SAVING UKRAINE, the Effective Way

Ukraine recently pulled off a spectacular simultaneous drones attack on Russia. They destroyed millions of dollars of dangerous war materiel and planes. Thusly, we witness one the two main approaches that Ukraine and its Western allies must take to stop Putin’s aggression. The other is otherwise bringing the war to the Russian people via every communications method we can bring to bear on Russian eyes and ears.

The West, including our own U.S. government, has failed Ukraine in many ways. The first was providing the needed munitions too late to be as operationally effective as possible. The second was refusing to allow the Ukrainians to take the war to the Russian people.

Officials such as President Biden claimed this to be wary of starting a nuclear exchange. It ought to be clear by now to all concerned that Putin, despite saber rattling especially from the ravings of Dmitri Medvedev, who has fallen from the top of the government to a deputy in a minor bureaucratic organization, has no intention of risking oligarch lives and lifestyles.

Russia is not protected by a Golden Dome. Any nuclear war will destroy it, and Putin’s wealth, in minutes. Will Putin really risk that?

The Russian army in Ukraine is largely made up of volunteers being paid huge bonuses, and other payments including those to the families of dead soldiers. A survey has found fewer than half of Russians claim to be paying any attention to the war. Anyone against the war is either in jail, has emigrated, or remaining in terrified silence.

The Trump government has made the awful mistake of cutting away our propaganda organs such as the Voice of America. Rather they should be growing our means of reaching the Russian people with the truth, even if they don’t want to hear it. We should be flooding the airways and the Internet with clear, language appropriate, informational segments.

Importantly, the West, lead by fearful U.S. officials, has refused to provide weapons to Ukraine that reach far into Russia. (This is why they have turned to long-range drones.) The Russians are violating every international rule of engagement, targeting churches and kindergartens, shopping malls and hospitals. Ukraine should continue to avoid such targets.

But, the war must be brought to the Russians in the cities, especially the key cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg. This can be done by targeting government buildings and munitions factories. A big bomb dropped into empty Red Square in the small hours of the night would get attention very fast. Even destroying foodstuff associated land, transport and storage would greatly affect the population at the grocery stores.

The West must disturb the stability that Putin has so diligently cultivated. We must turn the Russian people against the war. If they refuse to enlist, or even publicly start questioning the seemingly endless war, Putin would have to pay attention. Piled on top of increases in already ongoing efforts, he might even decide he cannot win. The war ends when he understands this.

Open Primaries: No have or not to have

That is the question . . . the question being answered recently by a group of independent voters who went to court. The lawsuit includes television and radio commentator Michael Smerconish and David Thornburgh, chairman of Ballot PA, a group lobbying to open the primaries to independent voters. The latest effort argues that the system violates the "free and equal" elections clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. By being barred from participating in these primaries, independent voters are denied a meaningful opportunity to have their voices heard in selecting their elected officials.

Efforts to repeal Pennsylvania’s closed primary election process have repeatedly stalled in the Legislature, despite support from a number of influential political figures over the years.

 

Open primaries are a type of primary election in which voters are not required to declare party affiliation. This means that any registered voter can vote in any party's primary. Here's a breakdown of the pros and cons:

Open primaries can increase voter turnout, especially among independent or unaffiliated voters, who are a growing segment of the electorate. They allow more voters to participate in what are often the decisive elections, particularly in areas where one party dominates. Open primaries may encourage candidates to adopt more moderate positions to appeal to a broader range of voters, rather than just the party's base. This can potentially lead to less partisan gridlock in government.

Voters have more flexibility to choose which primary to participate in, allowing them to vote for the candidate they believe is best, regardless of party affiliation. This can lead to candidates that better represent the general population. Studies have shown that open primaries lead to greater representation of unaffiliated voters and also increased voter turnout from minority groups.

On the other hand, voters from one party might vote in another party's primary to influence the outcome, potentially nominating a weaker candidate who would be easier to defeat in the general election. Open primaries can weaken political parties by reducing their control over the nomination process. This can lead to less party loyalty and more fragmented political landscape.

It can distort the party's nomination process and undermine the party's ability to choose its own candidate. Voters may find the system confusing, especially if they are not familiar with the candidates or the issues. Some people feel that closed primaries are important to keep the parties ideologically pure. They feel that open primaries allow people who do not agree with the parties to influence the party’s candidate choices.

Proponents of the current closed primary system argue that political parties, as private organizations, have the right to determine who participates in their nomination process. They maintain that party affiliation is a choice, and those who wish to vote in a party's primary can simply register with that party.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has been asked to take up the case directly, a move reserved for matters of immediate public importance. The outcome of this legal challenge could have a profound impact on the state's electoral landscape and the voting rights of its independent citizens.

What do you think?