text:
Tour de Russe
Filed under: Economics,Energy,History,Politics,Russia — The Professor @ 3:21 pm
Haven't written much Russia stuff lately–too many competing stories, too much competing for my time, and too much same-old, same-old in Russia. But enough things have accumulated to deserve some comment.
First, to prove, as if more proof were needed, that Vladimir Putin is 110 percent Checkist, and -10 percent economist, he refuses even to countenance the possibility that his inane attempts to keep a lid on prices has caused shortages of gasoline. Instead, he sees dark conspiracies:
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin accused oil companies on Thursday of a "conspiracy" to force up gasoline prices, as the world's largest oil producer struggles to combat fuel shortages.
Putin rebuked Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin, his point man for energy, for suggesting at a government meeting that price rises had resulted from a lack of oil products offered for sale on commodities exchanges.
"It's not a shortage. This is not about a shortage. This is a conspiracy. They are colluding," Putin told Sechin, who serves on the board of state-controlled oil major Rosneft and is widely seen as the chief spokesman for the industry.
What a maroon. And Sechin. Oi Perhaps his remark on commodity exchanges was mis-translated, because otherwise I have no clue what he was talking about.
By the way, the price control bug is spreading: here's a story about China using "legal" means to impose unofficial price controls, with predictable effects (note the empty shelves in the pic).
Story 2. When the Russia-China oil pipeline deal was signed, I predicted that the Russians would bridle at the super-secret pricing terms as soon as given the opportunity–and would attempt to renegotiate the terms later. (My surmise at the time was the super-secrecy was intended to conceal how unfavorable the terms were–and hence how desperate the Russians were.) The entertaining and informative John Helmer has some details:
This is unusual outspokenness from the state pipeline company whose chief executive, Nikolai Tokarev, has made a career of secretiveness. All the more curious, says a Russian analyst of state contracting practices, Alexei Navalny. He told Asia Times that the conflict with CNPC is not really with the pipeline company Transneft, but with the oil producer and exporter, state oil company Rosneft. Navalny has filed Moscow court actions as a shareholder of Rosneft for disclosure of the terms of the company's contract to sell oil to CNPC. He believes the price formula set by Rosneft is "far from a market one", and accordingly it is understandable why the Russian side wants now to extract more profit from the trade, while the Chinese insist on sticking to the contract formula. Navalny does not speculate on how the oil pricing is tied to Rosneft's and Transneft's repayments of their China loans.
Taking the longer-term Chinese view, over the 20-year contract term, with deliveries of about 2.3 billion barrels, at annual value at this year's price average of not less than $10 billion, and if the price average holds up, a full-term value of $200 billion, this $2 per barrel dispute ought to be something the two sides can agree to share — without going to a court in London and without damaging the windfall both are enjoying. If they can't, the usually reticent Tokarev will no doubt have to explain to Putin why not.
Not surprised. It would be very interesting to see those contract terms . . . somehow I think that if revealed, they would be more "colonial" than the PSAs (like the one for Sakhalin II) that Putin raged about in the mid-00s.
Speaking of oil, the Arbitrage Court has given BP the worst of all worlds: approval of the Rosneft-BP share swap, and the right to participate in Arctic exploration efforts–but only through TNK-BP. So now TNK-BP and BP–and now Rosneft–will be the Siamese triplets from hell for the foreseeable future. Good luck with that. Be careful what you ask for, Dud: you might get it, and in this case you did.
Last, Dmitry Gorenberg (whom I will meet when on a panel speaking about blogging as an academic at the Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies meetings in November) posted the editor's introduction from the new issue of Russian Politics and Law. Two of the articles by obvious Russophobes named Gudkov and Petrov present an analysis that is very similar to the natural state-based analysis I've presented on SWP over the last 4 years or so:
Lev Gudkov's article on "The Nature of 'Putinism' " judges Putinism to be a particular type of post-totalitarian authoritarianism in which the political police wields power on behalf of the private interests of bureaucratic clans or corporations. Furthermore, he argues that this system of power is not merely conservative but is designed specifically to block the development of the rest of society and to prevent its modernization. Control in this system is exercised by the security services, who seek to milk both the state and society for their own personal enrichment. [Emphasis added.]
Gudkov notes that this political system has a fundamentally different character from either the Soviet regime or a regular personalistic authoritarian regime such as that found in other countries. The new aspects of Putinism include its system for the legitimation of rule and its technology of power. Unlike Soviet-style totalitarian regimes, the Putinist political system is not a party-state, where the ruling political party has merged with the state. The regime also lacks an overarching ideology that seeks to justify its rule, nor does it engage in mass terror campaigns against political opponents. Furthermore, the population has partial freedom of access to information and the ability to engage in opposition activity as long as it does not threaten the ruling elite.
Unlike authoritarian states, the Putinist regime has a quasi-personalist and conservative character that focuses on restoring "Russian traditions" while engaging in ever-increasing corrupt activity. The personalism of the regime is particularly important, as Russia's leaders have partially destroyed state institutions in order to cement their control of state power.
The destruction of state institutions is the main focus of Nikolai Petrov's "The Political Mechanics of the Russian Regime: Substitutes Versus Institutions." Petrov argues that over the last ten years, Putin and his associates have eviscerated all state institutions except the presidency by systematically stripping them of any real power or purpose. What has been left behind are decorative institutions that appear to retain the powers of their former selves while actually performing few if any useful functions. The symbol of this transformation is the frequently cited remark by Boris Gryzlov, the Speaker of the State Duma, that the parliament is no place for political discussion. The substantive roles of both the Duma and the Federation Council have been handed over to various consultative councils, while the government itself as a decision-making organ was largely replaced by the presidential administration as long as Putin was president. Regional executives were, in turn, replaced by presidential representatives to the federal districts. The substitutions reached into the private sector, as well, with the replacement of independent large corporations with corporations controlled by the state and its top officials.
Petrov calls the system that results from this effort "highly managed democracy." Its essential characteristics include strong personal power that is unlimited by institutions, the manipulations of public opinion through the mass media, and the holding of controlled elections. The consequences of building this type of government include excessive centralization, internal conflicts, inability to make decisions, and stagnation. These consequences in turn bring about a loss of flexibility and adaptability to changing circumstances on the part of the regime, followed by a gradual loss of effectiveness in governing. The system not only fails to react to crisis but also frequently causes its own internal crises because a lack of failsafe mechanisms prevents the authorities from realizing that they are making mistaken decisions. The crisis may come from a lack of resources to maintain the patronage system that keeps the government functioning, from an internal political conflict among members of the ruling elite that spreads beyond their ability to control, or from a local crisis that expands to engulf the whole country because of the leadership's inability to deal with it. [Emphasis added.]
While the system is designed to maintain the current leaders' grip on power, in the long run, Petrov believes, it guarantees its own failure as hostility to the system gradually develops among the population. Because the public lacks the ability to change the system, anti government attitudes build among the population until they reach an "explosive" level that may bring down both the leadership and the entire system of highly managed democracy.
The last italicized portion is quite similar to arguments I've made here, arguments rooted in theory of the political economy of the natural state.
Personalization and de-institutionalization are quite detrimental to the country's long run prospects. Personalized, de-institutionalized regimes have little capacity for positive change and adaptation. They tend to become ossified if the personal leadership ages in place (which is the most likely outcome in Russia), or instead become wracked by conflict and revolution if struggles over leadership erupt (which is the second most likely outcome in Russia).
I've downloaded the articles and will read with interest, and will report any additional interesting insights that I glean from them.
SWP, you should read Eric Kraus latest Truth and Beauty.ru posting, where he has a nice interview with Russia's Channel One. He points out (correctly) the danger that rather than succeed, all the monetary QE will simply fail and the sovereign collapse of the Eurozone's weaker members, followed by Japan and the U.S., is the greatest economic threat to Russia's weak recovery. What say you? While damning Russia's dependency on selling raw materials and natural resources (ahem, would Texas or North Dakota be doing so well without Ag and natural gas to prop up their economies? Because it ain' Intel that's doing so) should you overlook that the greatest immediate threat to Russian economic and therefore political stability once again, comes from the West's inability to control its monetary and fiscal diahrrea? (You had a stirring of that, anyway, when you agreed with Putin that the Fed is engaging in monetary hooliganism)
Comment by pahoben lite — May 7, 2011 @ 6:09 pm
@Pahoben lite–before you came around here (at least before you started commenting), during the crisis, I noted repeatedly that Russia is a high beta economy, meaning that it is more sensitive to global economic fluctuations than the average country. So the worst thing for Russia would be for us to go down. Definitely.
I have been highly critical of QE2–before Putin was, in fact. My phrase–again from well more than a year ago–is "fiscal and monetary incontinence" (a little more polite than "diarrhea" 🙂 This is why I am extremely bearish. You certainly can't say that I haven't been hard on Bernanke, Geithner, and Obama. They, and the entire political class, is in denial mode, sleepwalking into the abyss.
To repeat myself yet again: Bismarck said there's a special Providence for children, fools, drunkards and the USA–we'll need that. And we're testing the limit of ruin there is in the country. Adam Smith says there's a lot. We're going to see how much a lot is.
But back to your main point–if we go down, Russia goes down far harder. I ridiculed Putin at the beginning of the crisis in Sep 08 when he said Russia was immune. He may not say so now, but he realizes that Russia's economic fate hinges on ours. And that eats at him.
Comment by The Professor — May 7, 2011 @ 9:05 pm
The problem is that now even the presidency has been debased. At least Yeltsin had the good sense to retire. Putin is burning all bridges.
Russian proverb. While the fat wither, the thin succumb.
Comment by So? — May 7, 2011 @ 9:35 pm
Very counter intuitively, treasury yields have fallen after S&P downgrading the US debt outlook to negative. Well, I know you don't give much respect to what one of the "three stooeges" says…nonetheless both the bond market and S&P 500 seem to shrug off every single bad news……
Of course the dollar is sliding w.r.t all emerging market currencies (except India which is deeply mired in corruption and what seems to be a big non performing loans problem). But that I think was the design of QE2 – which has turned out to be a competitive devaluation of the dollar to boost export growth. This has seemed to work thus far with US exports & manufacturing making some sort of a comeback. Central banks of emerging markets have struggled to slow down the resulting hot money inflows & the resulting inflation, but of late they have given up (esp. in Latam & China) and have reconciled to letting their currencies appreciate putting their exports at risk. Notably the talk of improving domestic consumption is being widely floated. But on the whole, it has turned out to be fine for the US – steady job growth & rising exports after QE2 inception. US treasuries have tested everyone's patience, but still they remain the safe haven asset whenever there is any bad news.
State and muni's finance are in doldrums and this year is proving to be especially tough for state budgets. But this might be a blessing in disguise as they will be forced to implement cut backs that were long due. Muni yields haven't really exploded despite several doomsday forecasts.
But more importantly given the plethora of issues with every emerging economy (slowdown in China, corruption/non performing loans in India, massively inefficient state spending in Brazil, political/corruption issues in Russia, peripheral eurozone troubles) the US still surprisingly remains the economy that is the most investor friendly. So, Bismarck is gonna be correct once again!
Comment by Surya — May 7, 2011 @ 9:40 pm
@So? Re presidency, that's one of the points in the Petrov article. Re thin/fat–don't know at what/whom that's directed. I could take it personally 🙂 But am I correct that your real meaning is directed at my reply to Pahoben Lite–i.e., that another crisis would be damaging to the fat US, but fatal to the thin Russia? If yes, point well taken.
Comment by The Professor — May 8, 2011 @ 6:19 am
Comment by So? — May 8, 2011 @ 8:14 am
So?–A man of many words, LOL!
"But that I think was the design of QE2 – which has turned out to be a competitive devaluation of the dollar to boost export growth. This has seemed to work thus far with US exports & manufacturing making some sort of a comeback." Well, the trucks are backing up again at Laredo, and it did cost, when oil was $148 a barrel, four times as much to ship a typical container from the maquiladoras as from Shanghai. So to the extent that Ben Bernanke has a master plan to wage economic warfare against those devilishly clever yuan-undervaluing Fu Manchus in China and somehow have Uncle Sam come out ahead from destroying the dollar, that may be it.
Still it doesn't apppear even with plenty of automation all the manufacturing is coming back from Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eur…er…Eastasia. Don't forget to throw gobs of money at another dull, uninspiring establishment candidate like Romney or Daniels. Anything to save plutocracy, er an independent Fed, from that devil Ron Paul.
SWP, As you've figured out, I'm more or less a Tea Partyer, and my only problem with this site and with most Tea Partyers in general as that they don't connect the dots with the trillion dollars a year we're spending on wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya (though Bachmann/Palin are coming around) and the two trillion Timmy! as you call him is asking Congress to raise the debt ceiling by before the end of this year. Ditto for whether we went to war to keep the Libyans recycling dollars rather than demanding gold dinars. The same theory existed about the Iraq invasion though switching to euros probably wouldn't have affected the dollar then much at all. Demanding bulleon on the other hand for every barrel of oil, would pose a far greater threat to the global fiat currency order.
It's time to stop having it both ways. If America's going broke, then so is our Empire. Only brother Ron and Gary Johnson seem to get that, though Palin and Bachmann might be tilting in that direction. Everyone else seems clueless or just wants to blame Obama for not bombing Libya more and just killing Ghadaffi already rather than starting the war in the first place on dubious humanitarian grounds. Before NATO intervened I don't think more Libyan civilians had been killed in Benghazi than in Tskinval on the night of 08/07-08/08!
Happy Victory Day SWP readers!
Just remember, tyranny loving Russia saved the free world's ass twice!
Comment by Mr. X — May 8, 2011 @ 7:41 pm
Mr. X,
don't you worry, the free world remembers how Russia first unleashed the destruction of WWII in cooperation with its Nazi allies and then brought its beloved tyranny to half of Europe for half a century.
Comment by Ivan — May 9, 2011 @ 12:08 am
? ???? ??????!
And let us not forget that it could not have happened without massive American assistance in the 1930s. Lend Lease was chump change in comparison.
Johan, get over it. You lost.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/European_Day_of_Remembrance_for_Victims_of_Stalinism_and_Nazism
August 23 commemorates the day when the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed, when Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany divided Eastern Europe between them, described by the European Parliament's President Jerzy Buzek in 2010 as "the collusion of the two worst forms of totalitarianism in the history of humanity".
Comment by Ivan — May 9, 2011 @ 6:00 am
ivan, you sound sooooooooooooo desperate.
the soviet union won w.w. ii. face the facts.
Comment by jennifer — May 9, 2011 @ 9:25 am
Some SWP WWII theses:
1. The USSR's contribution was necessary to defeat Nazi Germany in WWII.
2. The USA's and the UK's/Commonwealth's contribution were necessary to defeat Nazi Germany in WWII.
3. Neither the USSR nor the USA/UK would have been sufficient to defeat Nazi Germany in WWII.
4. The people of the USSR made an unbelievable sacrifice during WWII, but many, many of the losses suffered were unnecessary and the result of blundering, criminality, or blundering criminality by the Soviet leadership. This was especially true June-November, 1941.
5. Stalin's cynical and paranoid policies contributed materially to the coming of the war, and to Hitler's early victories over Poland and UK/France in 1939-1940. Indeed, it is likely that the war would not have broken out as it did and when it did, or unfolded as it did, without Stalin's machinations. Stalin made Hitler all the more dangerous–and the Soviet people were among those who paid the greatest price for his policies.
6. In 1933-1939, the western allies made incredible blunders that also bolstered Hitler greatly, thereby making war more likely, but those blunders were different in kind than Stalin's. Stalin's were part of an opportunistic policy intended to expand Soviet influence; the West's mistakes were attributable primarily to timorousness bordering on cowardice.
7. The USSR's contribution to the victory over Japan was immaterial, and its intervention in the war was purely opportunistic.
8. The USSR's role in the post-War world was almost completely malign.
I may add to the list, or amend it slightly. In the meantime: Have at it, folks!
Comment by The Professor — May 9, 2011 @ 12:33 pm
An addendum to my theses: The primary impact the USSR had on the war in the Asia-Pacific theater was Zhukov's battering of the Japanese at Khalkhyn Gol in Mongolia. This made clear that the "Northern Strategy" advocated by the Japanese Army was futile, and set in train the Southern Strategy favored by the Navy–and hence led to Pearl Harbor and the Japanese conquests in Indochina, the Philippines, the Dutch East Indies, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc.
Agree with all points and the addendum other than #2 and #3. AFAIK lend-lease didn't really come into play to a significant extent until after Stalingrad. Without it the Soviets would have taken longer to win, and so Lend-lease probably saved 100,000s of lives of Soviet soldiers (not to mention sparing civilian lives by shortening the occupation) but I doubt it would have affected the ultimate outcome. Ultimately something like 80% of the German military was lost in the East. Even if I'm a bit off, and the USA/UK contribution was necessary to defeat Germany, it would have been necessary like the American contribution to World War I allied victory on the Western front (versus that of France and the UK combined)- the straw that broke the camel's back rather than the main weight.
Comment by PA — May 9, 2011 @ 6:55 pm
@PA. It's not AFAIK lend-lease that I was focusing on, although that was important: how would the Red Army have advanced without it? From 1942 onwards, the US/UK forces tied down and eventually destroyed large amounts of German men and materiel that could have had a decisive effect on the Eastern Front: even if it wouldn't have permitted the Germans to win, it probably would have been enough to prevent the Soviets from pushing back the Nazis Even strategic bombing, which was probably not a wise investment on behalf of the western allies, tied down huge amounts of German men and aircraft and particularly AAA that could have made things far more difficult on the Soviets. Just think of the impact huge numbers of 88s could have had.
Lend Lease is overrated. But without the massive American aid in the 30s, it would have been just like a bigger version of the Polish campaign. Over in 6 months instead of 6 weeks.
Found this on a discussion on another forum and it makes sense to me:
Lend-Lease was very useful, but it probably was not
decisive. For one thing, Lend-Lease deliveries were greatest in
1944-45, when the Soviets were already on the offensive. Not very
much (comparatively speaking) was delivered in '42 (there was a long
gap in deliveries to Murmansk after the PQ-17 debacle), and almost
nothing in '41, which was the decisive year for the E. Front.
Even in January of 1945, Lend-Lease trucks comprised only 1/3 of Red
Army's truck park (about 200,000 out of 600,000 total), according to
an article in the Journal of Slavic Military Studies, and raw number
of Soviet-produced trucks in service steadily grew in '42 and '43,
indicating that Soviet industry could and did replace losses in this
area on its own. Presumably the same could be said for telephone
wire, etc. However, the Lend-Lease definitely did accelerate Soviet
recovery and reduced the lulls between Soviet offensives from '43
onwards by helping them replenish their forces faster than they could
have on their own.
You also have to keep in mind than already by spring of '42 the
Soviets' strength had improved relative to the Germans'. While in '41
the Wehrmacht launched three simultaneous strategic offensives into
the USSR, its losses in Barbarossa meant that in '42 it could manage
only one (1.5 if you count the push into Crimea). The offensive into
the Caucasus was successful largely because the Soviets initially
thought it was a feint, designed to draw away forces from the central
front, protecting Moscow. I doubt whether the Wehrmacht would have
had as much success had they attempted another push on Moscow in '42,
which is what the Soviets expected them to do. And all of this was
happening while US and British strategic bombing was barely getting on
its feet and while N. African campaign was absorbing a tiny proportion
of German assets. In short, Soviet survival in '41 and '42 is mainly
a Soviet accomplishment.
In "When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler" by David
Glantz, Colonel, U.S. Army (ret), Lend Lease is described as
materially assisting the Soviet war effort, but not in a way that was
decisive.
"Left to their own devices, Stalin and his commanders might have taken
12 to 18 months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht; the ultimate
result would probably been the same, except that Soviet soldiers could
have waded at France's Atlantic beaches." (pg 285)
@19 – the reason the Poles fared so badly against the Germans was because most of their militasry was tied up right at the German border (defending Silesia, etc.) and thus easily surrounded and destroyed. When the Poles were operating with some depth they did much better vs. the Germans than they did overall (the Bzura battle). But you make a very good and interesting point.
Comment by PA — May 9, 2011 @ 10:19 pm
> the soviet union won w.w. ii. face the facts.
the soviet union also started w.w. ii in close cooperation with its nazi allies. face all the facts, not just the ones trumpeted by soviet propaganda.
Comment by Ivan — May 10, 2011 @ 3:44 am
In a cold and savage way, yes, Lend-Lease had no effect on the eventual outcome of WWII, because Stalin was willing to sacrifice every living soul in the USSR, irrespective. So, from that perspective, Stalin would have continued to use the "ants-overcoming-the-giant" approach until the Red Army had reached Berlin. This, of course, would have resulted in ~ 50 million dead instead of the 26+ million that perished. But, the USSR would have had its pyrrhic victory, as it did, one way or the other.
Comment by Dermovov — May 10, 2011 @ 3:51 am
The USSR won WWII?? Hmmm, odd then that (1) the USSR doesn't exist any more, while Germany is reunited and (2) Germans live 15 years longer than Russians on average and (b) Germans have $30,000 per person more annual wealth than Russians.
If the USSR "won" WWII then we'll take losing any day of the week!
Comment by La Russophobe — May 10, 2011 @ 5:21 am
"this system of power is not merely conservative but is designed specifically to block the development of the rest of society and to prevent its modernization"
We too have been propounding that theory for years now, SWP. It's the central feature of the Putin dictatorship, that it can't afford to allow Russians to be healthy, wealthy or wise, because if they were they'd challenge for power. Same principle organized the USSR, and since it was full of sick, poor stupid people it naturally collapsed. Same thing will happen to Russia but, just as with the USSR, there be much pain and misery inside and outside the country before it does.
Those who cannot remember history are doomed to repeat it until they destroy themselves absolutely.
LaR,
Thanks for pointing out the magnanimity of the Soviet Union. To the Germans victory meant conquest. To the Russians survival.
Comment by So? — May 10, 2011 @ 6:49 am
@SWP:
Your point (2) says that the USA and the UK efforts were the last straws that broke the camel's back, right? 🙂
Comment by Ostap Bender — May 10, 2011 @ 1:21 pm
LR wrote: "The USSR won WWII?? Hmmm, odd then that (1) the USSR doesn't exist any more"
So what, you genius? The Roman Empire doesn't exist anymore, but it sure won many wars while it existed.
The reason why USSR doesn't exist is because the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and other Soviet republics decided that it would be to their advantage to be 15 separate states, and peacefully divorced each others. And now Russia and the Baltics are doing economically much better than they were before the divorce. So, Russia is a winner of the break-up of USSR.
"While Germany is reunited
Nope, you are ignorant. Only part of Germany is reunited. Much of Germany now belongs to Russia, Poland, Lithuania and Czech Republic. Forever! I know you don't know this, but look it up.
That's why Russia is the winner, and Germany – the loser.
What do you want to lose first? Konigsberg/Kaliningrad, Silesia, Dantzig/Gdansk, Memel, or Sudetenland? Or all of them?
@Ostap. Uhm, no. The USSR was in need of far more than a straw to break Hitler's back.
Comment by The Professor — May 10, 2011 @ 4:21 pm
@Dermovov–well, I agree that Stalin would have fought to the last Russian/Ukrainian/Tatar/whatever. I don't necessarily believe it would have been enough to result in Berlin in ruins and Hitler a suicide. More likely, a stalemate somewhere between Smolensk and the Polish border.
I find it interesting that people who discount Lend Lease always state that Lend Lease didn't materially contribute to the Red Army until after the Battle of Stalingrad, when it is just at that time that the war on the Eastern Front went through a very dramatic change. In 1941-1942, the war had a pattern of a spring/summer period of massive Nazi success that inflicated horrible casualties to the Red Army to a period of Nazi overstretch that made them vulnerable to an unexpected Red Army counter attack that would bog down as the Nazis regrouped. Soviet successes really depended on the Nazis underestimating Red Army reserves that created a situation where a well planned counter attack would succeed. Without that faulty German planning at the end of their offensive, the Red Army consistently lost. In the 1943 and afterwards, the Red Army held any German attacks or counter attacks and proceeded forward. Doesn't it make sense that Lend Lease had something to do with the changes in operational success of the Red Army before and after?
Most Lend Lease goods were not sent by the arctic route, so the disaster with Convoy PQ-17 was not decisive. Most Lend Lease was delivered through Iran in the Indian Ocean and (suprisingly) across the Pacific to Vladivostok because Japan would not attack ships bound for Russia due to the Soviet-Japanese non-aggression pact.
Lend Lease provided the radios installed in Russian made tanks, and the phone wire so Red Army HQ could talk to their troops. Without being able to communicate to the troops in the field, it would have been very hard for the Red Army to successfully implement their operations. The HQ would get delayed intelligence reports, orders couldn't be changed if necessary, and it would be harder to coordinate soliders. Lend Lease provided millions of canned foods for the Red Army soldier to eat. With most of the Soviet breadbasket occupied by Germans, how exactly was the Red Army supposed to feed itself? Lend Lease provided those trucks, railway tracks, and other transportation equipment vital to keep the Red Army supplied. How could they attempt to exploit their victories if the soldiers had to stop advancing so that they could remain supplied? What about the millions of boots supplied for their soldiers? I think something like 18% of all aircraft were provided by Lend Lease. Isn't that greatly responsible for the Red Army's ability to have air superiority for much of the later part in the war (especially when combined with the Western bomber offensive)? The Red Army in 1941-1942 often has shortages of the most basic equipment. Yet we don't hear of anything like that in 1943 onwards. If Lend Lease isn't responsible for that, what was?
And besides the explosives, small arms, vehicles, and other obvious war materials sent, there were plenty of machine tools, chemicals, petroleum, aluminum, rubber, and other vital raw materials for Soviet industry so that the USSR could manufacture its own items. Many of the machine tools sent were of the precision or highly technical type that Soviet industry could not make well, and were very dependent on the West to provide. How many Soviet factories would have been idle without that (especially in 1941 and 1942), how many Soviet made items would not have been made? What would have been the implications of that? And for some of the basic commodities given that were absolutely essential (like boots), how many workers would have been diverted to make those, and what couldn't they have made? How many soldiers might have to be released so they can work in the factories?
And of course, there are all sorts of odd scenarios which is hard to state with certainty, but must have some impact. What critical engagement or battle would not have been fought if not for Lend Lease? For just one example without the food and other materials delivered in Murmansk, how many supplies could have reached Leningrad during the siege? Would it be enough that Leningrad could have fallen, thus freeing up German troops to be deployed elsewhere? Even what small numbers of tanks, planes, etc. that were delivered in 1941 and 1942 were crucial. The Soviet Union had lost most of its armor and aircraft in Barbarossa. When the Moscow counterattack happened, I think somewhere between 15-25% of tanks and planes were Lend Lease (British and American) help. Wouldn't losing 1/4 of your hard assets significantly hurt the Soviet offensive? If you are going to make up that loss by stripping another section of the front of their assets, what happens there? Do the Germans hold Rostov in 1941? Do they get the entire Donets Basin? If so, how does this affect Case Blue in 1942?
And of course, there is the morale issue. If the Soviet Union truly is alone and getting no aid, what happens to the individual soldier in the Red Army? Are they going to be more stoic than their fathers and grandfathers in 1917 in a similar situation without getting needed supplies to fight well?
No Lend Lease in 1945 would not have affected the war much. No Lend Lease in 1944 would mean a long war on the Eastern Front. No Lend Lease in 1943 or earlier would probably critically affect the Red Army though. How good would the troops at Kurks be if they were hungry, still having to share weapons, no radios in their tanks or cable wires for field telephones, and not enough trucks and jeeps to keep them supplied for an offensive? How many of the land mines planted were dependent on explosives manufactured in the US?
Glantz is an excellent historian, but I think his idea that the Soviet Union could have defeated Nazi Germany alone and only needing 12-18 more months is not supportable (especially if he means no involvement by the West at all. Hitler is going to be able to get a lot of critical war materials he needs without a British blockade). Soviet Union would certainly have survived without Lend Lease. Victory (alone) is much more debatable. Most likely a stalemate and a negotiated peace. And if the Western Allies fight, but don't give any aide, then the two armies meet up at the Vistula or farther east. Especially considering that the Soviet Union was nearing the end of its manpower reserves when Berlin fell, I'm not sure an extra 12-18 months were actually sustainable, especially alone.
Survival with minimal Lend Lease in 1941 and 1942 does not mean that the spectacular Red Army victories in 1943 and 1944 are going to happen without Lend Lease. There is a huge difference between triumphal marching in Berlin and a bitter stalemate along the Dnieper.
Comment by Chris Durnell — May 10, 2011 @ 6:31 pm
I'm with you Chris. I think at best, no Lend Lease, stalemate. After all, the balance was still close enough in July 43 that Hitler could launch Citadel. (A big mistake, but still an indication that even post-Stalingrad it wasn't over. Like those who think the American Civil War was effectively over after Gettysburg and Vicksburg. Not really.)
When you think about the effects of Lend Lease, think of the old adage: "Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics." The Soviets would not have had the logistical capability to advance as far and as fast as they did w/o LL. And if you think of the million + men, the aircraft, the armor, and the industrial production that Germany could have used on the Eastern Front absent a threat from the western allies, it becomes highly doubtful that the USSR could have won a decisive victory.
one of the counter points is that talking about lend lease downplays the eternal sacrifice that the soviet soldiers made to save their country, their women, and their country.
and, yes, it was save. like So? implied, soviet defeat would have resulted in the extermination of russians, slavs, and jews from the eurasian continent.
victory.
Comment by jennifer — May 10, 2011 @ 7:44 pm
Lend Lease was very limited in '41-'42 because there was a high likelihood of it ending up in German hands. Of course, the most import "Lend Lease" happened in the 30s. Yet another Roosevelt "crime".
Comment by So? — May 10, 2011 @ 8:06 pm
No Jennifer, trying to give a balanced appraisal of the contribution of each combatant or the effect of policies such as lend lease is not downplaying the eternal sacrifice of anybody. Nobody disagrees what the consequences of a Soviet defeat would have been.
Now, now. Generalplan Ost was somewhat of an exaggeration. (Propaganda – everybody does it.) The only ones slated for extermination were the Jews. And no-one likes them anyway. After all, Hitler did offer half a million Hungarian Jews to the Allies at $2 per head, but the offer was declined. WRT the rest, the plan was to assimilate some, "displace" others (the closer to Germany proper, the more likely), put some on a diet and use the rest as labour. Someone has to toil in the fields and mines after all.
The topic of the final essay exam in 1946 was strange. "If the Germans had won?". Victor P. tried with all his imagination and his pen started squeaking. Alas, a long list of monstrous absurdities was the result. Such a Russia could not possibly have happened. After all, the Germans had lost in the end.
1. Almost no industry left. The occupiers will only be concerned with pumping the natural resources of our territories.
2. Instead of having a militia, the policemen will be recruited from the rabble. The police will be very many, and the people will fear them more than the criminals.
3. At every exit from the city police will check those gathered to leave or arrive. Each resident will be required to register with the police in the community.
4. To maintain the fear, they will create teams of wild mountain people. They will occasionally attack the local population, to rob and kill.
5. The local administrators will be chosen from the worst locals. For safety, their children and wives will live abroad. And they will take turns here on a rotational basis.
6. The elite will use only black German cars with sirens for transport. Ordinary people will have to stay out of their way and wait until they pass.
7. Out of total despair, the state ideology will eventually become fascism. Only the Russian version.
8. German goods will be considered in Russia, the best and most desirable.
9. President will speak much better German than Russian.
10. Instead of vodka, beer will be sold and promoted. As in Germany.
11. Those who fought against the Germans, will receive a pittance, and meager presents on public holidays.
12. Russians killed in the war will be buried in mass graves, only as a token of their passing.
13. Most of the male population will pass through camps to break their will to resist.
14. Teachers and doctors in the occupied territories will receive minimum pay, so the population shrinks and degenerates as quickly as possible.
15. On the distant outskirts of Russia, like Primorskiy Krai, there may still be partisans. They will attack the policemen, but the intimidated local population will give them no assistance.
16. Road construction will stop, and fuel will be expensive, so that the people stay at home.
17. Firearm ownership will be strictly forbidden.
18. People will live in cheap barracks with low ceilings. 8 square metres per person.
19. The smartest and most capable will be allowed to leave and live abroad. This would be considered a great success in life.
20. America will be declared Russia's main enemy.
Vera Pavlovna pondered on the grade. And gave him 3 for a good fantasy.
@The Professor Uhm, no. As I recall, USSR was responsible for almost 80% of all killed German soldiers and destroyed German tanks and planes. UK and USA – for less that 15%.
@36 The 80% also likely underepresents the toll the Soviet forces took, because from what I have heard the Germans tended to send the best soldiers and most modern equipment to the Eastern front (where their situation was more critical) while the 20% fighting the western allies were more poorly equipped, older or too young, "resting", etc. Although I doubt it, it may be possible that if these were also thrown against the Soviets that would have been enough to tip the struggle in favor of the Germans. In which case, if Western efforts vs. Germany were not a straw breaking the camel's back, they were no more than a pillow.
Chris's comments re: Lend Lease seem to make sense and are certainly possible, although I'm not sure Stalin would have accepted a cease fire on the Dnieper rather than throw more Soviets into the meatgrinder until he achieved victory – and he had a much larger population to work with than did the Germans.
Comment by PA — May 11, 2011 @ 9:15 pm
"The Great War" is WW1 in Britain, WW2 in Russia.
Get it straight, Russia lost World War II.
http://larussophobe.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/editorial-get-it-straight-russia-lost-world-war-ii/
Comment by La Russophobe — May 12, 2011 @ 11:53 am
@La Russophobe:
No matter how many times you repeat your mantra, it will not become any more illogical. If the current GDP is the measure of who won WWII, then the winner was Qatar, which has the highest per capita GDP PPP at $145,300 per person.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html
1 Qatar $ 145,300
2 Liechtenstein $ 141,100
3 Luxembourg $ 81,800
4 Bermuda $ 69,900
5 Norway $ 59,100
OSTAP:
Everyone with a brain thinks nations with high per capita GDP are winning and those with low GDP are losing. Americans worry about high PCGDPs in other countries all the time. Only Russians are ignorant enough to rationalize or ignore such data.
All the countries on your list are tiny and never devastated by war and as such comparing them to Russia and Germany is the statement of a drunken, ignorant, inbred moron who cannot put down his crack pipe.
Ignoring all the other points in our article (like Russia's short life expectancy) is even more utterly stupid and ridiculous.
The USSR and Germany fought a war and after that went on absolutely opposite paths of success and destruction. If you "think" the war had nothing to do with that, then you must believe Germans are inherently superior beings to Russians. Such anti-Russian racism is appalling and if you adhere to it, you are beneath contempt.
Comment by La Russophobe — May 12, 2011 @ 7:44 pm
Russians can never win.
> Russians can never win.
Not if they remain under tyranny of a fascist regime under whatever disguise du jour, no. But they can still persuade themselves that slavery is a great accomplishment and feel happy. Has been working for centuries. Can't be that bad. Probably.
@LR Too bad that you are not intelligent enough to understand that being wealthy and winning a war 65 years ago is not the same thing. Had there been no WWII, Germany would still be much wealthier than Russia, Baltics and other ex-USSR republics.


text:
A Trip to the "Morg"
Musings on social justice, race, and queerness.
Post the Seventy-Seventh or On Accountability
By witchymorgan
For those of you who don't know, I used to work for an organization called Out Youth. As you could guess, Out Youth is a queer youth organization that strives to "promote the physical, mental, emotional, spiritual and social well being" of queer and trans* young people. In other words, they seek to empower queer young people so that they can become leaders in their community. Out Youth is a crisis prevention organization because it gives young people the tools and community necessary to survive. It gives some young people the access to family, support and community that might not be offered at home. I know Out Youth has forever changed my life.
And it was, without a doubt, my favorite job. I got to work with amazing, inspiring young people all day long. I was constantly surrounded by a queer family that I knew had my back. I was working with some badass organizers who were working on the ground, creating safe spaces for queer young people all over Texas. I was working to empower young people to fight for the lives they wanted today and not just wait for it to "get better". And I loved it. I would come in everyday and these young people would teach me what was really good.
Unfortunately, however, I lost that job. But it wasn't because I was bad at my job or not meeting my goals. And it was not because the youth felt that I was oppressive or problematic and wanted me fired. I was fired for trying to hold the board of directors accountable. I was fired for organizing the young people against the board of directors. I was fired for trying to revolutionize the organization so that power was centered with the young people.
Don't get me wrong; I'm no saint. I certainly fucked up and made mistakes. I said several things that probably would have been better heard in a private forum. I'm a hothead and my sharp tongue sometimes gets the best of me. And I have a long way to go in learning how to engage to transform. However, nothing that I has ever said have been untrue. And I was always accountable to the young people that I served.
The board of directors, however, is anything but accountable to the young people that they purport to serve. And no action displays this lack of accountability more than in their recent hiring of Aubrey Wilkerson as the new Executive Director. This is the same Aubrey who was the board chair of Out Youth. You know, the same board that hires the Executive Director (I won't even get into how shady that is). The same Aubrey who squandered a surplus, failed to raise enough money for the organization (despite being a professional fundraiser) and made only a token effort to include young people in the decision making process. This is the same Aubrey that talked down to and misgendered many youth. The same Aubrey who fails to address racial and economic justice at Out Youth and disrespected the only staff member of color on multiple occasions.
What's more is that the hiring committee (which only had one youth member, even though a youth run and led organization would/should have had more youth than adult members on any decision making body) didn't even recommend Aubrey to the board for consideration. When they recommended three different people, instead of picking one of those three, the Board went back to review applications and hired Aubrey. Let me repeat that again. The board of directors hired someone that had a direct influence on the decision because they were the goddamn board chair for 4 goddamn years. They hired someone that wasn't even recommended.
I can't even.
Now, I don't claim to speak for the youth. Only they can speak for themselves. But from what I understand, in my time involved in Out Youth, Aubrey has never been liked by most of the youth. I have countless stories where Aubrey's self-importance was very off putting, especially to trans youth and youth of color. I have so many stories of youth not even knowing who Aubrey was until Lisa Rogers was fired. I have so many stories of youth not feeling heard by Aubrey.
So, not only did the board hire someone who had a stake in the decision-making process (even if he "temporarily" resigned as board chair) but they hired someone who the young people don't even like. I see where the board might be coming from. They hope that Aubrey will raise those millions that he did at his last job. But what good does millions do if there are no youth? Because that is what this decision is going to do. Its going to push youth out of Out Youth.
What, than, does accountability look like? It looks like changing the structure of the organization so that young people have more power than the adults. It means that all decisions must have final approval by the young people. It means that we empower the young people and give them the tools to drive the organization in the direction that they choose. This is more than just asking for their input. It means integrating young people into every decision making process and giving the young people the knowledge and tools to do that. It means that the adult allies must remain allies and act in support roles only.
But most of all accountability means that we, as adult allies with adult privilege, keep our privilege in check. It means that we don't take up to much space, that we don't dominate conversations. It means stepping back and allowing young people to take charge. It means we don't treat young people like children or think that they can't handle the responsibility. Accountability means that when we fuck up, because we will, we don't get defensive. We apologize and don't do it again.
Accountability means that we do not recreate the systems of power and oppression that exist in society within our own organizations. Within our own families.
So I call upon the Out Youth board of directors. Be accountable to the young people that you serve. Show your willingness to work with young people by renouncing your power. Show your desire to really empower young people by restructuring the organization to give them power. Show your dedication to social justice by being just.
And young people, never forget that they are nothing with out you. There is no Out Youth without youth. El pueblo unido jamás será vencido. The people united shall never be defeated. Its time to take your organization back. Force them to be accountable to you. Its time to create something new.
About witchymorgan
I'm a 22 year old womanist, sex positive, pansexual, polyamorous, queer, bruja, transwoman. Social justice activist by day, social justice activist by night. Fun!	View all posts by witchymorgan
This entry was posted on Thursday, June 14th, 2012 at 9:07 am	and tagged with accountability, Aubrey Wilkerson, board of directors, leadership, Out Youth, queer young people, radical, youth empowerment and posted in Social Justice.	You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
« Post the Seventy-Sixth or Who Knows Best?
Post the Seventy Eighth or On Racism and Rape Culture »
6 responses to "Post the Seventy-Seventh or On Accountability"
riverofpeaceusa
Morgan, it sounds as if the board of Out Youth has no policy on Conflict of Interest. IRS has a very special interest in boards of 501(c)(3)s conducting themselves so as to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest.
IRS prefers that conflict of interest be addressed up front and clearly, such as in the bylaws. The following is pasted directly from an IRS website page and is suggested for inclusion in bylaws. It's not the most fun to read, but highly useful.
Basically that board needs to show evidence that they could not get what they wanted from anyone else. Otherwise they are not upholding their "fiduciary responsibilities" and their 501.c.3 status is threatened. One could write to IRS and complain. Sounds like the board hasn't gone to ANY board trainings or they would know better.
I think this (taken from below) is most pertinent: "After exercising due diligence, the governing Board or Committee shall determine whether the corporation can obtain with reasonable efforts a more advantageous transaction or arrangement from a person or entity that would not give rise to a conflict of interest." Tough to show they have done this when their own hiring committee recommended others.
If you want to follow up on this or pass it to someone else to follow up, I suggest copying what's below and pasting it into a new document for easier study.
Conflict of Interest and Compensation Approval Policies
Section 1. Purpose of Conflict of Interest Policy
The purpose of this conflict of interest policy is to protect this tax-exempt corporation's interest when it is contemplating entering into a transaction or arrangement that might benefit the private interest of an officer or director of the corporation or any "disqualified person" as defined in Section 4958(f)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code and as amplified by Section 553.4958-3 of the IRS Regulations and which might result in a possible "excess benefit transaction" as defined in Section 3948(c)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code and as amplified by Section 53.4958 of the IRS Regulations. This policy is intended to supplement but not replace any applicable state and federal laws governing conflict of interest applicable to nonprofit and charitable organizations.
Section 2. Definitions
a. Interested Person. Any director, principal officer, member of a Committee with governing Board delegated powers, or any other person who is a "disqualified person" as defined in Section 4958(f)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code and as amplified by Section 53.4958-3 of the IRS Regulations, who has a direct or indirect financial interest, as defined below, is an interested person.
b. Financial Interest. A person has a financial interest if the person has, directly or indirectly, through business, investment or family:
1.	An ownership or investment interest in any entity with the corporation has a transaction or arrangement,
2.	A compensation arrangement with the corporation or with any entity or individual with which the corporation has a transaction or arrangement, or
3.	A potential ownership or investment interest in, or compensation arrangement with, any entity or individual with which the corporation is negotiating a transaction or arrangement.
c.	Compensation includes direct and indirect remuneration as well as gifts or favors that are not insubstantial.
d.	A financial interest is not necessarily a conflict of interest. Under Section 3, paragraph B, a person who has a financial interest may have a conflict of interest only if the appropriate governing Board or Committee decides that a conflict of interest exists.
Section 3. Conflict of Interest Avoidance Procedures
a. Duty to Disclose.
In connection with any actual or possible conflict of interest, an interested person must disclose the existence of the financial interest and be given the opportunity to disclose all material facts of the financial interest and be given the opportunity to disclose all material facts to the Directors and members of Committees with governing Board delegated powers considering the proposed transaction or arrangement.
b. Determining Whether a Conflict of Interest Exists
After disclosure of the financial interest and all material facts, and after any discussion with the interested person, s/he shall leave the governing Board or Committee meeting which the determination of a conflict of interest is discussed and voted upon. The remaining Board or Committee members shall decide if a conflict of interest exists.
c. Procedures for Addressing the Conflict of Interest
An interested person may make a presentation at the governing Board or Committee meeting, but after the presentation, s/he shall leave the meeting during the discussion of, and the vote on, the transaction or arrangement involving the possible conflict of interest.
The chairperson of the governing Board or Committee shall, if appropriate, appoint a disinterested person or Committee to investigate alternatives to the proposed transaction or arrangement.
After exercising due diligence, the governing Board or Committee shall determine whether the corporation can obtain with reasonable efforts a more advantageous transaction or arrangement from a person or entity that would not give rise to a conflict of interest.
If a more advantageous transaction or arrangement is not reasonably possible under circumstances not producing a conflict of interest, the governing Board or Committee shall determine by a majority vote of the disinterested Directors whether the transaction or arrangement is in the corporation's best interest, for its own benefit, and whether it is fair and reasonable. In conformity with the above determination, it shall make its decision as to whether to enter into the transaction or arrangement.
d. Violations of the Conflicts of Interest Policy
If the governing Board or Committee has reasonable cause to believe a member has failed to disclose actual or possible conflicts of interest, it shall inform the member of the basis for such belief and afford the member an opportunity to explain the allege failure to disclose.
If, after hearing the member's response and after making further investigation as warranted by the circumstances, the governing Board or Committee determines the member has failed to disclose an actual or possible conflict of interest, it shall take appropriate disciplinary and corrective action.
Section 4. Records of Board and Board Committee Proceedings
The Minutes of meetings of the governing Board and all Committees with Board delegated powers shall contain:
a.	The names of the persons who disclosed or otherwise were found to have a financial interest in connection with an actual or possible conflict of interest, the nature of the financial interest, any action taken to determine whether a conflict of interest was present, and the governing Board's or Committee's decision as to whether a conflict of interest in fact existed.
b.	The names of the persons who were present for discussions and votes relating to the transaction or arrangement, the content of the discussion, including any alternatives to the proposed transaction or arrangement, and a record of any votes taken in connection with the proceedings.
Section 5. Compensation Approval Policies
a.	A voting member of the governing Board who receives compensation, directly or indirectly, from the corporation for services is precluded from voting on matters pertaining to that member's compensation.
b.	A voting member of any Committee whose jurisdiction includes compensations matters and who receives compensation, directly or indirectly, from the corporation for service is precluded from voting on matters pertaining to that member's compensation.
c.	No voting member of the governing Board or any Committee whose jurisdiction includes compensation matters and who receives compensation, directly or indirectly, from the corporation, either individually or collectively, is prohibited from providing information to any Committee regarding compensation.
d.	When approving compensation for Directors, officers and employees, contractors, and any other compensation contract or arrangement, in addition to complying with the conflict of interest requirements and policies contained in the preceding and following sections of this article as well as the preceding paragraphs of this section of this article, the Board or a duly constituted compensation Committee of the Board shall also comply with the following additional requirements and procedures:
1.	the terms of compensation shall be approved by the Board or compensation Committee prior to the first payment of compensation,
2.	all members of the Board or compensation Committee who approve compensation arrangements must not have a conflict of interest with respect to the compensation arrangement as specified in IRS Regulation Section 53.4958-6(c)(iii), which generally requires that each Board members or Committee member approving a compensation arrangement between this organization and a "disqualified person" (as defined in Section 4958(f)!1) of the Internal Revenue Code and as amplified by Section 53.4958-3 of the IRS Regulations)"
i.	is not the person who is the subject of the compensation arrangement, or a family member of such person;
ii.	is not in an employment relationship subject to the direction or control of the person who is the subject of the compensation arrangements;
iii.	does not receive compensation or other payments subject to approval by the person who is the subject of the compensation arrangement
iv.	has no material financial interest affected by the compensation arrangement; and
v.	does not approve a transaction providing economic benefits to the person who is the subject of the compensation arrangement, who in turn has approved or will approve a transaction providing benefits to the Board or Committee member.
d.	The Board or compensation Committee shall obtain and rely upon appropriate data as to comparability prior to approving the terms of compensation. Appropriate data may include the following:
1.	compensation levels paid by similarly situated organizations, both taxable and tax-exempt, for functionally comparable positions. "Similarly situated" organizations are those of a similar size, purpose, and with similar resources;
2.	the availability of similar services in the geographic area of this organizations;
3.	current compensation surveys complied by independent firms;
4.	actual written offers from similar institutions competing for the serves of the person who is the subject of the compensation arrangements.
As allowed by IRS Regulation 4958-6, if this organization has average annual gross receipts (including contributions) for its three prior tax years of less than $1 million, the Board or compensation Committee will have obtained and relied upon appropriate data as to comparability if it obtains and relies upon data on compensation paid by three comparable organizations in the same or similar communities for similar services.
e.	The terms of compensation and the basis for approving them shall be recorded in written Minutes of the meeting of the Board or compensation Committee that approved the compensation. Such documentation shall include:
1.	the terms of the compensation arrangement and the date it was approved
2.	the members of the Board or compensation Committee who were present during debate on the transaction, those who voted on it, and the votes cast by each Board or Committee membership
3.	the comparability data obtained and relied upon and how the data was obtained
4.	if the Board or compensation Committee determines that reasonable compensation for a specific position in this organization or for providing services under any other compensation arrangement with this organization is higher or lower than the range of comparability data obtained, the Board or Committee shall record in the Minutes of the meeting the basis for its determination.
5.	If the Board or Committee makes adjustments to comparability data due to geographic area or other specific conditions, these adjustments and the reasons for them shall be recorded in the Minutes of the Board or Committee meeting.
6.	Any actions taken with respect to determining if a Board or Committee member had a conflict of interest with respect to the compensation arrangement, and if so, actions taken to make sure the member with the conflict of interest did not affect or participate in the approval of the transaction (for example, a notation in the records that after a finding of conflict of interest by a member, the member with the conflict of interest was asked to, and did, leave the meeting prior to a discussion of the compensation arrangement and a taking of the votes to approve the arrangement).
7.	The Minutes of Board or Committee meetings at which compensation arrangements are approved must be prepared before the later of the date of the next Board or Committee meeting or 60 days after the final actions of the Board or Committee are taken with respect to the approval of the Board or Committee are taken with respect to the approval of the compensation arrangements.
8.The Minutes must be reviewed and approved by the Board and the Committee as reasonable, accurate, and complete within a reasonable period thereafter, normally prior to or at the next Board or Committee meeting following final action on the arrangement by the Board or Committee.
Section 6. Annual Statements
Each director, principal officer, and member of a Committee with governing Board delegated powers shall annually sign a statement which affirms such person:
a.	has received a copy of the conflicts of interest policy,
b.	has read and understands the policy,
c.	has agreed to comply with the policy, and
d.	understands the corporation is charitable and in order to maintain its federal tax exemption it must engage primarily in activities which accomplish one or more of its tax-exempt purposes.
Section 7. Periodic Reviews
To ensure the corporation operates in a manner consistent with charitable purposes and does not engage in activities that could jeopardize its tax-exempt status, periodic reviews shall be conducted. The periodic reviews shall, at a minimum, include the following subjects:
a.	whether any compensation arrangements and benefits are reasonable, based on competent survey information, and the result of arm's-length bargaining.
b.	whether partnerships, joint ventures, and arrangements with management organizations conform to the corporation's written policies, are properly recorded, reflect reasonable investment or payments for goods and services, further charitable purposes, and do not result in inurement, impermissible private benefit, or in an excess benefit transaction.
Section 8. Use of Outside Experts
When conducting the periodic reviews as provided for in Section 7, the corporation may, but need not, use outside advisors. If outside experts are used, their use shall not relieve the governing Board of its responsibility for ensuring periodic reviews are conducted.
kundawicce
Oops, meant to post under my name, not River of Peace.
Geez, I just wrote a long comment under a different user name, but now don't see that comment. augh. Will redo. Maybe it was too long. Will email you some interesting pertinent info 🙂
witchymorgan
Thanks for the info Kunti 🙂
Just saw this. OY does have a conflict of interest policy. At least, it did after a major revision of policies in the summer of '08. It reads just like the one in the first comment, except wherever possible I edited it down so it says the same thing with fewer words.
The legal risk of being found to violate a conflict of interest policy is relatively low, AFAIK. So in this situation, I think the downside is less about the IRS, more about how this looks and reflects on the organization. No org wants a story going around like what you've described: that the board hired one of its own against the recommendation of its own selection committee.
There's also an aspect of this internal to the organization. I hate to say it, but I've been on a board that engaged in a shady hiring process and hired one of our own. I didn't know better at the time; or, I knew something felt wrong, but I didn't have the clarity or the words to advocate for a better process. The person applied for two jobs, spent the first hiring process on the board and almost all of the second, then resigned just before ze was hired. Ze didn't get the recommendation of the hiring committee, but had some board members dead set on hiring hir no matter what. The whole mess was hard on the board, because so many people took it personally including the applicant; and on the staff, who all knew ze'd been hired in a political process and had far more influence with the board than they did. That set up a weird power dynamic among the staff. And the whole process caused so much trouble/conflict, which continued to play out among us for a long time, I later understood how badly it poisoned the board and staff. I made a number of mistakes there I'll never make again.
I was hired for ED as a former board chair. I tried to keep it as clean as possible… took no part in any relevant discussions, resigned well before the job was posted, and encouraged the board to make the best decision for the org, whether that was hiring me or not. I didn't want people to feel disloyal choosing someone else. I'm not aware of anything in that process we should have done differently… though there still had to be some politics in it, and it must have felt more personal and complicated than if I'd had zero board history.
Post the Seventy-Seventh or On Accountability |
[…] View Post […]
Leave a Reply to kundawicce Cancel reply
Keep the Lights on
What was Written before…
What has been Spoken on…
#OccupyWallStreet accountability action adultism Allies ancestors anger Anti-Capitalism anti-colonization anti-oppression anti-racism beauty Bodies body Capitalism change Classism colonialism colonization compassion death definitions empowerment family Feminism home hurricane-irene immigration Indigenous Indigenous rights justice kissing Latin@ liberation life love lover Oppression organizing Out Youth ownership people of color poem politics poverty Power Prison-Industrial Complex Privilege QPOC queer Racism rage Revolution Robyn Moore safe space safety school-to-prison pipeline self-acceptance sex Sex-Positivity silence social justice society space Trans* Transgender Transgender Day of Remembrance transphobia trans women of color voice whiteness white privilege white supremacy young people youth empowerment
Post the Tenth 2 or Remembering Trayvon
Post the Ninth 2 or On the State and Activism
Post the Eighth 2 or On Juneteenth and Modern Day Slavery
Post the Seventh 2 or On Social Capital and the Queer Community
Post the Sixth 2 or On The Labor Movement and Transmisogyny

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Jeep cherokee blower motor wiring diagram. I have a jeep cherokee blower motor only. Jeep cherokee heater fan switch wiring diagram. Jeep grand cherokee limited fuse box auto. Jeep cherokee door parts diagram html. Jeep grand cherokee laredo starting circuit wiring. Jeep wiring diagrams library. Jeep blower switch wiring free engine image for. Jeep cherokee fuse box diagram get free image about. Car heater motor wiring diagram get free image about. Xj heat not blowing pre how to diagnose and fix. Grand cherokee wiring diagrams get free image. Jeep cherokee heater diagram wiring will be. Heater issues on cherokee and its cold help jeep. Blower switch wiring diagram for jeep cherokee. Jeep cherokee heater diagram wiring will be. Jeep grand cherokee air conditioning vacuum diagram. Just replaced heater core in a jeep grand cherokee. Jeep grand cherokee fuse box diagram for heater. I have a grand cherokee laredo problem no ac.


The company is organized by 716 research institutes (Jiangsu Automation Research Institute) of China Shipbuilding Heavy Industry Group, including intelligent manufacturing equipment, oil and gas exploration equipment, oil and gas storage and transportation equipment, marine engineering equipment, environmental protection equipment and so on. . It is awarded as the high-tech and AAA-credit level enterprises . JARI is located in Lianyungang -- a coastal city in China, more than 400 kilometers away from Shanghai,with branches in Beijing, Shanghai and Qingdao., and offices in Turkey to link Eurasian market.
JARI has a registered capital of 84.4 million Yuan and a total investment of 200 million Yuan. There are 280 staff members in JARI, of whom more than 150 employees have the titles of researcher, intermediate or senior professional posts. A national postdoctoral research station has been set up. After years of development, the company has specialized advantages in the fields of automatic control, precision machinery, embedded software, network communication and new materials, and has four industrial sectors of intelligent equipment, energy equipment, mold machinery and environment friendly materials. JARI's main products are industrial automation equipment (robot applications, automated production lines), oil exploration equipment, offshore engineering equipment, oil and gas storage and transportation equipment, precision plastic extrusion die, and environmental protection and energy conservation materials.
JARI has adopted ISO9001-2008 quality system certification and GB / T24001-GB / T28001 environmental and occupational health and safety management system certification. As a first-class military oriented brand in China, its products are guaranteed by the production processes and quality system for military-use products resisting to harsh environment.
Adhering to CSIC's business philosophy of "Making competitive products and boosting principal business" and the service philosophy of No. 716 Institute of "Increasing customers' satisfaction and outperforming customers' expectations," JARI has been devoted to optimizing product designs and manufacturing standards, as well as dedicated to providing customers with superior products and services. As to innovation, JARI will never satisfy with its achivements or give up technological improvement, and will manage to become a high-tech enerprise of industrial automation equipment and energy equipment, not only domestically leading but also internationally competitive.


If you have questions, please email Nekesa Mumbi Moody at nmoody@ap.org or Anthony McCartney at amccartney@ap.org For up-to-the-minute coverage, visit coverage plan at https://newsroom.ap.org for information. For access to AP newsroom and other technical issues, contact apcustomersupport@ap.org or call 877-836-9477. For reruns of stories and questions about the best-seller lists call the service desk at 800-838-4616. Reruns of stories are available at https://newsroom.ap.org . All times EDT unless otherwise stated.
NIPSEY HUSSLE-MEMORIAL _ Thousands are expected at a public memorial to Nipsey Hussle, the rapper who was killed nearly two weeks ago before his dream of lifting up his South Los Angeles neighborhood was fulfilled. The ceremony at the Staples Center will be followed by a 25-mile procession through the streets of Los Angeles, including by Hussle's clothing store where he was gunned down March. 31. By AP Entertainment Writer Jonathan Landrum. SENT: 500 words, photos. UPCOMING: 950 words, photos, video. Developing from a 1 p.m. memorial service.
With NIPSEY HUSSLE-MEMORIAL-SCENE _ Fans not at the Nipsey Hussle's memorial pay their respects to the fallen rapper, who was gunned down March 31 outside his South Los Angeles clothing store. By AP Entertainment Writer Andrew Dalton, photos. UPCOMING: 500 words by 4 p.m.
With NIPSEY HUSSLE-MEMORIAL-THE LATEST _ Running updates from Nipsey Hussle's memorial service and the scene outside as fans mourn the late rapper.
TV-GAME OF THRONES-OFF THE BOOKS _ Some "Game of Thrones" fans won't be watching the final season of the HBO series for how the television series ends, but also what clues it might mean for the popular book series created by author George R. R. Martin. The show has now outpaced the book _ and true fans know there will be differences between what's on their televisions and what ends up on Martin's thousands of written pages. By AP Entertainment Writer Andrew Dalton. Photos. UPCOMING: 900 words, photos.
TV-LES MISERABLES _ A new six-hour adaptation of "Les Miserables" in which no one sings is heading to PBS starring David Oyelowo and Dominic West. By Entertainment Writer Mark Kennedy. UPCOMING Thursday: 750 words, photos and video.
MUSIC-MARIAH CAREY _ No artist has more No. 1 hits on the Billboard Hot 100 chart than Mariah Carey, so it's only fitting that the singer will receive the Icon Award at the 2019 Billboard Music Awards. SENT: 130 words, photo.
AUSTRALIA-PEOPLE-GEOFFREY RUSH _ Oscar-winning actor Geoffrey Rush has won his defamation case against a Sydney newspaper publisher and journalist over reports he had been accused of inappropriate behavior toward an actress. By ROD McGUIRK. SENT: 750 words, photos.
MUSIC-BEN PLATT _ Tony, Grammy and Emmy winner Ben Platt releases his debut album called "Sing to Me Instead." By Entertainment Writer Alicia Rancilio. UPCOMING Friday: 800 words, photos, video by 2 p.m.
HANNAH MONTANA AUCTION _ Costumes, props and tour items from the Disney Channel's "Hannah Montana" TV series, which helped launch Miley Cyrus' career, are going up for auction. SENT: 130 words, photos.
BRITAIN-ROYAL BABY _ Prince Harry and his pregnant wife Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, say they have decided to keep plans around their baby's arrival private. By Gregory Katz. SENT: 340 words, photos.
CHINA-CHILD MODEL _ The mother of a 3-year-old girl who models clothing for a Chinese shopping website has apologized after videos of her appearing to beat her daughter appeared online. SENT: 300 words, photo.
FILM REVIEW-HIGH LIFE _ By AP Film Writer Lindsey Bahr. SENT: 630 words on Tuesday. Film stills.
FILM REVIEW-LITTLE _ By AP Film Writer Jake Coyle. SENT: 600 words on Wednesday. Film stills.
MUSIC REVIEW-NORAH JONES. Reviewed by Ragan Clark. SENT Tuesday: 250 words, photo.
MUSIC-REVIEW-LSD. Reviewed by Entertainment Writer Mark Kennedy. SENT Wednesday: 400 words, photo.
MUSIC REVIEW-PETER GABRIEL _ Reviewed by AP Entertainment Writer Mark Kennedy. SENT: Monday: 370 words, photo.
MUSIC REVIEW-DAMIEN JURADO. Reviewed by Pablo Gorondi. SENT Wednesday: 250 words, photos by 5 p.m.
MUSIC REVIEW-SHOVELS & ROPE. Reviewed by Ragan Clark. SENT Wednesday: 250 words, photos by 5 p.m.
MUSIC REVIEW-GLEN HANSARD. Reviewed by Scott Stroud. UPCOMING Friday: 250 words, photos by 5 p.m.
BOOK REVIEW-THE EIGHTH SISTER _ Reviewed by Jeff Ayers. SENT Monday: 320 words, photo.
BOOK REVIEW-THEY ALL FALL DOWN _ Reviewed by Oline Cogdill. SENT Tuesday: 400 words, photo.
BOOK REVIEW-OUTSIDE LOOKING IN _ Reviewed by Rob Merrill. SENT Monday: 460 words, photo.


text:
Az 1600 Vyssotsky kisbolygó a Hungaria kisbolygó dinamikai családjához tartozó kisbolygó. 1947. október 22-én fedezték föl. Keringési ideje 2,5 év. Emma Vyssotsky amerikai csillagászról nevezték el.

Külső hivatkozások
 Vyssotsky JPL Small-Body Database Browser on 1600 Vyssotsky
 Az 1600 Vyssotsky fénygörbéje

A Naprendszer kisbolygói

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Q: How do you trouble shoot a "Data type mismatch in criteria expression" error in MS Access 2010? I am trying to troubleshoot a Report in an MS Access Database.  This file was build by the person that held my role before I joined the organization I work for.
The report is throwing an error "Data type mismatch in criteria expression"
This leads me to believe that the data being imported into the DB is not compatible with the data types set in the report's query.  There are 53 pieces in the SQL SELECT Statement.
Is there a good way to trouble shoot the statement (in Access) to find which piece is causing the error?  I'm just getting back into using Access so I'm a little rusty.

A: The criteria expression is the part of the query containing the conditions, as in WHERE <condition>.  Look at those specifically.  The error message means you're comparing two things (this equals that, or this less than that, etc.) that are of two different, and incompatible types (comparing a number to a string, for example).
You can find out which condition is causing the problem by deleting them one at a time and testing again each time until the error disappears.
Make sure you save a copy of your original query, or make a new copy for testing.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Sorare Guide: What is It and How to play it
AWSM Jun 24, 2022 ∙ 6 minutes read
What is Sorare?
Sorare is a fantasy football game that uses the cards of real players and the results of the game are directly reflected in the goals, assists and red cards scored in united matches.
Sorare is a game where you don't need to know anything about investing to play, and if you're good at football, you'll earn money from it, since the sport reflects the results of real football matches and the performance of players.
How to make money in Sorare?
Most of the users come to this game to make a profit. Fortunately, you can start without investments using the starting deck. You can also invest, buy cards, in order to collect a good profit even faster.
The two main ways of making money in Sorare are:
Card trading. Collectible NFTs can be very expensive. For example, the card of Cristiano Ronaldo 20-21 years old was sold for almost $300,000. The game has created its own card market, where standard trading principles work, buy low and sell high. Everyone has different strategies, someone immediately buys the rarest NFTs, while others, on the contrary, buy cheap cards of little-known football players, in the hope of prospects.
To make money on resales, you need to be well versed in prices. To do this, they even launched the SorareData service, through which you can find out the approximate cost of cards.
2. Participation in tournaments. This is a more complicated way, but football fans will like it. You need to collect decks of 5 cards and declare their participation in the tournament. The most interesting thing is that in order to get points and move up the tournament ladder, the selected athletes must show high activity in real matches. The more effective they did the actions, the more points you get from your team in the game:
Users who occupy the first three lines in the tournament receive rewards, they can amount to thousands of dollars. In order not to disturb the balance, 4 tournaments for different divisions are held at once, so that professionals and beginners do not collide.
Prizes are distributed every week, even those who have recently registered on the site can pick them up. We have to delve into the analysis, take into account upcoming matches and much more.
Both in the first and in the second case, for successful earnings it is necessary not only to be well versed in the game, but also to understand football. Otherwise, it will not be possible to select worthy athletes, assemble a good team, correctly evaluate your assets, and so on.
The main indicator by which cards are divided on this platform is the level of rarity. It is on it that the value of NFTs is determined, as well as their number.
Each season, new ones are released, you can see the following designations:
Common - white cards that are given upon registration and can be won in tournaments. They are free, they are of no particular value, but teams gather with them to play.
Limited - highlighted in yellow, these are the cheapest cards. They are produced in 1000 pieces.
Rare - rarer cards are marked in red, they can be bought both on the primary and secondary markets, won in tournaments or received through a referral program. Are issued in quantity of 100 pieces. As a rule, their value is calculated in tens of euros (goalkeeper cards can cost hundreds of euros).
Super Rare - Blue color super rare cards that also win tournaments or buy. Produced in 10 pieces for one season. They cost several hundred euros, and the most valuable ones can be estimated at over 1000 euros.
Unique - the most expensive, brown unique cards that are bought and sold, as well as played in tournaments. They are produced in a single copy and cost several thousand euros.
You can also enter the game with Common cards, but in order to earn, you will need rarer NFTs. Someone immediately invests and acquires cards, others try to start from scratch and win them in tournaments. It is important to understand that there are a lot of people who want to get something for free and it's hard to break into the first places.
How to play in Sorare?
After signing up, you need to create your own club. To do this, a second form opens, where you need to come up with a pseudonym for yourself, the name of the club and select an icon. You can then change the information at any time.
To make the welcome card set interesting, you will be asked to select your favorite clubs. You will receive free cards you can use the search form.
This completes the signing up, now you can go to the "My Club" tab and assemble your own team. Click "Create Squad" and select players for each position.
How to take part in the tournament?
To enter the fight for prizes, you need to add your team to the competition. To do this, open the "Play" section, there you will see all the current events. In the side menu you can see your teams, matches and prize pool. In the block with the current tournament, you must click "Join the team"
Next, a page will appear with 5 blocks in which you need to add cards. In turn, you will install the players, depending on their role on the field, then select the captain, all that remains is to click the "Confirm" button and the application for participation is immediately sent.
At the end of the tournament, you can check how high in the table the selected team helped you advance. The first three places are rewarded with the most valuable prizes, but there are also additional gifts. If you choose the composition responsibly and win, you can get valuable NFT tokens.
How to buy cards in the market?
It is not difficult to do this, there is a "Market" section in the main menu, it is divided into two parts, new auctions and offers from other users. You will see a large list of offers with a variety of prices. Under each card there is a "Bet" button, bidding is carried out on them. In addition to the separate sale of new cards that are released every season, you can buy a whole set at once. It includes several cards, and the cost depends on their rarity and other parameters.
It is also possible to purchase NFT without participating in the auction, immediately and at a fixed price. You can pay in Ethereum cryptocurrency or with a bank card
How to sell a card in Sorare?
In the Sorare game, selling cards is the main way to earn money. All cards above Common can be put up for sale. To do this, go to the "My Club" section, and then select the "Cards" tab.
Choose the card you want to sell. A page with data opens and there is a button "Expose a card". By clicking on it, a window opens where you need to enter the amount. You can determine how much a card costs through the market, just look at how many other users are selling them for. The last step is the confirmation of the sale. You can determine how much a card costs through the market, just look at how many other users are selling them for. The last step is the confirmation of the sale
At any time, you can cancel the ads and remove the card from sale. When setting the cost, you need to take into account all the indicators of the card, so as not to sell too cheap or choose too high a price.
How to withdraw money from Sorare?
Here you need to enter the address of the ETH wallet, as well as specify the amount in Ethereum or dollars. The transaction takes about an hour, after receiving the cryptocurrency to the wallet, it can be converted into dollars, euros and other currencies through exchanges.
Shopify Adds NFT-Gated Option for Online Retailers
NFT trading volume soared by 72% over the past day
Others from Blockchain games
Game-Fi Guide: How to play in ZOO Crypto World and make money
NFT Guide: Oasis Metaverse
Pavia Metaverse Review: Should I Buy a Land?
Upland - Blockchain Game Review


text:
Le Microtyran à calotte noire (Myiornis atricapillus) est une espèce de passereaux de la famille des Tyrannidés. C'est la plus petite espèce de son territoire mais il est bien plus grand que son cousin, le Microtyran à queue courte.

Description
Ce un petit oiseau à queue courte mesure de 6,5 cm de longueur et pèse 5,2 g. La couronne est noire, virant au gris foncé sur le reste de la tête, et contrastant avec le blanc des « lunettes ». Le reste de la face supérieure est vert-olive. La queue et les ailes sont noirâtres avec l'extrémité des plumes jaunes et deux barres alaires jaunes. La gorge et la poitrine sont blanches, les flancs sont gris et le ventre jaune pâle. Les deux sexes sont semblables, mais les femelles ont une couronne plus terne, les juvéniles ont une couronne et les parties supérieures brunes, et ont des marques sur les ailes et les parties inférieures chamois.

Comportement
On peut le voir seul, à deux ou à plusieurs familles, chassant de petits insectes dans de petits vols rapides.

Habitat
C'est une espèce de la canopée qui en descend  au niveau des lisières et les clairières et dans les repousses et les bois semi-ouverts.

Nidification
La femelle construit un nid de 15 cm de diamètre avec une entrée latérale ronde, qui est suspendue à une branche mince d'un arbre entre 1 et 7 m de haut. La femelle couve les deux œufs bruns marbrés de blanc pendant 15 à 16 jours.

Son cri est un petit ttseep qui peut être confondu avec un bruit d'insecte ou de grenouille. Les groupes familiaux communiquent également par des sifflets doux et des trilles.

Répartition géographique
Cet oiseau vit du Costa Rica au nord-ouest de l'Équateur jusqu'à une altitude de 900 m. Il est assez courant sauf dans les zones arides. Au Costa Rica et dans la plupart du Panama, il est limité à la plaine des Caraïbes et plus au sud aux régions humides du Chocó.

Liens externes

Tyrannidae


text:
Columbus and Cincinnati soccer fans can unite over World Cup qualification hosting
The Crew and FC Cincinnati fans should be proud these USMNT games are coming but the rivalry will get hotter.
By Orri Benatar@obenatar512 Jul 28, 2021, 9:11pm EDT
Share All sharing options for: Columbus and Cincinnati soccer fans can unite over World Cup qualification hosting
Wednesday morning, the soccer fans in the state of Ohio got huge news. Massive Report editor Patrick Murphy confirmed through multiple sources that Lower.com Field in Columbus will host the United States Men's FIFA World Cup Qualifier against Costa Rica on Oct. 13. Shortly after, it was officially announced that TQL Stadium in Cincinnati will host the Nov. 12 match between the U.S. and Mexico.
It will be the first time both stadiums host international soccer games with each being a marquee match for the USMNT's road to qualify for the 2022 World Cup in Qatar after missing the 2018 competition in Russia. While Columbus received a qualifier, it didn't get the one the city is used to, the U.S. vs. Mexico, instead moving to Cincinnati.
Historic Crew Stadium hosted the last five editions of the CONCACAF rivalry for World Cup Qualifiers and Columbus fans had a legitimate expectation the tradition would carry on in the Columbus Crew's new stadium. Columbus fans will have a bitter taste in their mouths seeing a soccer tradition of more than a decade and the more anticipated match gone from their city.
However, this hosting announcement can be a moment of unification between Columbus and Cincinnati.
As someone who grew up in Columbus, knowing each U.S.-Mexico game was played in my city gave me great pride. It still gives me great pride that a game will be played in my home state with Columbus getting its own marquee World Cup Qualifier a month earlier. Ohio is home to two of the best soccer-specific stadiums in the United States and the federation recognizes that with back-to-back home matches for the national team right here.
Columbus and Cincinnati should be incredibly proud to have two world-class sporting facilities, not just in the landscape of MLS but in the world of soccer. Lower.com Field and TQL Stadium are truly remarkable places each with their own unique features that distinguish them from many other sporting venues across the country.
The U.S. Soccer Federation is spoiled for choice with these two stadiums. But why pick TQL Stadium over Lower.com Field and take away a Columbus tradition? Money is likely the biggest reason.
TQL Stadium has an extra 6,000 seats compared to Lower.com Field to go along with more suites. That spells more money for the United States Soccer Federation and likely means future U.S.-Mexico games will probably move around the Midwest, if not the whole country.
The last time the two played in World Cup Qualifiers in 2016, Cincinnati, Minnesota, and Nashville all didn't have soccer-specific stadiums. Those cities now do and the USSF wants to show off its great stadiums to the world. It could not do that in 2016.
Having the U.S.-Mexico game in Cincinnati is also a perfect audition for the city with the 2026 World Cup coming along. The Queen City is the only candidate city from the Buckeye State that could host matches for the World Cup, with games being played at Paul Brown Stadium, home of the NFL's Bengals. Columbus residents that want to go to a World Cup match so close should hope TQL Stadium puts on a show in front of CONCACAF, the USSF and FIFA.
And I believe it will.
There is also the argument that, for the USMNT, the games against Costa Rica and Mexico are the two biggest in qualifying and Ohio is hosting both of them. That's awesome. This might also be the last time these World Cup Qualifiers will carry this much weight.
Neither Mexico, the United States nor Canada will have to go through qualifying for 2026 with all three set co-host the event. So, there will be no World Cup qualifiers for Columbus, Cincinnati or any other city to host in 2025.
The next chance for qualifying matches would be in 2029 in anticipation of the 2030 World Cup, the 100-year anniversary of the greatest sporting event on the planet. That tournament will have 48 teams instead of 32 and be the first instance the Americans have to qualify in an expanded field. CONCACAF should get at least four or five spots, which hardly makes things intriguing for the USMNT, heavy favorites to qualify in an expanded field.
The weight of U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Costa Rica could reduce by the end of the decade and Ohio will host the last really crucial and meaningful qualifying matches in each series. The moment should be enjoyed by Columbus and Cincinnati fans rather than spent being snarky towards one another.
Two world-class stadiums in the same state should breed a great rivalry and the Hell is Real Derby is on the path to becoming just that. The next match between the Crew and FC Cincinnati on Aug. 27 in Columbus should be full of snippiness from fans because Black & Gold supporters will rightly be annoyed a decade-plus long tradition was given to its rival.
If the teams become more competitive (looking at you Cincinnati) then the rivalry will be better. Twice a year, fans could see the soccer clubs of Ohio battle in their world-class stadiums in great games and turn into the best rivalry in the league. All that does is make the clubs better and grows the game to unforeseen heights in Ohio and America.
In all honesty, I too am a little irritated the U.S.-Mexico game went to Cincinnati, but I'd be more upset if the venue FC Cincy built didn't deserve it and Lower.com Field didn't get a match for this cycle. TQL Stadium is a venue fit for a match of this magnitude and Columbus is getting a worthy qualifier in October. Both venues will have many more momentous games to come and Columbus and Cincinnati soccer fans have so much to look forward to.
The Crew signs goalkeeper Brady Scott Columbus adds Scott another goalkeeper to the roster


text:
'Spider-Man 3' will be a huge homecoming of sorts
(The Spider-Men: Garfield, Holland, Maguire)
While there has been no official title or plot released by either Marvel or Sony, and production has been underway for about a month, it is looking more and more like Spider-Man 3: Home Something will introduce the Spider-Verse. Proof of this is Jamie Foxx being cast earlier as villain Electro (sans blue skin) and now Alfred Molina being confirmed to return as arch nemesis "Doc Ock."
Now Andrew Garfield, who spent time in the Spider-suit in two films, The Amazing Spider-Man and The Amazing Spider-Man 2, has been confirmed to reprise his role and Tobey Maguire (Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2, Spider-Man 3) is in talks to return as the original cinematic Peter Parker.
But wait, there's more. Collider's Jeff Sneider reports that Kirsten Dunst will be on hand as Mary Jane Watson, and Emma Stone is "expected" to step back into the role of Gwen Stacy. However, there are rumors that Stone, whose character died in TASM 2, could return as the popular Spider-Gwen.
The still untitled Spider-Man 3 will also feature Benedict Cumberbatch as Doctor Strange, along with returning cast members Zendaya, Jacob Batalon, Tony Revolori and Marisa Tomei.
Is Daredevil finally coming to the MCU?
While the recent spate of Marvel TV properties like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Inhumans, The Runaways, Cloak and Dagger and The Defenders have only very loosely tied into the MCU, if rumors are true Daredevil's Charlie Cox, whose take on the "Man without Fear" on Netflix was popular for three seasons, will make the jump to the big screen in the Spider-Man followup.
According to Murphy's Multiverse, Charlie Cox will return as Matt Murdock/Daredevil, in Spider-Man 3. This is said to have been "set in stone for several months now," and common sense says Matt will be Peter Parker's lawyer as he is now a fugitive for the murder of Mysterio (Jake Gyllenhaal)
There is a history of Spider-Man suiting up alongside Daredevil, but whether we will see that in this version remains to be seen. It would be amazing to see Vincent D'onofrio's Kingpin make a return as well. Either way, this remains a great way to introduce DD to the MCU. W
If so, then we can only hope Willem Dafoe is recruited to reprise his Green Goblin… with a better costume.
If I had to guess at a plot, I would bet Mysterio (who is not dead) steals something magical from Dr. Strange's lair and opens the multiverse, releasing villains from the other films. It will then be up to the three Spider-men, Spider-Gwen and possibly a fourth, Miles Morales, to stop them.
It would be really fun to watch an older Peter Parker (Maguire) mentor Tom Holland's Peter.
SUBSCRIBE: Sign up for our FREE e-lert here. Stay on top of the latest national advertising, film, TV, entertainment and production news!
For now, feel free to share your Spider-Man 3 theories below!
The Geek is a working screenwriter, director and screenwriting instructor.