Time for another serious subject, as
well as something Minnesota, I think. Another movie might be in
order. This one was out a number of years ago, but it has a certain
relevance today. Sometimes we need to be reminded of our past and
the things people before us have had to do to create the world we
live in today. Because it all so easily can slip away if we are not
careful.
I remember discussing this movie with a
co-worker when it first came out. We each came away with different
feelings. The movie, “North Country”, is inspired by a true
story that took place in Minnesota back in the late '70's. It is the
story of a single mother trying to support her two children by taking
a job working at a mine in northern Minnesota. A man's job. Or so
her male co-workers believed. When their resentment leads to
harassment, much of it sexual, she decides to fight back, leading to
the first class action lawsuit filed in the United States. This was
not an easy decision, as so many in the town, including her family
and many of her women co-workers, were initially opposed, not wanting
to rock the boat. But it was her perseverance and those who
eventually stood by her that helped change lives for so many working
women after her.
My co-worker was actually a little
ashamed because she had always thought better of our state, but I
looked at it from exactly the opposite view, that we had some good
people here who fought for something they believed in and made a
difference for those who followed in their footsteps. It is a film
worth seeing. And, yes, quite a bit of it was actually filmed in Minnesota.
54 comments:
Hey, Z. :)
@ Lynnette,
I'm fast losing any major passion I might once have had for the Keystone pipeline problem (once they moved around the Sandhills' region rather than through it, I settled down quite a bit; they're still running roughshod over the objecting Indian tribes in the way, but that's nothing new; I'm marginally against the idea now--used to be marginally in favor, but I can't get passionate about it anymore).
But, there's a fella here who's still passionate. He brings up a point that you might be interested in, the transportation of oil by rail. I'm pretty sure the Keystone pipeline will not have any significant effect on the trains full of oil coming out of the Dakotas. I've not locked that down yet, but I'm pretty sure.
(One thing I do know, that nobody much mentions--the Canadians themselves have blocked two (2) pipeline proposals across Canada--one to the west coast and another to the Great Lakes--the locals don't want that stuff running across Canada--running it down to the Gulf Coast was TransCanada's third alternative choice; the name of the company is, after all, TransCanada.)
I don't know that Keystone would help us, as I think you pointed out to me once a while back. Most of the oil that is traveling through MN comes from the Bakken. Although we do have a few trains from Canada. An article I read dated Sept. 30 stated that we have about 15 oil trains a day running through the state.
I was stopped by one just the other day. It can be a pain if you're in a hurry because they're so long. But they also back up train traffic, forcing other commodities to be sidelined until they can get some rail space.
New subject, the Ukraine, Obama is considering arming the Ukrainian government, while Europe is considering the sanctions against Russia to be a nuisance that might conceivably be abandoned. Bloomberg
We appear to not be on the same page as the Europeans here, (with the exception of the Ukrainians themselves, who're not all that happy with getting chewed up by Russia) most of Europe isn't all that concerned with what happens to the Ukraine.
Of course, if oil production is down that would help with traffic issues.
Ukraine
I can see where Europe may not care for the sanctions because Russia is such a close trading partner. This situation is closer to them than it is to us, so I'm not sure what we could, or should, do to encourage them to stand fast.
Our arming Ukraine could be something that could be put on the table in negotiations I should think. But Russia would have to stop as well. So...what are the odds of that flying?
I'm not sure if Russia as an economic basket case wouldn't cause more problems.
I guess I'd arm Ukraine and let them make their stand. It is their country after all.
I don't believe we can justify encouraging the Ukrainians to fight. We're not going to war on Russia's doorstep over this, so they're pretty much in it on their own. They'll almost certainly get their asses kicked. I can't see encouraging them to get their asses kicked.
However, they are wanting to fight. They're asking for help, at the very least for weapons and ammo. I can't see turning them down for that, once they've decided to fight. It is, after all, a just cause, even if it's virtually hopeless.
As far as the rest of Europe goes… I think we should continue to ‘encourage’ them to ‘stand fast’ as you put it. Otherwise they'll blame us for what happens in the Ukraine--claim they needed ‘American leadership’, which they don't particularly want. Keep talkin’ at ‘em, knowing they're not gonna do squat. It'll piss ‘em off, but mostly that's because it makes it harder for them to blame us for them being Euroweenies, and they'd dearly love to blame us for themselves bein’ weenies. So, it'll piss ‘em off for now, but it's the lesser of the evils long term.
We have, this morning, two (2) editorials in opposition to my position regarding the Russian war against the Ukrain.
First one is an op-ed by one John J. Mearsheimer in the New York Times. I'm not acquainted with Mearsheimer, but we all know the NYT.
Second one is an op-ed by Stephen M. Walt in Foreign Policy magazine. Both seem to rest their arguments, ultimately, on the proposition that Russia will win that war; the Ukraine will lose.
I don't think that's dispositive of the issue. Wasn't but a few weeks ago people were cheering the editor of Charlie Hebdo magazine for having said that he'd rather die on his feet than live on his knees.
The Ukrainians have decided to fight back. Russia is bigger and more powerful than they are, and they're gonna fight back anyway. It's a long shot, but their other choice is to lay down and give up without a fight. I say we give ‘em the guns and ammo they've asked for.
If Russia's gonna do this thing, and they are, then let ‘em pay for it.
(This guy has a point though; let's be clear that we're not expecting the Ukrainians to win, and we're not putting American troops into a regional war with Russia on Russia's doorstep, but they have the right the fight, and it is a just cause, and we should help with the guns and ammo, ‘cause we can.)
Or IT could be that much of europe is fed up with the crisis in the Ukraine that the US deliberately started, at the cost of Vic "fuck the EU":s 5 Billion dollars to get the Pravyiy Sector armed and reade to go.
Putin Will fight. No doubt bout that. He'll fight dirty. BUT he didnt't start the fight.
I'd reckon most of Europe is indeed "fed up" with having to deal with the Ukraine's complications. However, the fuss got started because the E.U. handed the Ukrainians an ‘us or them’ decision on economic ties and the Ukrainians decided to go with the E.U. instead of the Russians. That's what got Putin up to fightin’ speed.
However, I do believe it'd make relations between the U.S.A. and Europe much easier if the rest of Europe would simply come out in the open and admit that they've had quite enough of the Ukrainian crisis, and want to get on with business as usual with the Russians. For one thing, you could quit pretending that we started this, deliberately or otherwise, and we could quit wasting time and effort pretending Europe is gonna do anything other than say, "Well, that didn't work out, did it?"
Regardless of who started the fight, a fight it will be, unless some kind of compromise can be made.
So here's mine:
!. Ukraine has the right to choose their economic future by defining whatever economic ties they want.
2. There will be a primary national language, but also a secondary choice, kind of like here where you see everything printed in Spanish as well as English. (If this is even a real issue.)
3. Russia must cease and desist arming the Ukrainian rebels.
4. Ukraine shall not become a member of NATO but remain a neutral military buffer zone between NATO and Russia.
#2 might fly, maybe. No chance Putin will accept #1 nor #3, and the Ukraine's ‘neutrality’ is a pipe-dream. Kiev is not going to forgive and forget. However, they're not going to approved for NATO membership any time soon either--too many people in Europe who don't want to irritate Putin.
And the fight's already on.
Sad to have to agree the fight's already on. Otherwise Lynnette makes a lot of sense.
@ Lynnette,
Thought I'd give you a hint on a book I've read about. I think I've found one I specifically want to read. I'll have to look around for it. What Went Wrong by Bernard Lewis, professor at Princton, written pre-9/11. It's about the stagnation of the Islamic world. It's reviewed here. (NYT)
"Otherwise Lynnette makes a lot of sense."
Except that, even before the fight was on, Putin's Russia wasn't going to accept Lynnette's first principle, that the people of the Ukraine had the right to decide their own economic future and economic ties.
A prosperous market economy in the Ukraine, operating under the rule of law, would be a direct challenge, by successful example, to Putin's autocracy in Russia. Putin quite rightly sees that as a direct threat to his government and his own hold on power.
This is interesting:
"German Chancellor Angela Merkel, accompanied by French
President Francois Hollande, met with Russian President Vladimir
Putin on Feb. 6. Then she met with U.S. President Barack Obama on
Feb. 9. The primary subject was Ukraine, but the first issue discussed
at the news conference following the meeting with Obama was
Greece. Greece and Ukraine are not linked in the American mind.
They are linked in the German mind…"
George Friedman Stratfor
Lee,
That book does sound interesting. I think I remember discussing Bernard Lewis with someone, maybe An Itallian? But if that is the case it would have had to have been in relation to the Israeli/Palestinian issue. I'll have to check Amazon. That book was published quite a while ago so I should be able to find a good deal in the used books.
I just ordered "We Are Anonymous", by Parmy Olson. Haven't gotten it yet. With all the hacking going on, it looked like it might also be interesting. :)
I'll have to read the George Friedman article later, Lee. But, yes, the Greek issue hasn't really went away.
‘We are Anonymous’ does sound interesting. I'm gonna havta watch you, or I could wind up with another pick-up load of books to throw out for lack of bookcases or storage space.
Bwahahahahaha! You caught me. My goal is to make sure that everyone I run across has just as many books as I do. ;)
Yup, took me 3 hours a couple weeks ago to go through the pile of books I had in two of my bookcases (& the floor).
A cease-fire has been announced for the Ukraine. CNN Details of the agreement were not announced. However, Germany and France, both eager for an end to sanctions against Russia, were heavily involved in the negotiations, so a fairly complete knuckling under to Russian interests is fairly likely.
The Ukrainian government was hardly negotiating from strength anyway, so pretty much any deal that stops short of an outright annexation of the eastern Ukraine by Russia is probably preferable to the full-on Russian invasion that was likely Russia's next move absent a deal at the negotiating table. Whatever Kiev got was probably better than what they were gonna get from more fighting. (Which means there's a very good chance there's gonna be more fighting, the chances of the deal holding are not that good. We can only hope.)
My theory on what should come next is the U.S.A. should now start seriously consider withdrawing from NATO, before Russia goes after an actual NATO member like Estonia or maybe even Poland (less likely, the Poles will fight), and we find ourselves in another dispute with the major European powers over whether or not Article 5 still includes ‘the use of armed force’ to repel attacks on members of NATO or whether that sort of thing is no longer ‘deemed necessary’ by the major European powers. I don't think we want to have that argument again.
Interesting take here on the various standard economic models (not including the libertarian Austrian model either as first promoted or as palatability enhanced with the politically inspired nonsense that leads to ‘supply side’ fantasies.).
No, I don't think the US should withdraw, or even consider, withdrawing from NATO. All that would do is encourage Russia in its apparent expansionist bent, which would not be good for anyone concerned, IMHO.
They have agreed to pull back heavy weapons. I wish them good luck. It would be far preferable for this to work than for us to continue down the slippery slope we are heading down. But I think a ceasefire has been tried before, so I am somewhat skeptical that this will work.
There was a good article in Money magazine about China's economic situation, but I haven't been able to find a copy online. Apparently their growth rate is expected to decline even further than has been expected.
Interesting update on ISIL and the situation in Iraq. It's kind of long.
As things stand now, if we were to want to put down troops in support of Estonia or even Poland, we'd be obliged to clear it with Greece, Hungary, Cyprus, several countries who have of late shown sympathies for Putin's new attitude. Not to mention Germany, France, Italy, Spain, all of whom do business with Putin's Russia and really, really want that business to continue unabated and undiminished. And then, of course, there's the folks who'll swallow Putin's bullshit lines pretty much wholesale (one who occasionally posts here comes readily to mind).
You may think our NATO membership deters Putin, but I don't think he's much detered by the notion that we'd have clear our actions with those folks before we could stand up to him (along with whomever among the Europeans might want to fight back instead of sell out.)
The Germans and French were in Minsk to make sure Kiev knew they had to take whatever deal was offered, not to back the Ukraine up. That's why they were there and we were not. Don't forget that.
I'm in favor of the U.S.A. withdrawing from NATO; that's my inclination just now. And it's not a new position for me; I've been here for awhile now. NATO was created to dedicate America to Europe's defense against the Soviet Union, to rope us into their early defense against that very specific threat.
The Soviet Union is no more. At the time it made good sense for America to pledge to come to Europe's defense against Soviet aggression. The Soviets stood a real chance of dominating the world--us included. We did not want to wake up belatedly and find Soviet military power enhanced by European conscript soldiers and European technology and European manufacturing capabilities and their ports and other facilities. But, the Soviet Union is no more.
These days Europe and America do not see eye-to-eye on what should be done about Russian efforts to reacquire their domination of what they call their "near-abroad" nations. Our outlook, our world view if you will, and our foreign policy goals do not match up well enough that we should necessarily be in a binding military alliance. We can't seem to agree on what that alliance is for. Under the circumstances, I'd be willing to say it served its purpose adequately, for both the U.S.A. and Europe, it was good for the time for which it was designed, but it's outlived its time and its usefulness.
Maybe it'd be better politics to try to get NATO dissolved outright, but I think it should be enough if we were to just withdraw. Let the Europeans decide for themselves whether the pledge of mutual defense is worth the costs and risks associated with that pledge. I think they'd just let it atrophy away is what they'd do.
As things stand now all NATO does is encourage Europe to ignore its defense entirely on the assumption that the U.S.A. will pick up their slack should they need to exhibit some defense one day. I don't see how that serves us, and I don't see how it benefits our political relationship with Europe, at least, I don't think the alleged benefits outweigh the noticable costs and conflicts.
I'd go further and suggest that the Canadians should consider pulling out along with the United States, not because I believe Canada has an obligation to mirror U.S. policy, but because their proximity means their territorial defense is intimately bound up with ours; that's just a fact of life and geography and nothing to be done about it, and we don't need them serving as an automatic conduit for continued disagreements between America and Europe over policy. That might cause unnecessary friction between us and Canada as well as continuing to exacerbate unnecessary frictions with Europe.
I'd actually agree with that Lee. But I see the underlying reasoning quite different. It's not Russia that has been expansionist, it's Nato. It expanded and expanded intill a point where Russia felt it had to put up resistance and a time where it could also do so.
The Soviet Union was so dangerous because IT was based on an ideology which was for expansion and ultimately world dominion. Russia isn't that. I don't see Russia going for territory except if it felt forced to and for geostrategical reasons. If it feels safe I'm quite confident they have no real interests in expansion.
Indeed it's a good point in time to dissolve the current Nato.
"It's not Russia that has been expansionist, it's Nato. It expanded
and expanded intill a point where Russia felt it had to put up resistance"
It was the move by the Ukraine to join the market economies of western Europe that set Russia off here. NATO membership was nowhere near certain for the Ukraine, ever, and was certainly nowhere near happenin’ now. It was not the expansion of NATO that sent the "little green men" into action. (You seem more than merely eager to believe whatever bullshit line Russia throws out there, but the facts in this case don't come anywhere near giving support for that line.)
However, I'm fairly confident that a few years of living with your own fantasies will help clear the vision of most of Europe. (You may or may not be beyond clear vision any time soon, but we can't expect to clear thinking from everybody.) However, a little clarity on the part of the rest of Europe, what they really want, what risks they're willing to take, what sort of defensive posture they're willing to pay for themselves, that's gotta be beneficial for U.S/European relations over the long run. The current NATO structure doesn't encourage that sort of clarity of thinking.
Sure. Let us euroweenies who got the Iraq-situation SOOO wrong, while ya'll yahoo yanks got it SOOO right, fend for ourselves. I wouldn't mind that one small bit.
Perhaps we could try peace instead for a change, if we were unshackeled from the most warlike nation ever in history....
For Lynnette,
The NATO relationship has become fundamentally dishonest. In the last few years Russia has increased its military budget by 80%. NATO members are consistently refusing to honor their committments to military spending for NATO, and, as Russian military spending has nearly doubled they've cut their own military spending by margins of up to 50% (a few nervous countries like Poland excepted). They have no intention of keeping their commitments to the alliance; they intend that we should pick up the slack.
I'm not sure what advice you'd give a friend who's suitor consistently and blatantly lies to her over the course of years, but I'm pretty sure you'd tell her to cut the bastard loose. It is not true that a bad relationship is better than none.
"…if we were unshackeled from the most warlike nation ever in histor…"
As I wrote before, you may well be beyond the prospect of seeing clearly ever again, but we can't expect that from everybody. I'll settle for getting more from most.
…whose suitor…
That one bothered me that it slipped by.
"Interesting update on ISIL and the situation in Iraq…"
I have to be reminded periodically that most Arab Muslims in the Middle East actually believe that both al-Qaeda and ISIS are creations of the Western powers, created to justify attacks on Muslims. It's never good good to forget when one is dealing with that kind of crazy.
"Interesting update on ISIL and the situation in Iraq…"
I went back over that in a little more depth this time, and I'm unable to draw the conclusion that any of the participants are any closer to actually going in to wrest Mosul away from ISIS' grasp. The Kurds are obviously positioning themselves for such a move, in case it becomes practical, but they show no signs of deluding themselves into believing it's practical.
Perhaps we could try peace instead for a change, if we were unshackeled from the most warlike nation ever in history....
Please refresh my memory, I believe that the world has engaged in 2 world wars in the past 100 years, or there about. Where did those wars start? And how?
NATO was created to dedicate America to Europe's defense against the Soviet Union, to rope us into their early defense against that very specific threat.
That may be, but NATO also had the side effect of binding together former enemies.
Maybe the original purpose no longer exists, that is true. But the world is still a dangerous place and it is better to have in place an organization that can respond in concert.
Lee, one thing I took away from that book by Chris Kyle was that there are still things we can learn from our European friends. And sometimes knowledge can be just a valuable as monetary contributions.
*sigh*
as valuable
I have to be reminded periodically that most Arab Muslims in the Middle East actually believe that both al-Qaeda and ISIS are creations of the Western powers, created to justify attacks on Muslims.
Too much paranoid thinking involved in that region, I'm thinking.
"But the world is still a dangerous place and it is better to have in
place an organization that can respond in concert."
NATO's ability to respond ‘in concert’ is highly debatable. How many of the recent actions supposedly undertaken ‘by NATO’ have been anything more than volunteer actions by select NATO members?
In NATO's entire history when has it ever responded ‘in concert’, that is, when has it ever done anything more than allow member states to conceal themselves behind the NATO flag when those nations were individually choosing whether or not to engage in an action? Bluntly put, when has NATO ever gone to war?
We both know that answer to that is never.
We can continue to borrow their flag when they're willing to lend it without being a member.
"Too much paranoid thinking involved in that region, I'm thinking."
Most of them are illiterate. An overwhelming lot of them are young.
An entire population who can be characterized as young and dumb; not lookin’ good for them in the coming years.
"Most of them are illiterate."
Correct that, average Arab literacy rates run on the high side of 50%, not the low side. I looked it up, belatedly. So much for using that as an excuse.
A brief review of the terms of the Minsk II agreement seems to reveal that the major point agreed upon, about the only significant point agreed upon, is that the European parties will fiercely object to any American plans to ship arms to the Ukrainian government and will also begin to press the United States to agree to lift the so-far rather limited sanctions on the Russians. Nothing else seems much changed from the terms of the original Minsk agreement, which produced no cease-fire either. Good agreement for Putin, and maybe for Merkel and Hollande, bad deal for Kiev, but they're not in a bargaining-from-power position. There's some sense in them hoping that it appeases Putin sufficiently for now to end the fighting for now.
There's some sense in them hoping that it appeases Putin sufficiently for now to end the fighting for now.
Hmmm...I am thinking that kind of reasoning was used before...oh yeah, Germany was involved then too, only on the other side.
When Germany was on the other side Sweden was on Germany's side, so Marcus, at least, is showing some consistency.
Bluntly put, when has NATO ever gone to war?
Have we ever really asked it to? I mean other than support from some countries after 9/11? While they were not a large part there were a number of NATO countries involved in our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. That their support was not larger perhaps had more to do with their resources than anything else.
When people say that the US spends a very large amount of money on its military they are quite accurate. What is needed may not necessarily be in the realm of military support if we are involved in some kind of fight(war). There are other contributions that can be made.
Now i'm off to do errands. Very cold here this morning, below zero.
"That their support was not larger perhaps had more to do with
their resources than anything else."
Their resources have to do with their budgeting. Out of 28 NATO countries, only four, the U.S.A., the U.K., Greece, and Estonia make their agreed upon military budgets. (Poland is catching up now that the Russians are being expansive again, but nobody else seems to have any intention of keeping their committments in this regard.)
"There are other contributions that can be made."
And the Germans and the French have been in Minsk making their contributions. Unfortunately, they're making their contributions to Russia's military efforts, which are at odds with our world-view.
As I said before, we're not on the same page concerning what should be done about Russia's reconquest of its ‘near-abroad’; we simply do not agree.
They agree that we should still serve as a last resort defense for them should Russia decide to lean on them too, but they don't agree with us on much else. And I think that they're much less likely to let themselves get to that ‘last resort’ stage if they don't imagine themselves entitled to it in the first place.
I don't expect you to agree with this, by the way. It's probably a rather novel idea for you. It'll probably take awhile for you to come around.
"Have we ever really asked it to?"
Suppose the real reason pigs don't fly is ‘cause nobody's ever ‘really asked’ them to?
I retract my previous post. It was dumb. Too much exaggerations.
Appears there's been some follow-up on yesterday's little bit of Islamist rowdiness across the gap from ya there Marcus. Cops think they got the guy responsible.
(I am expecting the dead guy at the synagogue to get less press than the non-jews who didn't get dead; I figure Europeans will concentrate most on the fact the Islamists are now trying to kill people who aren't jews.)
Post a Comment