A newer version of Guns and Hoses...or the latest version of "I went to a hockey fight and a game broke out!"

And you know the kids watching it loved this part of the game!

NYC cops, firemen get in massive brawl at charity hockey game

A bench-clearing brawl broke out during a charity hockey game between New York City cops and firefighters on Sunday in Uniondale, LI.

“It was reminiscent of the old-time Rangers-Flyers games in the mid-70s,” quipped an NYPD cop who was at the game at the Nassau Coliseum. “I was waiting for [legendary Philadelphia Flyers enforcer] Dave Schultz to come out on the ice.”

The ugly scene erupted in the second period as referees struggled to control multiple, one-on-one fistacuffs. Sticks and gloves littered the ice during the disturbing incident.

It was 3-3 when the second-period violence broke out. The NYPD eventually won 8-5.

Although witnesses said fan loyalties were decidedly even during the game, a YouTube video of the thuggish display captured fans loudly chanting “PD sucks, PD sucks” during the brouhaha.

The brawl led to a 25-minute delay as equipment was picked up and refs made laundry lists of penalized and ejected players.

The cop in the stands said he’s been coming to this NYPD-FDNY game for 20 years and had never seen a bench-clearing, cop-firefighter brawl before.

Despite numerous black eyes and bruises, no players appeared to be seriously injured.

PD sucks! Kiss my ass, NYPD beat them blue and won the game!

Great work NYPD!!!!

Security Weekly: The Threat to the Food Supply, March 27, 2014

The Threat to the Food Supply

By Scott Stewart

There has been some media speculation recently about the possibility of terrorist groups targeting the food supply. This is a topic that has come up repeatedly in the years since 9/11. From time to time, the possibility of such an attack creates a bit of concern among the public and especially among organizations focused on food issues, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or agricultural trade groups.

However, despite the potentially grave consequences of an attack against the food supply -- and concerns raised by these consequences -- such attacks are in fact quite rare. There are good reasons for this lack of attacks against the food supply.

Types of Attacks Targeting Food Supplies

At the most basic level, threats to a country's food supply can come in two general forms: attacks designed to create famine and attacks designed to directly poison people.

Attacks designed to create famine are the types of attacks most frequently discussed in the press. This sort of attack would presumably entail the use of some agent intended to kill vast quantities of crops or livestock. Such agents could include pathogens, insects or chemicals. The pathogens might include such livestock diseases as bird flu or hoof-and-mouth disease. Crop diseases could include the Ug99 fungus or various molds and cankers.

Attacks designed to poison people could also be divided into two general categories: those intended to introduce toxins or pathogens into foodstuffs prior to processing and those intended to attack finished food products. Attacks against foodstuffs during agricultural production could include placing a chemical or biological agent or toxin on crops in the field, while crops are in transit or when the food is at a mill or processing center. Attacks against finished foodstuffs would entail covertly placing the toxin or pathogen into a food product after processing.

Past Attacks Prove Few and Far Between

As noted above, actual attacks against food supplies are very rare. And due to the constraints we will detail later, almost all of these attacks have involved a toxin introduced into processed foods or raw foods packaged for human consumption rather than an attack attempting to cause famine.

While people frequently become sick from pathogens in food such as E. coli or salmonella bacteria, most of these incidents are not intentional. One of the few known successful attempts at using a biological agent to contaminate food in the United States occurred in 1984 in the small Oregon town of The Dalles. Followers of cult leader Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, attempting to manipulate a local election, infected salad bars in 10 restaurants with Salmonella typhimurium, causing about 751 people to become ill.

A second contamination attempt occurred in October 1996, when 13 laboratory workers at a large medical center in Texas experienced severe gastrointestinal illness after eating muffins and doughnuts left in their break room. Laboratory tests revealed that the pastries had been infected with Shigella dysenteriae, a pathogen that rarely occurs in the United States. An investigation later determined that the pathogen came from a stock culture kept at the lab and was intentionally placed on the infected food items. A worker at the lab was convicted in 1998 and sentenced to 20 years in prison for the attack on her coworkers.

Many people recall the 1989 Chilean grape scare, when two grapes imported to the United States were found to have been injected with cyanide. However, few recall that the perpetrator in the case made several calls to the U.S. Embassy warning of the contamination and was therefore not seriously attempting to harm people, but rather attempting to draw attention to social injustice in Chile. The warning calls allowed agricultural inspectors to find the damaged and discolored grapes before they were eaten. It is also likely that the damaged grapes would have been discarded rather than eaten.

In a lesser-known case that took place in 1978, a dozen children in the Netherlands and West Germany were hospitalized after eating oranges imported from Israel. The Abu Nidal Organization, using the nom de guerre the Arab Revolutionary Council, deliberately contaminated the fruit by injecting it with mercury in an attempt to damage the Israeli economy.

Constraints on Food Supply Attacks

While attacks against the food supply may appear simple in theory, they have occurred infrequently for good reason. Considering the sheer size of the global agricultural sector, or even the national agricultural sector in a large country such as the United States, conducting an assault against such a huge target that would result in famine would be extremely difficult.

As seen in the coca, opium poppy and marijuana eradication efforts by the United States and its partners in Mexico, Central America and the Andes, the logistical effort required to make any substantial dent in agricultural production is massive. Even the vast resources the United States has dedicated to drug eradication tasks in small countries for decades -- including manual eradication and overt plane flights spraying untold thousands of gallons of herbicides -- have failed to create more than a limited impact on marijuana, poppy and coca crops. Obviously, any sort of meaningful chemical attack on U.S. agriculture would have to be so massive that it is simply not logistically feasible.

This is where pathogens -- agents that can, at least in theory, be introduced in limited amounts, reproduce and then rapidly spread to infect a far larger area -- enter the picture. In order to be effective at killing crops or animals, however, a pathogen must be one that is easily spread, is very deadly and has a long incubation period (in order to ensure it is passed along before the host dies). It is also very helpful to the propagation of a disease if it is difficult to detect and/or difficult to treat. While a pathogen that possesses all of the aforementioned traits could be devastating, finding such an agent is difficult. Few diseases have all the requisite characteristics. Some are very deadly, but act too quickly to spread before killing the host. Others are more readily passed but do not have a long incubation period or are not as virulent. Still other pathogens, such as the Ug99 wheat fungus, are fairly easy to detect and kill in the developed world -- although naturally occurring Ug99 is still a significant threat to crops in parts of Africa.

It is also important to note that genetically engineering a super bug -- one that possess all the characteristics to make it highly effective -- and then actually creating or synthesizing the organism is still much harder in real life than it is in Hollywood.

Even if such an effective super pathogen is found or somehow created, someone intending to use it in an attack must isolate the virulent strain of the pathogen, manufacture it in sufficient quantities to be effective, ship it to the place of the planned attack and then distribute it so that it is effectively dispersed in sufficient quantity to create an epidemic. The infrastructure required to undertake such an endeavor is both large and expensive. Even in past cases where groups possessed the vast monetary resources to fund biological weapons efforts and amassed the scientific expertise to attempt such a program -- Aum Shinrikyo comes to mind -- it has proven very difficult to produce and effectively disperse virulent pathogens in large quantities.

Another factor making these sorts of attacks difficult to orchestrate is the very nature of farming. Since the dawn of agriculture, farmers have battled plant and animal diseases. Most of the pathogens that are mentioned in connection with attacks against agriculture include naturally occurring pathogens such as hoof-and-mouth disease, various strains of bird flu and the Ug99 fungus. As a result, farmers and governmental organizations such as the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service already have systems in place to monitor crops and animals for signs of these pathogens. When these pathogens appear, action is taken and diseased crops are treated or eradicated. Animals are treated or culled. Even in past cases where major disease outbreaks required massive eradication and culling efforts -- bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the United Kingdom, citrus canker in Florida or the many bird flu outbreaks over the past few years -- the diseases have not crippled the country's agricultural sector, much less resulted in famine.

As far as attacks intended to poison agricultural products, introducing some sort of toxin before the raw food is processed is difficult, given the sheer volume of agricultural products produced. In fact, much of the grain grown is diverted to uses other than human consumption; for instance, corn is used to produce ethanol and livestock feed. Therefore, even if a truckload of corn were poisoned, it might never funnel into the human food chain.

Moreover, even if a truck of contaminated grain were destined for the food chain, by the time it made its way through the process it would most likely be too diluted to have any effect. During the production process, contaminated corn would first have to combine with other grain, sit in a silo, be moved and stored again, ground and finally made into a finished food product such as a package of tortilla chips. Processing, washing, cooking, pasteurizing and refining could also further dilute, cleanse away or otherwise mitigate the toxin applied to the targeted product. At this point, food is also inspected for naturally occurring pathogens and toxins. Such inspections could help spot an intentional contamination. Still, if a damaged food gets all the way to the consumer, humans pay attention to what they eat, and they tend to recognize and reject bad food on sight or smell.

Besides, even contaminating one truckload of grain would require a large amount of toxin. Producing that much toxin would require a substantial infrastructure -- one that would require a great deal of time and money to build -- not to mention the difficulty inherent in transporting and delivering the toxin. Quite simply, there are far easier and more cost-effective ways to kill people and create panic.

Potential Players and the Possible Impact

An attack against the food supply could be conducted by a wide array of actors, ranging from a single mentally disturbed individual on one end of the spectrum to sovereign nations on the other. Cults and domestic or transnational terrorist groups fall somewhere in the middle of this continuum. The motivations of these diverse actors could range from monetary extortion or attempts to commit mass murder to acts of war designed to cripple a nation's economy or its ability to project power.

Of this array of potential actors, however, there are very few non-state actors who possess the ability to conduct attacks that could have a substantial impact on a nation's food supply. In fact, most of the potential actors are only capable of contaminating finished food products. While they all have this rudimentary capability, there remains the question of intent.

Documents and manuals found in Afghanistan after the 2001 U.S.-led invasion revealed an al Qaeda interest in conducting chemical and biological attacks, although this interest was not a well-developed program. From a cost-benefit standpoint, it is far cheaper and easier to use explosives or firearms to conduct an attack than it would be to execute a complicated plot against the food supply. Besides, such an attack would not produce the type of spectacular imagery the group enjoys -- indeed, we have not seen a jihadist attack against the food supply.

While the food supply has not been a part of al Qaeda's preferred target set, it is possible that a mentally disturbed individual, a grassroots jihadist or some other, smaller extremist organization could attempt to conduct an attack by poisoning food. While any such offensive would likely have limited success in creating mass casualties, it could have wider societal repercussions by causing panic if a group takes credit for food-related deaths.

The public has become somewhat accustomed to food scares and recalls over things such as contaminated spinach, ground beef, cantaloupes and green onions. Even warnings about lead and other harmful chemicals in food imported from China have caused concern in recent years. However, if a terrorist group conducted even a relatively unsuccessful attack on the food supply, it could create significant hysteria -- especially if the media sensationalizes such an event. In such a case, even a terrorist plot that was largely ineffective could result in a disproportionate amount of panic, much like that seen following the 2001 anthrax attacks.

The Threat to the Food Supply COPYRIGHT STRATFOR.COM

News from the old home town, New Orleans LA. Actually one of the suburbs near New Orleans, Jefferson Parish.

Many of you have seen the video of a Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office deputy arresting a suspect in his home. It's gone viral over the last few days and the usual suspects are commenting. First, let's look at the video.



Now I saw this at The Blaze and here is some of the commentary.

‘I’m Scared!’: See the Viral Video That Has Sparked a Heated Debate Over Definition of a ‘Lawful Arrest’

A video uploaded on Facebook Tuesday reportedly shows a Jeffersons Parish Sheriff’s Department officer forcing his way into a man’s home in River Ridge, La., pushing him onto his couch before handcuffing and arresting him. By Thursday, the video had been shared over 30,000 times.

The arrest was apparently the result of an altercation between Donrell Breaux, 26, and a neighbor on Sunday. The man’s friend, Eric Banegas, video recorded the incident.

Breaux also told the Times-Picayune that the deputy is a “personal friend” of the neighbor with whom he had a verbal disagreement. He alleges a clear conflict of interest in the case.

“I thought it was an unlawful arrest. I don’t have to submit to an unlawful arrest,” Breaux said.

The Times-Picayune explains what happened:

Breaux said he and Banegas were standing on Banegas’ front porch and talking. He admits to using profanity, but said they were cracking jokes amongst themselves. “It wasn’t to the point that we were loud and disturbing people,” Breaux said.

The neighbor walked out of his house and warned the two to watch their language. Breaux said the neighbor was belligerent, prompting a brief verbal confrontation that ended with the neighbor telling them he was calling the police.

“He threatens to call the police all the time about stuff in the backyard and stuff going on inside the house. Things like there’s too many cars in the driveway,” Breaux said. He felt the neighbor was out of line.

About 10 to 12 minutes later, a deputy arrived and spoke for a few minutes with the neighbor, according to Breaux.

That’s when he says the situation took a turn for the worst. The deputy reportedly grabbed his hoodie and got his handcuffs out.

“He said, ‘Let me see some I.D.,’ and grabs my wrist and says, ‘You’re under arrest,’ at the same time, I thought it was unlawful,” Breaux said.

The video shows the deputy on top of Breaux trying to handcuff him for several minutes. While the man certainly does resist arrest, he also repeatedly asks the officer why he is under arrest. “I’m scared!” Breaux says at one point.

“Sir, what are you doing? What is your name?” Breaux is heard asking in the video.

“I’m not answering to you! You’re going to answer to me,” the deputy replies.

Breaux was eventually arrested and booked on charges of battery of a police officer, resisting arrest with violence, disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace.

Breaux is questioning the conduct of the officer and his relationship with his neighbor.

“These are personal friends,” he said. “I wish I had friends that I could call and have them handle personal vendettas that I have with my neighbors.”

Breaux is in the process of trying to retain an attorney in the case.

In a news release, Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office spokesman Col. John Fortunato said the neighbor ”expressed his desire to pursue charges against the black male who cursed at he and his family.”

“He then directed the officer to the area where the male subjects were standing,” Fortunato said. ”As the officer followed him into the doorway with his handcuffs in hand, Breaux attempted to close the door on the officer. The officer continued into the home where a brief struggle ensued. The officer did in fact tell the suspect he was under arrest for resisting an officer, as indicated in the video. Breaux was eventually placed in handcuffs and taken into custody.”

A video uploaded on Facebook Tuesday reportedly shows a Jeffersons Parish Sheriff’s Department officer forcing his way into a man’s home in River Ridge, La., pushing him onto his couch before handcuffing and arresting him. By Thursday, the video had been shared over 30,000 times.

The arrest was apparently the result of an altercation between Donrell Breaux, 26, and a neighbor on Sunday. The man’s friend, Eric Banegas, video recorded the incident.

Breaux also told the Times-Picayune that the deputy is a “personal friend” of the neighbor with whom he had a verbal disagreement. He alleges a clear conflict of interest in the case.

“I thought it was an unlawful arrest. I don’t have to submit to an unlawful arrest,” Breaux said...

Now to be honest this is only a small part of the incident and I doubt the full video has been uploaded. Yes, personal opinion. Now lets look at the facts and see if the deputy was in the right.

1. Was the deputy within his authority to detain the man? In my opinion, yes. He respond to a call for service and was directed to Mr. Breaux as the suspect. At this moment, the deputy has reasonable suspicion, justifying the detention of Mr Breaux. For all the lawyer wanna be's out there, here is the definition of reasonable suspicion:

A standard used in criminal procedure, more relaxed than probable cause, that can justify less-intrusive searches. For example, a reasonable suspicion justifies a stop and frisk, but not a full search. A reasonable suspicion exists when a reasonable person under the circumstances, would, based upon specific and articulable facts, suspect that a crime has been committed.

2. Was the deputy within his authority to stop the man from leaving? In my opinion, yes. If Mr Breaux got away from the deputy, he can lock the door and effectively stop the investigation or escape. So yes, he can stop him from locking the door and going inside.

3. Was Mr Breaux right in trying to keep the deputy from arresting him? In my opinion, no. So we know the law, here it is:

SUBPART D. OFFENSES AFFECTING LAW ENFORCEMENT

§108. Resisting an officer
A. Resisting an officer is the intentional interference with, opposition or resistance to, or obstruction of an individual acting in his official capacity and authorized by law to make a lawful arrest, lawful detention, or seizure of property or to serve any lawful process or court order when the offender knows or has reason to know that the person arresting, detaining, seizing property, or serving process is acting in his official capacity.

B.(1) The phrase "obstruction of" as used herein shall, in addition to its common meaning, signification, and connotation mean the following:

(a) Flight by one sought to be arrested before the arresting officer can restrain him and after notice is given that he is under arrest.

(b) Any violence toward or any resistance or opposition to the arresting officer after the arrested party is actually placed under arrest and before he is incarcerated in jail.

(c) Refusal by the arrested or detained party to give his name and make his identity known to the arresting or detaining officer or providing false information regarding the identity of such party to the officer.

(d) Congregation with others on a public street and refusal to move on when ordered by the officer.

(2) The word "officer" as used herein means any peace officer, as defined in R.S. 40:2402, and includes deputy sheriffs, municipal police officers, probation and parole officers, city marshals and deputies, and wildlife enforcement agents.

C. Whoever commits the crime of resisting an officer shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or be imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.

Amended by Acts 1952, No. 127, §4; Acts 1960, No. 76, §1; Acts 1963, No. 98, §1; Acts 1968, No. 647, §1; Acts 1984, No. 584, §1; Acts 1989, No. 206, §1; Acts 1991, No. 677, §1; Acts 1992, No. 302, §1; Acts 1993, No. 860, §1; Acts 1997, No. 565, §1; Acts 2001, No. 247, §1; Acts 2006, No. 132, §1.

So yes, the deputy was in the right in stopping Mr Breaux from leaving and entering his house to detain him. I've had to explain to many a street lawyer (i.e. college kid who made a C in a constitutional law class or moron who's watched Law and Order) on the street that I don't need probably cause to detain you during an investigation. The deputy in this case was attempting to stop a suspect from leaving and when the suspect tried to flee by using a locked door. Sorry, your ass is at the least being handcuffed and put in the back of the car.

The only thing I can possibly fault the deputy on was putting himself in a position where he was surrounded by multiple potential bad guys. Now I say this knowing only what the video shows, not having spoken to the man, not knowing his view, just what the video shows. However, from this viewpoint, good work Deputy.

Geopolitical Weekly: From Estonia to Azerbaijan: American Strategy After Ukraine, March 25, 2014

By George Friedman

As I discussed last week, the fundamental problem that Ukraine poses for Russia, beyond a long-term geographical threat, is a crisis in internal legitimacy. Russian President Vladimir Putin has spent his time in power rebuilding the authority of the Russian state within Russia and the authority of Russia within the former Soviet Union. The events in Ukraine undermine the second strategy and potentially the first. If Putin cannot maintain at least Ukrainian neutrality, then the world's perception of him as a master strategist is shattered, and the legitimacy and authority he has built for the Russian state is, at best, shaken.

Whatever the origins of the events in Ukraine, the United States is now engaged in a confrontation with Russia. The Russians believe that the United States was the prime mover behind regime change in Ukraine. At the very least, the Russians intend to reverse events in Ukraine. At most, the Russians have reached the conclusion that the United States intends to undermine Russia's power. They will resist. The United States has the option of declining confrontation, engaging in meaningless sanctions against individuals and allowing events to take their course. Alternatively, the United States can choose to engage and confront the Russians.

A failure to engage at this point would cause countries around Russia's periphery, from Estonia to Azerbaijan, to conclude that with the United States withdrawn and Europe fragmented, they must reach an accommodation with Russia. This will expand Russian power and open the door to Russian influence spreading on the European Peninsula itself. The United States has fought three wars (World War I, World War II and the Cold War) to prevent hegemonic domination of the region. Failure to engage would be a reversal of a century-old strategy.

The American dilemma is how to address the strategic context in a global setting in which it is less involved in the Middle East and is continuing to work toward a "pivot to Asia." Nor can the United States simply allow events to take their course. The United States needs a strategy that is economical and coherent militarily, politically and financially. It has two advantages. Some of the countries on Russia's periphery do not want to be dominated by her. Russia, in spite of some strengths, is inherently weak and does not require U.S. exertion on the order of the two World Wars, the Cold War or even the Middle East engagements of the past decade.

The Russian and U.S. Positions

I discussed Russian options on Ukraine last week. Putin is now in a position where, in order to retain with confidence his domestic authority, he must act decisively to reverse the outcome. The problem is there is no single decisive action that would reverse events. Eventually, the inherent divisions in Ukraine might reverse events. However, a direct invasion of eastern Ukraine would simply solidify opposition to Russia in Kiev and trigger responses internationally that he cannot predict. In the end, it would simply drive home that although the Russians once held a dominant position in all of Ukraine, they now hold it in less than half. In the long run, this option -- like other short-term options -- would not solve the Russian conundrum.

Whatever Putin does in Ukraine, he has two choices. One is simply to accept the reversal, which I would argue that he cannot do. The second is to take action in places where he might achieve rapid diplomatic and political victories against the West -- the Baltics, Moldova or the Caucasus -- while encouraging Ukraine's government to collapse into gridlock and developing bilateral relations along the Estonia-Azerbaijan line. This would prevent a U.S. strategy of containment -- a strategy that worked during the Cold War and one that the Europeans are incapable of implementing on their own. This comes down to the Americans.

The United States has been developing, almost by default, a strategy not of disengagement but of indirect engagement. Between 1989 and 2008, the U.S. strategy has been the use of U.S. troops as the default for dealing with foreign issues. From Panama to Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States followed a policy of direct and early involvement of U.S. military forces. However, this was not the U.S. strategy from 1914 to 1989. Then, the strategy was to provide political support to allies, followed by economic and military aid, followed by advisers and limited forces, and in some cases pre-positioned forces. The United States kept its main force in reserve for circumstances in which (as in 1917 and 1942 and, to a lesser degree, in Korea and Vietnam) allies could not contain the potential hegemon. Main force was the last resort.

This was primarily a strategy of maintaining the balance of power. The containment of the Soviet Union involved creating an alliance system comprising countries at risk of Soviet attack. Containment was a balance of power strategy that did not seek the capitulation of the Soviet Union as much as increasing the risks of offensive action using allied countries as the first barrier. The threat of full U.S. intervention, potentially including nuclear weapons, coupled with the alliance structure, constrained Soviet risk-taking.

Because the current Russian Federation is much weaker than the Soviet Union was at its height and because the general geographic principle in the region remains the same, a somewhat analogous balance of power strategy is likely to emerge after the events in Ukraine. Similar to the containment policy of 1945-1989, again in principle if not in detail, it would combine economy of force and finance and limit the development of Russia as a hegemonic power while exposing the United States to limited and controlled risk.

The coalescence of this strategy is a development I forecast in two books, The Next Decade and The Next 100 Years, as a concept I called the Intermarium. The Intermarium was a plan pursued after World War I by Polish leader Jozef Pilsudski for a federation, under Poland's aegis, of Central and Eastern European countries. What is now emerging is not the Intermarium, but it is close. And it is now transforming from an abstract forecast to a concrete, if still emergent, reality.

Forces Leading to the Alliance's Emergence

A direct military intervention by the United States in Ukraine is not possible. First, Ukraine is a large country, and the force required to protect it would outstrip U.S. capabilities. Second, supplying such a force would require a logistics system that does not exist and would take a long time to build. Finally, such an intervention would be inconceivable without a strong alliance system extending to the West and around the Black Sea. The United States can supply economic and political support, but Ukraine cannot counterbalance Russia and the United States cannot escalate to the point of using its own forces. Ukraine is a battleground on which Russian forces would have an advantage and a U.S. defeat would be possible.

If the United States chooses to confront Russia with a military component, it must be on a stable perimeter and on as broad a front as possible to extend Russian resources and decrease the probability of Russian attack at any one point out of fear of retaliation elsewhere. The ideal mechanism for such a strategy would be NATO, which contains almost all of the critical countries save Azerbaijan and Georgia. The problem is that NATO is not a functional alliance. It was designed to fight the Cold War on a line far to the west of the current line. More important, there was unity on the principle that the Soviet Union represented an existential threat to Western Europe.

That consensus is no longer there. Different countries have different perceptions of Russia and different concerns. For many, a replay of the Cold War, even in the face of Russian actions in Ukraine, is worse than accommodation. In addition, the end of the Cold War has led to a massive drawdown of forces in Europe. NATO simply lacks the force unless there is a massive and sudden buildup. That will not occur because of the financial crisis, among other reasons. NATO requires unanimity to act, and that unanimity is not there.

The countries that were at risk from 1945 to 1989 are not the same as those at risk today. Many of these countries were part of the Soviet Union then, and the rest were Soviet satellites. The old alliance system was not built for this confrontation. The Estonia-Azerbaijan line has as its primary interest retaining sovereignty in the face of Russian power. The rest of Europe is not in jeopardy, and these countries are not prepared to commit financial and military efforts to a problem they believe can be managed with little risk to them. Therefore, any American strategy must bypass NATO or at the very least create new structures to organize the region.

Characteristics of the Alliance

Each of the various countries involved is unique and has to be addressed that way. But these countries share the common danger that events in Ukraine could spread and directly affect their national security interests, including internal stability. As I observed, the Baltics, Moldova and the Caucasus are areas where the Russians could seek to compensate for their defeat. Because of this, and also because of their intrinsic importance, Poland, Romania and Azerbaijan must be the posts around which this alliance is built.

The Baltic salient, 145 kilometers (90 miles) from St. Petersburg in Estonia, would be a target for Russian destabilization. Poland borders the Baltics and is the leading figure in the Visegrad battlegroup, an organization within the European Union. Poland is eager for a closer military relationship with the United States, as its national strategy has long been based on third-power guarantees against aggressors. The Poles cannot defend themselves and the Baltics, given the combat capabilities necessary for the task.

The Dniester River is 80 kilometers from Odessa, the main port on the Black Sea for Ukraine and an important one for Russia. The Prut River is about 200 kilometers from Bucharest, the capital of Romania. Moldova is between these two rivers. It is a battleground region, at least of competing political factions. Romania must be armed and supported in protecting Moldova and in organizing southeastern Europe. In Western hands, Moldova threatens Odessa, Ukraine's major port also used by Russia on the Black Sea. In Russian hands, Moldova threatens Bucharest.

At the far end of the alliance structure I am envisioning is Azerbaijan, on the Caspian Sea bordering Russia and Iran. Should Dagestan and Chechnya destabilize, Azerbaijan -- which is Islamic and majority Shiite but secular -- would become critical for limiting the regional spread of jihadists. Azerbaijan also would support the alliance's position in the Black Sea by supporting Georgia and would serve as a bridge for relations (and energy) should Western relations with Iran continue to improve. To the southwest, the very pro-Russian Armenia -- which has a Russian troop presence and a long-term treaty with Moscow -- could escalate tensions with Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh. Previously, this was not a pressing issue for the United States. Now it is. The security of Georgia and its ports on the Black Sea requires Azerbaijan's inclusion in the alliance.

Azerbaijan serves a more strategic purpose. Most of the countries in the alliance are heavy importers of Russian energy; for instance, 91 percent of Poland's energy imports and 86 percent of Hungary's come from Russia. There is no short-term solution to this problem, but Russia needs the revenue from these exports as much as these countries need the energy. Developing European shale and importing U.S. energy is a long-term solution. A medium-term solution, depending on pipeline developments that Russia has tended to block in the past, is sending natural gas from Azerbaijan to Europe. Until now, this has been a commercial issue, but it has become a strategically critical issue. The Caspian region, of which Azerbaijan is the lynchpin, is the only major alternative to Russia for energy. Therefore, rapid expansion of pipelines to the heart of Europe is as essential as providing Azerbaijan with the military capability to defend itself (a capability it is prepared to pay for and, unlike other allied countries, does not need to be underwritten).

The key to the pipeline will be Turkey's willingness to permit transit. I have not included Turkey as a member of this alliance. Its internal politics, complex relations and heavy energy dependence on Russia make such participation difficult. I view Turkey in this alliance structure as France in the Cold War. It was aligned yet independent, militarily self-sufficient yet dependent on the effective functioning of others. Turkey, inside or outside of the formal structure, will play this role because the future of the Black Sea, the Caucasus and southeastern Europe is essential to Ankara.

These countries, diverse as they are, share a desire not to be dominated by the Russians. That commonality is a basis for forging them into a functional military alliance. This is not an offensive force but a force designed to deter Russian expansion. All of these countries need modern military equipment, particularly air defense, anti-tank and mobile infantry. In each case, the willingness of the United States to supply these weapons, for cash or credit as the situation requires, will strengthen pro-U.S. political forces in each country and create a wall behind which Western investment can take place. And it is an organization that others can join, which unlike NATO does not allow each member the right to veto.

The Practicality of the U.S. Strategy

There are those who would criticize this alliance for including members who do not share all the democratic values of the U.S. State Department. This may be true. It is also true that during the Cold War the United States was allied with the Shah's Iran, Turkey and Greece under dictatorship and Mao's China after 1971. Having encouraged Ukrainian independence, the United States -- in trying to protect that independence and the independence of other countries in the region -- is creating an alliance structure that will include countries, such as Azerbaijan, that have been criticized. However, if energy does not come from Azerbaijan, it will come from Russia, and then the Ukrainian events will dissolve into tragic farce. The State Department must grapple with the harsh forces its own policies have unleashed. This suggests that the high-mindedness borne of benign assumptions now proven to be illusions must make way for realpolitik calculations.

The balance of power strategy allows the United States to use the natural inclination of allies to bolster its own position and take various steps, of which military intervention is the last, not the first. It recognizes that the United States, as nearly 25 percent of the world's economy and the global maritime hegemon, cannot evade involvement. Its very size and existence involves it. Nor can the United States confine itself to gestures like sanctions on 20 people. This is not seen as a sign of resolve as much as weakness. It does mean that as the United States engages in issues like Ukraine and must make strategic decisions, there are alternatives to intervention -- such as alliances. In this case, a natural alliance structure presents itself -- a descendant of NATO but shaped for this crisis, much like the alliance I forecast previously.

In my view, Russian power is limited and has flourished while the United States was distracted by its wars in the Middle East and while Europe struggled with its economic crisis. That does not mean Russia is not dangerous. It has short-term advantages, and its insecurity means that it will take risks. Weak and insecure states with temporary advantages are dangerous. The United States has an interest in acting early because early action is cheaper than acting in the last extremity. This is a case of anti-air missiles, attack helicopters, communications systems and training, among other things. These are things the United States has in abundance. It is not a case of deploying divisions, of which it has few. The Poles, Romanians, Azerbaijanis and certainly the Turks can defend themselves. They need weapons and training, and that will keep Russia contained within its cauldron as it plays out a last hand as a great power.

From Estonia to Azerbaijan: American Strategy After Ukraine is republished with permission of Stratfor.

Officer Down

Chief Deputy Sheriff Pete Richardson
Lafayette County Arkansas Sheriff's Office
End of Watch: Monday, March 17, 2014
Tour: 19 years

Chief Deputy Sheriff Pete Richardson was killed in a three car collision on Highway 82, west of Lewisville, shortly before 3:00 pm.

He was transporting homeless man to a shelter in Miller County when the man grabbed the steering wheel, causing his department vehicle to collide with another passenger vehicle and a tractor trailer.

The subject he was transported was charged with second degree murder.

Chief Deputy Richardson had served with the Lafayette County Sheriff's Office for 19 years.

Rest in Peace Bro…We Got The Watch

Day is done, Gone the sun, From the lake, From the hills, From the sky. All is well, Safely rest, God is nigh. 

Blog being light....

Hi all. Been off the net for a bit. Work has been nuts, Beth and I are finishing some work in the front lawn and I’m completing a class for my masters degree. Been crazy the last few weeks.

Will be making a few more comments in the future…hope you enjoy.

Have a great weekend!

Officer Down

Police Officer Marc Uland Kelley
Trinity University Texas Police Department
End of Watch: Friday, March 14, 2014
Age: 41
Tour: 3 years
Badge # 321
Cause: Heart attack
Incident Date: 3/12/2014

Police Officer Marc Kelley suffered a fatal heart attack while responding to a fire alarm call at Verna McLean Hall on the Trinity University campus shortly before 3:00 pm.

While checking the building he began to experience trouble breathing and activated his radio's emergency button. Responding officers initiated CPR and he was transported to Downtown Baptist Hospital, where he passed away two days later.

Officer Kelley had served with the Trinity University Police Department for three years. He was survived by his mother, brother, and niece.

Rest in Peace Bro…We Got The Watch
Day is done, Gone the sun, From the lake, From the hills, From the sky. All is well, Safely rest, God is nigh.

More from the man-child who is in over his ears....

Remember how the moderate opposition would be good in Egypt...how did that work out? Or Libya? We're still trying to get back Gaddafi's SA-7s and SA-14s. And the Israel's are praying one of their airlines doesn't get shot down. Well, from the idiot who brought you those two disasters, we have Syria.

U.S. may use Saudis to arm Syrian rebels with missiles

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — President Barack Obama is weighing whether to allow shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles to be shipped to moderate factions of the Syrian opposition, possibly with help from the Saudi government, a U.S. official said Friday.

Obama “is considering” sending man-portable air defense systems, known as “manpads,” along with other supplies to help opposition groups fighting the brutal regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad, said the official, who requested anonymity to talk about the internal White House discussions.

The Saudi government has long wanted to provide such armaments to bolster the Syrian opposition. The U.S. has opposed the move out of concern that the weapons could fall into the hands of extremists. Out of respect for Obama’s wishes, the Saudis have so far held off....

How did it ever get his bad. Hopefully this gets crushed.

E-cigs and other issues....

I'm no fan or friend of NJ governor Christie. His firm treatment of reporters and set up citizens is ok by me (God knows many a reporter needs his ass set straight, they are not the representative of the people.) but other than being a lover of the cameras, he is a typical RINO. Now the latest example of this. Last month I posted on the propaganda coming out against the e-cigarette industry and my point is if tobacco is so bad than ban it. But they never will because the government make too much money over the addiction of people. Another example of it.

States push to regulate, tax booming e-cigarette industry

WASHINGTON – While waiting for the debate on electronic cigarettes to heat up on Capitol Hill, several state and local governments are pressing ahead with their own agendas for taxing and regulating the popular battery-powered smoking alternatives.

Right now, there is no uniform national approach to regulating the vapor-based e-cigarettes. They are mostly free from federal rules and typically are subject only to state sales taxes.

But lawmakers in more than two dozen cash-strapped states are racing to regulate them as a new source of revenue. For some, this means tacking on an excise tax -- which is a fee on a specific product, and often dubbed a "sin tax" when applied to socially shunned products like cigarettes.

Minnesota has led the charge and is currently the only state that’s got a specific tax policy for e-cigarettes on the books. The 2012 decision subjects vapor inhalers to a 95 percent tax that is stapled to the wholesale cost of the product.

According to the Minnesota Department of Revenue, e-cigarettes are considered tobacco products and are subject to the state’s tobacco tax. Distributors there are required to pay the tobacco tax or risk losing their license. Retailers must purchase e-cigarettes from distributors licensed by the state and are expected to “collect and remit sales tax on e-cigarette sales.”

In total, Minnesota estimates it will bring in $1.16 billion from all of its tobacco taxes in fiscal year 2014-2015.

Other states are taking notice.

In his 2015 budget proposal last month, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie pitched a plan to hike taxes on electronic cigarettes to match the rate of regular cigarettes -- about $2.70 per pack.

...In recent years, as much as 40 percent of all cigarettes smoked in New Jersey were smuggled into the state illegally, resulting in a loss of more than $500 million in uncollected tax revenue each year, he says.

“By making New Jersey uncompetitive in e-cigarette pricing, the state would encourage smuggling, which will cost New Jersey small businesses tens of thousands of dollars in lost revenue,” he said.

But to some, like New Jersey Democratic Assemblyman Dan Benson, taxing e-cigarettes is not only a fiscal responsibility but also sends an important message to would-be smokers.

“If e-cigarettes are taxed less than regular cigarettes, we’re sending a message out there that they’re somehow safer, and I think the jury is out on that,” he recently told a New Jersey radio station...

OK Mr Benson, if the "jury is out" as you say, how about we wait until the "jury is in" to make a decision on taxing them as tobacco.  We know if the jury says they are less harmful than tobacco you won't cut the taxes back. Oh, Mr Benson, you may wanna read this.

...According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the vapor from e-cigarettes has “far fewer of the toxins found in smoke compared to traditional cigarettes...”

Again, if tobacco is this bad, ban it. But something else is going on. The Golden Goose of tobacco is getting cooked a bit:

The boom in smuggling to avoid cigarette taxes

More than half of the cigarettes sold in New York State are smuggled in from other places to avoid the Empire State's taxes on smokes, which have soared nearly 200 percent since 2006, according to a report issued by the conservative Tax Foundation.

New York is the highest net importer of smuggled cigarettes -- illegal smokes account for 56.9 percent of the state's total market. New York's cigarettes tax is $4.35 per pack, the country's highest. The situation there isn't unique. The Tax Foundation also cites a study that found that 58.7 percent of discarded cigarettes found in five Northeastern cities lacked proper tax stamps.

Taxes on cigarettes, which are designed to discourage smoking, vary widely. States such as Missouri, North Carolina and Virginia have levies of less than a $1 per pack. These wide differences make smuggling "both a national problem and a lucrative criminal enterprise," according to the Tax Foundation.

Antismoking activists have long argued that fewer people will buy cigarettes if they're expensive. Chicago recently raised its cigarette taxes for that reason. Combined with state and local levies, the total is now $7.17 a pack.

The smuggling problem "is a lot smaller than the study lets on," said Thomas Carr, director of national policy at the American Lung Association, noting that the Tax Foundation's data come from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, which has received funding from the tobacco industry. "Tobacco companies are generally against higher tobacco taxes."

In neighboring New Jersey, convenience store owners are fighting efforts by the state legislature to impose new taxes on e-cigarettes that would nearly double their cost. E-cigarettes fans tout them as a healthier alternative to conventional smokes.

Activists such as the American Lung Association, however, argue that no evidence backs up that claim and others, such as e-cigarettes help people stop smoking regular cigarettes. Nonetheless, electronic smokes are surging in popularity, and experts note that should disparities in e-cigarette taxes develop among the states, they could also become attractive to smugglers.

"I would imagine it would be easier to smuggle electronic cigarettes because they are smaller," says Tax Foundation economist Scott Drenkard. "If you have any kind of differential, you are going to see arbitrage."

That is bull. I've known many friend who have cut back or quit cigarette smoking using e-cigs because it handles the physical addiction (nicotine) and the habit (the actual smoking) while not putting into your lungs the tar.

Again, if I was a bit paranoid I would be wondering if the American Lung Association finds this a threat to it's being. If everyone stopped smoking, they would not be needed....why do I hear the theme to Coast to Coast in my head? :<)

Work, creativity and modern life...

I got this link from a friend in Denver. Often I start my response to her posts with Robyn, You Ignorant Slut! :<) Notice the smiley icon at the end showing this was a joke. My comment to Mrs. Schulte's would not have an emoticon. It's typical leftist crap on how Americans work too much today, It even mentioned how shopping on a smart phone while on the toilet is a bit of extreme multitasking. In case she missed something, for generations people would use the time for their constitutional to read the morning paper, a magazine or a book.

Again it's mostly not worth the cost of you time, but I found this interesting:

How our frenetic, too-busy lives have become status symbols

...Even as neuroscience is beginning to show that at our most idle, our brains are most open to inspiration and creativity — and history proves that great works of art, philosophy and invention were created during leisure time — we resist taking time off. Psychologists treat burned-out clients who can't shake the notion that the busier you are, the faster you work, and the more you multitask, the more you are considered competent, smart, successful. It's the Protestant work ethic in overdrive.

In the Middle Ages, this kind of frenzy — called acedia, the opposite of sloth — was one of Catholicism's seven deadly sins. But today, busyness is seen as so valuable that people are actually happier when they're busy, says Christopher Hsee, a psychologist and professor of behavioral science at the University of Chicago. "If people remain idle, they are miserable," he wrote in Psychological Science in 2010. "If idle people become busy, they will be happier."

That part about being creative while at leisure stuck me as odd. Some of the most creative mines I've seen in my life are not 30 hour a week workers. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Zuckerberg, Trump, Sam Walton, Jeff Bezos are people known for going full blast. How about Henry Ford and Thomas Edison. To call them “creative” in their fields of endeavor does now even begin. Jobs revolutionized multiple high tech industries, Bezos changed the way people show for instance, on the toiler!

Conversely I've patrolled areas of Houston were the largest effort day in and out is waiting for an EFT card update or listing your job as "unemployed improvisational rap artist”. I don’t see much creativity there. It's full of sloth, gluttony, wrath, envy, pride, greed, lust and other destructive behaviors….those terms kinda sound familiar. If not having to work leads to "inspiration and creativity" why isn't there much in Houston's Third Ward? Just asking.

Life in the early 21st century wasn't supposed to be so hectic. In a 1930 essay, economist John Maynard Keynes predicted a 15-hour workweek by 2030, when we'd all have time to enjoy "the hour and the day virtuously and well." During the 1950s, the post-World War II boom in productivity, along with rising incomes and standards of living, led economists and politicians to predict that by 1990, Americans would work 22 hours a week, six months a year, and retire before age 40.

While accepting the Republican Party's nomination for president in 1956, Dwight D. Eisenhower envisioned a world where "leisure . . . will be abundant, so that all can develop the life of the spirit, of reflection, of religion, of the arts, of the full realization of the good things of the world."

At the time, the idea that leisure would soon be meant for all, rather than just a wealthy elite, was quite radical. A 1959 article in the Harvard Business Review warned that "boredom, which used to bother only aristocrats, had become a common curse." In the early 1960s, when TV broadcaster Eric Sevareid was asked what he considered the gravest crisis facing Americans, he said: "the rise of leisure."

Leisure for all was exactly what the U.S. labor movement had been pursuing for more than a century. As late as 1923, the steel industry required 12-hour shifts, seven days a week. Finally, it seemed, workers were about to savor shorter, saner work hours. So, what happened?

First: Life got more expensive, and wages failed to keep up. College tuition alone jumped 1,120 percent from 1978 to 2012. Child Care Aware of America reports that child care is more expensive than public college in dozens of states. The Kaiser Family Foundation says that health-care premiums increased 97 percent between 2002 and 2012. At the same time, wages have fallen to record lows as a share of America's gross domestic product. Until 1975, wages made up 50 percent of GDP; in 2012, they were 43.5 percent. And, as a recent obnoxious Cadillac commercial boasts, we work hard to buy more things: The Commerce Department reports that consumers spent $1.2 trillion in 2011 on unnecessary stuff, 11.2 percent of all consumer spending, way up from 4 percent in 1959.

Yes college tuition costs have exploded in large part because since the 1950s we've pushed generations into a single track of college only. Maybe if we directed them to decent paying jobs that don’t require four plus years of college (e.g. construction, plumbing, mechanics, computer services, welding etc) they can start out in their working years quicker without 100K and more of debt. What’s old is new now. We can have someone sitting in college on Feminist Studies, graduating with worthless degrees to jobs that don’t exist. Or we can have them working on a fracking rig starting off at over 30 an hour, making money and a great life.

Of all these costs listed one that doesn't come up, the increasing burden of taxes and regulations. Try and start a business today and it’s almost impossible. With the regime of B Hussein Obama adding the “tax” of providing health care to start ups and anyone working more than 30 hours a week will only discourage hiring. Or how about tobacco taxes which are very regressive, i.e. they fall more on lower income people. Maybe if we were not pay more and more for government we would have more time to spend with our families or buy a new Cadillac.

Also, just wondering is how the hell does the Commence Department define "unnecessary stuff"? The Harley-Davidson Road King in my garage may be unnecessary to you, but it's very necessary to me. That Chevy Volt I'm subsidizing with my tax dollars seems like a waste to me, but if you want one be my guest. The difference is HD didn’t get anything from Uncle Sugar to make it and I’m paying gas taxes to pay for the roads!

Second: Jobs have become less mechanical and work more creative. New York University sociologist Dalton Conley argues that today's knowledge-economy professions in art, technology, engineering and academics are similar to the pursuits of the mind that the ancient Greek philosophers envisioned as leisure. So, we work a lot because we enjoy it.

That's true in part, but the rise in working hours for the creative class in the 1970s and 1980s was accompanied by an increase in job insecurity for those same workers, according to the General Social Survey. And the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, which protects employees from working too many hours, applies only to hourly, not salaried, workers. In the crudest sense, U.S. law allows employers to work professionals harder without paying them overtime or hiring more people to share the load.

Perhaps we have no choice, then, as a matter of survival, to give greater value to the work that we are compelled to do all the time....

Gee, B Hussein Obama just issued another one of his famous Executive Orders on overtime and this propaganda comes from the Washington Post. If I was paranoid I would see a link from the Obama Regime and a major branch of its propaganda tree. Then again even paranoids have enemies.

I write this as I’m finishing my second day of work at my extra job, security at a telephone place. That’s after working all night. Reading this I get the impression the author has too much time on her hands. So Mrs. Schulte if we ever meet I’ll simply have one thing to say, Kiss my ass you ignorant slut!

Officer Down

Officer Jason Crisp
United States Department of Agriculture - Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigations
End of Watch: Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Age: 38
Tour: 10 years
Location: North Carolina

Officer Jason Crisp and his canine, Maros, were shot and killed in Burke County, North Carolina, while participating in the manhunt for a subject who had committed two murders.

Officers from several agencies were searching for the 38-year-old subject after the bodies of the subject's parents were located in their home in the 5000 block of Fish Hatchery Road. The subject had previously served one year in prison on a manslaughter charge for a murder he committed in 1997.

Officer Crisp and several other officers located the subject in the area of Fish Hatchery Road and Pea Ridge Road and were fired upon. Officer Crisp and K9 Maros were fatally wounded during the exchange of gunfire.

The subject then stole Officer Crisp's service weapon and extra magazines before fleeing further into the woods. He was located by other officers a short time later and was shot and killed when he opened fire on them.

Officer Crisp had served with the United States Forest Service for 10 years. He was survived by his wife and two children, his parents, sister, and two brothers.

Rest in Peace Bro…We Got The Watch

Day is done, Gone the sun, From the lake, From the hills, From the sky. All is well, Safely rest, God is nigh. 

Welfare and its abuses...

Whenever someone says we need to reform welfare and that there are abuses, the usual race bating poverty pimps come up and scream racism, people are hurting children, taking food from the mouths of babies, etc. Well from the old home state, some good news.

Louisiana bans use of welfare benefits for tattoos, lingerie, jewelry

BATON ROUGE, La. – Louisiana welfare recipients will be prohibited from spending the federal assistance at lingerie shops, tattoo parlors, nail salons and jewelry stores, under new limits enacted by state social services officials.

The Department of Children and Family Services announced the emergency regulations late Thursday. They cover the Family Independence Temporary Assistance Program — commonly known as welfare benefits — and the Kinship Care Subsidy Program.

Both programs pay cash assistance to low-income families for items like food, clothing and housing.

DCFS Secretary Suzy Sonnier said the agency decided to ban the use of electronic benefit cards, which work as debit cards, at stores that don't sell items that are considered basic needs for families.

"This rule will not affect families who currently use the program as intended, which is to provide food, shelter and clothing for families," Sonnier said in a statement.

About 3,500 households in Louisiana receive welfare benefits, and about 2,400 households get kinship care subsidies, according to the department. Average payments are $192 per month for welfare and $419 a month for kinship care.

The emergency regulations come a week after WAFB-TV in Baton Rouge reported that an Ascension Parish lingerie store posted a sign noting that it accepted the welfare benefits card along with most credit cards...

Here is the store door and it says they accept EBT. Now I don't know what is more absurd, this?



Or this?

...Also barred in the latest restrictions from taking welfare debit cards are video arcades, bail bond companies, cruise ships, psychics, adult-entertainment businesses, nightclubs, bars and any businesses where minors are not allowed....

...Last year, the social services agency enacted new regulations that banned the spending of welfare money on cigarettes, alcohol and lottery tickets. Those regulations also included prohibitions on the use of a welfare electronic benefit card at liquor stores, gambling sites and strip clubs, as required under a recently-passed federal law.

How in the hell was this allowed from the beginning?! When I worked at grocery stores in Louisiana during my first misguided college yute, before everyone accepted plastic, we had paper food stamps. The cash register would provide separate food and non-food totals and only the food items could be paid for with the stamps. Anything else and the buyer needed cash. How the hell was that ever changed?

Restrict sales to grocery and drug stores and then only for food items. We know there will always be a degree of abuse (e.g. exchange ten dollars in cash for 20 dollars in food stamp credit) but we don't need to make it easy.

Good work Louisiana.

A justified police shooting...and how police work has changed.

Here is a police shootout from Idaho in September 2012. It shows how quickly things happen and how many times a cop shoots in a firefight.

Video: Police fire over 70 rounds in deadly Idaho shootout 

COEUR D'ALENE, Idaho — A northern Idaho prosecutor has concluded the fatal shooting of a 19-year-old man by Coeur d'Alene police officers was justified. 

Kootenai County Prosecutor Barry McHugh released the documents Friday involving the September 2012 shooting of Christian Nicholas Buquet, 19. "Mr. Buquet posed an immediate and continuing danger to the lives of anyone who he may have come into contact with," McHugh wrote. "There was absolutely no indication at that time that he intended to stop his continuing violent conduct or surrender to officers when they fired to stop him." 

The Coeur d'Alene Press reports police responded to a report of shots being fired in a Coeur d'Alene neighborhood. Police said Buquet shot and injured another man and then fired random shots at other citizens. Four officers fired 77 shots at Buquet after a 5-mile car chase. He died at the scene. 

The Kootenai County Sheriff's Office released at 75-page summary of its investigation. The agency also released video recorded from cameras mounted on vehicles as well as officers. Authorities said Buquet, after shooting 29-year-old Frank James in the chest, fled the scene and fired a semi-automatic pistol at three bystanders. Buquet traveled east on Coeur d'Alene Lake Drive while being pursued by multiple officers. Video from the police cameras show several motorists having to evade Buquet's vehicle as he drives on both sides of the road. Buquet fired at police when he turned a corner, police said.  Buquet pointed a gun at them on a curve, but he crashed and hit a barrier cable and stopped, police said. Four officers positioned their vehicles around Buquet and fired. 

"The loss of life is always tragic, and I extend my condolences to the friends and family of Mr. Buquet," McHugh wrote. "At the same time there is a price to be paid by those who were compelled by circumstances beyond their control, their oath and a sense of duty to use deadly force. I hope my findings help in some way to bring closure to this incident."  

Last year I posted on how to not jump to conclusions on police actions based on one video.  In the comments many people stated that cops were too trigger happy and overly aggressive with people.  The man who swore me in when I was commissioned in the Army back in 1987 made that point on a Facebook discussion.  I made the point this was not Mayberry and the bad guys are rather well armed.  We both agree it would be helpful if our federal Department of Justice would not sell weapons to the Mexican gangs and if our Border Patrol would secure the border.

Again, look at what those officers had to deal with.  If you watch a movie or a TV show the cop goes into a firefight that takes minutes, they can keep count of the number of rounds they've fired and the never empty magazine which is always nice.  In reality the firefight takes seconds and decisions have to made instantly.  This was also a point I made about the Zimmerman-Martin case in 2012.  And it's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback.    

Thanks to Police One for the link.

Gee, a Senator being concerned about people being able to afford college cost...

This article from the Sunday Houston Chronicle caught my eye for a multitude of reasons.

Proposals take aim at for-profit colleges

WASHINGTON — The for-profit college industry says it will vigorously oppose proposed regulations by the Obama administration designed to protect students at for-profit colleges from amassing huge debt they can’t pay off.

The proposed regulations would penalize career oriented programs that produce graduates without the training needed to find a job with a salary that will allow them to pay off their debt. Schools, for-profit or not, that don’t comply would lose access to the federal student aid programs.
“Career-training programs offer millions of Americans an opportunity they desperately need to further their education and reach the middle class,” Education Secretary Arne Duncan said last week. “Today, too many of these programs fail to provide students with the training that they need at taxpayers’ expense and the cost to these students’ futures.”...

...In 2012, the for-profit colleges convinced a judge that similar regulations were too arbitrary. Steve Gunderson, president and CEO of the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, said in a statement that the proposed regulations would “deny millions of students the opportunity for higher earnings.” His association argues that the regulations would have a long-term impact on the nation’s ability to address workforce demands and improve the economy, and he called the proposed regulations “discriminatory” and “punitive.”

For-profit programs are popular among nontraditional students, some of who have been laid off during the economic downturn.

Gunderson said no decision has been made on whether more legal action will be taken.

The administration has long sought to block federal student aid from programs that do not prepare students for “gainful employment” in a recognized occupation. The programs covered under the proposed regulations include nearly all programs at for-profit schools, as well as certificate programs at public and private nonprofit institutions, such as community colleges, according to the Education Department.

Duncan said for-profit colleges can receive up to 90 percent of their revenue from federal financial aid programs. If blocked from participating, some could be forced to close, he said.

Since when has the education industry been interested in getting its students skills and knowledge needed for employment? Hey, do you think we have enough sociology and art history majors in the country? Most people going through a "for profit" university are doing it to advance their career in one way or another. Count myself as one. I'm getting my master's at an online university and the reason is for advancement. It's another point for promotion and it is also another one-hundred collars a paycheck.

Now another point I find curious is the implied statement that "traditional" colleges are not "for profit". The Ivy Leaque has endowments larger than the GDP of many nations. From Online Universities.Com,

10 Surprising Facts About University Endowments

Have you ever thought it might be nice to have a building at your alma mater named after you, that will stand long after you’re gone? The dream can be yours for a few hundred million dollars. For most of us, that effectively closes the book on that fantasy. We may give in to a donations call from our old school and mail in a check, but for the most part college endowments are a vague part of academia that we don’t concern ourselves with much. If that’s true for you, check out these 10 facts about university endowments that might surprise you.

Total college endowments in the U.S. reach the hundreds of billions of dollars: There is serious money in college endowments. In 2009, the total amount of endowments in this country was $326 billion. That amount was a 21% drop from the previous year’s total of $413 billion. Today, 75 colleges have endowments in the billions, with Harvard far and away the leader with an endowment of $32 billion, followed by Yale at $19 billion. Even with these high values, many schools are still struggling to return to their 2008 endowment levels.

Ivy League endowment fund managers get access to the best opportunities: In a 2008 study, researchers from Harvard and MIT sought to explain why wealthier schools, like those in the Ivy League, receive endowments that far outpace other schools. The obvious answer was that high-quality alumni get good jobs for good money, then they donate. But a surprising find was that the excellent investment returns these endowment funds get are the result of managers’ connections and special access to the top strata of alternative funds. In other words, endowment funds at wealthy schools secure the best management talent because they’re wealthy, and the best managers make them wealthier, and around and around it goes.

Many universities do not have to disclose investment information: It might surprise environmentally-conscious students to learn that the fund managers for their school’s endowment have invested in coal companies. Unfortunately, for students with these and similar qualms about doing business with certain corporations, some states have laws that protect venture capital firms from disclosing where the investments from the endowments of even public universities go. Companies in states like Colorado and Michigan have successfully lobbied for laws exempting them from a requirement to reveal their investment info, calling it "trade secrets." In some states, like California, firms find a way around the disclosure laws by investing in "funds of funds" that disclose aggregate return info but not info on specific companies.

Most colleges only spend about 4.5% of their endowments: Many may wonder what happens to the millions and even billions of dollars some colleges control in endowments. Typically more than 95% of the money is invested, leaving 5% or less to be granted to scholarships, professorships, and social work. Many people, including some influential politicians, have asked in recent years if this rate of spending justifies the tax exemption they get. There have been proposals to set a 5% spending floor that universities must meet to allow more needy kids to go to college and for more to be done in poor countries.

Endowments probably can’t be used to lower tuition: This is a fact college administrators would prefer you knew. Although many may look at the billion dollar endowments some schools enjoy, almost half of colleges and universities have smaller endowments than they did in 2008, courtesy of the recession. More growth years like 2011 are needed before schools could begin to use endowments to lower tuition. As it stands, the median endowment size of $90 million only translates into $4.5 million in spendable money annually, not enough to enable significant tuition decreases for students...

Sounds a bit like serious money. And a serious racket. But it's not the only one. Last year Rolling Stone wrote an excellent article on how we are pushing high school students into a one size fit all racket, where you must go to college, get a degree, etc. What the degree is for doesn't matter, you need a degree. And at the age most people cannot afford a car note on a decent used car we will put you in debt for a mortgage with little to show for it. Then the 23 year old gets out in the real world and finds his BA in Victim Studies fail to provide students with the training that they need at taxpayers’ expense and the cost to these students’ futures.”

Now back to the article.

“Some of these programs — whether public, private or for-profit — empower students to succeed by providing high-quality education and career training. But many of these programs, particularly those at for-profit colleges, are failing to do so,” the Education Department said in a fact sheet.
On Capitol Hill, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, said he was concerned that the proposed regulations don’t go far enough in protecting students.
But Republicans criticized the administration’s actions and said low-income students would be disproportionately affected.

Open secret is the Democrats, bought and paid for by the education establishment, doesn't care. Brick and mortar universities serve a purpose but not what's going on right now. But any bureaucracy hates competition and daylight. It means people may be shown the truth of a business, funded by tax breaks, is making a fortune and producing less and less. And we are enslaving generations of young people with massive debt for useless education.

A rare good article from the AP...on a relevant subject.

As I sit in bed, while reading the Sunday Houston Chronicle on my MacBook (getting more used to that), drinking some excellent coffee, this article caught my eye (pardon the pun). There is an open issue of video taping officers in the public, use of the video, etc. Well I'm no fan of AP but I gotta say this is a Fair and Balanced article. Excerpts below, but the whole article is worth reading.

Body cameras for officers lack policing

LOS ANGELES — Officers at thousands of law enforcement agencies are wearing tiny cameras to record their interactions with the public, but in many cases the devices are being rolled out faster than departments are able to create policies to govern their use.

And some rank-and-file officers are worried the technology might ultimately be used to derail their careers if, for example, an errant comment about a superior is captured on tape.

Most law enforcement leaders and civil liberties advocates believe the cameras will ultimately help officers because the devices give them a way to record events from their point of view at a time when citizens armed with cellphones are actively scrutinizing their every move. They say, however, that the lack of clear guidelines on the cameras’ use could potentially undermine departments’ goals of creating greater accountability of officers and jeopardize the privacy of both the public and law enforcement officers...

...Equipping police with cameras isn’t a new concept. For decades police have used cameras mounted to the dashboards of their patrol cars — initially referred to with suspicion by officers as “indict-o-cams” until they discovered the footage exonerated them in most cases...

As camera technology and data storage has become more affordable and reliable, the use of portable cameras has increased over the last five years. Now officers in one of every six departments are patrolling with them on their chests, lapels or sunglasses, according to Scott Greenwood, general counsel for the national American Civil Liberties Union and an expert on the cameras.

With the push of a finger, officers can show the dangers and difficulties of their work. Unlike dashboard cameras, body cameras follow the officer everywhere — when their cruiser stays parked at the curb, when they go into homes on search warrants or when they are running after a suspect.

The cameras, if they aren’t turned off, can go with officers into a bathroom or locker room, or capture private conversations between partners. Footage can become evidence in a criminal case, or be used to discipline officers or exonerate them of false accusations.
Without strong policies, experts say, departments could lose the public’s trust. The public needs to know cameras aren’t only being turned on when it’ll help officers. But there are certain moments such as during the interview of a sexual assault victim or talk with a confidential informant when filming may be sensitive or even compromise a case, said Bay Area attorney Mike Rains, whose firm often represents officers and has worked on body camera policies with departments.

Speaking with a few officers on this that was their big issue. Currently the guidance is anytime they speak with a citizen the camera is on. But a snitch will not want to talk much knowing its recorded. These guys ain't stupid, they know if the info is used in the case (e.g. the statement helps get a search warrant) it will be released to the defense at some point.

Field-testing in L.A.

The Los Angeles Police Department is now field-testing cameras with an eye toward ultimately deploying them to all patrol officers — a move that would make its program the nation’s largest. For the six months of the test, underway now, there will be no official policy. Department officials say a policy will be created with input from the community and union, when they know more about how the cameras work in the field.
Union chief Tyler Izen, who represents more than 9,900 sworn officers, said that while there have been no complaints so far, the strategy is risky and could be problematic for his officers as well as the public, which has become an involuntary guinea pig in the trial. “They’re basically taking their chances,” Izen said.

There’s still very little research into the impacts of these cameras on policing and their ripple effects on the criminal justice system, said Justin Ready, assistant professor at Arizona State’s department of criminology and criminal justice. But more studies are underway, including two that Ready is involved in.

The police department in Rialto, Calif., concluded a yearlong University of Cambridge study last year that found an 89 percent drop in complaints against officers during the camera trial. The chief has since mandated its deployment to its roughly 90 sworn officers.

Rialto police Sgt. Richard Royce said he was exonerated by the footage during the study.

“I’d rather have my version of that incident captured on high-definition video in its entirety from my point of view, then to look at somebody’s grainy cellphone camera footage captured a 100 feet away that gets cropped, edited, changed or manipulated,” Royce said.
Greenwood of the ACLU said he’s provided input in drawing up the Justice Department guidelines. He said the proposed policy is pretty good, but gives officers more discretion than is wise.

“It’s a far better policy decision to mandate the encounter be recorded and deal with the unwanted video,” Greenwood said. Because if a situation goes bad quickly and there’s no footage, the officer is in trouble.

Good work Ms. Abdollah.

Great stand up on the old home town

New Orleans. I am glad I moved to Houston but I have to say I miss the three F's of the old home town: Family, friends and food. But Hannibal Buress has a few other reasons to like the place.


Starting off a hopefully great week a bit early...and with a few laughs.

Thanks Mike K for the link.

A great example of the bureaucracy and what it means....

A couple of weeks ago my friend Darren at Right on the Left Coast posted on some bureaucratic annoyances he has to deal with in the education field. Well this letter of resignation from a senior official at the Department of Health and Human Services (you know, the geniuses who are inflicting Obamacare on us) and it's quite telling. I'll only list a couple of paragraphs (the letter is longer but worth the read) and it shows how a bureaucracy has only one mission in life, to continue to exist. And will do anything to justify it's existence.

Top U.S. Scientific Misconduct Official Quits in Frustration With Bureaucracy

Dr. Howard Koh, M.D.
Assistant Secretary for Health

Dear Howard:

I am writing to resign my position as Director, Office of Research Integrity, ORI/OASH/DHHS

This has been at once the best and worst job I’ve ever had. The best part of it has been the opportunity to lead ORI intellectually and professionally in helping research institutions better handle allegations of research misconduct, provide in-service training for institutional Research Integrity Officers (RIOs), and develop programming to promote the Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR). Working with members of the research community, particularly RIOs, and the brilliant scientist-investigators in ORI has been one of the great pleasures of my long career. Unfortunately, and to my great surprise, it turned out to be only about 35% of the job.

The rest of my role as ORI Director has been the very worst job I have ever had and it occupies up to 65% of my time. That part of the job is spent navigating the remarkably dysfunctional HHS bureaucracy to secure resources and, yes, get permission for ORI to serve the research community. I knew coming into this job about the bureaucratic limitations of the federal government, but I had no idea how stifling it would be. What I was able to do in a day or two as an academic administrator takes weeks or months in the federal government, our precinct of which is OASH.

...On one occasion, I was invited to give a talk on research integrity and misconduct to a large group of AAAS fellows. I needed to spend $35 to convert some old cassette tapes to CDs for use in the presentation. The immediate office denied my request after a couple of days of noodling. A university did the conversion for me in twenty minutes, and refused payment when I told them it was for an educational purpose....

...Third, there is the nature of the federal bureaucracy itself. The sociologist Max Weber observed in the early 20th century that while bureaucracy is in some instances an optimal organizational mode for a rationalized, industrial society, it has drawbacks. One is that public bureaucracies quit being about serving the public and focus instead on perpetuating themselves. This is exactly my experience with OASH. We spend exorbitant amounts of time in meetings and in generating repetitive and often meaningless data and reports to make our precinct of the bureaucracy look productive. None of this renders the slightest bit of assistance to ORI in handling allegations of misconduct or in promoting the responsible conduct of research. Instead, it sucks away time and resources that we might better use to meet our mission. Since I’ve been here I’ve been advised by my superiors that I had “to make my bosses look good.” I’ve been admonished: “Dave, you are a visionary leader but what we need here are team players.” Recently, I was advised that if I wanted to be happy in government service, I had to “lower my expectations.” The one thing no one in OASH leadership has said to me in two years is ‘how can we help ORI better serve the research community?’ Not once....

My friend Darren mentioned how he is trusted with tens of thousands in equipment but not trusted to turn out the lights. I've remembered how my agency needed to replace three hundred computers a few years back. This was a legitimate need, the laptops they were replacing were over ten years old. Now these are systems needed primarily to run a DOS based program that had a Windows interface so we really didn't need high end machines. I could walk into a Best Buy or Fry's Electronics and request a bulk purchase and get good machines with a site license of Windows Office for around 500 each. But no, we can't have that. We need to use minority/women owned contractors, etc. first. This ended up costing a half-million dollars for 300 systems. Yes, over 1700 each. What a waste.

And this is the experience of only one man. God help us.

Geopolitical Weekly: Ukraine's Increasing Polarization and the Western Challenge, March 11, 2013:

By Eugene Chausovsky

Just days before the Ukrainian crisis broke out, I took an overnight train to Kiev from Sevastopol in Crimea. Three mechanics in their 30s on their way to jobs in Estonia shared my compartment. All ethnic Russians born and raised in Sevastopol, they have made the trip to the Baltic states for the past eight years for seasonal work at Baltic Sea shipyards. Our ride together, accompanied by obligatory rounds of vodka, presented the opportunity for an in-depth discussion of Ukraine's political crisis. The ensuing conversation was perhaps more enlightening than talks of similar length with Ukrainian political, economic or security officials.

My fellow passengers viewed the events at Independence Square in an overwhelmingly negative light. They considered the protesters camped out in Kiev's central square terrorists, completely organized and financed by the United States and the European Union. They did not see the protesters as their fellow countrymen, and they supported then-President Viktor Yanukovich's use of the Berkut security forces to crack down on them. In fact, they were shocked by the Berkut's restraint, saying if it had been up to them, the protests would have been "cleaned up" from the outset. They added that while they usually looked forward to stopping over in Kiev during the long journey to the Baltics, this time they were ashamed of what was happening there and didn't even want to set foot in the city. They also predicted that the situation in Ukraine would worsen before it improved.

A few days later, the protests in Independence Square in fact reached a crescendo of violence. The Berkut closed in on the demonstrators, and subsequent clashes between protesters and security forces throughout the week left dozens dead and hundreds injured. This spawned a sequence of events that led to the overthrow of Yanukovich, the formation of a new Ukrainian government not recognized by Moscow and the subsequent Russian military intervention in Crimea. While the speed of these events astonished many foreign (especially Western) observers, to the men I met on the train, it was all but expected.

After all, the crisis didn't emerge from a vacuum. Ukraine was a polarized country well before the Euromaidan movement took shape. I have always been struck by how traveling to different parts of Ukraine feels like visiting different countries. Every country has its regional differences, to be sure. But Ukraine stands apart in this regard.

Ukraine's East-West Divide

Traveling in Lviv in the west, for example, is a starkly different experience than traveling in Donetsk in the east. The language spoken is different, with Ukrainian used in Lviv and Russian in Donetsk. The architecture is different, too, with classical European architecture lining narrow cobblestoned streets in Lviv and Soviet apartment blocs alongside sprawling boulevards predominating in Donetsk. Each region has different heroes: A large bust of Lenin surveys the main square in Donetsk, while Stepan Bandera, a World War II-era Ukrainian nationalist revolutionary, is honored in Lviv. Citizens of Lviv commonly view people from Donetsk as pro-Russian rubes while people in Donetsk constantly speak of nationalists/fascists in Lviv.

Lviv and Donetsk lie on the extreme ends of the spectrum, but they are hardly alone. Views are even more polarized on the Crimean Peninsula, where ethnic Russians make up the majority and which soon could cease to be part of Ukraine.

The east-west Ukrainian cultural divide is deep, and unsurprisingly it is reflected in the country's politics. Election results from the past 10 years show a clear dividing line between voting patterns in western and central Ukraine and those in the southern and eastern parts of the country. In the 2005 and 2010 presidential elections, Yanukovich received overwhelming support in the east and Crimea but only marginal support in the west. Ukraine does not have "swing states."

Such internal political and cultural divisions would be difficult to overcome under normal circumstances, but Ukraine's geographic and geopolitical position magnifies them exponentially. Ukraine is the quintessential borderland country, eternally trapped between Europe to the west and Russia to the east. Given its strategic location in the middle of the Eurasian heartland, the country has constantly been -- and will constantly be -- an arena in which the West and Russia duel for influence.

Competition over Ukraine has had two primary effects on the country. The first is to further polarize Ukraine, splitting foreign policy preferences alongside existing cultural divisions. While many in western Ukraine seek closer ties with Europe, many in eastern Ukraine seek closer ties with Russia. While there are those who would avoid foreign entanglements altogether, both the European Union and Russia have made clear that neutrality is not an option. Outside competition in Ukraine has created wild and often destabilizing political swings, especially during the country's post-Soviet independence.

Therefore, the current crisis in Ukraine is only the latest manifestation of competition between the West and Russia. The European Union and the United States greatly influenced the 2004 Orange Revolution in terms of financing and political organization. Russia meanwhile greatly influenced the discrediting of the Orange Regime and the subsequent election of Yanukovich, who lost in the Orange Revolution, in 2010. The West pushed back once more by supporting the Euromaidan movement after Yanukovich abandoned key EU integration deals, and then Russia countered in Crimea, leading to the current impasse.

The tug of war between Russia and the West over Ukraine has gradually intensified over the past decade. This has hardened positions in Ukraine, culminating in the formation of armed groups representing rival political interests and leading to the violent standoff in Independence Square that quickly spread to other parts of the country.

The current government enjoys Western support, but Moscow and many in eastern and southern Ukraine deny its legitimacy, citing the manner in which it took power. This sets a dangerous precedent because it challenges the sitting government's and any future government's ability to claim any semblance of nationwide legitimacy.

It is clear that Ukraine cannot continue to function for long in its current form. A strong leader in such a polarized society will face major unrest, as Yanukovich's ouster shows. The lack of a national consensus will paralyze the government and prevent officials from forming coherent foreign policy, since any government that strikes a major deal with either Russia or the European Union will find it difficult to rightfully claim it speaks for the majority of the country. Now that Russia has used military moves in Crimea to show it will not let Ukraine go without a fight, the stage has been set for very difficult political negotiations over Ukraine's future.

Russian-Western Conflict Beyond Ukraine

A second, more worrying effect of the competition between the West and Russia over Ukraine extends beyond Ukrainian borders. As competition over the fate of Ukraine has escalated, it has also intensified Western-Russian competition elsewhere in the region.

Georgia and Moldova, two former Soviet countries that have sought stronger ties with the West, have accelerated their attempts to further integrate with the European Union -- and in Georgia's case, with NATO. On the other hand, countries such as Belarus and Armenia have sought to strengthen their economic and security ties with Russia. Countries already strongly integrated with the West like the Baltics are glad to see Western powers stand up to Russia, but meanwhile they know that they could be the next in line in the struggle between Russia and the West. Russia could hit them economically, and Moscow could also offer what it calls protection to their sizable Russian minorities as it did in Crimea. Russia already has hinted at this in discussions to extend Russian citizenship to ethnic Russians and Russian speakers throughout the former Soviet Union.

The major question moving forward is how committed Russia and the West are to backing and reinforcing their positions in these rival blocs. Russia has made clear that it is willing to act militarily to defend its interests in Ukraine. Russia showed the same level of dedication to preventing Georgia from turning to NATO in 2008. Moscow has made no secret that it is willing to use a mixture of economic pressure, energy manipulation and, if need be, military force to prevent the countries on its periphery from leaving the Russian orbit. In the meantime, Russia will seek to intensify integration efforts in its own blocs, including the Customs Union on the economic side and the Collective Security Treaty Organization on the military side.

So the big question is what the West intends. On several occasions, the European Union and United States have proved that they can play a major role in shaping events on the ground in Ukraine. Obtaining EU membership is a stated goal of the governments in Moldova and Georgia, and a significant number of people in Ukraine also support EU membership. But since it has yet to offer sufficient aid or actual membership, the European Union has not demonstrated as serious a commitment to the borderland countries as Russia has. It has refrained from doing so for several reasons, including its own financial troubles and political divisions and its dependence on energy and trade with Russia. While the European Union may yet show stronger resolve as a result of the current Ukrainian crisis, a major shift in the bloc's approach is unlikely -- at least not on its own.

On the Western side, then, U.S. intentions are key. In recent years, the United States has largely stayed on the sidelines in the competition over the Russian periphery. The United States was just as quiet as the European Union was in its reaction to the Russian invasion of Georgia, and calls leading up to the invasion for swiftly integrating Ukraine and Georgia into NATO went largely unanswered. Statements were made, but little was done.

But the global geopolitical climate has changed significantly since 2008. The United States is out of Iraq and is swiftly drawing down its forces in Afghanistan. Washington is now acting more indirectly in the Middle East, using a balance-of-power approach to pursue its interests in the region. This frees up its foreign policy attention, which is significant, given that the United States is the only party with the ability and resources to make a serious push in the Russian periphery.

As the Ukraine crisis moves into the diplomatic realm, a major test of U.S. willingness and ability to truly stand up to Russia is emerging. Certainly, Washington has been quite vocal during the current Ukrainian crisis and has shown signs of getting further involved elsewhere in the region, such as in Poland and the Baltic states. But concrete action from the United States with sufficient backing from the Europeans will be the true test of how committed the West is to standing up to Moscow. Maneuvering around Ukraine's deep divisions and Russian countermoves will be no easy task. But nothing short of concerted efforts by a united Western front will suffice to pull Ukraine and the rest of the borderlands toward the West.

Ukraine's Increasing Polarization and the Western Challenge is republished with permission of Stratfor.