Psychic Radio?

I have been thinking about this for a few days (although I've been aware of it for years), and this is a theory which makes some amount of sense and tries to explain how & why it happens. 

Many people have had the experience of listening to the radio and before the next song begins, somehow "knowing" what that next song would be…and be right.

A curious feature of the human brain is that we actually process sound faster than our brains process sight, despite sound being over 880,000 times slower than light. The reason is simple, sound hits our ear drums and that information is directly relayed to the portion of the brain that processes sound which happens to be right next to our ear; thus allowing us to "hear." Light on the other hand, not only has to go through our eyes, but must travel to the very back of the brain before being processed by a larger number of regions. We also rely on memories to know what it is that we are seeing which adds to the complexity of sight over hearing.

It’s my theory that this increased processing time combines with the fact that by the time we become conscious of something, the thing we are then conscious of has already happened, leading to the sensation of "prediction."

Let me explain. Once sound leaves the speakers it takes a fraction of a second to reach our ears, and then another fraction of a second for our brains to process it and for us to become aware of what it is we’re hearing. By the time this happens, new sounds are already leaving the speakers. The same can be said for sight. In essence, our conscious world is continually in the past; a state of being aware of things that, by the time we’re conscious of them, have already happened and so are in the past. 

The fact that our subconscious minds work far faster than we are aware (in some cases our brain has made decisions several seconds before we consciously "make" them), may also play into the sensation of prediction thanks to a kind of déjà vu; our brain has heard the first part of a song before we are aware of it and so when we become aware of the song we feel as though we predicted it, when in reality our brains simply processed the sound before we were consciously aware of said sound.

While the times involved are very short, I think this may be why people think they somehow "knew" the next song to come on the radio before the song begins, particularly for songs we've heard many times. As with sight, our brains are excellent at memorizing sounds and we can often recall the name or tune of a song with only a few notes which lends itself to this quick recognition process. 

Looking at the World Today

As we approach the 13th anniversary of the first September 11th terrorist attack and the 2nd anniversary of the Benghazi attack, I thought it would be worth taking a brief look at eight issues facing millions around the world today.

Scottish Independence

The Scottish people have a long history of being independent. Whether it was the thousand year existence of the Kingdom of Scotland, or their struggles to maintain a separate identity after the final union of Scotland and England in 1707 and the travails of the Highland Clearances, the Scots have always sought to keep some level of independence, be it cultural or political. Since the 1850s, the "Home rule" movement tried to re-assert Scottish control over Scotland, and between the 1930s and 50s Scotland won several concessions including the moving of the Scottish Office to Edinburgh and the return of the Stone of Scone - which had been in English control for 700 years.

Then, in 1997, the Scottish devolution referendum led to the creation (or re-establishment) of the Scottish Parliament, granting Scotland a devolved government. However, the desire by many for a fully independent Scotland has only deepened over the years and on Sept. 18, 2014, the people of Scotland will have a chance to vote to either remain in the UK or to become an independent nation.

The issues facing Scotland as it pertains to independence are numerous and there remains a very large segment of the population who desires to keep the status quo, but no matter which way this new referendum swings, it is absolute proof that peaceful self-determination is possible and that the spirit of William Wallace is alive and well, even 709 years after his death. This will be one vote for the history books.

US Border crisis

The US has had a large illegal immigration problem for decades and since the 1990s the number of illegals coming into the country has outnumbered the number of legal immigrants. This has led to 11 to 15 million illegal immigrants now living in the country, which costs tens of billions each year in services, law enforcement, loss tax revenue etc.

Starting in 2008, the country extended the rights and protections given to unaccompanied children (UAC) who cross the border, and we saw an increase in the number of these children each year. Indeed, the number of apprehensions of unaccompanied children coming to the US from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras increased 430% between 2011 and 2013, while the number of UACs (from all of Central & S. America) entering the US rose literally 1,000% in 2014 compared to 2013. This explosion of refugees reached crisis level in 2014, when tens of thousands of refugees and illegal migrants from these countries crossed into the United States; primarily into Texas.

This has overwhelmed our immigration system and prompted President Obama to ask for $3.7 billion in emergency funds. According to Texas Gov. Rick Perry, crime rates have also surged and he ordered 1,000 Texas National Guard troops to the border to help stem the tide in the absence of federal assistance. Many of these children (which include teenagers) have been sent to facilities across the country, at times without the knowledge of the governors of affected states.

With little in the way of meaningful legislation or promises to enforce federal law, and with Obama announcing that he would not use executive actions (which aren't the same as an executive order) to address the issue of illegal immigrants already here, only time will tell if this crisis will get worse before it gets better.

Ebola outbreak

(Click for larger view)

Ebola is by far one of the most horrific diseases known to man. Historically it has had a death rate of around 90% and the deaths themselves can be incredibly painful and graphic. Ebola has been known since 1976 and the few outbreaks that occurred prior to the current West Africa epidemic were, thankfully, short and contained. This latest outbreak however has been anything but short and contained.

What began as a single case in Dec. 2013 in a small Guinean village has morphed into a regional epidemic with potential global ramifications. Unlike the flu or SARS, Ebola isn't an airborne disease, it can only be spread through contact with the bodily fluids of infected persons. That said, with this outbreak moving rapidly into its eleventh month and 4,030th case, like the evolution of SARS, it is possible that the virus could mutate and become more virulent. The longer any outbreak lasts, the greater likelihood of the virus hoping onto an international flight (since a person can be infected for several days before showing symptoms) and causing the worst case scenario.

Of course it would be very difficult for an Ebola outbreak to occur in the United States or Europe since our medical facilities and protocols are geared to contain such things - and are far better than anything in West Africa. Still, the risk is there for it to spread within Africa and possibly the Middle East, creating a situation that would require the full weight of global medicine to stop it. 

Presently, the outbreak is the worst in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, with cases also present in Nigeria (the most populated country in Africa) and Senegal - there's also a separate outbreak happening in the Democratic Republic of Congo (Zaire). There have been 4,026 cases and 2,137 deaths due to the virus, a death rate of 53%. The death rate has so far been considerably lower than in previous outbreaks, but with little in the way of treatment, anyone who becomes ill is going to be in for a very rough time. Back in August, the UN estimated that upwards of 20,000 people would contract the disease, unfortunately, the infection rate has increased; meaning that estimate could well be surpassed. 

This outbreak is unlike any other in a number of ways. Only a strong and concerted effort will win the day. To quote CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden, “The bottom line with Ebola is we know how to stop it: traditional public health. Find patients, isolate and care for them; find their contacts; educate people; and strictly follow infection control in hospitals. Do those things with meticulous care and Ebola goes away.”

Ukraine-Russia Conflict

Russia has a penchant for invading countries and stealing land. This is abundantly evident from their history. Their most recent conquest was Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula in February of this year. Under the pretense of protecting ethnic Russians from persecution (this from the ones who committed genocide in Ukraine) the Russian military, ever so subtly (sarcasm), built up a mass of thousands of soldiers, tanks, and aircraft along the Russia-Ukraine border in Ukraine's Donbas region (the area embroiled in a regional civil war, with pro-Russian militants seeking secession). After months of troop build ups and partial withdrawals, over a thousand Russian soldiers marched into Ukraine in late August and bombed the area around Novoazovsk.

At first, Russia denied they had invaded the country, but when faced with clear satellite imagery and other evidence (like captured soldiers), they said the men had accidentally entered Ukraine. 

The proposed reason for the invasion has been to give Russia a land bridge to Crimea, since the only way to get to it via land is to go through Ukraine. To accomplish this, the Russians would need to carve out a strip of land roughly 180 miles long, and in doing so, would take away Ukraine's access to the shallow Sea of Azov. Of course official Russian territory is a mere 3 miles from the eastern edge of Crimea at the Strait of Kerch. My advice to Russia? Build a bridge instead of plunging Europe into war just to steal one! 

At the moment there is a ceasefire under the "Minsk Agreement." In part, the agreement lays out that all Russian troops are to leave the Donbas region, as well as the illegal militias, and the areas in question are to receive a greater level of autonomy. With respect to autonomy, in my mind this only pushes the eventuality of Russian annexation down the road, it won't prevent it. 

On a side note, there has been an increase in the number of Russian nuclear bombers violating the air-defense perimeter of the United States. While this isn't technically violating sovereign airspace, it's not something countries take lightly. And it's just another provocation by Russia which shows their disregard for the rule of law and the notion of a "community" of nations. 

North Korea

The situation on the Korean Peninsula continues to be a ticking time bomb, particularly due to the actions and provocations of North Korea (more properly, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea). In a continuation of its 2013 activities, North Korea has fired several rounds of short and medium range missiles, and they have announced the trial of yet another American. However, unlike Jeffery Fowle and Kenneth Bae (who are being held for being Christian missionaries), or Merrill Newman (held for being a Korean War vet and then released after "apologizing"), Matthew Miller reportedly tore up his passport at the Pyongyang Airport and shouted that he was seeking asylum in North Korea. He was arrested for "rash behavior" and will be placed on trial on Sept. 14.   

The most recent barrage of missiles came on Sept. 9, when the North fired three short-range missiles into the Sea of Japan. Previously, the DPRK fired missiles during Pope Francis' visit to Seoul, South Korea (which DPRK officials deny there being any relation to the two events), and there were several other tests earlier in the year. It is believed that the most recent launches were an attempt to test a new, slightly longer range tactical missile similar to the KN-2. 

Since coming to power in 2011, Kim Jong-un has been very provocative, with multiple missile tests, a nuclear test, and a satellite launch; not to mention the major 2013 crisis. Some of this behavior has been, no doubt, to help him consolidate power and gain legitimacy. (He has no formal military training and is still fairly young at the age of 31 - a leader in a heavily militarized society and one in which age and wisdom go hand-in-hand.) I also feel it's an attempt by North Korea to try to close the technology gap with South Korea, especially since Kim Jong-un is keenly aware of how disadvantaged his country is in every way. 

These reasons and more can add up to a potentially very dangerous young man. A man eager to prove himself, to fulfill the promises of his father and grandfather, and to retain absolute control in country whose populace is no longer as docile and obedient as it once was.

Islamic State of Iraq and Syria

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) began in 1999 as 'Al-Qaeda in Iraq'. Thanks to the completely inept leadership of former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, and the Syrian Civil War, ISIS began to flourish and forge its own identity outside of Al-Qaeda, with the two organizations officially splitting in 2014 (reportedly ISIS was too cruel and brutal, even to Al-Qaeda). Though it was established in Iraq, many of their fighters went to Syria and becoming battle hardened, and then burst onto the scene in Iraq as a more invigorated group.

Unlike other terrorist organizations, ISIS has a clear goal that includes the establishment of a new country - the Islamic State, also known as a caliphate. They have been able to seize large tracts of territory in both Iraq and Syria and in the process they have stolen hundreds of millions in cash, gold, and natural resources like oil. They are largely self-financed because of this (which is very unusual for terrorist groups and creates additional difficulties as we attempt to deal with them) and earn an estimated $2 million a day from selling oil on the black market. 

Beginning in June 2014, the US has been carrying out targeted airstrikes against ISIS and has sent nearly 2,000 troops into Iraq as advisers and embassy security. The UK and other countries have begun to send personnel to Iraq as well in a growing coalition against ISIS. With the murder of two American journalists, the domestic support for intervention has grown dramatically. Although President Obama's initial rhetoric toward ISIS was fairly weak and indecisive, the Obama administration has now been calling for the complete destruction of ISIS, and they have proposed that to achieve that goal, we will need a three-year military operation. 

Congress has likewise had a mixed reaction to the ISIS threat, and with mid-term elections right around the corner, it's difficult to say what, if anything, Congress will do to thwart ISIS in the short-term. One thing is very clear, the President does not have the authority to go after ISIS unilaterally as they do not yet pose an immediate threat to the American Homeland (despite the tragic deaths of James Foley and Steven Sotloff); he must get Congressional approval, not merely "advise" them. That said, even if ISIS were a direct threat, any conflict longer than six months would still require a Congressional vote. Though, given the self-inflicted 
emasculated state of Congress, if Obama wants to do something I'm pretty sure he'll get it - even at the expense of law (and even if the motives are well-intentioned). These things notwithstanding, it is clear that ISIS must be dealt with, and we will need all of our allies to step up to the plate, especially those in the region.

Syrian Civil War

Despite no longer being on the front page news each day, the Syrian Civil War is still raging. What began as protests in 2011 quickly turned into a devastating civil war that has cost 200,000 lives and created millions of refugees. Early on it seemed like the opposition might win, especially after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons; an action that promptly saw many Western nations recognizing the opposition Syrian National Coalition as the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people. Unfortunately, lack luster international support in terms of financing, arming, and training the Free Syrian Army helped to slow momentum. The growing divisions within the opposition itself (moderates against Islamic extremists) and renewed government offensives have led to what may be an irreversible tide change in favor of Assad's regime, 

With ISIS having a stronghold in Syria and recently helping to push the opposition out of Aleppo, a key opposition city which the anti-Assad forces have mostly held since 2013, a new dynamic may arise in which Western forces must align themselves with Assad in order to defeat ISIS. And while President Obama has said that we will work with the Free Syrian Army (and provide greater support to them), you cannot hope to destroy ISIS without Assad's help. And that may create a situation in which the opposition is further weakened because we are also, by default, helping Assad. 

If Aleppo is re-taken by Assad, he can cut the last supply lines from Turkey to the opposition. And coupled with the recent deaths of dozens of top opposition leaders in Idlib, we may yet see Assad triumph, with the United States and the West having the major headache of being forced to deal with an Assad Syria after marking out so many red lines. 

Israel-Gaza Conflict

A factory burns after rocket attack.

Israel has been in conflict with Hamas since 1987, and Israel has practically been in a constant state of war (be it against invasions or terrorists) since gaining independence in 1948. The current conflict (aka "Operation Protective Edge") against Hamas in the Gaza Strip roughly began on May 1, 2014 when Hamas started firing rockets into Israel in retaliation for "Operation Brother's Keeper." The conflict has resulted in 72 Israeli deaths (66 soldiers and 6 civilians) and 530 injuries, as well as around 2,150 Gazan's killed and 11,000 injured. 

Hamas has built up a collection of tens of thousands of rockets, including the Qassam (which cost less than $1,500 each and are easily produced), Khaibar, and Fajr rockets. The Khaibar and Fajr rockets can both reach Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. After enduring years of sporadic (thought at times very intense) rocket attacks, Israel developed the Iron Dome missile defense system, and during this latest conflict it has been successful in intercepting 90% of the rockets it targeted. However, Hamas also built a very 
sophisticated network of tunnels to reach into Israeli territory to launch attacks, engage in smuggling, etc.

After launching several air offensives and sending in waves of soldiers to deal with the threats, the tunnels have been destroyed and there were a number of brief ceasefires (primarily for humanitarian reasons). The current ceasefire seems to be holding, but there are a number of issues placing strain on it coming from within and outside of Israel and the Palestinian areas. This uneasy momentary peace could hold, but it could easily be shattered as we have seen before. As we watch and wait there remains little real hope of a lasting peace.

On the Question of Crimea

Since Ukrainian independence from the former USSR in 1991, the country has struggled to reclaim its identity and maintain some semblance of national independence from its former Soviet master. This is a struggle common to many of the former soviet republics and a situation made worse given the decades of forced population migrations, the suppression of indigenous cultures, and all the other issues which went along with the Russianization of occupied lands.

Despite many people trying to oversimplify the situation - trying to suggest it is predominantly due to the gas pipelines that run through Ukraine, or the historical claims Russia has over Crimea - the tangled relationships within this region go back over a thousand years and have been made all the more complicated by the rise and fall of the Soviet Union.

The recent crisis facing Ukraine and Crimea are at once distinct separate issues and part of a larger unified problem simultaneously. I will attempt to explain the history, reasons, and possible outcomes of this crisis.


First, some history.

The first known organized and powerful Eastern Slavic state to arise was the Kievan Rus' federation of states whose capital was the city of Kiev (which had already existed as a major trading center for 300 years). The Kievan Rus' lasted over 400 years from 882 AD to 1283. The countries of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine all claim Kievan Rus' as their heritage and cultural inheritance. At its height the various principalities stretched from the Black Sea in the south (including the territory of Crimea) to the White Sea in the far north, some 1,400 miles apart.

After a period of decline and splintering, what was left of Kievan Rus' was finally conquered by Mongol invasions. Several of the remaining states slowly fell under the control of Moscow, but others, like the region surrounding Kiev and Crimea, became their own nations. Crimea was eventually subsumed into the Mongol "Golden Hord", but later gained a level of independence and became the longest surviving Khanate. The Crimean Khanate lasted from 1441 to 1783, and was primarily aligned with the Ottoman Empire. But over time, they too were slowly turned into Moscow's orbit, despite once invading and capturing Moscow themselves in 1571. Eventually, and after war, Crimea was incorporated into the Russian Empire in 1783 - the same fate befell much of Eastern Europe.

Despite continued invasions, periods of peace & independence, and the ever shifting sands of empire, the people of the Crimea, as well as the wider Ukrainian territory, maintained their own unique and diverse cultures (including a sizable Muslim population). It is important to note that much of modern eastern Ukraine had actually been taken over by the Polish-Lithuanian Union.

Let's skip forward to the Soviet Union.

As we've seen, the Russian dominance of both Ukraine and Crimea is a relatively new event. Ukraine was organized into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1919 and Crimea was a territorial part of the Ukrainian SSR. During the early Soviet years (1922-1931), the original ideals of communism were actually beneficial to the region based on the concept of korenizatsiya (indigenization). This led to a revival of the Ukrainian language and culture. However, as Stalin began to implement harsher and more irrational agricultural programs the "Ukrainian Holocaust" (the Holodomor) eventually claimed the lives of 10 million Ukrainians. That, along with the costs of World War II (1.6 million Ukrainian troops killed), caused a severe depopulation of the region. The notorious purges of Stalin also meant the death or imprisonment of many leading figures of Ukrainian nationalism. By some estimates, 3/4ths of Ukraine's cultural elite, intellectuals, artists, etc. were killed or imprisoned. Korenizatsiya was ended and Russification began. Russification meant the harsh subjugation of all cultures, languages, and heritages of the many constituent Soviet "Republics" to that of Moscow and the authoritarian Russian way of life.

During the post-war years, the Ukrainian SSR was actually granted special legal privileges. For example, while it was a fully integrated part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, it was also allowed to join the United Nations as a semi-separate nation. During the remaining Soviet era, Ukraine became one of the USSR's primary military and scientific regions. But, thanks to Russification, the Ukrainian language was not taught as the primary language of the Ukrainian people and Ukrainian culture took a back seat to Russian culture. Over time this lead to two countries within one. The western parts of Ukraine still maintained a somewhat separate identity, but the east (and Crimea) became more and more Russianized. The effects of this can still be seen today.

As the USSR began to crumble, over 300,000 Ukrainians protested in 1990 in Kiev for Ukrainian independence. Then on Aug. 21, 1991, the Ukrainian parliament passed an act declaring the country independent and a later referendum was overwhelmingly passed by the people of Ukraine to become a free and sovereign nation. The national vote was 92.3% in favor, including a solid majority of the people living in Crimea. Tellingly, Ukraine was not a signatory to the Alma-Ata Protocol  in Dec. 1991, which established the Commonwealth of Independent States (a brotherhood of former Soviet Republics), and even today it's not a full member of the CIS. After the collapse of the USSR, the new Russian Federation and Ukrainian Republic tried to maintain strong and friendly ties. After all, their histories have been interwoven for centuries. But there should be no mistake, Ukraine was and is a fully sovereign nation. In 1994 the US, Russia, UK, and Ukraine signed the "Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances". The document assures the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine and the signatories agreed "to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind." This economic provision was also part of the Helsinki Accords.

Over the years, there has been a great level of economic cooperation between the two countries, although, Ukraine has also tightened relations with the West and isn't a member of many of the Russian-led trade/cultural/inter-governmental associations which have been established since the fall of the USSR. Ukraine has been one of the primary transit points for the vast amounts of Russian oil & gas to reach the European Union (80% of Russian natural gas exported to the EU move through Ukraine).

The issue of gas transportation has caused several disputes since the 1990s, and often it was Ukraine itself causing the problems. That being said, there is no real evidence that the issue of energy has played a leading role in the current crisis, which began in November 2013, and many of the pipelines themselves date to back to the Soviet era. Although, the value of the natural gas that Russia exports annually (all NG exports) is roughly $50-70 billion (export prices vary) plus a further $14 billion in other fees coming from Ukraine. So maintaining some level of control over the system is obviously a motivation to ensure Ukraine's allegiance.


And now on to recent events.

There remains a strong and evident division within Ukrainian society and a tug-of-war has existed since independence: on one side there are those who support closer ties to the West, membership in the European Union, and NATO inclusion. On the other side, are the substantial ethnic Russian minority who want to strengthen ties with Russia and remain solidly in the "Russosphere". These divisions are most evident when you look at the country's 2010 presidential election and a map of the country when comparing predominately Russian vs. Ukrainian language speakers.

(2010 election results map)

The results of the election show a clear division within the country. Those who supported Yulia Tymoshenko are shown in red & yellow, and those who voted for Viktor Yanukovych are shown in blues. Yanukovych won the election by a 3.5% margin and his "Party of Regions" has a strong history of pro-Russian support. However, the Party of Regions' primary demographic base of support are with those who grew up during the Soviet period. Tymoshenko's "Fatherland" party is pro-European Union. Despite the victory of PoR, the overriding popular desire was to improve ties with the EU and, in time, become a full EU member.

The map below shows the country divided along city/village councils and shows which language is spoken by a majority of the people.

(Click to enlarge)

In order to become an EU member, Ukraine had to undergo several major reforms and Yanukovych had initially been in favor of fulfilling the obligations and acceding to the EU. Both the EU and Russia offered various loans and economic assistance to try and win support for their own particular causes, though Russia's economic support was much greater than the EU was willing to provide. And, Russia wasn't demanding that Ukraine root out corruption and take the necessary measures to bring their financial system into stricter alignment with international norms as the EU had demanded. After winning the election, Yanukovych's government also signed a controversial agreement renewing a lease for a military base in Sevastapol (the largest city in Crimea) to Russia until 2042 in exchange for better energy prices. The agreement was an extension of a similar treaty signed in 1997. The 1997 treaty was part of a military division agreement to help deal with the question of the old Soviet bases & military units left within Ukraine. It needs to be said that the 2010 naval treaty does not give the Russian military the authority to leave their bases, let alone run over the entire peninsula which is slightly larger than the US state of Vermont. It also seems to violate the national constitution's provision on hosting foreign bases.

In November 2014, the government suspended their preparations for a free trade agreement with the EU and the plan to proceed with the signing of the EU Association Agreement. This was done after the government agreed to further these objectives which were a major factor in Yanukovych winning the election 2010. Thus, Euromaidan began. Since then there have been nation-wide protests involving hundreds of thousands of people (at times upward of a million), most notably in Kiev.

Because of the enormous opposition, Yanukovych was ousted from power with the support of 73% of Ukraine's parliament. It was at this point that unmarked men in military garb and carrying weapons started appearing in Crimea. The Geneva Convention explicitly forbids this type of action. Then Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, said that they were only there to protect the Russian speaking people from dangerous mobs, though I haven't found any evidence of large scale violence or threats against anyone in Crimea (he also later claimed there were no troops at all there). From there, a steady stream of marked and unmarked Russian troops began taking over parts of Crimea, preventing Ukrainian soldiers from entering their own bases, and, eventually ended up taking over the entire peninsula. Such actions by Russia violate the UN Charter.

On March 11, the Supreme Councils of Crimea and Sevastopol (which is its own separate political entity) issued a joint "Declaration of Independence" which also laid out their intentions to hold a referendum to allow the people of Crimea to decide the question of secession. The concept of unilateral independence is a very controversial one in international law and most cases result in some kind of war. The international norm is that each party (parent country and separatist region) sits down and negotiates the terms of independence, often with international mediation.

The legality of unilateral separation can be addressed by the Constitution of Ukraine.

Article 17 of the Ukrainian constitution mentions the "territorial indivisibility of Ukraine" and prohibits any "armed formations not envisaged by law". Article 73 states: "Issues of altering the territory of Ukraine are resolved exclusively by an All-Ukrainian referendum." An "All-Ukrainian referendum" can be called for by popular initiative, however the initiative must be supported by no less than 3 million citizens. The population of Crimea is only 1.9 million - and of those approx. 500,000 are ethnically Ukrainian. Furthermore, the initiative must have at least 100,000 signatures from each of Ukraine's 25 political divisions. Such an initiative must then be approved by the Verkhova Rada (Ukraine's supreme council or parliament).

Article 85 also makes it clear that the autonomous powers of Crimea (and whatever laws passed) are subject to the approval of the national parliament. Chapters IX and X deal exclusively with Crimea and in case there was any doubt, explicitly states that Crimea is an inseparable part of Ukraine. The constitution was agreed upon by the people of Crimea.

On the issue of dual citizenship, it is true that there are dual citizens within Ukraine (as with most countries), but, the law itself does not recognize dual citizenship. A person who holds dual citizenship while within the territory of Ukraine are considered only a citizen of Ukraine.


The referendum has been criticized by several members of the Party of Regions and by the Crimean Tartar ethnic minority who make up 12% of Crimea's population. The Tartars had made up nearly 36% of Crimea's population prior to being forcibly deported by the Soviet Union.

Prior to the actual referendum in Crimea, the leadership of three additional oblasts (provinces), which have a substantial Russian speaking population, stated their interests in having a similar vote and joining Russia as well. The map below shows Crimea in dark red, the three "supportive" oblasts are in light red. There are two other Russian-speaking majority oblasts in Ukraine as well which actually share a border with Russia. Continued unrest could lead to the fracturing of those oblasts and potentially a civil war, either low intensity or otherwise. Such violence may cause Russia to move their troops stationed along the Ukrainian border into the country under the guise of "protecting" ethnic Russians, despite the fact that it is the ethnic Russians themselves causing the problem.

(Click to enlarge)

Given the continual movements of Russian troops and Russia's past involvement in Georgia, one can only speculate that if the people of these areas showed any kind of support for joining Russia, that Putin would try to "reclaim" these areas. There are several ways by which Russia can exert control over the old Soviet territories (or as some have suggested an attempt to reclaim the old Russian Empire). There is direct invasion/annexation which would clearly be a violation of international law, there is economic annexation (simply controlling the economies of the areas), and there's de facto annexation - such as the case with Abkhazi in Georgia, which also contained a large naval port. De facto annexation means that Russia nominally controls the territory and extends a military defensive shield while not having legitimate control (with the territory still being claimed by its parent nation) and not being recognized by the international community.

What I find curious is that Russia is more than willing to support illegal referendums being held, to accept their results, and to work to gain new territory, but will ignore attempts at sovereignty movements within Russia's borders and will even engage in violent military actions to suppress such attempts. 

As the referendum votes were counted it became clear that the referendum would pass. But, as I've shown, the referendum itself is not legitimate. And while a 95% approval vote may sound convincing, it's important to remember that it's not 95% of Crimea's population, but only 95% of those who've vote; remembering that a sizable number of native Crimean's have rejected the entire process itself. And most damning, the questions on the referendum did NOT include a direct option to vote against joining Russia! Instead, the "dissenting" option was actually two questions in one: to revert the Crimean Constitution back to an older 1992 version (which Crimea alone has no power to do either) and remain part of Ukraine. The second option carries with it an additional complication. Not only were there were two constitutions passed in 1992, but the option doesn't actually prevent the general government of Crimea itself from seeking to join Russia.

There have been comparisons with America's secession from Great Britain during the American Revolution. However, the comparison is flawed because it assumes that the Ukrainian government would not allow Crimea's independence at all. Crimea, while having a close history with the rest of Ukraine also has a strong history of attempting to be independent itself. Ukraine isn't in a position to forcibly keep Crimea apart of it. The problem has never been that Crimea shouldn't become independent and join Russia if they desired to, but that Russia itself took the opportunity to aggravate a tense nation-wide crisis by stoking pro-Russian regional dissent and then forcing the matter of independence at the point of a gun - possibly precluding any chance of peaceful, lawful, and amicable separation. 

There are three main possible outcomes: military conflict, allowing secession, or refusing secession but granting a greater level of autonomy to Crimea which could eventually result in independence.

Russia's military along with pro-Russian militias not only occupy Crimea, but also have thousands of troops (accompanied by tanks and aircraft) stationed on Ukraine's border and have recently moved troops out of Crimea and into other areas deeper within Ukraine. At the same time, Ukraine has mobilized its military and has called up tens of thousands of reserve personnel. As the crisis has evolved there have been instances of violence between protesters and members of the militias, this could easily spark a wider conflict. Unfortunately, Ukraine alone would lose a war against Russian conquest and there would be little the international community could really do. 

Sanctions against Russia would have a minor effect on its economy. The EU, and their substantial dependence on Russian energy, isn't in a position to engage in full scale sanctions. And even if they attempted them, Russia could easily sanction the EU by cutting off gas supplies. Even with the US, Russia could sanction America, and though we wouldn't really be hurt by it, the resulting American push back could cause greater and greater rounds of pressure (Russia vs US, US vs Russia, in a spiral).  

Crimea is already an autonomous republic which gives them a greater level of freedom, especially regarding culture, education, and the management of property (though not total control and not independence). I have little doubt that if Ukraine were to be left alone that there would be an independent Crimea. There could be a greater level of devolution, similar to the relationship of Scotland and the UK, and the Crimeans would be more than capable of joining the Unrepresented Peoples and Nations Organization (UNPO) which has had a good track record of helping separatist regions gain full independence. And they may even be granted observer status by the UN itself fairly quickly. Then, after independence, they could petition to join the Russian Federation if they so desired. As I have said, the biggest problem with this whole issue is that it is being decided by outside forces at the point of a gun. The sovereignty and integrity of not only Ukraine, but the Crimean people themselves, is being violated. Given the history of this region, and the fact that more often than not the affairs of Crimea & Ukraine have been dictated to them, I cannot see how this referendum or Russia's involvement could possibly be considered fair or just. 

Further reading:

The UNPO's statement on Crimea and the Crimean Tartars

The Liberty Amendments: A Rightful Remedy or Folly?

The Liberty Amendments, written by lawyer and nationally syndicated radio talk show host, Mark Levin, was published in August 2013. As of today, it is still one of the bestselling books on Amazon.com (ranked #463) and is among the top 10 books dealing with American politics. His book lays out the case for invoking an Article V constitutional convention to amend the Constitution and proposes ten amendments which, it is hoped, will help restore the American republic. His book has been praised by Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations and, as evidenced above, is wildly popular. However, it has also been criticized and some question Levin's interpretation of Article V as well as the usefulness of added amendments.

Fellow Tennessean and brother-in-arms, Michael Lotfi, recently wrote an article for The Washington Times Communities titled, in part, Why Mark Levin is wrong. Mr. Lotfi has been critical of Levin's book for a while and he is by no means alone. I would like to take a look at Mr. Lotfi's article and address the concerns he and others have raised. Before that, however, I want to state that I do not fully favor nor oppose Levin's solution(s) to our national predicament. That being said, I am in favor having a strong debate and I welcome anyone who offers possible solutions to restoring and then preserving our Republic.

What's the point?

The first main argument Lotfi lays out deals with the usefulness of amendments themselves. He argues that all three branches of the federal government have ignored the Constitution and continually seek to grab powers for themselves which are not granted by the Constitution, and so, what good would new amendments do?

On the surface, it would seem that there is no purpose or use for any further amendments. Many view the Constitution as a near sacred document with a level of perfection closing in on the Holy Scriptures themselves. But when you dig deeper, you find that the Constitution was a document forged by compromise. And, as well intentioned and learned as our Founding Fathers may have been, there were a good many things the Constitution could have had added, or even removed, if certain factions had had their way. A reading of the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalists reveals a long-standing debate between the Founders, the general public, and among the several states - played out in publications and in private - which resulted in the best constitution that could have actually been ratified at the time. Those debates over the scope of federal power, the sovereignty of the states, the role of the individual and their rights, etc. are still raging to this day.

It is often said that the Constitution is written in plain English. And while this was true in the 18th century, one must remember that English is, and always has been, a very fluid language. Words are spelled differently as time goes by and more importantly, the very meaning of the words themselves change over time. The original Constitutional Convention ended in 1787, some 226 years ago, and the farther we are removed from the Founders and their original intent & understandings, the more difficult interpretation becomes. Like it or not, if you hand the Constitution to five different people and have them read it, you will end up with five different understandings of the text. Similarly, if you have five people read the Bible you will wind up with different interpretations - why do you think there are thousands of different denominations of Christianity?

I say all of that to reach my main point: the meaning of the Constitution was debated before the ink was dry and it is debated still. There are 13 federal courts of appeal and 179 judges on those courts (each with their own opinions), and then you have the Supreme Court which, rightly or wrongly, exercises the supreme right to interpret. As often stated, the Constitution is written in plain English and perhaps that is one reason why we're in the mess we're in today. When you combine the nature of our legal system (precedent law), the fact that the modern SCOTUS rarely relies on the non-legal papers of our founders (such as letters, books, publications, etc.), and the fact that we are so far removed from the heated events of the Revolution, to me, it is easy to see that the Constitution lends itself to a broad interpretation - especially if those opinions are not intensely challenged by the states and Congress.

The purpose of adding new amendments, such as those proposed by Levin, is to restrain further broad interpretations by listing specific prohibitions on federal power. Because the federal government was meant to have few and defined powers (while the people retain near infinite powers), it would seem that the Constitution was written using broad language as an attempt to cover as much ground as possible without creating a document that's over 400 pages long (as is the case with India's modern constitution). But in doing so, the reverse has transpired; the government's powers have grown nearly unchecked. In a nation with 315 million citizens, over 7 million businesses with more than one employee, where information and billions of dollars can be transferred at the push of a button, and the ever looming issues of globalization, the roles and powers of our government need to be ever more narrowly defined.

Adding specific amendments would not only help restrain (or in some cases repeal parts of) the federal leviathan, but they would also make violating the Constitution more visible. Modern administrations hide their abuses of power behind the impossibly complex federal bureaucracy and behind the rules & regulations which Congress has unleashed through their inaction and lazy attitude toward legislation. Our government operates under the assumption that if Congress passes a law and the president signs it, it's constitutional by default, regardless of its content (again, unless it's vigorously challenged). It further obscures its actions by justifying any power grab or civil liberty violation as rooted in some thousand-page omnibus bill in which Congress delegates its law making power to an agency or un-elected individuals (such as with the EPA or FISA), even though Congress can't technically cede law making power to anyone without a change to Constitution. New amendments could make such things very difficult if not impossible.

Nullification

Lotfi's next criticism deals with nullification. It is true Mark Levin opposes the idea of nullification, however, his book has nothing to do with the issue. The book offers up one course of action and provides a list of ten proposed amendments (and their justifications) through which Levin believes the country could right its course. But while we're on the topic, let's briefly explore nullification.

Nullification is a legal theory which would allow individual states to nullify (invalidate) federal laws the state(s) find unconstitutional themselves. Although I support the idea of nullification in extreme cases, nullification can lend itself to abuse far more easily than an amendment process. By agreeing that states can simply ignore Congress and laws they don't like, you end up breaking down the very foundations of the country.
That is to say:

- States are co-sovereign branches of the national government and the will of the people is to be expressed via the elected legislatures of the states and the House of Representatives. Yet, the states and general government (the term used to refer to a federal government) must work in tandem, with the general government holding supremacy over certain areas (such as defense). And once states begin to refuse to adhere to the actions of Congress, the country ceases to function. -

Furthermore, nullification can be exercised by single states, whereas the amendment process requires the agreement of 3/4ths of the states. And a single state is more easily given over to the democratic whims of the populace thus negating the very purpose of a constitutional republic - to provide a stable political system rooted in the rule of law and to defend the inherent rights of the individual against the majority. 

Bullet to the Constitution?

Lotfi claims that while the states can call for a convention, only Congress can control it and only through them can the Constitution be amended; thus Congress would torpedo the process. He argues that a primary risk of allowing the states to run such a convention is that a "runaway convention" could occur and result in the Constitution being totally obliterated.

The full text of Article V states:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." 

Article V clearly gives two procedures to amend the Constitution, both of course require 3/4ths of the states to ratify an amendment. The most commonly used is the first, amendments arising directly from Congress. According to the Federal Register: "The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures." 

That doesn't leave much room for doubt, there are two distinct paths.

Levin discusses the threat of a runaway convention process and further states on page 16 that the process is a "federal convention" as well as a "limited purpose convention" (the convention could not abolish the government for example). On page 225 (in the notes) the book explains the issue in greater detail: "The state legislatures can recommend specific language or amendments, but cannot seek to impose them through the application process as Article V empowers the delegates to the convention to propose amendments, which the states subsequently consider for ratification."

The Federalist Papers also raises a powerful point. In Federalist 85, Hamilton says, "the national rulers, whenever nine (two-thirds) States concur, will have no option upon the subject. By the fifth article of the [constitution], the Congress will be obliged 'on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States, to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid....when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof."

If Congress were to ignore the desires of 2/3rds of the states by refusing the take up an amendment or by refusing to accept the state conventions, there would be anarchy and in short order the bulk of Congress would be replaced. Congress in the aggregate ignores the Constitution, but should the states convene and propose new amendments (which must be very similar in language among the states to even qualify) the individual congressmen would remember that they are subservient to the people and would be hard pressed to vote on the contrary.

Congress has the power to pick which method: ratification by the state legislatures, or ratification by state conventions called for the purpose. States could create the conventions and through them propose an amendment, which is technically a reversed method (in the usual manor, the amendment is proposed and then conventions occur). But, should the requisite number of states call these conventions and propose an amendment, as Hamilton said, Congress would have very little choice in the matter. And so, even though Congress does have the power in principle, in practice, Congress would be impotent in the face of two-thirds (or preferably three-fourths) of the states. Furthermore, due to the very nature of the amendment process, the potential of a runaway convention is all but impossible - since 38 states would still be required to ratify any amendment(s).

On this issue, Mr. Lotfi gets it partially right, but his overall conclusion is still wrong in my opinion.

Final remarks

In the end, we must operate in the world in which we live, not in the world we would like to live in or think we used to live in. In order to restore the nation, we need to recognize the situation as it is (with the repercussions of Marbury v. Madison, etc.) The fact remains that neither nullification nor a state-led convention as described by Levin have been fully tested. Levin has said many times, in print and on his radio show, that The Liberty Amendments is but an idea, one possible way to stem the tide, not the only way. Mark Levin has helped reignite the discussion over a constitutional convention as a potential remedy, and Tom Woods has framed the debate regarding nullification. Until one, or both, have been fully tested (either by states asserting themselves, or through legislation or the courts) they remain possible methods. It took one court case in 1803 to start the ball rolling, but it has taken over 200 years for us to arrive in the state we are in today. The country will not be saved and preserved by a single "fix all" solution, but by the people and the states using every tool at their disposal.

A possible future example of using the amendment process instead of nullification would be Obamacare. Obamacare has never been supported by a majority of Americans and 34 states have decided to let the federal government deal with the exchanges instead of setting up their own state exchanges (which would have been optimal for the feds). Although a refusal to set up their own state exchanges doesn't mean the majority of the people in those states would want a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act, it does show that there is a high level of discontent with the law. Since it would take 38 states to ratify an amendment, the fact that 34 are, at a minimum, unhappy with the law means, at least to me, that an amendment would be within the realm of possibility.

Why would we refuse to enshrine in law explicit restrictions on the federal government's meddling in every aspect of our private lives? To dismiss the amendment process in favor of possible factionalism (which nullification could easily lead to) doesn't make sense.

-- Jacob Bogle, 12/31/13
Facebook.com/JacobBogle
Twitter.com/jacobbogle

Has the Federal Reserve Failed?

The Federal Reserve System (commonly called the FED) was implemented in 1913 in an attempt to prevent financial panics. The FED serves as the central bank of the United States, sets interest rates, and issues currency (Federal Reserve Notes) on behalf of the US Treasury Dept. They are deeply involved in monetary policy and do a fair amount of other things not listed above. Contrary to popular belief, the FED is not a government entity. Technically it is a quasi-government entity, but in practice it's a private corporation with its own set of rules and regulations. The inventors of the FED system were among the wealthiest and most powerful bankers and businessmen in the nation at the time and included folks like J. P. Morgan and Rockefeller, and they held a closed-door ten-day meeting at Jekyll Island, GA in 1910.

On paper, the FED is under congressional oversight, however a number of their activities and meetings are not subject to oversight - in fact they're not even required to respond to an individual congressman's inquiries into certain activities. One example of this lack of oversight is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. On top of the CFPB, many of the meetings the FED has (particularly with various banks and businesses) are not open to the public, nor are the minutes of the meetings. The FED is made up of twelve regional reserve banks and their Board of Governors (comprised of seven members who serve 14-year non-renewable terms) oversees the entire enterprise.

The original congressional mandates for the FED were: maintaining maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. Since then, the FED's powers and responsibilities have grown significantly. According to the FED's website their primary purpose is:

• Conduct the nation's monetary policy in such a way as to provide full employment and stable prices
• Supervise and regulate to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation's financial system
• Maintain stability and contain systemic risks (prevent booms & busts)
• Provide certain financial services to the US government, US financial institutions, and foreign government banks  

So how good of a job has the FED done in its 100 year history? 

Maximum and Stable Employment

One of their stated goals is to provide maximum employment. The following graph shows the US labor participation rate since records began in 1948. This rate is defined as the percentage of people working out of the entire available workforce. This chart comes directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

(click on any image for a larger view)

As you can see, the LPR has never been stable nor has it been 100%. And since 1999, the rate has fallen continually. As of July 2013, the rate is 63.4%, a rate not seen since 1978. Furthermore, one would expect that once the country came out of the "Great Recession of 2008", the rate should rise.

Here is the rate since 1999. You will notice the large drop in 2008...and the continued drop.

This metric (the LPR) has fallen at a faster rate in the past 5 years than at any other time since the mid-1960s.  

Next, let's look at the overall unemployment rate. There are six ways to measure unemployment. Some focus solely on those actively looking for work, others include everyone who is looking for work, plus those in part-time jobs who would like to be full-time, and those who have given up looking for work. The officially released unemployment figures, called "U3", does not include the number of people who have lost hope and given up looking for work. The current U3 shows a 7.4% unemployment rate. However, the U6 (which includes those who are working part-time because they can't get a full-time job and those who have given up looking) shows a staggering 14%. 

Of course, stability is a part of the FED's mandate. How stable has the unemployment rate been since 1950?

So, has the FED achieved maximum or stable employment levels? FAILED

Stable and Sound Financial System

The boom & bust cycle (periods of rapid economic growth followed by a period of recession or depression) has arguably been less severe since the creation of the FED. That being said, our financial system has been far from stable and sound. Since 1913, there have been 17 recessions and two depressions. These periods resulted in an average GDP contraction of 9.5%. If you remove the two depressions, the avg. contractions were still at 7.16% each. 

This graph shows you the growth (or contraction) of national GDP between 1923 and 2008 (the height of the last big recession).

And this one shows you real GDP growth from 1950 to 2010, also not exactly a "stable" situation. The "Great Moderation" refers to a period of less volatility in the economy.  

Without an adequate increase in production and economic growth, the amount of national (public) debt can severely degrade the viability and soundness of an economy. Since 2001, the national debt has increased 176.6% while the GDP has only risen 64.7%. 

Each month the government pays $30 billion just on interest payments. For 2012, we spent nearly $360 billion...just on interest! That's $1,149 for every person in the country. 

Next comes the stock market. While the Dow Jones Industrial Average is only a portion of our economy it is a good indicator of the general health (or at least, mood) of the economy. If interest rates, inflation, wages, employment etc were all stable and growing at a more healthy rate you would expect a nice smooth incline throughout history. Instead, we see a relatively smooth transition until about 1994. Then we see long periods of rapid growth followed by a bust, with multiple periods of tremendous growth and severe busts dotted throughout. 

Wages are a key indicator of economic health. The growth of wages should be fairly uniform year-over-year and the gap between the various percentiles should also stay somewhat uniform. From 1950 to the mid-70s both wages and the income "gap" had remained stable in their growth. From about 1980 onward, things get interesting. 

And since 2000, median household income has been very erratic with a huge drop since 2009. 

The last series of economic indicators I'll use are the historical prices of two popular commodities, gold and silver.

None of this meets the criteria of stable or sound. FAILED

Dollar Strength and Interest Rates

Since 1913, when Federal Reserve notes were first issued, the value of $1 today is the equivalent of $0.04 in 1913. That is a reduction in value of 96%. 

Here is a chart showing the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from 1913-2006. The CPI measures the changes in pricing of a basket of commodities. Thus, an increase in the CPI equates to an increase in prices for goods & services (and serves as a way to measure the cost of living). Incomes growing at the same rate as the CPI would mean a stable economy. Incomes & CPI growing at a commensurate rate with the changes in the dollar's value should also be expected. 

We do see a relation between the overall CPI and the devaluation of the dollar, but when added to the rest of the economy it does not bode well.

Falling wages, increased prices, and the devaluation of the dollar means that people have to work harder and longer to purchase the same things over time. Wealth is defined not as the amount of currency a person has, but as the amount of goods that currency can purchase. The debasement of the dollar quite literally means that a person who began saving as a teenage worker, when they retire, the money they saved is worth less today than when they saved it - their earnings were in essence stolen. 

The US Dollar Index (USDX) shows the relative strength of the dollar compared to a basket of other currencies (currently six including the Euro, yen, and Pound). A stable and strong money supply is one of the key purposes of the FED.

Looks like a chaotic roller coaster with an overall trend of devaluation. So much for stable.  

The last metric we will look at is the Federal Funds Rate. This sets the interest rates lenders are allowed to use. When the economy is good the FED raises the rate and when the economy contracts the FED lowers the rate to encourage lending and economic growth. The problem is that the FED can't accurately predict market behaviors and often, economic policies actually contribute to the problems they're trying to avoid or fix. A great example of that was the housing crisis.

In the end, looking at the FED's own reasons for its existence and looking at the information provided by the government itself, the necessity and value of the Federal Reserve System must be called into question. The amount of good the FED has brought to the system when compared to all the negatives really equates to a simple grade.

Federal Reserve grade: F