America's NATO allies. Some call this move a war crime.

Are we done yet? Apparently not. This week the President authorized the Department of Defense to send 3,000 army reservists to Europe. This is in addition to the 20,000 troops sent to Europe earlier in the war. And Biden has promised to send F16 fighter jets to Ukraine.

President Biden is stuck to the tar baby, and the American people are stuck with him. I see no good outcome to this unfortunate war. Ukraine will never drive Russia out of Crimea, although Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukraine’s president, says he will do that. Nor will Ukraine recover the Donbas region.

We should remember that The US fomented this war in Ukraine when it helped topple a pro-Russian Ukrainian president in 2014, which prompted Russia to annex Crimea. Americans seem to think Ukraine is a democracy, but Zelenskyy suspended elections during the war, and his government is riddled with corruption.

This war is as stupid and unnecessary as the conflict in Vietnam or the First World War, for that matter. Yet Biden’s fight has broad bipartisan support in Congress and the mainstream media. No one seems concerned by recent disclosures that Hunter Biden has taken money from the Ukrainians. Nobody seems worried that an amoral octogenarian suffering from dementia is determining American war policy.

Some policy experts think the Ukrainian war will eventually destroy the Russian economy and force Putin out of power. I don't think so. NPR reported last April that the Russian ruble was the world's top-performing currency

No, it is the American economy that is most threatened by the Ukrainian shit show. By the time this tragedy winds down, the dollar will no longer be the world's reserve currency. We will be fortunate if we can get out of this mess without going to war with Russia.

Cluster Bombs for the Ukrainian Misadventure: America Moves Closer to Open War With Russia

Last week, President Biden announced his decision to send cluster munitions to Ukraine. Not so long ago, his administration said that the use of cluster bombs was possibly a war crime. Indeed, more than 100 nations--including France, Germany, and Great Britain--have signed a treaty banning cluster munitions in warfare.

Ukraine's war with the Russians is not going well, however, and the American military says it is necessary to send these heinous killing devices to the Ukrainians.

Why?  Because it is expedient.

The United States is running out of the conventional artillery shells that the Ukrainians are currently using against the Russians. The American military says it won’t be able to meet Ukraine’s demands for conventional artillery ammunition until next spring. However, the US has a stockpile of cluster munitions which it can deliver right away.

Jake Sullivan, the administration's apologist on military matters, says that cluster weapons are justified in order to efficiently kill more Russians, who are deeply entrenched along the battlefront. Also, Sullivan maintains, the Ukrainians will be using these weapons in their own country, and its army will be especially careful not to endanger the lives of civilians.

What does this development tell us about the conflict in Ukraine? First, the United States has reconciled itself to the fact that Ukraine’s war with Russia will be a long war, probably lasting years.

Second, the decision to give an internationally condemned weapon to the Ukrainians is a sign that Ukraine cannot win this war using conventional weapons.

I am opposed to sending cluster bombs to Ukraine. This reckless move brings the United States one step closer to to open war with Russia. In fact, Russia may use America’s escalation as an excuse to use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

There was a time when America’s involvement in Ukraine’s war would have been opposed by liberal-minded Americans. When the US was prosecuting a futile war in Vietnam, it faced growing opposition on college campuses, which culminated in the shutdown of most American colleges in the spring of 1970.

Today, college students obsess on transgender rights and gender neutral bathrooms. They are too distracted by trivial matters to ponder the moral implications of America’s involvement in the biggest European military conflict since the Second World War.

Truth is the first casualty of war: I am opposed to American involvement in the Ukrainian conflict

 Truth, the sages say, is the first casualty of war. This aphorism certainly applies to the war in Ukraine.

Who knows what is actually going on? Daily, we read headlines reporting that the Ukrainians have shot down dozens of Russian missiles and drones. The media tells us that only a handful of projectiles get through Ukrainian defenses, and only a few civilians get killed. We are also told that the Ukrainian military is holding its own against the Russians and making modest gains on the battlefront.

Are these reports accurate? What are the military casualties that have been suffered on both sides? How extensive is the damage to Ukrainian cities and infrastructure after 16 months of war? The death and carnage must be immense.

Everyone acknowledges that military aid from NATO and the United States is the only reason the Russians haven’t conquered Ukraine. Yet the Russians claim that NATO weapons are not invincible and that they have destroyed or captured state-of-the-art NATO tanks and armored vehicles. 

Are the Russians telling the truth? Who knows?

The United States declares it is not at war with Russia, yet the Russians surely believe we are. American involvement has been crucial in preventing a Russian victory. American weapons, ammunition, and expertise have contributed to massive Russian casualties, and even the city of Moscow has come under attack.

I see no good outcome to this war. I don’t believe the Ukrainians can win it. Certainly, Volodymyr Zelenskyy's prediction that the Ukrainians will reclaim Crimea is an idle boast. After all, the Russians have a major naval base there, and losing it would be an existential threat to its status as a military power.

It seems inevitable that the Russians will control the Russian-speaking regions of eastern Ukraine when this war is over. 

Why is the United States contributing to the death and destruction in Ukraine? I can think of no other reason but to distract the American people from our government's colossal corruption and fraud.

I might feel better about this war if our president were competent. But he is not.  Even if the New York Times won't admit it, the whole world knows that Joe Biden suffers from dementia and is a crook. 

How is America paying for the weapons, ammunition, and logistical support it sends to Kyiv? Our country has run a deficit budget for 20 years and can’t pay its bills even without the costs of the Ukrainian war.

American involvement in the Ukraine war is wrong. It has weakened our country and diminished the respect the United States has across the globe.

Furthermore, the Russians will find a way to punish the United States for fomenting and prosecuting this needless war. I don’t think the Russians will retaliate militarily. Rather, they will figure out a way to hurt America economically--perhaps by undermining the status of the American dollar as the world's reserve currency.

If the American public continues to permit our government to prolong the Ukrainian war, all Americans will pay a heavy price. I think we will pay that price soon--perhaps within the next one or two years.

photo credit: CBC

The Supreme Court Strikes Down Biden’s Student Loan Forgiveness Plan: The President Scrambles to Appease College Debtors

 To no one's surprise, the Supreme Court struck down President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan. The president should have seen it coming. He said himself that he doubted whether he had the authority to forgive student loans. Nevertheless, like a child in a temper tantrum, Biden blames the debacle on Republicans.

In a recent public statement, President Biden said he would “stop at nothing to find other ways to deliver relief to hard-working middle-class families.” The White House announced that the Department of Education is rolling out a new income-based repayment plan so generous that most college borrowers enrolled in the new program will pay little or nothing on their undergraduate federal loans.

Due to the COVID crisis, the Department of Education allowed 40 million student loan debtors to skip their loan payments for the past three years without accruing penalties. The Supreme Court’s decision means these borrowers must resume making monthly loan payments later this summer.

In typical govspeak, The White House said yesterday it will construct a bureaucratic “on ramp” to make it easier for student borrowers to repay their loans. As a practical matter, this on-ramp will encourage most debtors to delay making loan payments for another year.

 Why all this sturm and drang? Why all this turmoil? Why is the federal government constructing elaborate workarounds to the Supreme Court's decision?

If President Biden really means it when he says he will stop at nothing to deliver relief to middle-class families, he can do one simple thing. He can encourage Congress to amend the Bankruptcy Code to allow distressed student debtors to discharge their student loans in the bankruptcy courts. All Congress needs to do is delete two words from the Code: “undue hardship.”    

This solution to the student loan crisis is so simple that even a child can understand it. Why then has President Biden yet to endorse bankruptcy reform? Why didn't Democrats enact this reform when they had control of Congress? Why don't Republicans support it now?

I'll tell you why. Important political constituencies are happy with the status quo.  Colleges and universities benefit from a system that pumps billions of dollars of federal money into their coffers without holding them accountable in any way. Colleges are free to raise tuition year after year--forcing their students to borrow more and more money--without regard to whether the students can repay their loans.

The student loan crisis will not be solved until higher education is reformed. Unfortunately, colleges and universities. have no incentive to reform themselves. Thus, the student loan crisis will not be addressed until American higher education collapses.

Is college worth what it costs?

The Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions: Ain’t nothing gonna change at the universities

Yesterday, in an opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the US Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in college admissions. The vote was 6 to 3.

The Court's analysis was straightforward. When reviewing admission applications, the decision instructed, applicants should be judged based on their individual experience, not race.

Unfortunately. as Justice Roberts wrote: 

Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual's identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.

Now that the Supreme Court has declared affirmative action in college admissions unconstitutional, will universities change how they do business? I don’t think so.

American universities are obsessed with race, and many university presidents, deans, and professors view American history as nothing more than a litany of oppression by white racists against people of color. University leaders will likely reject the Supreme Court’s ruling and continue admitting students based on race using their well-honed skills at subterfuge.

Indeed, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested as much in her dissenting opinion in Gratz v. Bollinger. This is what she wrote: "One can reasonably anticipate, therefore, the colleges and universities will seek to maintain their minority enrollment . . . whether or not they can do so in full candor . . . " Justice Ginsburg concluded her dissenting opinion by saying, "If honesty is the best policy, surely [Michigan University’s] accurately described, fully disclosed College affirmation program is preferable to achieving similar numbers through winks, nods, and disguises."

What kind of winks, nods, and disguises are we talking about? Here are a couple of examples from my personal experience. When I was a doctoral student at Harvard Graduate School of Education, the school sponsored a scholarly publication called the Harvard Education Review. Students could compete to get on the journal's editorial board, and new board members were appointed by students already on it. A Harvard faculty member described the Harvard Educational Review as a racial ghetto, and indeed it was. As best as I could determine, no heterosexual white students were on the board.

Despite warnings from fellow students that my application would be rejected, I applied for membership on the Harvard Educational Review's editorial board.

My application was rejected. Of course, there was no written policy banning white men from being on the journal's editorial board, and board members could surely articulate alternative reasons for the board's decisions. Nevertheless, I believe board members were selected based on race.

As my Harvard studies drew to a close, I traveled to Washington, DC, to attend a faculty recruitment conference sponsored by the Association of American Law Schools. I hoped to get a job as a law professor.

When I arrived at the conference, I found that job applicants were sorted into three waiting rooms. One room was reserved for women attendees, another was reserved for people of color, and a third waiting room was open to anybody. Only white men were in that room.

I got a couple of interviews, but I spent most of the day watching other white men reading the Washington Post in the white men's waiting room. Meanwhile, women and people of color were busy attending job reviews. In my opinion, I was witnessing affirmative action.

I am not bitter about those experiences. I had a good career as an educational policy researcher. I feel sure that I published more scholarly articles than the combined output of everyone else in my Harvard doctoral cohort.

I'd like to make one point regarding the Supreme Court's recent decision to strike down affirmative action in college admissions. The universities should be honest about what they are doing. If the Supreme Court declares affirmative action to violate the Constitution, universities should stop practicing affirmative action.

Supreme Court says bye bye to affirmative action

 

 

Reparations for descendants of oppressed people: Count me in!

A special California task force has recommended giving Black Californians about $800 billion in reparations in compensation for the exploitation their enslaved ancestors suffered. Some people say this is a bad idea. After all, California never permitted slavery, and many African Americans came to California long after the Civil War to pursue opportunities in the California defense industry during World War II. California has a good record of treating African Americans fairly, and some people wonder why the state would consider reparations.

I'm in favor of the California reparation plan, and I hope every African American in the Golden State gets at least a million dollars. In fact, I think every American whose ancestors were exploited in any way should get a cash settlement.

However, I don't think I personally should have to pay reparations to anybody. Jonah Fossey, my great-grandfather, immigrated with his family from England in the 1880s and landed in Halifax, Canada. Later he settled in eastern Kansas. No Fossey ever owned a slave. You can't pin that rap on the Fosseys.

This seems like a good time to make my own claim for reparations based on the exploitation my ancestors experienced over the past 100 years or so. First, some of my immediate family lived in northwestern Oklahoma in the heart of the Dust Bowl. If you've seen The Grapes of Wrath, directed by John Ford, you know that the Dust Bowl farmers were exploited by banks and big money interests. Many were forced to migrate to California, where they suffered severe discrimination. In fact, the California Highway Patrol set up roadblocks at the state border to prevent Okie refugees from entering.

California discriminated against my Dust Bowl ancestors, and I demand reparations. I'm talking about the high six figures. 

I telephoned Governor Newsom about this matter. (I'm on his speed dial, and he always takes my calls.) Gav agreed that the Okies were victims of vicious discrimination and promised to send me a check and a complimentary gift card for the French Laundry restaurant.

Second, there's that little matter of my father's incarceration in a Japanese concentration camp during World War Two. My father suffered severe PTSD from that experience, and the nation of Japan owes my family hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars. And let's not forget that the United States military was negligent in not preparing for the Japanese invasion of the Philippines, where my father was stationed when he was captured. So the US government owes us some money as well.

Let's see now--what other grievances do I have? Oh yes. I'm a Catholic, and Catholics have been severely discriminated against in the United States since colonial times. Historically, the most virulent anti-Catholic bigots were concentrated in New England, and I have a big-time claim as a Catholic against the Bay State.

So let's get this reparations program rolling. I'm setting up a Panamanian bank account where the federal, Massachusetts and Japanese governments can wire my reparations checks. I would like my funds designated as a tort settlement so I won't have to pay taxes on the money.

California owes me big time!

Simmons University plans to cut several liberal arts programs due to financial crisis

Simmons University, founded in 1902, is Boston’s only women's university. Although the school admits men to its graduate programs, its undergraduate school is restricted to women. 

Actually, that's not entirely true. Simmons admits transgender students who identify as women. Thus, an applicant who has testicles but regrets them is eligible for admission to Simmons.

Simmons boasts that 40 percent of its students identify as LGBTQ, and 34 percent identify as ALANA. ALANA is an acronym for African, Latino, Asian, or Native American. 

Despite Simmons’s niche as a women’s college and a college attractive to the LGBTQ community and women of color, the school is losing enrollment. In fact, the Simmons student body has shrunk by 11.5 percent since the fall of 2019.

Fewer students mean less revenue, and Simmons is struggling financially. The school ended its 2022 fiscal year with a loss of $14.5 million.

To reduce costs, Simmons is planning to cut some liberal arts programs, including its programs in philosophy, modern languages, and sociology. As might be expected, this move is opposed by some faculty members. One professor said, “Cutting out the humanities and social sciences is like cutting out the heart and then seeing if the body will still walk.”

Of course, professors rarely support cutting academic programs or laying off faculty members, even when enrollments are down. After all, fewer students in their classrooms mean fewer student papers to grade.

Lynn Perry Wooten, the University president, has tried to assure faculty members that their views will receive ample consideration. “[Y]es, some majors may go away,” Wooten acknowledged, “but it's [about] letting everyone have a voice in the change and then making a process that works” (as quoted in the Boston Globe).

Simmons is one of many small private colleges across the United States that are being forced to cut programs in the liberal arts and the humanities. In fact, it would be irresponsible for those schools not to eliminate academic programs that are no longer financially viable.

An undergraduate degree from Simmons University costs about a quarter of a million dollars, forcing most students to take out loans to finance their studies. A student would have to be nuts to spend that kind of money to get a sociology or philosophy degree from Simmons University or any other small private college.