Fun and Games at Census

For over 25 years the Census Department has collected data on health insurance coverage among Americans. The dataset wasn’t without its flaws. For one thing, it over-reported the number of uninsured. That wasn’t all bad for political do-gooders. They often cited it as “proof” that Uncle Sam would do a better job of insuring folks than the private sector was doing. After all, look at the great job government does running the Post Office, Amtrak, and the national retirement plan called Social Security – all bankrupt were it not for the endless flow of cash from tax slaves.

The political winds shifted, however, with the passage of ObamaCare. Now that it has crowded out the private market for individual health insurance – the kind you buy yourself, not through an employer – O’care advocates want to show that Americans are stampeding to sign up for this exciting new government goodie. The last thing Obamakins want is a statistic that inflates the number of uninsured. They now want the uninsureds to be under-reported to substantiate their claim that over eight million people have become newly insured.

Well, we are in Kansas, Toto, where miracles still happen. Last week Census announced that it had re-jiggered the household insurance questions in its Current Population Survey, making it impossible to determine the effectiveness of ObamaCare. 

Unfortunately the data generated from the old and new questions aren’t comparable, so there is no way to compare uninsured numbers before and after ObamaCare to determine if it has made a difference. Aw, shucks. I’m sure this was a coincidence … right before a mid-year election too. And it’s two years before a national election in which no incumbent is running for the presidency … unless Hillary’s eight years of living in the same building as the Oval Office is considered an incumbency. She thinks it is.

The White House shrugged its collective shoulders all big-eyed and innocent-like and said they had nothing to do with this … that the revised questions have been in launch tubes pending testing since the Bush administration. That may be true. But last time I checked, Census takes its orders from the President who could have said something like, “Hey, I came into office saying my administration would be the most transparent since Millard Fillmore’s and I don’t want any of you guys making a liar out of me. By order of the President, put the release date on hold until we get this ObamaCare thing behind us.” He coulda’ said that, but didn’t.

Or if there is anyone in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue who knows that a standard deviation is not a sexual predator, that person could have told the Maximum Leader, “Hey, Prez, why don’t we run the old system and the new one in parallel until you leave office, that way no one could accuse you of preventing researchers from looking at decades of data that show what a superior program ObamaCare is.” Coulda’ said that too but didn’t.

It will be years before we have enough data from the new questions to smooth out anomalies. In the meantime, the data stream from the old questions has been broken making it impossible to use it to reconcile unusual trends in the new data stream. Anyone who works with new systems runs the old and new in parallel until there is overwhelming assurance before turning off the old system. That’s the way we do it in the real world. The political world apparently doesn’t need such assurances.

Last week’s impromptu appearance in the White House briefing room in which Obama announced the eight million sign up figure was overshadowed by another reality. Before he could beat his breast and let out the Tarzan yell, McKinsey and RAND released survey results that show only a third of those eight million were previously uninsured.

What’s a skeptic to think? The Obama administration’s proof that ObamaCare is working is hardly compelling. How many of the alleged eight million “newly” insured were uninsured previously? How many had insurance that was canceled as a result of ObamaCare? The administration won’t say. ObamaCare wouldn’t look so great, however, if six of the eight million people had lost their coverage because of ObamaCare restrictions on private insurance. Individual insurance cancelations make ObamaCare a Hobson's choice. And it would mean that only two million previously uninsureds – the reason the country is being put through this upheaval – are the true “newly insureds.”

And of the eight million sign ups, how many have paid? Except maybe a root canal, people will sign up for most anything if they don’t have to pay for it. Here too, when asked, the Obamalites say they don’t have that data – yet.

How many of the eight million are young people – the blood donors to this scheme? They are needed to pay but not play. Without their healthy lives ObamaCare won’t work. Historically young people have gone without insurance – unless it was employer-based – because the cost exceeded the benefit if they paid for it. Everyone expects that they will opt to pay the penalty which is a lot cheaper than the insurance premium. Is this happening? Alas, Team Obama says this data point is missing also.

It seems to me that if Obama were trying to make an almost unimpeachable case for ObamaCare’s effectiveness he wouldn’t fiddle with Census data. He would go directly to private sector insurance executives and get substantiating data. Then he could have a Rose Garden announcement: “I’ve called the CEOs of the insurance companies providing individual and small group coverage, and they told me that the number of people with paid coverage last December before ObamaCare went into effect was ‘X’ million. As of the end of March, the first three months since ObamaCare went live on the exchanges, ‘Y’ million people have paid for coverage.” Why doesn’t he do something like that?

Or, instead of bobbing and weaving like a tired boxer in her congressional hearings, former HHS Secretary Sebelius, who under the ObamaCare law has every power including the divine right of kings, could have gotten the substantiating data. She could have required insurers selling on exchanges to report previous insurance status, payment status, and age bracket for the last three months of sign ups. She didn’t.

So, the Census decision to change the data it collects really muddies the water at a critical time in the launch of ObamaCare. The fact that the way the new questions are posed results in lower estimates of the uninsured rate isn’t helping the Bureau’s protestations that all of this is an innocent coincidence. But when the New York Times – no shill for conservative causes – disclosed that the Obama administration was consulted, that Kathleen Sebelius’ HHS and the White House Council of Economic Advisers wanted the new questions in the Current Population Survey, and that the White House Office of Management and Budget approved the CPS questionnaire, it’s hard to make the “innocent coincidence” argument go down.

When Obama moved into the Oval Office, he told the Commerce Secretary that Census would take its orders from the White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel. This preceded the 2010 decennial census, of course. At the time congressional conservatives sounded the alarm. Representative Rob Bishop (R-UT) is on record for saying, “[This move] takes something that is supposedly apolitical like the Census, and gives it to a guy who is infamously political.”

A letter to Obama from Representatives Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Patrick McHenry (R-NC) complained, “Requiring the Census director to report directly to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is a shamefully transparent attempt by your administration to politicize the Census Bureau and manipulate the 2010 Census.”

“The last thing the [2010] census needs is for any hard-bitten partisan (either a Karl Rove or a Rahm Emanuel) to manipulate these critical numbers,” University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato emailed to Fox News at the time. “Partisans have a natural impulse to tilt the playing field in their favor, and this has to be resisted.”

Voters coulda’ cared less. Obama walked on water in 2009.

But now, polling in the 40s, Team Obama apologists are working hard to tamp down cries of “foul” over this latest attempt to disguise the ObamaCare train wreck by calling critics of the Census CPS changes paranoid conspiracy promoters. But let’s not forget that Census was caught cooking the books just before the 2012 election when it was disclosed that an employee, Julius Buckmon, fabricated surveys which made the unemployment rate drop. And need I remind anyone of the IRS scandal?

This administration wins the prize for lawlessness. So believing these guys would go to any length to show that ObamaCare works requires neither a stretch nor imagination.

The Hound of Heaven

Christian churches around the world celebrated Easter this weekend with its focus on the resurrection. Few of them, I suspect, focused on the crucifixion – the signal event in human history which made the resurrection of Jesus “the rest of the story” as Paul Harvey would say. Crucifixion isn't an Easter Sunday topic. The week before, maybe, but not Easter Sunday. 

But in a lifetime of listening to Easter sermons, I've never heard one that centered on the story behind the Easter story – the cosmic motivation that made necessary that bloody weekend and all its suffering two thousand years ago. Oh, I know the theological argument for redemption. The cross was part of it. But what compelled this last desperate act of sacrifice as angels wept and wondered why we humans were so costly?

What is it about God that compels Him to pursue us, to never give up? Looking at mankind’s moral improvidence since The Beginning, I’d have written off the human experiment long ago as a failed idea. God didn't. Why? 

Years ago I read Philip Yancey’s book Disappointment with God. He tells of a visit to his mother’s home long after he had married and began working hundreds of miles from her. They talked and as it is with mothers living alone she pulled down a box of old photos for them to reminisce about the life that was once theirs.

Yancey came upon a photo of himself as an infant, not unlike baby photos any of us have – fat, smiling, dressed in preparation to be memorialized by the photographer – but this one was different. It was crumpled. 

Yancey asked his mother of all the photos she had of him as a baby why keep this one. In an aside, he mentions that when he was ten months old his father was stricken with polio. At age 24 and totally paralyzed, he could only live assisted by an iron lung. Philip and his older brother were not allowed in their father’s hospital room in fear they might “catch” their father’s affliction. So, captive of the metal cylinder in which he lived, Mr. Yancey asked for photos of his family – his wife and two boys – which Mrs. Yancey obliged by jamming them between knobs on the exterior of her husband’s iron lung. When he died three months later – just after Philip’s first birthday – his mother kept the crumpled photos as a memento.

Yancey said he often thinks about this man who was his father. How did he spend his days? No doubt most moments were spent looking at the photos of the three most important people in his short life. Looking at the picture he couldn't touch, his father surely thought about Philip, loved him, missed the feeling of his presence.

Reading Yancey’s story I thought, God is like that. If God had a refrigerator, our picture would be on it. When we had soccer games, He’d be at every one, cheering us from the stands. Everything that is important to us, for no other reason, would be important to Him. Each person in His human family would always be on His mind.

Why? Of all the metaphors God could have used to describe His incomprehensible nature, He used “Father.” Like Philip’s father, He cares for us and longs for us as Joe and Susie and Mary and Paul – not as the human race. There are no group photos where He dwells, only individual pictures. Each of us has our own special place in His heart. 

The English poet Francis Thompson captured in verse the image of a God who never gives up. Thompson would know. He was a dropout in 1885 before it was cool. Addicted to opium when he was afflicted with neuralgia, he was reduced to selling matches and newspapers on London street corners.  He lived under the bridges of the Thames and was so poor he had to beg for paper on which to scribble poems. 

One, The Hound of Heaven, is reproduced below. To save space, I've reformatted it from verse to paragraphs, and I've replaced a few words whose stilted poetic use is obscure in common vernacular today. The narrator is Thompson himself. Mid-sentence capitalizations are his references to God.

I fled Him, down the nights and down the days; I fled Him, down the arches of the years; I fled Him down the labyrinthine ways of my own mind and in the midst of tears I hid from Him and under running laughter. 

Up vistaed hopes I sped and shot, precipitated, adown Titanic glooms of chasmed fears from those strong Feet that followed, followed after.

But with unhurrying chase, and unperturbèd pace, deliberate speed, majestic instancy, they beat – and a Voice beat more instant than the Feet – “All things betray thee, who betrayest Me.”

I pleaded, outlaw-wise, by many a hearted casement, curtained red, trellised with intertwining charities; (for, though I knew His love Who followed, yet was I sore adread lest, having Him, I must have naught beside.)

But, if one little casement parted wide, the gust of His approach would clash it to: fear [knew] not to evade, as Love [knew] to pursue.

Across the [margin] of the world I fled, and troubled the gold gateway of the stars, smiting for shelter on their clanged bars; fretted to dulcet jars and silvern chatter the pale ports o' the moon.

I said to Dawn: be sudden – to Eve: be soon; with thy young skyey blossom heap me over from this tremendous Lover – float thy vague veil about me, lest He see!

I tempted all His [servants], [only] to find my own betrayal in their constancy, in faith to Him their fickleness to me, their traitorous trueness, and their loyal deceit.

To all swift things for swiftness did I [beg]; clung to the whistling mane of every wind. 

But whether they swept, smoothly fleet, the long savannahs of the blue or, whether, Thunder-driven, they clanged His chariot 'thwart a heaven, [splashy] with flying lightnings round the [kick] o' their feet – fear [wants] not to evade as [much as] Love [wants] to pursue.

Still with unhurrying chase, and unperturbed pace, deliberate speed, majestic instancy, came on the following Feet, and a Voice above their beat – “Naught shelters thee, who wilt not shelter Me.”

I sought no more after that which I strayed in face of man or maid; but still within the little children's eyes seems something, something that replies, they at least are for me, surely for me!

I turned me to them very wistfully; but just as their young eyes grew sudden fair with dawning answers there, their angel plucked them from me by the hair.

“Come then, ye other children, Nature's – share with me” (said I) “your delicate fellowship; let me greet you lip to lip, let me twine with you caresses, wantoning with our [Mother Nature’s] vagrant tresses, banqueting with her in her wind-walled palace underneath her azured dais quaffing, as your taintless way is, from a chalice lucent-weeping out of the dayspring.”

             

So it was done: I in their delicate fellowship was one – [unlocked] the bolt of Nature's secrecies.

I knew all the swift [meanings] on the wilful face of skies; I knew how the clouds arise spumèd of the wild sea-snortings; all that's born or dies rose and drooped with; made them shapers of mine own moods, or wailful divine; with them joyed and was bereaven.

         

I was heavy with the even, when she lit her glimmering tapers round the day's dead sanctities.

I laughed in the morning's eyes.

I triumphed and I saddened with all weather; heaven and I wept together and its sweet tears were salt with mortal mine: against the red throb of its sunset-heart I laid my own to beat and share commingling heat; but not by that, by that, was eased my human smart.

In vain my tears were wet on Heaven's grey cheek. For ah! we know not what each other says, these things and I; in sound I speak – their sound is but their stir, they speak by silences.

Nature, poor stepdame, cannot slake my drouth; let her, if she would [own] me, drop yon blue bosom-veil of sky, and show me the breasts o’ her tenderness: never did any milk of hers once bless my thirsting mouth.

Nigh and nigh draws the chase, with unperturbed pace, deliberate speed, majestic instancy; and past those noisèd Feet a voice comes yet more fleet – “Lo! naught contents thee, who content'st not Me.”

Naked I wait Thy love's uplifted stroke! My [armor] piece by piece Thou has hewn from me, and smitten me to my knee; I am defenceless utterly.

I slept, methinks, and woke, and, slowly gazing, find me stripped in sleep.

In the rash lustihead of my young powers, I shook the pillaring hours and pulled my life upon me; grimed with smears, I stand amidst the dust o' the mounded years – my mangled youth lies dead beneath the heap. My days have crackled and gone up in smoke, have puffed and burst as [bubbles] on a stream.

Yea, faileth now even dream[s] [of] the dreamer, and the lute [of] the lutanist; even the linked fantasies, in whose blossomy twist I swung the earth a trinket at my wrist, are yielding; cords of all too weak account for earth with heavy griefs so overplussed.

Ah! is Thy love indeed a weed, albeit an amarinthine weed suffering no flowers except its own to mount? Ah! must – designer infinite! – Thou char the wood ere Thou canst [sketch] with it?

My freshness spent its wavering shower i' the dust; and now my heart is as a broken fount, wherein tear-drippings stagnate, spilt down ever from the dank thoughts that shiver upon the sighful branches of my mind. Such is; what is to be? The pulp so bitter, how shall taste the rind?

I dimly guess what time in mists confounds; yet ever and anon a trumpet sounds from the hid battlements of eternity; those shaken mists a space unsettle, then round the half-glimpsed turrets slowly wash again. But not ere him who summoneth I first have seen, enwound with glooming robes purpureal, cypress-crowned; His name I know and what his trumpet saith.

Whether man's heart or life it be which yields thee harvest, must Thy harvest-fields be dunged with rotten death?

Now of that long pursuit comes on at hand the [noise]; that Voice is round me like a bursting sea: 

“And is thy earth so marred, shattered in shard on shard? Lo, all things fly thee, for thou fliest Me! Strange, piteous, futile thing! Wherefore should any set thee love apart? Seeing none but [me] makes much of naught” (He said), “and human love needs human meriting: how hast thou merited – of all man's clotted clay the dingiest clot? Alack, thou knowest not how little worthy of any love thou art! Whom wilt thou find to love ignoble thee, save Me, save only Me? All which I took from thee I did but take, not for thy harms, but just that thou might'st seek it in My arms. All which thy child's mistake fancies as lost, I have stored for thee at home. Rise, clasp My hand, and come!”

Halts by me that footfall: is my gloom, after all, shade of His hand, outstretched caressingly?

“Ah, [most foolish], blindest, weakest, I am He Whom thou seekest! Thou [drove] love from thee, who [drove away] Me.”

At some point in our lives all of us have fled God only to hear those relentless feet in dogged pursuit … that love that will not let us go.

Easter reminds us to be thankful that He didn't give up.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Each April 9 brings two people in history to my mind. 

One is Robert E. Lee who surrendered his Army of Northern Virginia 149 years ago this past Wednesday ending the Civil War – at least in the north. During the month following most remaining Confederate generals in the south surrendered their forces. The last surrendered in June.

The other historic figure is Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He was hanged on the morning of April 9, 1945 by order of Adolf Hitler.

This is his story.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer decided at age 14 that he would be a pastor – a goal from which he never wavered. By age 21 he had earned a doctorate summa cum laude from Berlin University and before age 25 he had completed post-doctoral work that awarded the highest university degree possible.

Still, he was too young to be an ordained pastor, so Bonhoeffer traveled to New York for a year to study and teach at Union Theological Seminary as a Visiting Fellow. Returning to Germany in 1931, he was appointed to teach systematic theology at Berlin University. But he had become interested in ecumenism, perhaps as a result of having been introduced to black churches during his stay in America and having come to understand racism. His papers and letters suggest a shift in thinking from an intellectual interest in Christianity to a transformed faith in the message revealed in the gospels. 

Bonhoeffer was ordained later that year having reached the age of 25 just as Nazism was beginning its rise to power under Adolf Hitler. It would brook no rival ideology. Germans were two-thirds Protestant and one-third Catholic before Hitler’s 1938 annexation of Austria and about half and half thereafter. Hitler was able to strike an agreement with the Catholic Church that would prohibit political activism and Jewish conversions to Christianity. (Many in the Catholic Church power structure were sympathetic to Nazi anti-Semitism.)

The Protestant churches were another affair. When Hitler attempted to unify their 28 sects into a single anti-Semitic Reich Church, some Protestants were sympathetic to expelling Jewish Christians; others weren’t. Those opposed to the Kirchenkampf – the church struggle that sought to Nazify the Protestant church – formed the Confessing Church. Bonhoeffer aligned with them.

Early in the Kirchenkampf, Bonhoeffer authored a paper, “The Church and the Jewish Question,” which was sure to attract the attention of the Nazis. He contended that baptized Jews were members of the Christian Church. Those who weren’t members were nevertheless under the protection of the church, which had an obligation to “not only bind up the wounds of those who have fallen beneath the wheel” of the state “but at times halt the wheel itself.” 

Thus, Bonhoeffer’s religious ideology put him on a collision course with the Nazi state. It also put him in opposition to Catholic and Protestant church leaders who chose to remain silent in order to avoid attracting Nazi attention. Still, more than 2,000 Confessing pastors joined Bonhoeffer to warn the world of Nazism’s threat.  

In 1933 Bonhoeffer accepted a two-year position in London to be the minister for two German-speaking evangelical churches. He spent a good portion of those two years drumming up ecumenical support for the Confessing Church and its fight against Nazism. When he returned to Germany, Nazi suppression of the Confessing Church had grown harsher. Karl Barth, a founder of the Confessing movement, decided in 1935 to return to his home country, Switzerland. The next year Bonhoeffer was denounced for his pacifism, declared an enemy of the state, and forbidden to teach at Berlin University. He turned his energies to training Confessing Church pastors in an underground seminary in Finkenwalde. Another Confessing founder, Martin Niemöller, was arrested in July 1937. That year Himmler declared it illegal to train Confessing Church minister candidates and the Gestapo shut down Finkenwalde, arresting 27 pastors and students. 

The product of these persecutions was Bonhoeffer’s best known book, The Cost of Discipleship, an exposition of the Sermon on the Mount. In it he condemned "cheap grace" the cosmetic imitation of the "costly grace." Bonhoeffer likely learned the meaning of cheap grace from the protest culture of the black churches during his American sojourn. It would empower his discipleship during the Nazi era.

Throughout 1938 and into 1939 it became evident that Hitler’s demands would provoke war. The potential for national conscription loomed large. It would require an oath of allegiance to Hitler, a great concern for Bonhoeffer. When his mentor, Reinhold Niebuhr invited him that summer to return to the Union Theological Seminary and arranged a teaching job there for him, Bonhoeffer accepted. But almost immediately he regretted his decision. Despite the encouragement of friends to stay in America, Bonhoeffer wrote Niebuhr:

I have come to the conclusion that I made a mistake in coming to America. I must live through this difficult period in our national history with the people of Germany. I will have no right to participate in the reconstruction of Christian life in Germany after the war if I do not share the trials of this time with my people... Christians in Germany will have to face the terrible alternative of either willing the defeat of their nation in order that Christian civilization may survive or willing the victory of their nation and thereby destroying civilization. I know which of these alternatives I must choose but I cannot make that choice from security.

Bonhoeffer returned to Germany in late 1939 on the last steamer to sail before the outbreak of war.

Once there he was forbidden to speak publicly. Then he was forbidden to publish, and then he was forbidden to be in Berlin. Hans von Dohnanyi, husband of one of his sisters, invited Bonhoeffer to work in the German intelligence unit, Abwehr, which would keep him out of the army and its detestable loyalty oath. Many anti-Hitler resisters were at work there and were in contact with other resisters in the army and government. In Abwehr Bonhoeffer learned that several unsuccessful attempts had been made to kill Hitler – of which Hitler and his henchmen were unaware. Killing even Hitler, however, deeply conflicted Bonhoeffer’s pacifism. He once asked students if they believed it right to kill a person in order to save others.

As a courier for the Abwehr, Bonhoeffer was able to obtain travel permits to other countries, ostensibly for intelligence work, but actually to make contact with the allies fighting Germany. Beyond the prying eyes of the Gestapo, he used these occasions to put out “peace feelers.” Moreover, anti-Hitler resisters wanted the world to know that they existed. One trip to Switzerland allowed him to meet Visser't Hooft, the General Secretary of The World Council of Churches, who asked Bonhoeffer what he prayed for “in these days.” Bonhoeffer answered, "If you want to know the truth, I pray for the defeat of my nation …”

Another trip in May 1942 introduced Bonhoeffer to Anglican Bishop George Bell in neutral Sweden. Bell was a member of the House of Lords, an ally of the Confessing Church, and connected to British Foreign Minister Anthony Eden. Bonhoeffer revealed the plot to kill Hitler and the names of the plotters, asking that the British government publicly distinguish Germany from the Nazi regime so the conspirators would be able to negotiate a truce if they could rid Germany of Hitler. Eden refused.

There had been a long-standing turf feud between the Nazi SS and the Abwehr over military intelligence. The SS suspected the loyalty of the Abwehr but could find no substantiating evidence. Consequently, the SS was always on the lookout for something that could be used to discredit their adversary. The opportunity came when a Jewish couple was arrested leaving the country with a large sum of cash, a currency violation. It was traced to the Abwehr and to Bonhoeffer and Dohnanyi who were helping Jews leave Germany. Both were arrested in April 1943 on orders from SS Chief Heinrich Himmler. Bonhoeffer was sent to a military interrogation prison in Tegel and solitary confinement where he awaited a trial for a year and a half.

At Tegel Bonhoeffer ministered to his fellow prisoners as well as his guards. Some of the guards were sympathetic enough to smuggle his letters to his family and former students, one of whom was Eberhard Bethge. Bethge would ultimately be imprisoned himself. After the war he would tell Bonhoeffer’s story to the world, which otherwise had not heard of him. The two were together for Bonhoeffer’s final days. Bethge posthumously published Bonhoeffer’s Letters and Papers from Prison as well as the definitive biography of Bonhoeffer.

While Bonhoeffer wasn’t tortured in Tegel, his conditions were deplorable. To combat his depressing situation, he maintained a strict daily regimen, which included daily reading of the Psalms. He asked his family and Bethge for books and wrote to the latter, “What keeps gnawing at me is the question, what is Christianity or who is Christ actually for us today?” The question shaped his remaining days.

In June 1944 the allies landed at Normandy as the Third Reich entered its death throes. Then on July 20 another attempt was made on Hitler’s life at Wolfsschanze, Hitler’s East Prussia headquarters. Once again Schicksal saved the Fuhrer’s charmed life. Generals Beck and Olbricht, along with Claus von Stauffenberg, Werner von Haeften, and other conspirators were shot that night in Berlin. Dohnanyi and Bonhoeffer finally learned of the attempt but, since they were imprisoned, believed they were safe. Yet the ever-resourceful SS, searching Abwehr headquarters came upon some hidden papers belonging to Dohnanyi which they concluded identified him as “the spiritual head of the conspiracy” against Hitler. Bonhoeffer was identified as one among other co-conspirators. 

In October, Bonhoeffer was moved from Tegel to the ultimate place of terror – the prison cellar of Gestapo headquarters in Berlin on Prinz-Albrecht-Strasse. Although there was enough information about the plot to kill Hitler to execute Bonhoeffer without delay, Hitler wanted the names of every conspirator. So Bonhoeffer remained in the Gestapo prison cellar and was tortured until February 1945 when 20 prisoners were moved to Buchenwald to escape the allied advance. Bonhoeffer and a captured British intelligence agent, Captain Sigismund Payne-Best, were among this group. Sixteen of these prisoners were moved on April 3 – including Bonhoeffer and Payne-Best – to Flossenburg, an extermination camp in the Bavarian forest.

Arriving there, the transport truck was turned away because the camp prison was full. Allied artillery could be heard nearby. The prisoners’ hopes were raised as they were housed in Schonberg nearby.

Unknown to the prisoners, a German prosecutor arrived with his pregnant wife and several officials on April 8. A judge was en route by freight train, which could only get him within 12 miles of Flossenburg. He traveled the remaining distance by bicycle.  

April 8 was a Sunday and the prisoners asked Bonhoeffer to conduct a devotional service. According to Payne-Best, who survived the war, the devotional was drawn from a text in Isaiah: “With his wounds we are healed.” Shortly after a prayer two men appeared at Bonhoeffer’s open cell door and said, “Prisoner Bonhoeffer, get ready to come with us."

Bonhoeffer knew the end was near. He quickly gave mementos to several prisoners and told Payne-Best to get word to Bishop George Bell. "This is the end – for me the beginning of life.”

The bicycling judge, prosecutor, and two witnesses conducted a “trial” that lasted all night and into the morning against Bonhoeffer, General Oster, General Thomas, Admiral Canaris, and other prisoners. There were no defense lawyers or defense witnesses. All were returned to their cells for a few hours, then between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m. the prisoners were read their death sentences and, to add to their humiliation, told to strip naked. A camp doctor-witness, Dr. H. Fischer-Hullstrung, says he saw Bonhoeffer on his knees in his cell praying. He was calm.

The condemned were led down stairs and out into the courtyard to the gallows. Bonhoeffer prayed once more, according to the doctor, before climbing the stairs to the scaffold where he and the others stood naked. 

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was 39 years old.

The US Army liberated the Flossenburg concentration camp just 14 days later on April 23, 1945. 

A week after Hitler committed suicide effectively ending the war.

When Christ calls a man, He bids him come and die.

The Cost of Discipleship – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Putin’s Speech

Two weeks ago I wrote "Putin’s Munich Moment” – opining that Putin’s land grab rationale involving Georgia in 2008 and now the Crimean province of Ukraine was eerily similar to Hitler’s and the Sudetenland in 1938. Hitler’s move was to test the push-back of the West, and finding none, he seized Czechoslovakia six months after the Munich Agreement and invaded Poland six months after that. 

Putin has made his sentiments about the 1991 collapse of the USSR clear -- “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century” – so are the Georgia and Crimea annexations a Munich repeat and the prelude to the reconstruction of the USSR v.2.0? His jingoistic speech to the Russia Federal Council following the Crimean occupation certainly sounded like it.

The speech, whose text is online as well as its video recording, gives us Putin’s worldview. And the fact that both formats were made available, knowing that they would invariably appear on the Internet, indicates Putin was addressing the world, assured that every word would be parsed for meaning.

My word budget for blogs limits how much of the speech I can comment on.  Since the speech isn’t particularly coherent – Putin rambles all over his topics – I’ve organized it into its three main themes (in my opinion) while ignoring his many sidebars. 

Here we go.

After the revolution, the Bolsheviks, for a number of reasons – may God judge them – added large sections of the historical south of Russia to the Republic of Ukraine. This was done with no consideration for the ethnic make-up of the population, and today these areas form the south-east of Ukraine. Then, in 1954, a decision was made to transfer the Crimean region to Ukraine, along with Sevastopol, despite the fact that it was a federal city.

Unfortunately, what seemed impossible became a reality. The USSR fell apart. Things developed so swiftly that few people realized how truly dramatic those events and their consequences would be. It was only when Crimea ended up as part of a different country that Russia realized that it was not simply robbed, it was plundered. … At the same time, we have to admit that by launching the sovereignty parade Russia itself aided in the collapse of the Soviet Union. And as this collapse was legalized, everyone forgot about Crimea and Sevastopol ­– the main base of the Black Sea Fleet.

Millions of people went to bed in one country and awoke in different ones, overnight becoming ethnic minorities in former Union republics, while the Russian nation became one of the biggest, if not the biggest ethnic group in the world to be divided by borders. … Now, many years later, I heard residents of Crimea say that back in 1991 they were handed over like a sack of potatoes. This is hard to disagree with.

The audience most important to Putin is the Russian at home and those living in the countries that were former Republics. The first major theme, therefore, is a nationalistic and not-so-subtle irredentist appeal. He uses the collapse of the USSR and loss of international prestige as the starting point for this theme. But Putin is a bit loose with the facts. Crimea voted to join Ukraine after the USSR collapse – a key detail he failed to include.

Although there has only been a show of force on the Ukrainian border – no Russian forces are in country and one small border detachment has been pulled back – Putin appeals to his audience to consider the historic friendship with Ukraine and its “mother” city.

Our concerns are understandable because we are not simply close neighbors but, as I have said many times already, we are one people. Kiev is the mother of Russian cities. Ancient Rus is our common source and we cannot live without each other.

This is eyewash for anyone who knows European history. Three million Ukrainians died in the mass starvation scheme engineered by Stalin in 1933. But the reference to Kiev sounds like a modern-day bear hug even though Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus have common roots in Kievan Rus' going back before 1000 AD. Ouch! Don’t hug so hard!

To dispel the argument that Russia invaded Crimea, Putin tucks in this remark.

What exactly are we violating? … Russia's armed forces never entered Crimea; they were there already in line with an international agreement. … True, we did enhance our forces there; however -- this is something I would like everyone to hear and know -- we did not exceed the personnel limit of our armed forces in Crimea, which is set at 25,000, because there was no need to do so.

Well, “enhance” is hardly the right word. The number allowed is in dispute. More importantly, Putin didn’t mention that troops were all over the Crimea setting up checkpoints. This was in violation of the sovereignty agreement Russia signed with Ukraine in 1991 promising to keep troops on designated bases unless agreed otherwise by mutual consent. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons to get this Russian agreement.

Naturally, the first in line [to reunify with Russia] here was Crimea, the Russian-speaking Crimea. In view of this, the residents of Crimea and Sevastopol turned to Russia for help in defending their rights and lives, in preventing the events that were unfolding and are still underway in Kiev, Donetsk, Kharkov and other Ukrainian cities.

No doubt helped by an armed group of Russian sympathizers who seized the parliament building. This allowed pro-Russia Members of Parliament to hold an “invitation only” session that replaced the elected Crimea Prime Minister with a stooge who appealed to Russia for permission to “come home.”

Putin’s second theme calls for understanding that Russia and her former republics are being subverted by western interference in their domestic affairs.

Some Western politicians are already threatening us with not just sanctions but also the prospect of increasingly serious problems on the domestic front. I would like to know what it is they have in mind exactly: action by a fifth column, this disparate bunch of ‘national traitors’, or are they hoping to put us in a worsening social and economic situation so as to provoke public discontent? We consider such statements irresponsible and clearly aggressive in tone, and we will respond to them accordingly.

Ah, the old “fifth column” ruse. Putin has used this tired bromide to justify crackdowns on dissent, peaceful demonstrations, and the media. Russian jails are full of fifth column infiltrators. They are the “public discontent” demonstrators because Russia’s “social and economic situation” is in a swan dive. 

In the following excerpt the Maidan is the central square in Kiev, the capital city of Ukraine, and it is the place where demonstrators gather for peaceful but noisy protests. In 2004 peaceful protests forced a vote recount in a stolen election which pro-Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovych had allegedly won. The Ukraine high court agreed the election was rigged and allowed the loser, Viktor Yushchenko, to become the elected winner. In 2010 Yushchenko lost reelection to Yanukovych who later reneged on his promise to join the European Union. Riots followed and many were killed.

I would like to reiterate that I understand those who came out on Maidan with peaceful slogans against corruption, inefficient state management and poverty. The right to peaceful protest, democratic procedures and elections exist for the sole purpose of replacing the authorities that do not satisfy the people. However, those who stood behind the latest events in Ukraine had a different agenda: they were preparing yet another government takeover; they wanted to seize power and would stop short of nothing. They resorted to terror, murder and riots. Nationalists, neo-Nazis, Russophobes and anti-Semites executed this coup. They continue to set the tone in Ukraine to this day.

An interesting comment since the peaceful protests of “corruption, inefficient state management, and poverty” were against Yanukovych’s administration – Russia’s guy. Without a scorecard I know it’s hard to keep the players straight, Vlad, but Yanukovych’s security police were the ones with the guns, not the protesters. Recently, however, photographic evidence has appeared on the Internet which makes a pretty strong case that Moscow-supplied snipers on the nearby Maidan rooftops were responsible for killing protesters during the Ukrainian uprising. One was a Jew – hardly a person you’d expect to find in an anti-Semite coup.

Putin wraps up his second theme with this assessment:

It is also obvious that there is no legitimate executive authority in Ukraine now, nobody to talk to. Many government agencies have been taken over by the impostors, but they do not have any control in the country, while they themselves – and I would like to stress this – are often controlled by radicals. In some cases, you need a special permit from the militants on Maidan to meet with certain ministers of the current government. This is not a joke – this is reality. Those who opposed the coup were immediately threatened with repression. 

In other words, since “there is nobody to talk to” in the Ukraine government whose agencies are under the control of imposters controlled by radicals, we may need to step in a restore order – if for no other reason, to protect the Russians living in Ukraine.

The third theme in the Putin speech is a complaint that the west is trying to establish worldwide hegemony. Pardon me while I laugh, Vlad. Are you serious? The west? Why, western leaders wet their pants when they have to use “confrontation” in a sentence.

Like a mirror, the situation in Ukraine reflects what is going on and what has been happening in the world over the past several decades. After the dissolution of bipolarity on the planet, we no longer have stability. Key international institutions are not getting any stronger; on the contrary, in many cases, they are sadly degrading. 

The “dissolution of bipolarity” is a euphemism for the end of the Cold War that kept the US and USSR in a budget-busting arms race for four decades following WW II. It also kept a lot of us up at night worrying that some petty incident would unintentionally start World War III and turn the earth into glass. Most of us, Vlad, believe we have more stability in the unipolar world today except in the areas of the globe where tin-pot clients are propped up by Russia, China, and North Korea for mischief-making. September 11, 2001 comes to mind.

Putin continued:

Our western partners, led by the United States of America, prefer not to be guided by international law in their practical policies, but by the rule of the gun. They have come to believe in their exclusivity and exceptionalism, that they can decide the destinies of the world, that only they can ever be right. They act as they please: here and there, they use force against sovereign states, building coalitions based on the principle “If you are not with us, you are against us.” To make this aggression look legitimate, they force the necessary resolutions from international organizations, and if for some reason this does not work, they simply ignore the UN Security Council and the UN overall.

This happened in Yugoslavia; we remember 1999 very well. … At the end of the 20th Century, one of Europe's capitals, Belgrade, was under missile attack for several weeks, and then came the real intervention. Was there a UN Security Council resolution on this matter, allowing for these actions? Nothing of the sort. And then, they hit Afghanistan, Iraq, and frankly violated the UN Security Council resolution on Libya, when instead of imposing the so-called no-fly zone over it they started bombing it too.

Putin argues that what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. America has gone it alone – the NATO war in Kosovo is Exhibit A. Russia is therefore, “legally” justified to follow the same example, annex Crimea, and redraw the Eurasian map. One small detail he left out: no country annexed Kosovo after the NATO military confrontation ended. 

Putin draws his remarks to a close with his best imitation of Rodney Dangerfield’s “I don’t get no respect.”

Today, it is imperative to end this hysteria, to refute the rhetoric of the Cold War and to accept the obvious fact: Russia is an independent, active participant in international affairs; like other countries, it has its own national interests that need to be taken into account and respected.

And with that he concludes:

Russia will also have to make a difficult decision now, taking into account the various domestic and external considerations. What do people here in Russia think? Here, like in any democratic country, people have different points of view, but I want to make the point that the absolute majority of our people clearly do support what is happening.

Well, Vlad, I wouldn’t bet your Black Belt on their support. However, I would bet on their silence for fear of ending up in one of your fifth column jails!

An Unhappy 50th Anniversary

Most 50th anniversaries are considered happy if not “golden.” This one is neither. I’m speaking of Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty whose 50th anniversary passed almost without notice early this year.

Johnson launched the “war” in his State of the Union speech a half century ago:

We have declared unconditional war on poverty. Our objective is total victory … I believe that 30 years from now Americans will look back upon these 1960s as the time of the great American Breakthrough . . . toward the victory of prosperity over poverty.

Well, the 30 years came and went along with 20 more and we still wait for the great American Breakthrough and its “victory of prosperity over poverty.”

Like so many government programs, this one – with a tip of the hat to Will Shakespeare – was “full of the sound and fury signifying nothing.” Taxpayers are $20 trillion poorer and 47 million people remain in poverty, an all-time record. The poverty rate today is 15% compared to the 17% rate in Johnson’s day 50 years ago, but the US population was also smaller then so his 17% represented fewer people. Sadly 22% of children live in poverty today. Even 1% is too many.

Three and a half years ago I wrote about Johnson’s Lost War on Poverty. Obama was at the height of his powers, the country was mired in the Great Recession, and the solution to high unemployment and its induced poverty was, predictably, to spend more money. As I mentioned in that blog, poverty is quite different today than it was when Johnson declared war on it. In Johnson’s day a 21-inch B/W tabletop TV cost about $1,800 in today's dollars and could receive only a handful of channels, a refrigerator with freezer cost the equivalent of $1,510 in today’s dollars, and a two-speed automatic washing machine, primitive by today's standards, cost the equivalent of $1,100. Only 12% of homes had air-conditioning versus over 88% today.

Do these higher living standards for the poor mean that the war on poverty has succeeded? No.

Welfare has lifted what it means to be “poor” but the underlying causes of poverty are worsening. A prosperous economy will always be the best anti-poverty program, but we’ve had little of that since Obama was first elected. Unlike Obama, LBJ’s aim was to give the poor improved economic opportunity, not a permanent dole, so that in time those on welfare would become independent of it, support themselves, and become taxpayers instead of tax recipients. That hasn’t happened. Quite the opposite. As so often happens with government programs, the Law of Unintended Consequences reared its ugly head. Today taxpayers essentially pay the bottom 20% of the income earners more than a trillion dollars a year basically not to work.

Earlier this month the US House Budget Committee chaired by Paul Ryan issued a report entitled, The War on Poverty: 50 Years Later. Ryan and his colleagues thought they had been sent to Washington to be good stewards of taxpayer money. To that end, the report concludes that government anti-poverty programs have grown, many are duplicative, and more than a few work at cross purposes. For example, there are 92 assistance programs for low-income families, 17 food aid programs, 20 housing programs, and dozens of education and job training programs.

Most of these programs fail to accomplish their purpose. If they existed in the private sector they would have been shut down faster than you can read this sentence. Has the government insisted that the administrative leaders of the agencies in charge of these programs (i) make them work, (ii) shut them down, or (iii) hand in their resignation? No. None of the above. The government – primarily Congress – simply creates more programs. The new programs, of course, are never coordinated with existing programs. So not infrequently you find the equivalent of one agency digging a hole and another filling it up – year after year, billions after billions. Managers in these agencies know that competing programs are a waste. But what the heck. Who really cares?

I’m sure you’ll be shocked, as I was, to learn that last year the CBO found that poverty programs cause many low income households to face implicit marginal “tax” rate of nearly 100%. In other words, for every additional dollar a low income family earns through work, it loses a dollar either in income taxes or the loss of welfare benefits. Now, these people are poor, not stupid. They figure out that more work nets nothing because government programs take it away, so they don’t work. That’s how we end up transferring a trillion dollars in program money to effectively pay many poor not to work or not to work more than they do.

A while back, Morning in America talk show host Bill Bennett invited Ryan to discuss his government poverty program findings and his committee’s report. Ryan observed:

We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work, and so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with.

Oops. Wrong thing to say. You can’t use “inner cities,” “men not working,” and “culture” in the same sentence. If you do you’re raaaaa-cist. Predictably the liberal website Think Progress “just happened” to be recording Ryan’s appearance on the Bennett show and the Left Media went ballistic.

The headline on the Think Progress hit piece is “Paul Ryan Blames Poverty On Lazy ‘Inner City’ Men.” He never used those words or inferred the allegation. But who’s quibbling about truth in journalism? 

Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) joined the Left chorus saying, “Let’s be clear, when Mr. Ryan says ‘inner city,’ when he says, ‘culture,’ these are simply code words for what he really means: ‘black.’” Ms. Lee happens to be black. She also happens to be a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, an organization that only black members of Congress may join.

Neither Ms. Lee nor members of the Black Caucus have offered a solution to the appalling ineffectiveness of government-sponsored poverty programs. This is surprising because poverty disproportionately affects black households. Nor did Ms. Lee’s criticism of Paul Ryan acknowledge the undisputed fact that 50 years after the war on poverty began a large part of our citizens – mostly black – are even more dependent on government assistance and less capable of managing their own economic wellbeing. If conservative white lawmakers had set out 50 years ago to cripple the black community in American society and disintegrate its family structure, I believe there would be civil unrest. But that’s precisely what liberal and black lawmakers have done.

Is political ideology so important that the liberal bloc of elected officials would rather continue policies that have failed to help the poor? Are Ms. Lee and members of the Black Caucus willing to stick out their necks, as Ryan has done, and state for the record the way government measures the success of these programs is the number of people it enrolls for assistance, not the number who have been liberated from assistance?

I don’t have government experience, but in my world – the world of business – we would judge program success in very different terms.

It seems to me that the viciousness with which Ryan (and Rubio who favors consolidating all poverty programs into a single state-administered grant) is not a policy critique as much as it’s a warning shot across the GOP bow that poverty is “our” program – i.e. the poverty franchise is owned by the Liberal Left. Yet, if the GOP were to credibly compete with the Left and find more effective ways to help the most vulnerable in society, the poor votes could no longer be taken for granted by Democrats. That’s the real issue. And like any political issue, Democrats would have to appeal to poor constituents by showing their solution is demonstrably superior to the Republican plan.

The poor would benefit if there were competition to help them, I’m convinced of that. But the Democrat party wouldn’t benefit. I’m convinced of that too. I don’t think Paul Ryan has all the answers. He may not have the best answers. But at least he took a political risk, more than I can say for Ms. Lee and the Black Caucus. I think Ryan is a decent guy. He’s not looking for poor votes. He’s looking for a more cost-effective solution than current poverty programs. Otherwise the poor remain the turf of the Democrat party, which persuades them – as it always has – that Democrats not Republicans really care about them and the poverty aid shell game continues.

In commenting on the Ryan report George Will recently recalled another report that was the impetus for the War of Poverty:

A year from now, there surely will be conferences marking the 50th anniversary of what is now known as the Moynihan Report, a.k.a. “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action.” In March 1965, Moynihan, then 37 and Assistant Secretary of Labor, wrote that “the center of the tangle of pathology” in inner cities – this was five months before the Watts riots – was the fact that 23.6% of black children were born to single women, compared with just 3.1% of white children. He was accused of racism, blaming the victims, etc.

Forty-nine years later, 41% of all American children are born out of wedlock; almost half of all first births are to unmarried women, as are 54%?and 72% of all Hispanic and black births, respectively. Is there anyone not blinkered by ideology or invincibly ignorant of social science who disagrees [that family breakdown and poverty programs correlate]?

Fifty years ago, LBJ promised that the war on poverty would be an "investment" that would "return its cost manifold to the entire economy." It hasn’t done that.

It’s time to take a different approach and give ideas like those of Ryan and Rubio a chance. It’s hard to imagine their ideas making poverty worse or more expensive to fight.

Putin’s Munich Moment

Protected by two oceans with friendly neighbors on our northern and southern borders, Americans aren’t naturally inclined to concern themselves with disruptions in other parts of the world. Nothing shows our global disinterest and detachment more than not knowing the location of a country or much about it – unless it’s one of the biggies like Germany, Russia, China, and maybe a handful of others.

Take Ukraine, for example. Where the heck is that place? What’s all the fuss about Russia and Crimea? And why should I care?

Google a map and you’ll see that Ukraine is due south of Moscow. Russia borders about half of its northern border and its entire eastern border. On the Ukrainian south is the Black Sea. Jutting out into it like the Greek Peloponnese is Crimea, the Ukrainian peninsula so much in the news.

When the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics collapsed the day following Christmas in 1991, Ukraine was one of the 15 Republics to escapee the embrace of the Russian bear hug. Like the other escapees, Ukrainians are bilingual – Russian was the required lingua franca – and many were multilingual since a great number of ethnic groups make up their society. But Slavic Ukrainian is the mother tongue for two-thirds on the country – increasingly so as one travels west today– and one-third are Russian speakers with Ukrainian as their second language. The majority of Russia speakers are concentrated in Crimea.

Looking at a map of the former USSR, one is struck with the size of Russia – 11 time zones wide – and the indicators of its poor economic condition: Russia has 30% fewer miles of paved road than the state of Texas and its GDP is slightly less than Brazil’s and slightly more than Italy’s. Russia’s GDP is one-eighth (12%) of the US GDP.

Crimea is an autonomous province within Ukraine. It was created in 1954 when Nikita Khrushchev, who was half-Ukrainian, transferred it to Ukraine oversight. At the time it meant nothing since both Crimea and Ukraine were part of the USSR. But lately Vladimir Putin has been crying, “We wuz robbed,” as he disputes the legality of the 1954 transfer. Since Putin was two years old at the time he was not consulted. About 60% of Crimean residents are native Russia speakers, many of them living around Sevastopol, the principal port for the Russian Black Sea fleet. Crimea has a governing parliament, but the Ukrainian government has veto power over its actions. As the USSR was falling apart in 1991, 90% of Ukraine voted to secede. The Crimean vote for independence was 56% despite its large Russian population.

While Crimea may be an autonomous province, its economy and infrastructure is integrated with Ukraine. Over a billion dollars of Crimea’s annual budget revenue comes from the Ukrainian capital at Kiev. Most of its water, 80% of its electricity and two-thirds of its natural gas comes from Ukraine. In other words, Crimea is not a country that can go it alone.

The decade following independence was difficult for Ukrainians (including Crimeans) as its economy converted from the centralized Soviet command economy to a market-based economy. But relative prosperity arrived and continued until the 2008 world economic meltdown. As Ukrainians tasted the good life, they tilted toward the west. The west in turn tilted toward Ukraine, inviting the country to join the European Union provided it cleaned up its political act. One of several conditions required freeing Yulia Tymoshenko from prison, the details of which can be read at her hyperlink. (You may recall that she was Prime Minister when Viktor Yushchenko became the third post-independence president. He allegedly was poisoned by Russian agents who favored the pro-Russian candidate, Viktor Yanukovych. Yushchenko’s face was grotesquely pocked by the poison but he eventually healed.)

A victim of the 2008 global meltdown, the Ukrainian economy went south along with Yushchenko’s popularity. He lost the 2010 presidential election to Viktor Yanukovych, a corrupt Russian stooge. Despite Yanukovych’s promise to join the EEU, when the time came to sign on the dotted line, he reneged. His best bud, Vlad Putin, had made him a better offer – a $15 billion loan, discounts on natural gas imports from Russia, and membership in the Eurasian Union, also called the Customs Union, which Putin intends to be a counterweight to the EEU. The Customs Union does not even exist at this time and won’t exist until early 2015, if then. But one fact is certain: no democracies need apply.

The Customs Union will be a political and economic union more in the mold of the former Soviet suppression of civil, political, and economic liberty. It will be a throw-back to old style Cold War paranoia. Putin’s Kremlin suspects the real motive behind the EEU flirtation with Ukraine is to weaken Russia and its influence in the world. Thus, Putin’s Syrian mediation, which bested Team Obama-Kerry game, set, and match, showed his commitment to be a global alternative to the influence of the west.

President Yanukovych’s repudiation of the EEU last November squelched hopes for westernizing Ukraine. Gone were the hopes of improving the lives of its citizens through the much needed economic, political, and judicial reforms which EEU membership would have compelled. Protestors responded by taking to the streets. This is what they did to dispute the rigged 2004 election which Yanukovych supposedly won but the Court nullified it allowing Yushchenko to become President. Unlike 2004 in which street protests were peacefully tolerated by the government, this time the incompetent Yanukovych government fought back. A number of protesters were killed.  Yanukovych fled Kiev for eastern Ukraine which was more pro-Russian. Parliament voted to remove him from office and replace him with an interim President. And Tymoshenko was released from prison allowing her to fly to Germany for treatment of spinal injuries she received while imprisoned.

Seizing upon Ukrainian political instability Putin expanded his military presence in Crimea. He alleged the move was made to protect the security of the Russian fleet base and Russian revenues from natural gas lines which went through Ukraine to Black Sea ports. Hogwash. Russian troops also crossed the Crimean-Ukraine border to seize a natural gas plant on Ukrainian soil.

An extraordinary election was called to give the pro-Russia Crimean peninsula the opportunity to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Mother Russia. The election ignored all constitutional requirements. People opposed to secession and Russia repatriation failed to vote, fearful of their lives. Some who voted may have done so illegally, including voting more than once. Election observers and cameras weren’t allowed. Remarkably, 125% of the registered voters voted. Not so remarkable, secession won by 96.7%. Therefore, as of Sunday, Crimean time was set to Moscow time, banking reorganization began to integrate with Russian banking, and other forms of Russian integration were initiated.

Putin further claims he has the right to "defend" "Russian citizens" anywhere in Ukraine. Since Russians are scattered throughout the country, that means he can invade at will, despite the fact that more than a few Russians don’t want repatriation with Mother Russia.

If you’re a student of history thinking all of this seems strangely familiar, you’d be correct. In 1938 Hitler demanded that Czechoslovakia cede the Sudetenland – that portion of Czechoslovakia which was populated by German speakers. The cowards in the west led by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier did nothing – but talk.

Like Hitler, Putin is a bully and one heck of a good poker player. He effectively invaded Georgia almost six years ago and annexed two provinces. As it had done 70 years earlier, the west did nothing but talk. Putin now invades Crimea, crosses into Ukraine to seize a gas production facility, and reserves the right to make further incursions. Obama and Kerry talk, warn, wag fingers, and do nothing.

Putin has seen these two clowns in action before. Obama-Kerry established Syrian red lines and did nothing. They warned Iran that going nuclear wouldn’t be tolerated and did nothing. They warned North Korea about firing provocative missile test shots and did nothing. They warned China about maneuvers in the international waters of the South China Sea and did nothing. Putin watched as America shed its military might to increase welfare spending. He watched as Obama pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan so inadvisably as to squander all gains paid by American blood and treasure. He watched as Obama abdicated the US role as world leader and focused his administration on US income inequality. He watched and watched and watched, and rightly concluded that Obama is an over-cautious professorial politician in the Woodrow Wilson mold … a good talker but a feckless leader.

We don’t have to respond to Putin with military action. In many respects Russia is a third-world country. Shutting down all business – and I mean ALL BUSINESS including our energy purchases – with Russia and trying to get our allies to do likewise would bring Russia to its knees. Who will give Russia economic aid then? China? It has its own economic problems. Sending military aid to Ukraine would help salvage “Ukraine military” from its current oxymoron status, arming it to resist. There are other non-military initiatives we could take to let Putin know he was in a bare knuckle fight. But alas, Obama hasn’t the spine to face down Putin as his hero Kennedy did to Khrushchev in the Cuban missile crisis.

With a little imagination anyone can see where Putin is headed. He wants to reconstruct the collapsed Russian empire, which he has called “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century”. Putin's geopolitical mentor, Aleksandr Dugin, promotes a radical ideology that sounds very much like Hitler’s Anschluss – except now reuniting of all of the Slavic people in Europe. "Only a global crusade against the US, the West, globalization, and their political-ideological expression, liberalism, is capable of becoming an adequate response. ... The American empire should be destroyed.” And the Russian empire should be resurrected. Tough talk. Google Dugin’s name. You’ll get an eyeful.

Putin hasn’t been jetting around Eurasia making friends, loans, and weapon deals because he’s collecting frequent flyer points. As Admiral Painter famously told Jack Ryan in The Hunt for Red October, “Russians don't take a dump, son, without a plan.”

Those who think my concerns are just conspiracy theories should remember that six months after the 1938 Munich Agreement, Hitler swallowed up all of Czechoslovakia. Six months after that he invaded Poland and massacred its citizens. Six months later he invaded France, defeating it in one month. For the next five years, the world fought a war that cost 60 million lives. Almost one and a half million were Ukrainians – 15% of the Soviet losses.

Evil cannot reveal its aims when it initially appears. Its course and ultimate consequence are  determined by the neglect of men anxious to minimize their response it.

Now, what was that prophetic statement by George Santayana?

Ah, yes: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Our National Insanity

Like lemmings leaping off of a cliff, Americans this past Saturday night dutifully joined with the lunacy of the political class in playing the twice-a-year game, “Pretend You Can Change Time.”

All of the clocks in our houses, the ones on our wrists, and the ones in our cars had to be moved forward an hour. (Phones and computers are smart enough to do it on their own.) In the fall we repeat the insanity and move all of the clocks back to the time they were. I have over 60 antique clocks so the DST game is a particular annoyance.

But the one clock that really matters couldn’t be changed – the one in your body. Most people, therefore, looked at their newly-reset clocks Saturday evening and said, “My gosh! 11 o’clock already? It’s can’t be 11 o’clock; I’m not even sleepy.” Well, it wasn’t 11 o’clock in body time so many of us stayed up until midnight. But if we had someplace to go Sunday morning – like church – we lost an hour of sleep according to our bodies and hit the road bleary-eyed behind the wheel of a 4,000-pound automobile.

Since it can take up to a week for people to acclimate their body to a new time schedule, millions of commuters were virtual guided missiles in their morning commutes this week, combining the still lingering loss of an hour of sleep with the hazard of a new hour of darkness.

Benjamin Franklin originally conceived of the idea of resetting clocks in the summer when the sun rises earlier and sets later. Legend has it he was awakened by sunlight streaming through a shutter one morning during his assignment as US ambassador to France. That started his boundless imagination to calculating that Parisians burned up about 65 million pounds of candles doing things in the dark that could be done during daylight hours if they would just roll out of the sack earlier. (Apparently he was unaware of the life of a farmer.) Franklin proposed waking the city folk at daybreak with cannons and church bells and, to give them an incentive to go to bed after sunset, imposing a tax on candles. The idea went nowhere in his lifetime but it identified an ingenious new way government could interfere in the lives of citizens.

In Franklin’s time people never traveled far from their birthplace. The activities of life and work didn’t make it necessary. So time was determined locally using the sun’s zenith to establish solar noon to which all local clocks were set. Cross a river and you could be in a different time zone. After the industrial revolutions in England, Europe, and the American north, commerce and transportation scheduling was chaotic absent a more standardized time system. So in 1884 the International Meridian Conference agreed on a time standard that would make zero time the time on the longitude that passed through Greenwich England – thus Greenwich Mean Time or Zulu time, the military’s phonetic “Z”, was established. GMT time became the time west of Greenwich until a westbound traveler reached 15 degrees of longitude. At the 15 degree boundary, a new time zone started and continued for another 15 degrees.

The earth is roughly spherical, meaning that a circle is transcribed by traveling due west from Greenwich until the traveler returns to Greenwich from the east. Since a circle has 360 degrees, establishing time zones every 15 degrees of longitude means there are 24 time zones each having a time standard which is one hour earlier than the time in the zone immediately to its east.

Daylight Saving Time was instituted by government edict in the administration of Woodrow Wilson, who during World War I believed coal would be saved by moving clock time back an hour. (Yeah, I know the “spring forward” thing, but clock time goes backward when the hour hand goes forward.) This was part of a general law, the Standard Time Act of 1918, which imposed a congressionally mandated time under the ever-elastic Commerce Clause provision of the US Constitution. Wilson wanted DST clock time to be permanent (he was an avid golfer) but farmers raised a ruckus because their routines were determined by solar time. So clocks resumed their Standard Time setting.

But along came World War II and Franklin Roosevelt reinstituted clock jiggering, which he dubbed “War Time,” so DST prevailed throughout the year. After the war states were given the choice to stick with Roosevelt time or return to Standard Time. Some states opted in, others opted out and chaos reigned. Once again Congress intervened establishing the Uniform Time Act of 1966 with provisions that states which observed DST had to start it on the first Sunday in April and end it on the last Sunday in October. That law was replaced in 2007 with the Energy Policy Act that started DST on the second Sunday in March and ended it on the first Sunday in November.

Energy savings, the alleged purpose for DST, has never been proven. One government study showed a 1% reduction in energy consumption – a pittance – but other studies show that the shift to DST costs American business $150 million. I know, that’s also a pittance in the age of Obama but add to it the increased incidence of auto accidents immediately following the switch to DST and increased adverse health incidents associated with disrupted body clocks and it appears obvious that the cost of DST compliance exceeds the benefits.

Nevertheless last Sunday morning, March 9, at 2 a.m. a miracle occurred! By government edict an hour disappeared! The federal government ordered time to advance an hour and POOF! the hour between 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. vanished. Just like that. BAM! and it was gone. What if I’d had someone to meet at 2:30 a.m.? Would we have had to meet in an alternate universe? “Hey Matrix Man, the government just blew up the hour when we were going to meet. Can we do it one universe over?”

Where I live the sun rose – if any politicians are reading this, that happens in the east – at 6:57 a.m. last Saturday March 8. The sun set at 6:40 p.m. That gave me 11 hours, 42 minutes, and 38 seconds of daylight. That’s cool. I got everything done I needed to do. Solar noon occurred at 12:48 p.m. I hardly noticed that it was 48 minutes late. ‘Course I could have walked, clock in hand, about 700 miles east to the Boston longitude and my clock’s noon and solar noon would have been about the same. But that stuff doesn’t bother me. Besides, I’d have been 500 miles off the coast of Savannah in the ocean.

Thanks to DST solar noon now comes at 1:48 p.m. That puts clock noon in the solar mid-morning. The alleged purpose of the “spring forward” nonsense – to save daylight – does nothing of the kind. On the Monday morning following the beginning of DST, the sun rose at 7:55 a.m. where I live and set at 7:41 p.m. giving 11 hours, 46 minutes, and 49 seconds of daylight. The solar morning and afternoon daylight were equally divided – 5 hours and 53 minutes in each. However, if I reckon daylight by clock time, the day began with the 7:55 a.m. sunrise and continued for 4 hours and 5 minutes until clock noon. The afternoon ran from clock noon until sunset at 7:41 p.m. – that is, 7 hours and 41 minutes. So by clock time Monday saw a tad more than 4 hours of daylight in the morning and afternoon saw almost 8 hours. The duration of daylight was the same in hours as it was by solar reckoning. But DST silliness removes an hour from “morning” and adds it to “afternoon.”

DST doesn’t affect evening commuters unless they get home quite late. Commuters who normally get home at 6:30 p.m. clock time had daylight both before and after the annual onset of DST. However morning commuters who normally leave home at 7 a.m. had daylight commutes before the onset of DST but after DST their commute now starts in the dark and continues so for almost an hour. Where’s the energy saving?

Office buildings, which burn electricity mostly when they are occupied, turn on the lights an hour earlier and turn them off an hour earlier. Where’s the energy saving?

But there is considerably more energy expenditure because of DST. It’s the energy expended by parents trying to get their children to bed and asleep now that government has pumped all this light into their afternoon. “But mom, it’s still light outside! Why do we have to go to bed earlier?” They don’t get it.

Neither do I.

On November 2 Americans will waste more time setting maybe a billion clocks and watches back an hour. For what? Why don’t we just pick a time a stick to it?

Notwithstanding the lunacy rampant in Washington, we have as much daylight as we’re going to have. It can’t be saved and it can’t be created. The creation of daylight and time happened before there was either. Or politicians.

Yes, Virginia; there was a time when there were no politicians.