PUTIN INDICTED - SYMBOLIC JUSTICE?

After more than a year of international outrage at Russia's invasion of Ukraine and open display of shocking atrocities being perpetrated by Russian military forces, there finally is an arrest warrant out for Russian President Vladimir Putin. On March 15, the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague announced the charges against Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, his "Commissioner for Children's Rights", for the war crime of unlawfully transferring thousands of children from occupied Ukrainian territory to Russia. ICC judge Piotr Hofmanski, in a video statement, asserted that "it is forbidden under international law for occupying powers to transfer civilians from the territory they live in to other territories. Children enjoy special protection under the Geneva Convention." The International Criminal Court was created in 1998 by a treaty called "The Rome Statute." It operates independently from the United Nations. As of November of 2019, its jurisdiction is recognized by 123 countries world wide. The ICC is a permanent international court established to investigate, prosecute and try individuals accused of committing the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. The institution empanels 18 justices serving nine year terms. However, as a judicial institution, the ICC does not have its own police force or enforcement body. It relies on cooperation with member states for support, especially for making arrests, transferring prisoners to the ICC detention center in The Hague, freezing assets and enforcing sentences. While the Court appears to have significant support from most of the world, important exceptions are conspicuous. The U.S., Russia, China, and India, among others, have refused to ratify the Rome Treaty. This means that none of these countries formally recognize the Court's jurisdiction and are not bound to follow its orders. During Bill Clinton's presidency, the U.S. signed the treaty but did not submit it to Congress for ratification. In 2002, George W. Bush revoked the signature, ostensibly afraid of the possibility that American soldiers would be targeted by the international community. Russia signed the treaty in 2000 and ratified it in 2002. However, Putin decided to withdraw Russia's membership in 2016 after ICC prosecutors began to focus on his country's invasion of Crimea and on accusations of war crimes committed by Russian forces in Syria. China and India reject the Court's jurisdiction, charging that it violates state sovereignty and permits it to judge whether a state is willing or able to try its own nationals. Be it as it may, the Court has managed to handle 31 cases, with some cases having more than one suspect. The judges issued 38 warrants. Thanks to cooperation from member states, 21 people have been detained in the ICC detention center. Fourteen people currently remain at large as "fugitives." All in all there have been 10 convictions and 4 acquittals. Some of the more notorious defendants charged under its mandate include: Omar al-Bashir - president of Sudan - who is still listed as "fugitive"; Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi - who died before being apprehended; his son Saif al-Islam Gaddafi - who is still a fugitive; former president of Liberia Charles Taylor, who was convicted and received 50 years in a British prison; and criminals from the Yugoslav wars of the 1990's: Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, who each received life in prison, and Slobodan Milosevic, who died from a heart attack while in detention. In other words, Vladimir Putin is joining the company of some of the most notorious criminals of the past century. This is the first time that the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for a head of state from a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Although, for practical purposes, the indictment might end up being largely symbolic, there are consequences. Putin is now officially a wanted man. His new status as an international pariah will severely limit his ability to travel outside of Russia. And while this case was essentially a slam dunk, since Putin and Lvova-Belova publicly flaunted their crime, this may not be the end of it for the Russian president. Hundreds of war-crime accusations have already been filed before the Court. While some may be difficult to prove, some are likely to move up the chain of command in the Russian Federation, potentially ending up with Putin himself. Theo Wierdsma

THE "WOKE" ENIGMA

Politicians have a tendency of reducing complex concepts to simple catchphrases designed to mystify rather than clarify. Many of these ultimately become so-called "dog whistles," coded messages communicated through words or phrases commonly understood by a candidate's political base and intended to solicit unquestioned support. The objective is to appeal to the greatest possible number of electors without alienating those in the margins. Australian political theorist Robert E. Goodin argues that this process undermines democracy, because voters often have difficulty understanding what they are voting for or against during an election. In other words, a political base may be conditioned to react a certain way to the catchphrase, without actually understanding what it stands for. Throughout the course of our political history, politicians have repeatedly employed "dog whistles" to cement a following and instill a subtle fear of their opposition. Richard Nixon invoked "law and order," "thugs" and "welfare queens" among others. Donald Trump equated Mexican immigrants with drug dealers and rapists - a characterization he continued to use to depict migrants when defending the building of his wall. In addition he incorporated "thugs" and "looters" to demonize African Americans protesting in the wake of George Floyd's killing. "Cancel culture" and "critical race theory" come to mind of "dog whistles" which were generally misunderstood but which were used, more or less effectively, in political campaigns during the past few years. A recently emerging concept, decades old but freshly anointed, is "WOKE." Even though most struggle to define what they mean when using the term, many of our current politicians appear to have little trouble uttering the word and adopting the mantra. At a basic level, the word "woke" simply refers to the past tense of "wake." It is not an acronym. Use of the concept dates back to the 1930's when African American songwriter Lead Belly used the phrase near the end of a recording of his song "Scottsboro Boys," which tells the story of nine black teenagers accused of raping two white women, suggesting: "Best stay woke, keep [your] eyes open." "Woke" became an adjective meaning "well informed or aware of racial discrimination or injustice." As such, the word was eventually added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2017. It became entwined with the Black Lives Matter movement, and developed from just signaling awareness to becoming a word of action . Conservative politicians rapidly latched onto the "woke" mentality in a crusade to "deliver America from the scourge of a host of progressive ideas" they oppose. They turned "wokeness" into a pejorative synonymous with the demise of everything good and white about America. Somehow, to be pro-woke became anti-American. In 2022, a modern-day blend of McCarthyism and white grievance became the focus of the current right-wing campaign. Leading the charge is Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. In anticipation of his expected run for president in 2024, the governor used his January inaugural address to warn of "the woke mob," and its "woke ideology." "We fight the woke in the legislature ... the schools ... the corporations." "We will never, ever surrender to the woke mob. Florida is where woke goes to die." He authored the "Stop Woke Act," a legislative prototype that would prevent educational institutions and businesses from teaching anything that would cause anyone to "feel guilt, anguish or any form of psychological distress" due to their race, color sex or national origin. DeSantis is by no means alone. Conservatives of all stripes are hitching onto the bandwagon. Representative Jim Banks (R-Ind), who chairs the House Armed Services Committee on Military Personnel, blames military recruitment challenges on the "Left woke agenda." Newly minted Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, while delivering the Republican Party's response to the State of the Union, accused President Biden of surrendering his presidency to the "woke mob." Former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, while announcing her 2024 bid for president, tweeted: "Strong and proud - not weak and woke - that's the America I see." Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex) described "Wokeism" as "cultural Marxism," but projected a murky notion of what that actually meant. A Newsmax reporter recently asked White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre: "Is President Biden woke?" And during the budget battles unfolding in Congress, GOP leaders are taking aim at, however ill-defined, "Woke spending" and "Woke waste." This newest dog whistle is obviously intended to weaponize a concept used to undermine efforts of social movements, to demonize Democrats and to unify some of the Republican base. Nevertheless, participants in focus groups have displayed difficulty defining the word even in the most general terms.This appears to be a strategy intended to cater to the most gullible, those most easily indoctrinated and too lazy to think for themselves, among us. We should not be so ambivalent debating salient issues on their merits, rather than have these manipulated catchphrases define them for us. Theo Wierdsma

"NEVER AGAIN" - AN EMPTY PROMISE

January 2023 will go down into U.S. history as the worst month for mass shootings. Well in excess of 40 incidents were recorded during a four week period. In the course of virtually every eulogy delivered during funeral services for victims of these now, unfortunately, routine events, including those for solitary murders like the recent one for Tyre Nichols in Memphis, we would hear the call: "Never Again." These simple words resonate as a dominant plea, often interpreted as a pledge, but more frequently than not followed by a resigned: "Once Again." The phrase "Never Again" was initially used by Holocaust survivors, and was particular to Jews. The outcry insisted that "never again can we allow Jews to be victims of another Holocaust." The expression, although associated with the lessons of the Holocaust, may have originated from a 1927 poem by Yitzhak Lamdan, which stated: "Never again shall Ramadan fall." Its exact meaning is debated, including whether it should be used specifically as a command to avert a second Holocaust of Jews, or whether it is a universalist injunction to prevent all forms of genocide. Meir Kahane, a far-right rabbi and his Jewish Defense League, introduced the phrase as a Jewish slogan, making it the title of his first book: "Never Again: A Program for Survival," published in 1972. It was used to fight antisemitism and justifying terrorism against perceived enemies. Holocaust survivor and Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel paid homage to the term as well, as did many others. Today the phrase is widely used by politicians and activists, and it appears on many Holocaust memorials. In August 1989, Louis Farrakhan, an avowed U.S. anti-semite, arguably committed blasphemy by co-opting the expression when he delivered his eulogy for Yusef Hawkins, an African American youth killed by a white gang in Brooklyn. Since then, in response to multiple mass murders, the clarion call was repeatedly invoked by victims and observers alike. Between 1992 and 1995, 8,000 men and boys endured summary executions and torture by Serbian paramilitary forces in Srebenica, in what was considered the most extensive genocide in Europe since the Holocaust. "Never Again?" Obviously, nobody listened. Atrocities in Baathist Iraq, Cambodia, Burundi, Rwanda, Somalia and Sudan followed. "Never Again?" Once a rallying cry, rapidly began to sound hollow. Aside from Farrakhan and multiple others delivering eulogies for the plethora of victims of gun related deaths - more than two million since the liberation of Auschwitz and Buchenwald - some organizations still thought enough of the expression to adopt it for their specific campaigns. Case in point was the crusade developed by students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland Florida, after Nikolas Cruz and his AR15 killed 17 students and faculty on February 14, 2018. The student "March for Our Lives," which brought thousand to D.C. a month later, adopted "Never Again MSD" as their motto. Shortly thereafter, the Jerusalem Post published interviews with Israeli citizens expressing concerns about what some considered cultural appropriation. Some felt that it was "very uncomfortable to watch a term you've used to talk about your family and people's own heritage and history be taken overnight." However, most doubted that the kids knew this or did it intentionally. Either way, the expression had entered the realm of universal usage. Nevertheless, although some thought that this student movement, which appeared to be gathering strength at the time, might actually be different - irrespective of its powerful rallying cry - ultimately fizzled as well.The Parkland shooting was one of 119 school shootings that year. Since then, more than 900 shootings in K-12 school settings have been recorded. These include mass casualty events like the massacre at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. "Never Again" expresses the aspiration of a civilized world. It is a powerful rallying cry, but it is no longer much more than that. The presumed necessity to proclaim it over and over again, does not really strengthen it. It diminishes its effectiveness. Politicians frequently express the same sentiment as well. However, more frequently than not, they stick to the catchphrase, raising expectations, but stopping well shy of constructive follow-up. Many no longer even dust off their stock responses to calamitous events. They, as are many of us, appear resigned to be frustrated and feeling impotent. "Never Again," as a slogan, no longer carries the same weight as it did right after the Nazi extermination camps were liberated. Theo Wierdsma

THE FLIP SIDE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech or of the press." This partial iteration of an important component of the First Amendment to our Constitution is universally known, although not always understood. Initially, this amendment referred only to what the federal government could or could not do. State constitutions had their own "Bill of Rights." Over time the declaration, which was revolutionary in 1791, assisted by Supreme Court interpretations of the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment, gained legitimacy in all states. Today, "Freedom of Speech" is accepted as a principle which supports the freedom of individuals or communities to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal action by the government. Internationally, the right to freedom of expression has been recognized as a human right in the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" adopted by the United Nations on December 10, 1948. While the concept may have principally and generally been accepted, it certainly was not always universally popular. No sooner did Johannes Gutenberg invent the printing press in 1436, facilitating the dissemination of heretofore alien ideas and challenging viewpoints that used to be the purview of the clergy, or the Roman Catholic Church reacted defensively. It published an index of forbidden texts, "to prevent the contamination of the faith or the corruption of morals through the reading of theologically erroneous or immoral books." Our national experience was not terribly different. The scope of the amendment changed over time, influenced by historical and political situations. As early as 1798, when our country envisioned war with France, the Federalists, who controlled Congress, passed the "Alien and Sedition Act" which made it a crime to publish any "false, scandalous and malicious writing" against the government. These laws were unpopular from the outset, and were gradually repealed after the party's defeat in the election of 1800. The "Red Scare" periods following the Russian Revolution in 1917 and the tumult surrounding the "McCarthy" inquisitions during the early 1950s generated similar legislation. During the 1960s and 1970s much of the debate about "free speech" took place on university campuses. Mario Savio's "Free Speech Movement" at U.C. Berkeley in 1964 was a case in point. Savio's objective was to abolish all restrictions on students' free speech rights throughout the University of California system. He ultimately won out. Half a century later, the university was confronted by a planned "free speech week" featuring ultra conservative Milo Yiannopoulos. After numerous protests and more than 100 faculty signed a letter stating: "We support robust debate, but we cannot abide by harassment, slander, defamation and hate speech," his invitation was ultimately rescinded. The point is that exercising "Free Speech" rules does not necessarily refer to allowing a debate between politically opposing ideas, it is an integrity issue. We will listen to anyone supporting our point of view. We are uncomfortable and often unwilling to even consider unpopular contrary ideas. In the case of "Free Speech Week," the university administration essentially censored its students' right to listen to non-conforming perspectives. And while shouting down speakers we don't like, a tactic frequently employed, may arguably be an expression of "free speech," it also censors the right of an audience to receive information. All speech is not equal. Some things are true - some things are not. Figuring out how to tell the difference requires the freedom to listen. As pundits have pointed out, America has no problem with speech. It has a problem with listening. Some would go as far as suggesting that we have an obligation to listen. Speaking and listening do not mean much without each other. Today, "Freedom of Speech" does not only refer to the right to express or disseminate information and ideas. It also includes the right to seek, to receive and impart information and ideas. The notion that freedom of speech on college and university campuses is "under siege," as reported by the Goldwater Institute in 2017, is no longer a liberal or conservative conviction. The freedom to hear or debate speech with which students disagree, or protect speech which some may find bigoted or offensive, is an essential part of academic freedom, and an indispensable element in fostering critical thinking skills. Off campus the same holds true. Our unwillingness to at least listen to viewpoints we don't agree with lies at the core of our national proclivity for mental rigidity, our obstinate aversion to consider each other's perspectives. It appears that many of us prefer to live in a homogeneous space where we hear plenty of speech, safely filtered through the congenial viewpoint of our chosen cable-news channel, social media group or newspaper. Many of these implicitly employ a form of Orwellian thought control on the premise that much of their audience is either ill equipped or too lazy to engage in an intelligent thought process. Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom. Without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would wither and die. If we as a people are to be the master of our fate and of our elected government, we must be well informed and have access to all information, ideas and points of view. Mass ignorance is a breeding ground for oppression and tyranny. Theo Wierdsma

POLITICAL PARALYSIS ON THE POTOMAC

So much for planned dialogue and carefully considered discussions. Given the discord exhibited in the House of Representatives struggling to agree on a parliamentary leader and presiding officer for the 118th Congress, it feels imperative to pay some attention to this process. It seems clear that many of us are perplexed about what is taking place at the pinnacle of political power only two years after the insurrection of January 6, 2020. In a way, the process, while constitutionally mandated, represents an outgrowth of what led to that inauspicious day. All but two of the group of far-right republican members opposing the selection of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker were election deniers in 2020. They, essentially, want to function as a third party and upset our entire system. Most of us seem to have committed to preserve our democratic traditions and values. However, not all of us agree on what that means, and how we get there remains contentious. The impasse in the House, which left the institution paralyzed until it selected a new Speaker, reverberated throughout our government. Article I, section 2 of our Constitution mandates that the House of Representatives needs to choose its presiding officer before it is allowed to transact business. The Speaker chairs the institution's Rules Committee, is responsible for administering the oath of office to its members, giving them permission to speak on the House floor, appointing members to committees, sending bills to committees and signing bills and resolutions that pass in the House. Besides, the Speaker of the House is also second in line, behind the Vice President, to become president should the latter be unable to fulfill his or her duties. So yes! Selecting a Speaker is a big deal. The office originated in the British House of Commons during the 14th century. In the British system the Speaker had allegiances to the legislative body as well as to the sovereign, serving in that capacity as the monarch's representative in the Commons. Ultimately, the American speakership followed this example and became a product of politics, claiming sole authority to run the House's business.Typically, the leader of the majority party will be elected to this position. His or her election requires a majority vote of seated members. What we observed during the past week was not a debate over policy, but a struggle for power within the majority Republican party, which gained a slim majority during the last election. Kevin McCarthy ultimately won the battle for Speaker on the 15th ballot, with no votes to spare. However, he lost the contest for power, since he had to agree to significant concessions to get the votes he needed. His tumultuous ascent was on full display when, after he failed to succeed after the 14th go-around, reminiscent to a violent incident that took place in 1856, when Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina entered the Senate chamber and repeatedly struck Senator Charles Sumner over the head with a cane, Mike Rogers of Alabama took a swing at Matt Gaetz of Florida who was blamed for failure on that vote. This drawn-out balloting is not entirely unprecedented in our history. Since 1789, the House has selected a Speaker 127 times. Only 14 times did the election require multiple ballots. Thirteen of these occurred before the Civil War when party divisions were more nebulous.The most notorious of these was the election of Nathaniel Prentice Banks, who, in 1856, won by two votes after 133 ballots, taking two months and a resolution to decide by plurality of the votes. The previous record was claimed by Howell Cobb in 1849, who won in 63 tries. The last time a Speaker election required two or more votes was in 1923 when Speaker Frederic Huntington Gillett managed to secure the position on the 9th ballot. I suspect that Representative McCarthy's success will become part of history as well. However, completing this round of balloting won't resolve the paralysis. The Republican Party only has a ten vote advantage over Democrats in the House. Margins are slim. Besides, Speaker McCarthy bargained away much of his power to secure the votes he needed. One of the most ominous rules he agreed to adjust is the "motion to vacate," essentially a vote of no confidence, allowing any member of the House to offer a request for the Speaker to step down. This procedure was instrumental in shortening the tenure of former Speakers Paul Ryan and John Boehner. Upon taking charge in 2018, Nancy Pelosi changed the rule to limit its use. However, Mr. McCarthy's right-wing opposition forced him to agree to reduce the threshold back to one single member. This essentially forces the Speaker to constantly walk a high-wire act. Any one representative in his party will hence be able to start this paralytic procedure all over again. This change and other adjustments to the rules of the House insure that Kevin McCarthy is slated to become the weakest Speaker of the House in modern days, beholden to a small group of defectors in his party. He will likely be more of a constitutional figurehead than a powerful party leader. The paralysis is far from over. We may be in for a long two years. Theo Wierdsma

2022 WAS NOT ALL BAD

While historians may not rate the year 2022 in particularly positive terms, it seems to me that we can't end the "Year of the Tiger" remembering only the distressing events that took place during these past twelve months. There certainly remain a multitude of challenges worthy of analysis and discussion. They tend to pile up. However, they will keep for another time. A cursory search of the internet exposes a variety of entries specifically designed to publish the brighter side of news stories. Moreover, multiple diagnoses of international events will highlight silver linings to otherwise traumatic occurrences. Given the inflation induced economic hardship endured by many of our citizens, among the multiple points of light shining brightly in the face of so much suffering and discomfort for many stands out the recognition that overall charitable giving increased significantly this year. If the projection holds, total charitable giving in our country this year will exceed $500 billion. This is the 6th consecutive year over year increase. Our 1.7 million active nonprofits will continue to receive some of the necessary funding needed to do their work. It also seems appropriate to acknowledge that a number of the nation's billionaires, who routinely receive criticism from political operatives, are instrumental in supporting this fundraising effort. A few of the outstanding contributors in 2022 were: MacKenzie Scott, ex-wife of Jeff Besos, who announced donating $5.8 billion in grants to 500 different organizations; Warren Buffett, who annually contributes between $2 and $3 billion in Berkshire Hathaway stock; and the Gates Foundation which committed $1.75 billion for pandemic relief. On a different scale, but contributing a significant effort to bring relief to troubled areas, we need to include Chef Jose Andres' "World Central Kitchen." This philanthropic organization raised $7.8 million for their efforts in Ukraine last year, and served upwards of 1.7 million meals a day. Another constant is "Rotary International," which spent $250 million on service projects around the world this year. These are just a few examples of organizations making a difference in 2022. Shifting to unintended consequences of adversarial situations: Russia's invasion of Ukraine may have initiated some significant movement on the climate change discussion. While cruel, traumatic and criminal, this inexcusable act of war resulted in changing the energy paradigm in multiple western nations. Countries which thus far largely relied on gas supplied by Russia began to wean themselves more aggressively from that energy source and ramped up their focus on renewables, powering a transition away from fossil fuels. In the midst of all of this, Ukraine inspired us all by showing that self determination and liberty are worth fighting for. Well deserved, its president, Volodemyr Zelensky, was selected Time magazine "Man of the Year." Ukraine was chosen the Economist's "Country of the Year." Politically, the extremes of far-right populism took a hit. Here, at home, almost all election deniers nominated by our previous president, lost. In the U.K. and France the radical right became the more moderate center. Except in Italy and Israel, centrist predominantly won their elections. In Canada, conversion therapy was officially banned. It became illegal to provide or promote services intended to change someone's sexual orientation or gender expression. The World Health Organization declared that the end of the first pandemic in a century is now "in sight." At a micro level, a selection of random positive or heart warming scraps of information might include: - Monarch butterflies returned to California. This year researchers counted nearly 250,000, up from just 2,000 in 2020. - Due to global conservation efforts, the once endangered humpback whale population rebounded from a low point of 10,000 to nearly 80,000. - In Las Vegas, a Burger King cook, who had never missed a day of work for 27 years, received over $270K in donations from a "Go Fund Me" account set up by his daughter. - In Burlington, North Carolina, in what amounted to an extreme palindrome, a baby boy was born on 2/22/22 at 2:20 am in labor and delivery room 2. Judah Grace made his astonished parents, Aberli and Hank Spear, very happy. - Maya Angelou became the first African American woman featured on a U.S. quarter. - Stephanie Frappart of France became the first female lead referee at a men's world cup match - officiating a game between Costa Rica and Germany. - For the first time three women were appointed to a Vatican committee advising Pope Francis on candidates for bishops in the Catholic Church. - "Dictionary.Com" announced its word of the year - it is: "Woman." And for anyone who feels the urge to communicate positive stories, I recommend you share your narrative on a website set up by the family of the late Captain Sir Tom Moore of Yorkshire, England, who, leading up to his 100th birthday, raised more than $20 million by walking across his garden 100 times. The website is: http://www.agiftofkindness.net, and is designed to offset much of the negative vibes emerging from the news these days. Have a marvelous 2023 - the "Year of the Rabbit."

TIME TO REFLECT

The end of the year 2022 is finally in sight. Many of us will heave a sigh of relief. This year has been consequential and memorable in many ways. It is customary that during this time of the year, when numerous holidays converge, we reflect on what got us here. We traditionally review what transpired during the past twelve months that we consider worth remembering. Although our memories of historic events, statistics, legislative transitions and cultural shifts are admittedly selective, it is worthwhile to identify some of these. While the impact of an inflation surge deserves to be mentioned as dominant for struggling families, the consequences of sweeping price increases resulted substantially from some of the preeminent events playing out across the globe. The Covid-19 pandemic remained the undercurrent in people's lives for much of the year. January saw a global roll-out of vaccines, the lifting of Covid-19 restrictions and the reopening of international borders. By the end of that month 10 billion vaccinations had been administered. However, sadly, at that point more than 300 million people had already died from the disease world wide. Also in January, China, France, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S.A., all permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, issued a rare statement that a nuclear war could not be won and must never be fought. A month later, on February 24, Russia invaded Ukraine. Putin subtly threatened the use of nuclear weapons, and ordered Russia's nuclear deterrent forces to be on "special alert." His invasion prompted the largest armed conflict in Europe since World War II. By mid November, 15.7 million Ukrainians had been displaced. In addition, General Mark Milley, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, estimated that both sides had suffered more than 100,000 fatalities each. In the mean time, NATO invited Finland and Sweden to join the organization. Their membership application is being processed, while it announced the deployment of an additional 40,000 troops to its eastern flank. Among the prominent people we lost this year were: Queen Elizabeth II, Shinzo Abe, Mikhail Gorbachev, Jiang Zemin, and a significant number of entertainers like: Sidney Poitier, Olivia Newton John, Jean-Luc Godard, Angela Lansbury, Jerry Lee Lewis and Loretta Lynn. While in our country the political balance of power shifted slightly, a number of globally significant countries experienced a more significant ideological shift. Israel, Sweden and Italy elected far-right leaning political parties to run their government. In Brazil, right-wing populist Jair Bolsonaro lost to left-wing populist Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. In the U.K. the principle players kept shifting every few weeks. Boris Johnson resigned as Prime Minister on July 6; Liz Truss was appointed on September 6; Fifty days later, Ms. Truss was replaced by Rishi Sunak. Thus far, he remains in place. Finally, Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, was elected to an unusual third term. And, not to forget, Queen Elizabeth's son Charles was officially proclaimed King Charles III of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Realms on September 10. A smattering of other notable events include: - The first successful heart transplant from a pig to a human patient took place in Baltimore, Maryland on January 7. The patient died two months later, but his death was not considered caused by organ rejection. - The International Panel on Climate Change concluded that many impacts are on the verge of becoming irreversible. - On May 6, the first Monkey Pox virus was detected in London, England. By the end of July the virus exceeded 17,000 in 75 countries. - The Ukrainian Folk-Rap group named "Kalush Orchestra" won the Eurovision song contest with the song "Stefania." - An earthquake between Pakistan and Afghanistan killed at least 1,163. - A heatwave across Europe in mid-June killed at least 20,000. - More than 42,000 Americans died from gun violence. - The world population reached 8 billion. - U.S. life expectancy dropped to 76. Culturally and politically our country still suffered from the consequences of the January 6, 2021 insurrection at our Capitol. The Select Committee investigating the attack is due to produce its final report by the end of this month. Our mid-term elections included significant participation by followers of ideas which essentially opposed our democratic traditions and values. Fortunately for the country, the majority of voters declined to support this movement. Unfortunately, prominent supporters of these anti-American ideas in support of this insurrection can't seem to stop their verbal assaults. It is not comforting or promising when the leader of this movement, who declared his candidacy for the job he lost in 2020, suggests that our Constitution ought to be suspended. Neither does it bode well when a prominent supporter claims that if she had been in charge of the insurrection it would have succeeded, because everyone would have been armed. These are not insignificant ideologues. These are major players, claiming significant political support from their political base. So, the end may be near for this year. However, there remains significant residual carry-over for 2023. Happy New Year!