Two Men (Or Three) Who Know What They’re About

Ihor Kolomoisky, a 51-year-old outspoken banking tycoon, and recently appointed by [Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko, himself a so-called oligarch] as governor of Dnipropetrovsk region in eastern Ukraine, has decided to dip into his fortune to bolster that army and defend the homeland.

So far, that has included buying tires, car batteries and fuel for army units, as well outfitting local militias. He also announced a program to buy up contraband weapons and offer a $10,000 bounty for any pro-Russia militant captured with a gun.

Mr Kolomoisky declined to say how much he is spending personally to build up what his aides call the “Kolomoisky army,” but experts estimate it is about $10 million a month just to fund the salaries of militia and police units, some of whom technically report to Ukraine’s army and interior ministry. His province now has close to 2,000 battle-ready troops in the field, his aides say. By comparison, Ukraine’s army had only 6,000 through the entire country when Russia took control of the Crimean peninsula earlier this year.

One of Kolomoisky’s assistants is Gennady Korban, a self-described “conflict manager in hostile corporate takeovers” and whom Kolomoisky tasked to run the military operations in the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, was a bit more…direct…but no less clear on what the current mission is. Pointing to an imaginary boundary, he noted that on one side, the oblast was secure and safely in the hands of the legitimate government in Kiev, while the other side was held by Russia-supported rebels: “troublemakers,” “maniacs.” Korban described the enemy and the mission:

“Men without families, who don’t want families, they just like war.” If they cross over the line, he said, “We’ll just have to kill them.”

And there’s this from one of Korban’s commanders, Yury Beryoza:

If any Russian soldier wants to die for Russia, “they should come to Dnipropetrovsk, because here we will kill them.”

Critics, and there are many, question Kolomoisky’s motives, pointing out that he and other oligarchs in Ukraine may have more financial than altruistic reasons for maintaining the status quo. That’s often—usually—the case, but that doesn’t mean that acting on those motives don’t benefit everyone else, too. That’s the invisible hand: each man acts on his personal self-interest, and the voluntary outcomes of those interactions benefit both, and in their aggregate, benefit everyone.

In that light, Kolomoisky has stated his own goal.

It would have been possible to have warmer relations with Russia, but I’m not going to sacrifice my principles for it. I’m a die-hard European.

At this point, I’m far more inclined to trust these two oligarchs (three, including Ukraine’s President) than I am the Russian Vladimir Putin or any of his thugs in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast or anywhere else in Ukraine.

Some Folks Know What They’re About

The leader of Iraq’s Kurds said his forces won’t relinquish territory they are defending against Sunni rebels, adding to worries that continued fighting could speed the breakup of Iraq along ethnic and religious lines.

After Sunni insurgents led by the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham launched their military offensive in northern Iraq three weeks ago, Kurdish fighters stepped into the breach left by the Baghdad government’s ineffective and retreating armed forces.

On Friday, Massoud Barzani, president of Iraq’s semiautonomous Kurdish region, said that control of Kirkuk and other towns now guarded by Kurdish forces wouldn’t revert to the central government in Baghdad when the crisis subsides.

“Now this [issue]…is achieved,” he said, alluding to the Kurds’ long-running aspiration for self-rule in their northern Iraqi stronghold.

I’m not convinced this is all bad. The Kurds know who’ll defend the territory against invaders and terrorists—and it’s not the Iraqi army. After all, aside from both Shia and Sunni animosity toward the Kurds, the Iraqi “army” is showing it’s not capable of defending much of anything, as their failing attempt to resecure Tikrit is demonstrating.

An aside for Mr Bradley’s benefit: these aren’t “Sunni rebels,” nor are they “Sunni insurgents;” they’re ISIS terrorists. It’d be good to cut out the disingenuous euphemisms and refer to a shovel as the shovel that it is.

Cell Phone Searches

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday police must almost always obtain a warrant before searching mobile devices seized when arresting someone….

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the Court’s unanimously held opinion, said

Modern cellphones aren’t a technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans “the privacies of life.”

Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cellphone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple—get a warrant[.]

With this ruling the Court, among other things, placed the contents of cell phones outside the permissible warrantless searches allowed pursuant to an arrest that’s for the safety of the police (to ensure, for instance, the arrestee has no weapons or other devices that he could use to harm the arresting officer(s) and/or to attempt escape) and to safeguard related evidence until a warrant otherwise could be obtained.

Someone wrote earlier that this is the ruling that was warranted.

The opinion can be read here.

Gina “Joe” McCarthy is Speaking Again

In a recent speech to the National Academy of Sciences, the EPA Administrator had this to say in decrying her critics:

…claiming that research is secret if researchers protect confidential personal health data from those who are not qualified to analyze it—and won’t agree to protect it.

By whose definition are the folks who want to see the data for themselves deemed not qualified, Madam? You’re the one keeping the data secret, on what basis do we take your word for it?

Won’t agree to protect what? On what basis do we even conclude the data are personal, when you won’t let us see it—especially given how easy it is to redact the personal identifiers without compromising the data themselves?

Hmm….

The Ground Zero Cross and Atheists

American Atheists filed suit three years ago against having this symbol included in the National September 11 Memorial Museum, which officially opened late last month. Their suit was tossed forthwith as baseless; US District Court Judge Deborah Batts wrote

No reasonable observer would view the artifact as endorsing Christianity. [The museum curators] have not advanced religion impermissibly, and the cross does not create excessive entanglement between the state and religion.

The group appealed to the Second Circuit which responded by instructing American Atheists actually to make a case and not just bellyache, and to do so by 14 July. In so instructing, the Appellate Court cited an amicus brief provided by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which argued among other things that

Courts should not allow people to sue just because they claim to get “dyspepsia” over a historical artifact displayed in a museum.

As Eric Baxter, Senior Counsel for Religious Liberty noted,

Taking personal offense is not an injury that warrants invoking the power of the courts to shut down everything you disagree with. The Constitution is not a personal tool for censoring everyone’s beliefs but your own.

Indeed.