The Chatter about and Cost of Concessions from Ukraine to Russia: Futures, Freedom and Fairness Fleeced

Tags

Argentina, asylum, asylum seekers, autonomy, babies, bombing, bombings, Bucha, Chernihiv, children, Chile, civilian, civilian populations, civilians, cnn, colonialism, compromise, concession, concessions, conscience, Crimea, Crimean war, defend, defending, defense, dehydration, desperation, Dictator, dictatorship, dictatorships, diplomacy, diplomat, diplomatic, diplomatic off ramp, diplomats, displacement, Donbas, Donbas Region, Donbass, Donetsk, Donetsk People’s Republic, Duma, ethic, ethical, ethics, fair, fairness, Fedorov, freedom, future, futures, government, governments, humanity, imperialism, imprison, imprisoned, imprisonment, independence, injustice, internal displacement, international law, international order, international politics, international relations, invasion, IR, Ivan Fedorov, journalism, just, justice, Kharkiv, Kherson, Kyiv, land, liberty, Luhansk, Luhansk People’s Republic, Lviv, Mariupol, mass grave, mass graves, mass murder, Mayor of Melitopol, Melitopol, military, morality, morals, MSNBC, murder, Mykolaiv, negotiated settlement, negotiation, negotiations, neurology, occupation, Odesa, off ramp, peace, peace deal, philosophy, politics, precedent, president, President Zelensky, President Zelenskyy, principle, principles, prison, prisoner, prisoner of war, psychology, Putin, rape, refugees, Russia, Russian, Russian Army, Russian invasion, Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russian military, Russian war, Russian war on Ukraine, Russians, settlement, siege, siege tactics, social compact, social contract, sovereign country, sovereign nation, sovereignty, special military operation, starvation, survival, tactic, tactical, tactics, Territorial Defense Forces, territorial integrity, territory, the social compact, the social contract, torture, trauma, tribunal, tyranny, Ukraine, Ukraine war, Ukrainian, Ukrainian Army, Ukrainian military, Ukrainian Territorial Defense Forces, Ukrainian war, Ukrainians, unjust, Vladimir Putin, Volodomyr Zelenskyy, war, war crime, war crimes, war crimes tribunal, Zekensky, Zelenskyy

Human beings are hardwired to recognize injustice. Even infants can demonstrate a distinct understanding of fairness and preference for fair treatment in the form of equal distribution of resources at 15 months old. A more primitive form of understanding may take place even earlier in human development. This fundamental tenet of morality may be the most basic principle governing social interaction.

This is why many people will experience a visceral, gut-wrenching reaction to something that seems obviously unfair.  This is not to say that nuance should not be considered or that Ockham’s Razor is always the right way to go.  (It’s a heuristic for a reason, but we need heuristics for the thousands of decisions we make every day).  Essentially, if something feels “wrong”, chances are something about it IS wrong.  

This is why I don’t think that those “negotiating” with Russian diplomats should even entertain the notion that Putin be rewarded for his illegal, murderous, and disgusting incursion into Ukraine, a sovereign country.  That anyone is even talking about “letting Russia have” Crimea, and the Donbas region of Ukraine, which were “acquired” through invasion and protracted violence, astounds me.  Do those people understand the implications of Russian rule on these populations?  Are these Ukrainian people just sacrificial lambs whose lives are being served up for the “greater good”?  Those who float this idea reek of the privilege of being an outsider to 

a war whose very outcome determines the existence and identity of millions of people.   It underscores to me that these people take for granted the protections we’re afforded every day.  That—or they just don’t give a shit about people with whom they haven’t had personal contact.  I would still say notions of fairness and justice trump tribalism, especially when those who are speaking from a sense of tribalism are not, they, themselves, directly threatened.  

I saw an interview on CNN this morning (on Monday, 4/18/22) with Ivan Fedorov, the mayor of now-occupied Melitopol, Ukraine, who spoke to the world from Rome.  This man was kidnapped—he was “disappeared”, as it’s called [anyone familiar with the mass graves and human remains still being found in Argentina and Chile, for example, will be familiar with this chilling practice]—for 5 days by occupying Russian forces.  He was lucky to be released alive, which occurred when he was released in a prisoner swap with other Ukrainians in exchange for 9 Russian soldiers.  Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Ukrainians from local officials to everyday citizens unlucky enough to have the misfortune of living in eastern Ukraine in 2022, have been taken, tortured, forcefully relocated to Russia, imprisoned, and some have been killed.  This is to say nothing of the widely-publicized and documented brutality of the Russian invaders on the Ukrainian people in the form of indiscriminate horrific killings, rape, destruction of infrastructure, erasure of heritage, culture, and spitting in the face of the national identity of a people whose only crime is to be caught in the crosshairs of an amoral megalomaniac for daring to defy his domination and iron-fisted authoritarian rule that he has wielded in his home country for 22 years.  This is to say nothing of the millions of Ukrainian refugees created by Putin, displaced and expelled from their homes, both externally and internally, driven to leave their entire lives out of desperation,  by a chance at basic survival.

The mayor of Melitopol, when asked about President Zelenskyy’s declaration that Ukraine will concede no territory to Russia as part of potential peace negotiations with Putin, replied, nonchalantly, “Of course”.  If this was meant to be a form of “gotcha” journalism, it certainly wasn’t.  If it was meant to destabilize or rattle this man, it didn’t.  He did not give some sagely insight into the war that could then absolve the rest of the world of the responsibility of having to deal with the inconvenience and unpleasantness of a war they’d really rather be over quickly because dead bodies are tragic, but they’re also difficult to stomach splashed across the screen every day.  Maybe, you know, some of those stalwart Ukrainians could just take one for the team, and give Putin a little something, a little consolation prize, because you know pesky Putin.  Violable Vlad—HE’S not going to do what it takes to end the war he gleefully started after months and years of planning.  He needs an “off ramp” in order to “save face”, I’ve now heard by countless “experts” on international relations dozens of times in the last 7 and a half weeks.

The following is not what the mayor of Melitopol said after that.  These thoughts are mine.  IT’S NOT EVEN A QUESTION!  It should NOT require careful thought and consideration.  Every Russian soldier who committed a war crime should be tried.  Since illegally invading the country is itself a crime, I’m more than happy to see 200,000+ tribunals, not to mention trials for all Russian government members who supported and executed such a scheme that has already exacted an incalculable toll on Ukraine.  Putin should suffer, and suffer dearly.  

Whether these goals are realistic or practical is not really important.  What is more important is upholding standards of human decency and morality and international order.  We aim not to live in a world of glorified colonialism in which wars are fought for conquests of land and subjugation of peoples.  We cannot, therefore, condone any subset of the notion that “to the victor go the spoils”.  These convictions of yesteryear DO NOT have a place in our modern society in our present-day world.  BULLIES SHOULD NOT BE PLACATED!   TORTURERS AND SADISTS SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED FOR THEIR CRIMES!  Besides the fact that doing so encourages further abhorrent behavior in the future, muddled messaging in the form of public finger wagging, but semi-private mollifying, sends a strong signal to other would be monstrous actors to hurt others, consequences be damned, because they aren’t really suffering consequences; in fact, their logic might go, that they could end up getting at least a little bit of what they wanted in the first place. Ultimately, though, should the valiant efforts of those who died or were captured defending their country, their freedom, their way of life, and their families’ futures be in vain?  What did they fight for if those in power—especially outsiders—broker a deal that not only does not honor their tremendous sacrifice, but betrays them?

I’m with Zelenskyy. The Russian “war machine” deserves nothing. In fact, Russia should be conceding to Ukraine on Ukraine’s terms. Fairness. Fifteen-month-olds understand it. Children’s friendships heavily revolve around it in order to form bonds of trust. If not yet fully developed humans can figure this out, then TV talking heads as well as trained diplomats, should be ashamed of themselves for seeking to justify (or excuse) the unjust.

Extraterrestrialus Ex Machina: Seeking Salvation from Space and the Striking Similarities of UFO Obsession with Traditional Religion

Tags

a pale blue dot, A.I., AI, aircraft, alien, alien technology, aliens, Alpha Centauri, artificial intelligence, assassination, astrobiology, astronomy, astrophysics, Atlantis, awe, awe-inspiring, bear, bears, belief, benevolence, benevolent, Big Foot, biology, c, calculation, calculations, camping, carl sagan, choice, City of Atlantis, communication, concept, concepts, constellations, control, cosmology, creative, creativity, creature, creatures, cryptid, cryptids, dark, darkness, desire, destiny, determination, Deus Ex Machina, dogma, Drake, Drake equation, dream, dreaming, dreams, earth, Earthling, Earthlings, El Dorado, empirical, empirical evidence, Enceladus, ET, ethics, ETS, Europa, evidence-based, evolution, evolve, exploration, explore, explorer, explorers, extraterrestrial, extraterrestrials, fact, fact-based, facts, faith, faster than light travel, faster than the speed of light, faster than the speed of light travel, fate, forest, forests, free will, future, galactic, galaxy, god, gods, government, Greek mythology, help, history, hope, Hubble, human, human beings, humanity, humans, hypocrisy, idea, ideas, imagination, imagine, intelligence, interaction, J.F.K., JFK, Jupiter, life, light year, light years, lightyear, lightyears, Lost City of Atlantis, math, moon, moon landing, moons, mythology, nasa, nebula, nebulae, omnibenevolence, omnibenevolent, omnipotence, omnipotent, omnipresence, omnipresent, omniscience, omniscient, out there, outer space, pale blue dot, philosophy, photo, photos, picture, pictures, planet, planetary society, planets, political, politics, possibilities, possibility, predestination, predetermination, predetermined, privacy, Proxima Centauri, psychology, quasar, quasars, reality, relationship, relationships, religion, rescue, resource, resources, sagan, salvation, Sasquatch, Saturn, save, saved, savior, sci fi, science, science fiction, skeptic, skeptical, skepticism, skeptics, space, space travel, spacecraft, species, speculation, speed of light, spiritual, spirituality, star, stars, Sun, supernova, supernovae, surveillance, technology, the Lost City of Atlantis, theories, theory, Titan, transcendence, transcendent, transcendental, travel, traveling, traveling faster than the speed of light, Troy, truth, UAP, UAPs, UFO, UFOs, universe, volition, woods, Zeus

I’ve been thinking about faith in extraterrestrial life (as it pertains to UFOs, especially) in comparison to faith in god(s) and the dogma of and surrender to religion.  

When I was a senior in high school, I took a mythology class. At some point in the semester, the teacher posed a question to us about conspiracy theories and legends. (Shoutout to Mr. Ribardo whose patience was nearly as boundless as the expanding universe and who endured disruptive, rude, apathetic kids on a daily basis who did not give him nor his class the respect either deserved.) As he went through the list of everything from “the lost city of Atlantis” to El Dorado to Big Foot, he asked the members of the class to raise their hands if they believed in these concepts they couldn’t see.

Without empirical evidence, why would you be convinced, I thought. There could have been ancient cities whose glory was magnified with time. Atlantis or an El Dorado-like city could have existed, and plate tectonics, natural disasters, imperialism, war, or any number of things could have destroyed them. Over time, these once wealthy or resource-rich havens could very well have been embellished to seem legendary and mythical. If the site of Troy was found thousands of years later, a similar discovery didn’t seem that improbable to me. The fact that present-day Mexico City is built directly on top of what was a previous incarnation of Mexico City attests to the still very probable existence of “first drafts”—and sprawling, architecturally impressive, not insignificant ones at that.

That doesn’t mean, however, that I believe in alchemy, or in amphibious humans a la the unclassified aquatic character/love interest in “The Shape of Water”. Sightings of cryptids like Big Foot seem much more easily attributed to other, large, furry forest-dwellers (like bears) that humans have trouble seeing in the dark. Add in a healthy dose of fear and the power of suggestion, and human psychology can create incredibly creative (and convincing) ideas to explain the undefined. The inexplicable becomes very explicable. Except not. Not for everyone, and not if you think critically. I have no reason to put my faith in a fantastical idea like the aforementioned ones except that they provide the basis for imaginative stories.

Then my teacher asked about aliens. I think I was actually the only one in the class to raise my hand. That surprised me, and I felt very exposed. Since I hadn’t raised my hand for any other non-evidence-based example, he asked me to defend my belief. I started out by asserting my skepticism about the other examples he brought up. Clearly, claiming the moon landing was faked or the JFK assassination was a cover up was nothing like believing in the very real possibility of extraterrestrial life. I gave a very impassioned appeal of the possibility for life based on the vastness of the universe, how the ingredients for life (as we know it, anyway) exist all throughout this ever-expanding cosmic sandbox, and how scientists rely on (admittedly speculative, but not completely ridiculous) measures like the Drake equation to calculate the probabilities of such an occurrence. After all, there only has to be one other life form outside of Earth to prove the existence of aliens, and it seemed to me to be way more probable than not. Look at the discoveries astronomers and cosmologists and astrophysicists had made in the last century alone! It’s incredible to think that less than 100 years ago, we had no proof of a universe beyond our galaxy! I tried to underscore my firm distinction between believing in the (strong) possibility of alien life in the universe as compared to alien life that has come to visit us—or, better yet—is living among us, blending in with us Earthlings. I LOVE “Men in Black”, but I can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. (Bonus points if you made the Michael Stuhlbarg connection from “The Shape of Water” to the “Men in Black” franchise.)

My teacher had struck right at the heart of a concept central to my belief system. I wouldn’t say I “believe” in astronomy or astrobiology. I would say I embrace it. It’s strange to express belief or faith in tangible systems. Except that a lot of astronomy is not tangible—certainly not to those of us down here on Earth, and even the evidence that astronomical phenomena are based on requires a degree of trust in those who make the observations, who do the advanced math, who connect the dots (or the constellations, or, the galaxies, really) for us.
I’m particularly passionate about astronomy. There’s a kind of mythical quality to NASA and to the saga of the moon landing. (So, yeah, I don’t just dismiss or disregard people who try to denigrate and discredit that incredible accomplishment; rather, I actually get viscerally angry at them.) It’s more than that, though. There’s a majesty to the universe. The aesthetics of supernovae and quasars are incomparable. The sheer vastness is awe-inspiring. I think the fascination with the universe goes beyond thinking stars (and star-like objects) are pretty or that something so immense dwarfs us so that it forces us to look at things from an entirely different perspective.

I think it’s the possibilities that lie in an undiscovered existence. There’s so much out there that we don’t know about that it’s exhilarating. It’s the perfect medium for intellectual curiosity, for imagination, for a feeling of simultaneous connection and apartness, for the opportunity of a frontier for exploration, discovery, interaction, and perhaps for colonization. Terraforming another planet may even prove to be necessary for the survival of our species.
It’s exciting to think that this isn’t “it”—that life, as we know it, on our planet is not the only life in the entire universe. Of course, there’s so much that we still don’t know about Earth, and there’s no shortage of things we could improve upon—like our treatment of one another, the planet itself, and other creatures on it. Many people don’t understand—let alone, accept—themselves. Increasing understanding all around is a worthwhile (and sorely needed) endeavor. Humans discover new species all the time, even as we’re accelerating the extinction of many more every year.

We still want more. The idea that we are alone and that this is our only shot is terrifying. (Here is where I’d quote Carl Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot appeal. For the full quote, you can click here: https://www.planetary.org/worlds/pale-blue-dot.) So we dream and we speculate, but we also base these speculations ON something—well, those of us who look at these possibilities scientifically do.

I thought about what the differences are between belief in extraterrestrial life (or extraterrestrial “intelligence”, depending in how one defines that concept) and belief in a god or gods who live in some cosmic realm and observe humans, possibility interfere in or even completely cause and control their affairs, and, perhaps, have some greater power, knowledge, and ability to travel and visit places humans (so far, anyway, physically cannot). Are the traits human beings attribute to aliens so different than what other human beings (or maybe even the same human beings) attribute to a god, for instance? What’s the difference between omniscience or the power of advanced observation, let’s say, from another species? Peeping Tom ETs are different from some kind of potentially incorporeal metaphysical beings? I don’t see that much of a difference, especially as it pertains to humans’ lack of privacy and potential safety. Does it come down to intent for some people? It’s ok if a supposedly just or benevolent creature of our design were to be watching us? Santa Claus is ok, but Big Brother isn’t? It’s creepy, right? The idea of being watched if you don’t know it’s happening, and you haven’t consented to it? I’m not willing to give up my autonomy to someone or something else—especially a species that may be much more intellectually advanced than I am—and I certainly wouldn’t romanticize it. This strikes me as odd. There’s a kind of cognitive dissonance, it seems to me, among people who freak out about government surveillance, yet they’re all too eager to surrender their autonomy to cults, to spiritual beliefs and leaders or gods of religions they can’t see, and/or to aliens. Artificial intelligence is the enemy but biological, extraterrestrial intelligence is not? In fact, it’s revered? Do people not trust themselves? Maybe machines of our making have proven to be dangerous, so we hope that someone else, somewhere can do a better job. Maybe the thought is that not everyone (or every species) has the same motivations. That’s a nice—albeit completely speculative—thought.

Perhaps greater power and omnipotence are not the same thing. The difference seems to me to be a matter of degree. Maybe not all spiritual beings are considered omnipotent—but there is an allure to the idea of transcendence. People often feel limited and constrained by physical laws, their circumstances, and the realities and pitfalls of finite human lifespans on Earth. The idea of power, whether it be in the form of really cool gadgets and alien technology like “extraterrestrial aircraft or spacecraft” or Zeus’ thunderbolts or God’s simultaneous smiting and ability to answer prayers is both humbling and appealing for many people. I understand the attraction of power. Again, though, do you really want to cede the power that you do have to someone or something else? We already have to do that to a certain degree to live in societies, and most people don’t agree with all decisions made in their names by governments or bosses or even family members and friends. Those who feel that they particularly lack control may be willing to give up what they have to something “greater”. Yeah, no, thank you. Again, this presents an in inconsistency to me.

Finally, omnipresence is similar to the concept of omniscience. I get it, to an extent. Being able to teleport (fully intact and not recombined, mind you) seems so cool! Even being able to travel places a lot faster could have tremendous benefits. If humans could travel faster than the speed of light, we might begin to explore firsthand the front yard of our cosmic neighborhood. People are clamoring for high speed rail and hyper loops on Earth, and those would only increase our speeds here by a few hundred miles per hour, not by HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS. Light travels 670,616,629 miles PER HOUR! That kind of speed is inconceivable, and Earth’s closest star (beyond the Sun) is between 4.2 and 4.3 lightYEARS away! So, the power to travel even close distances is such an enviable superpower. What does that mean for us, though, if an alien species had harnessed this type of technology, could use it, and did use it? Not only that, but those aliens can reach us. They could, potentially, zip away much faster than we could see them, or they could send armies to our planet, overwhelming our defenses, and catching us by surprise. Do the people who think they’ve spotted UFOs see themselves as the ones who saw it coming?

I’ve encountered people who profess such an unwavering devotion to the idea that Earth is constantly being bombarded by “alien technology” that they insist “the truth” is unquestionable, undeniable, and that there is no room for skepticism. Their emotional investment is so strong and so tied up in their belief system that challenging it is perceived as a threat to their very identities. Discouraging dissent and claiming to have all of the answers seem like hallmarks of traditional religion, and especially of religious zealots. We’re all capable of being dazzled. It’s when people think they’re immune that it can become dangerous. That blind spot can cast its long shadow over others (especially impressionable, ignorant, or even diplomatic and open minded, though, potentially misguided, people).

I’d like to think we’re not alone. I’d love to communicate with other species. I dream of being able to travel to other planets and star systems. Even traveling to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn would be amazing. We might very well find life in some of their oceans. I also don’t have a longing for “visitors”. I don’t possess a fanatical belief akin to the power of believing in supernatural phenomena. Depending on how you look at the possibility of alien life, I do think there’s a difference between that and religion. It depends on how far you take it. That desire to not be alone is a very powerful one. The desire for something greater is also pretty common. The second part doesn’t appeal to me in the sense that I want to be “taken care of” or “watched over” or to write off the potential for human beings to learn and to develop and to be better ethically, technologically, and maybe biologically. I think we can evolve, and much of it is up to us, as individuals. I’m not looking for an extraterrestrialius ex machina.

Progress, Principles, and Practicality in Politics

Tags

absolutism, alliance, allies, ally, America, animal rights, animals, argument, arguments, awareness, Bloom, capital punishment, capitalism, change, change over time, communism, compassion, compromise, consequences, conservative, conservativism, consideration, conversation, conversations, coronavirus, covid, covid-19, cultural imperialism, culture, death, death penalty, debate, debates, diplomacy, diplomatic, discussion, discussions, disease, empathy, enemy, ethic, ethical, ethics, execution, federal government, female genital mutilation, FGM, freedom, freedoms, government, ideal, idealism, ideals, incremental, incrementalism, international, international relations, kindness, left, liberal, liberalism, libertarian, libertarianism, liberties, liberty, Machiavelli, Machiavellianism, mask, masks, minorities, minority, moral, moral philosophy, moral relativism, moral superiority, morals, mutilation, Paul Bloom, philosophy, politics, practical, pragmatic, pragmatism, principle, principles, progress, progressive, progressivism, psychology, radical, rational, results, revolution, right, risk, self interest, selfishness, social, social awareness, socialism, society, stance, stances, stand, stands, state, strategy, tribal, tribalism, united states, United States of America, utilitarian, Utilitarianism, vaccinated, vaccination, vaccinations, vaccine, vaccines, vegan, veganism, vegetarian, vegetarianism, virus

Some people can get so caught up in the principles and the purity of their ideologies—“Capitalism is evil!”, “Defund the police!”, “Socialism is just a dirty word for communism like the Soviet Union!”—that they create a ton of noise, and not much of a signal.

I’m a proponent of practical solutions. Obviously, tackling the world’s problems is not an easy endeavor. That’s not to say “otherwise, they’d all be fixed”. I think that’s a trite response. There are competing interests vying for resources, power, status, gain (or fear of loss), etc. I’m not saying that everything is zero sum—I think that mentality also tends to present an oversimplified way of looking at the world—but it’s precisely the nuance of situations (and how we look at those situations) that creates both complications and opportunities. It’s possible that people will see things very differently. It doesn’t necessarily mean they’re “wrong”; however, if the aims of another party directly contradict or circumvent your values, I think you should challenge those assertions. Part of this is about testing to find out whether the claims of another person or group stand up to scrutiny, but another part—even if you don’t accomplish your own aims—is to not be complicit or contribute to a program you feel is morally wrong.

In a philosophical discussion group that I attended yesterday, I found myself in the minority by defending the idea that willful ignorance is not necessarily defensible. It may be UNDERSTANDABLE or rational, but that doesn’t make it the most ethical position to take. Society needs people to speak out about how things work firsthand. We need whistleblowers because we are, largely, sheltered from the horrors of certain realities. Even if we are aware of them on some level, it’s much more convenient to not confront the uncomfortable feelings that might arise in us if we questioned such conventions. That’s exactly the point, though. Being aware of the conditions in a slaughterhouse, confronting the morality of capital punishment by actually thinking about what it means to kill a person, understanding the suffering others endure if they get infected with a deadly disease because you took a stance on your “freedom” to not get vaccinated (as long as you are medically able) or to not wear a mask: these are only a very small number of uncomfortable scenarios. They are not unrealistic nor are they confined to theoretical possibilities.

I don’t believe it’s helpful to talk about ideas such as “eliminating greed” or lamenting the selfishness of individuals. Yes, people often act in their self-interest. People can, and often are, tribal. That’s a protective, evolutionary mechanism. Would you really have it the other way? A book I read a few years ago, by Paul Bloom, entitled Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion, underscores this point. It can still be very selfish to assume you know what others are feeling because you think that those people’s feelings and motivations are most likely to mirror yours. That’s not necessarily the case. There are more accurate ways of assessing the interests, needs, and desires of other people than using empathy as a guide. Compassion is slightly different, and, as cliche, as it sounds, most interactions could use more of it. It’s not even that difficult to be cognizant of another person! Being consciously considerate (even within the bounds of a conversation) could take effort, but think about how much better people would feel if we treated each other just a little more kindly.

To circle back a little bit, to me, this doesn’t mean compromising on your core convictions. Accepting the idea of a certain degree of moral relativism is not necessarily the opposite of absolutism. I may have mentioned the concept of female genital mutilation in previous blog posts. It’s always wrong. Period. I’ve been accused of “cultural imperialism” for advocating for a zero tolerance policy of such horrific practices. Really? The emotional damage done to people’s fragile psyches or the imagined racial or regional superiority put forward by me, a white American woman condemning torture, is MORE DANGEROUS AND DAMAGING THAN MUTILATION? No. Get your priorities straight. This is an example of where I do not advise compromise. (I think all forms of mutilation are morally wrong and indefensible, regardless of gender. I used a specific term to refer to a specific practice for purposes of clarity and more immediate comprehensibility.)

In some cases, a radical overhaul of a system is necessary. In many cases, however, there will likely be casualties and unforeseen circumstances if such a revolution were enacted. Plus, from a rational or scientific point of view, changing so many variables at once does not necessarily allow you to isolate what works and what doesn’t, at least not very easily. An incremental approach to change is often derided by those who see “the system” as corrupt, unjust, self-reinforcing, and self-enriching for the privileged (possibly amoral) few. Again, it’s about stakes, implications, urgency, and possible harms. The oft-repeated mantra about “not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good” is an important guiding principle. To me, however, it doesn’t mean, you don’t try. You don’t abandon your ideals for convenience. I think you should try to make the world a better place by contributing what and how you can, and aiming high. It’s all well and good to pontificate, but blaming everyone else, and just sitting around complaining and doing nothing is merely virtue signaling or wallowing in self pity. After more than a year of hearing this almost daily from people, my patience threshold is much lower.

I’m proud of being an idealist. I also want to advance actual results, and, hopefully, not unnecessarily alienate people in the process—especially those who would or could be my natural allies. I generally don’t like seeing other people as a means to an end. That’s why utilitarianism should be used with caution. Also, being diplomatic with people is not only nicer, but it may work out for you better in the long term.

Here’s some of my life advice: Promote your principles. Be proudly progressive. Also, be practical. Pragmatism is a hallmark of those who accomplish goals, and improve the lives of many people, often for the long term. Plus, people like (and tend to remember) pithy alliterations. At least I do.

Progress, Principles, and Practicality in Politics

Tags

absolutism, alliance, allies, ally, America, animal rights, animals, argument, arguments, awareness, Bloom, capital punishment, capitalism, change, change over time, communism, compassion, compromise, consequences, conservative, conservativism, consideration, conversation, conversations, coronavirus, covid, covid-19, cultural imperialism, culture, death, death penalty, debate, debates, diplomacy, diplomatic, discussion, discussions, disease, empathy, enemy, ethic, ethical, ethics, execution, federal government, female genital mutilation, FGM, freedom, freedoms, government, ideal, idealism, ideals, incremental, incrementalism, international, international relations, kindness, left, liberal, liberalism, libertarian, libertarianism, liberties, liberty, Machiavelli, Machiavellianism, mask, masks, minorities, minority, moral, moral philosophy, moral relativism, moral superiority, morals, mutilation, Paul Bloom, philosophy, politics, practical, pragmatic, pragmatism, principle, principles, progress, progressive, progressivism, psychology, radical, rational, results, revolution, right, risk, self interest, selfishness, social, social awareness, socialism, society, stance, stances, stand, stands, state, strategy, tribal, tribalism, united states, United States of America, utilitarian, Utilitarianism, vaccinated, vaccination, vaccinations, vaccine, vaccines, vegan, veganism, vegetarian, vegetarianism, virus

Some people can get so caught up in the principles and the purity of their ideologies—“Capitalism is evil!”, “Defund the police!”, “Socialism is just a dirty word for communism like the Soviet Union!”—that they create a ton of noise, and not much of a signal.

I’m a proponent of practical solutions. Obviously, tackling the world’s problems is not an easy endeavor. That’s not to say “otherwise, they’d all be fixed”. I think that’s a trite response. There are competing interests vying for resources, power, status, gain (or fear of loss), etc. I’m not saying that everything is zero sum—I think that mentality also tends to present an oversimplified way of looking at the world—but it’s precisely the nuance of situations (and how we look at those situations) that creates both complications and opportunities. It’s possible that people will see things very differently. It doesn’t necessarily mean they’re “wrong”; however, if the aims of another party directly contradict or circumvent your values, I think you should challenge those assertions. Part of this is about testing to find out whether the claims of another person or group stand up to scrutiny, but another part—even if you don’t accomplish your own aims—is to not be complicit or contribute to a program you feel is morally wrong.

In a philosophical discussion group that I attended yesterday, I found myself in the minority by defending the idea that willful ignorance is not necessarily defensible. It may be UNDERSTANDABLE or rational, but that doesn’t make it the most ethical position to take. Society needs people to speak out about how things work firsthand. We need whistleblowers because we are, largely, sheltered from the horrors of certain realities. Even if we are aware of them on some level, it’s much more convenient to not confront the uncomfortable feelings that might arise in us if we questioned such conventions. That’s exactly the point, though. Being aware of the conditions in a slaughterhouse, confronting the morality of capital punishment by actually thinking about what it means to kill a person, understanding the suffering others endure if they get infected with a deadly disease because you took a stance on your “freedom” to not get vaccinated (as long as you are medically able) or to not wear a mask: these are only a very small number of uncomfortable scenarios. They are not unrealistic nor are they confined to theoretical possibilities.

I don’t believe it’s helpful to talk about ideas such as “eliminating greed” or lamenting the selfishness of individuals. Yes, people often act in their self-interest. People can, and often are, tribal. That’s a protective, evolutionary mechanism. Would you really have it the other way? A book I read a few years ago, by Paul Bloom, entitled Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion, underscores this point. It can still be very selfish to assume you know what others are feeling because you think that those people’s feelings and motivations are most likely to mirror yours. That’s not necessarily the case. There are more accurate ways of assessing the interests, needs, and desires of other people than using empathy as a guide. Compassion is slightly different, and, as cliche, as it sounds, most interactions could use more of it. It’s not even that difficult to be cognizant of another person! Being consciously considerate (even within the bounds of a conversation) could take effort, but think about how much better people would feel if we treated each other just a little more kindly.

To circle back a little bit, to me, this doesn’t mean compromising on your core convictions. Accepting the idea of a certain degree of moral relativism is not necessarily the opposite of absolutism. I may have mentioned the concept of female genital mutilation in previous blog posts. It’s always wrong. Period. I’ve been accused of “cultural imperialism” for advocating for a zero tolerance policy of such horrific practices. Really? The emotional damage done to people’s fragile psyches or the imagined racial or regional superiority put forward by me, a white American woman condemning torture, is MORE DANGEROUS AND DAMAGING THAN MUTILATION? No. Get your priorities straight. This is an example of where I do not advise compromise. (I think all forms of mutilation are morally wrong and indefensible, regardless of gender. I used a specific term to refer to a specific practice for purposes of clarity and more immediate comprehensibility.)

In some cases, a radical overhaul of a system is necessary. In many cases, however, there will likely be casualties and unforeseen circumstances if such a revolution were enacted. Plus, from a rational or scientific point of view, changing so many variables at once does not necessarily allow you to isolate what works and what doesn’t, at least not very easily. An incremental approach to change is often derided by those who see “the system” as corrupt, unjust, self-reinforcing, and self-enriching for the privileged (possibly amoral) few. Again, it’s about stakes, implications, urgency, and possible harms. The oft-repeated mantra about “not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good” is an important guiding principle. To me, however, it doesn’t mean, you don’t try. You don’t abandon your ideals for convenience. I think you should try to make the world a better place by contributing what and how you can, and aiming high. It’s all well and good to pontificate, but blaming everyone else, and just sitting around complaining and doing nothing is merely virtue signaling or wallowing in self pity. After more than a year of hearing this almost daily from people, my patience threshold is much lower.

I’m proud of being an idealist. I also want to advance actual results, and, hopefully, not unnecessarily alienate people in the process—especially those who would or could be my natural allies. I generally don’t like seeing other people as a means to an end. That’s why utilitarianism should be used with caution. Also, being diplomatic with people is not only nicer, but it may work out for you better in the long term.

Here’s some of my life advice: Promote your principles. Be proudly progressive. Also, be practical. Pragmatism is a hallmark of those who accomplish goals, and improve the lives of many people, often for the long term. Plus, people like (and tend to remember) pithy alliterations. At least I do.

Extinguishing Expectations During the Coronavirus Crisis

Tags

alert, alerts, anger, angry, anxiety, anxious, BBC, BBC news, blog, blogs, call, CDC, cnn, confused, confusion, connection, connections, corona, corona virus, coronavirus, covid, covid-19, crisis, epidemic, expectations, face to face, facebook, FaceTime, failure, fear, first responder, first responders, friend, friends, front lines, frustrated, frustration, goals, horrible, in person, Instagram, invonvrnienve, iPhone, kindness, meeting, MSNBC, New York Times, news, news alert, news alerts, news media, news notifications, normal, normalcy, notification, notifications, NYT, pandemic, people, phone call, politics, pressure, psychology, sad, sadness, saving lives, scary, self acceptance, Skype, Snapchat, social media, social pressure, societal pressure, society, sociology, stress, the BBC, The New York Times, TikTok, time, trump, Trump administration, twitter, video chat, virus, white house, WHO, WordPress, Zoom

Quarantine goals. They’re like new year’s resolutions, just more annoying and with way more social pressure to come out of this period having “improved” yourself (🙄), or having accomplished something monumental enough to look back on as a “silver lining”. Ew. Lol.

I get it. We’re looking for measures of control and bright spots in the bleakness of this landscape practically screaming with CNN death toll alerts and graphic pictures of body bags and mobile morgues. This is horrible, and I would argue that many media outlets and those in positions of authority (looking especially at you, Trump administration) have spectacularly failed us. That’s for another post.

I just don’t think you need to be harder on yourself.

Can we talk about this social pressure to come out of the coronavirus crisis a “better person”? I’m not here for it at all. Coming out alive and not killing anyone you happen to be living with—or FaceTiming with, or both—is not good enough, apparently. On a serious note, I really think it’s a negative thing to put undue pressure on people to compete with each during this time when we’re all already extra stressed and dealing with a ton of changes and an uncertain end date for all of this to be over (whatever “over” means) now. Social media has become even more competitive now, ironically, since no one is going out to actually do anything. I don’t need more anxiety, and I definitely don’t want to be told I should be making productive use of my time by anyone else.

The cliched mottos of “we’re all in this together” and “stay safe” seem to present half-hearted bywords that are really poor excuses for genuine human connection. I know people mean well. I’ve actually fostered connections with some people over the last few weeks on a level that I hadn’t before. That’s definitely a positive thing. It’s also not forced. Contrived notions of “finding yourself” while also becoming some kind of world class chef or other virtuoso in a matter of weeks aren’t just ridiculous and insulting, but I think they can be psychologically damaging. By all means, connect with other people. Learn new skills—if you want to. Again, just don’t be hard on yourself. Things are scary now. Hopefully, you’re doing what you can to keep yourself and others as safe as you can. You don’t owe anyone to become more interesting or grounded or enlightened.

It’s also ok to be upset that you’re inconvenienced. It’s more than inconvenience, really. As a society, we’ve suddenly been forced to fundamentally alter our daily lives. That’s not a small thing. You’re not a bad person for not taking it in stride, or for finding yourself frustrated, sad, angry, and longing to be able to actually see people in person. You don’t have to “get over” these feelings. Add the ever present fear of getting sick to all of this, along with serious economic impacts on an individual level, and it’s more than understandable if you’re not as ok with this as other people might’ve told you that you should be.

I think there’s also an increased sense of guilt if you’re not out actively saving lives or putting yourself on the “front lines”. Those are incredibly admirable endeavors. It’s ok if that’s not you right now. Just try to be kind and patient with people, including yourself. That’s something we should all practice, all the time, anyway.

Hitler, Halal, and Hubris: The Extreme Ignorance Involved in Analyzing Islamic Terrorism

Tags

000 lashes, 1000 lashes, adultery, afghanistan, africa, Al Qaeda, America, analysis, anthropology, AQAP, Australia, authoritarian, authoritarian regimes, authoritarianism, Balkans, behead, beheading, Bill of Rights, blogger, blogging, Bobby Jindal, Boko Haram, Canada, cartoon, cartooning, cartoons, censorship, Charlie Hebdo, Charlie Hebdo magazine, china, chocolate, chocolate bar, Christanity, Christian, Christians, cnn, coward, cowards, crime punishment, democracy, democratic, disenfranchisement, dissemination, email, Emanuel Tanay, equality, execution, fairness, family, First Amendment, France, free press, free speech, freedom, Germany, Governor Bobby Jindal, Governor Jindal, halal, hible, historical, history, Hitler, hoax, honor killing, hubris, human rights, idea, ideas, ideology, ignorance, iran, iraq, ISIS, Islam, Japan, Jewish, Jews, Jindal, Judaism, justice, knowledge, lashing, lashings, lasjes, law, Lithuania, Lithuanian, maim, maiming, marginalization, media, Mohammed, murder, Muslim, Muslims, Nazi, Nazis, Nazism, New Testament, news, news outlets, newspaper, newspapers, Nigeria, no go zones, Old Testament, opinion, othering, Pakistan, Paris attacks, Paris terrorist attacks, political, politics, Prophet, protest, protesting, protests, psychology, qu'ran, rape, religion, rwanda, safety, Saudi Arabia, security, sharia, sharia law, sociology, stoning, Syria, terrorism, terrorists, the Balkans, the United Kingdom, torture, U.K., U.S., U.S.A., UK, United Kingdom, united states, United States of America, US, USA, violence, wan, war, war zone, whipping, women, women's rights, World War 2, World War II, World War Two, WW2, WWII

I received an email from a family member entitled “A German’s View on Islam”. It’s a hoax email, but I didn’t know that until I did further research. If anyone is interested in the contents of the email that was sent to me, those contents can be found here:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/t/Tanay-Merek-German-Islam.htm#.VL_rtIo8KnM

I put a lot of thought into the response I emailed to my family members, however, and thought I should post my thoughts here because the topic and subsequent discussions still seem relevant.

This is a slightly edited version of the email response I sent to my family members:

I, too, was disappointed when I read this email. I wouldn’t say I was “shocked” because I’ve heard a lot of this before. The “no go zones” stirred up a lot of controversy when Bobby Jindal talked about them, and then defended his statements on CNN. At the risk of getting into an all-out war with everyone, I’d like to share my thoughts. Please remain civil. Attacking each other is not going to help anything.

I read this a few minutes after it was sent out, and had an immediate reaction, but I was watching the State of the Union address, so I thought I’d wait to respond. Then I thought it might be best not to respond, but since I see others have already done so, I will.

I was immediately intrigued by a sociological examination of current Muslim terrorism. (To be clear, I’m in no way saying all Muslims are terrorists or that we should “kill” Muslims–or terrorists. Extrajudicial killing, though usually done for practical purposes, adds to the problem.) My first thought was that the timeline must be off. An aristocrat pre-Nazi power? The fact that this person would still be alive and writing articles is not impossible, but surprising. I understood this man as saying he was a well-established businessman by the 1930s. I would think this would make him at least 100 years old today. I didn’t do the research Robin did, so I can’t tell you who Emmanuel Tanya [as it appeared in the email–his real name was Emanuel Tanay] is, or who this story/email originates from.

[I later did do the research.]

I have no reason to doubt the idea that many Germans rallied behind a renewed German nationalism or that much of the population didn’t follow as close attention to politics as it should have. My issue comes with comparison of Nazi Germany to not only today’s situation of global terrorism, but to situations unrelated to either in recent history. It’s very sexy to compare any situation to Nazism. Heads of majority Muslim countries that support terrorist organizations within their own borders (and without) are not Hitler, just as terrorist cells are not comparable to the early Nazi party. I think it does a tremendous disservice to all of the victims of extreme violence, tribal warfare, ethnic cleansing, and genocide to lump them all together. There are unique causes and conditions that occurred in Rwanda, the Balkans, China, Japan, etc. The barest of similarities can be made with the rise of Nazism and the subsequent genocide that occurred in Germany. Yes, ethnic and religious hatreds exist around the world, unfathomable acts of barbarism are practiced in an effort to gain and maintain power, and runaway ideology used as a justification for almost anything did not end in Germany in 1945. If we conflate every conflict, we misunderstand history and have even less chance of effectively mitigating the worst situations. It is pure ignorance to say ISIS or Al Qaeda or Boko Haram or any large terrorist organization of the moment is tantamount to the Nazi party. I’m not trying to diminish their threat or barbarism, but there are so many differences that I don’t think it’s a useful or proper comparison.

That those who scream the loudest or instill the most fear often get the most attention is not something I will dispute. Have terrorists overwhelmed the “silent majority”? I would say this is not true in every case, but yes, they pose significant threats to the very lives of those who live near (or more unfortunately, under) them. Ask anyone who has escaped from ISIS-controlled territory. The idea that those around them, the “moderate Muslims”, or, in this case, “peace-loving Muslims” should call out the poisonous apples in their ranks is an attractive one. Wouldn’t that be wonderful if everyone said “not in my name” to the point that their civil views drowned out the hatred and suicide bombings and maiming and beheading and stoning executed by the extremists? 1. Try doing this in a country where blogging your dissent can get you 1,000 lashes. (This happens in Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally, that practices its own form of extremism.) The new head of “Charlie Hebdo” was asked how he felt about the cartoons of Mohammed drawn by his magazine staff not being shown in much of Western media. He said that he very much understood the threat posed by those living under authoritarian regimes and in places where free speech is hindered and “insulting the Prophet” can result in death. He did not encourage people to “stand up” in the face of such retribution. He did say, however, that he believed those who live in so-called “democratic” countries with stronger free speech protections were cowards for not showing the cartoons. I mention this because whatever your view on this, the point I’m making is that we tend to assume it’s just as easy for people around the world to openly “stand up for what is right”. It’s not. Perhaps the author is arguing that those who were silent let things get to this point. I’m not sure that’s entirely fair either. 2. It’s a nice idea, but will the terrorists just decide that violent jihad is no longer a good idea because most people wag their fingers at them? It’s a nice sentiment, but I doubt there’s significant merit to it. 3. Why should every member of a group be responsible for the actions of every other member of that group? Are we not all individuals? (“The Daily Show” made this point very well about 2 weeks ago.)

I’m not a proponent of any religion. I think passages from the Qu’ran as well as passages from the New and Old Testaments are despicable. There are extremists who will follow these tomes to the letter, including many Muslims. This is real and it is dangerous. I don’t have a solution that will address all of the root causes of the upswell in Muslim terrorism and extremism.

I do not agree that this email calls for the killing of all Muslims. I know there have been several instances of controversy regarding the Lord’s Prayer being shafted in favor of Muslim prayers at major institutions. I can’t speak to the validity of this claim. While I would like separation of church and state to actually exist, religious freedom should be extended to all. No group should be favored and allowed to practice if another is not.

The email mentions the dangers of labeling food as halal. Does anyone care if it’s labeled kosher? These labels mean nearly the same thing. (Muslims shopped at the Jewish market that was recently attacked in Paris!) I suppose this is an attempt to warn Western nations of the infiltration of their societies by especially motivated and mobilized outsiders. Instead of looking at this development as one toward greater unity and understanding, there are those who see it as a threat to their very existence. I do not condone any system that treats women and minorities as lesser, that puts religion above the safety and wellbeing of others, whether this is a perversion of the religion by some or not. Ooh, an imam supervised the baking of a chocolate bar. That’s really symbolic. Forget real terrorism. Now we should all be cowed.

Progressives: Stop Being Petty and Polemical

Tags

advice, America, American politics, argument, arms race, barack obama, Citizens United, Citizens United decision, climate change, communication, communism, congress, conservative, conservatives, culture war, culture wars, debate, decision, decisions, discussion, division, divisiveness, egalitarian, egalitarianism, email, equality, fairness, frank luntz, freedom, freedoms, fundraising, Gilded Age, gun, guns, historical, history, Hobby Lobby, Hobby Lobby decision, idea, ideas, ideological, ideology, immigration, inalienable rights, Karl Rove, Koch brothers, law, laws, lawsuit, lawsuits, legislation, liberal, liberals, liberties, liberty, message, messaging, obama, political, political advice, political advice for progressives, politics, President Barack Obama, president obama, prisoner's dilemma, progress, progressive, Progressives, progressivism, rhetoric, rights, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, talking points, Tea Party, tone, U.S., U.S. politics, united states, United States of America, unity, US, US politics, zero sum, zero-sum game

In one of my very first blog posts, I talked about how I thought progressive groups have a branding problem. That feeling has only been strengthened with time.

In email after email that I receive from different progressive political groups, I’m assaulted with the same type of message: a call to action against “the right-wing nut jobs”, “the gun nuts”, “Karl Rove, the Koch brothers, and the dangerous Tea Party”. Sometimes the writers get really creative, leading one to believe they spend hours sitting in front of their laptops or tablets, experimenting with extreme alliterations and potential apocalyptic scenarios. The whole “the world as we know it is about to end…if you don’t donate $3 or more by this CRITICAL fundraising deadline” schtick is so old that I barely open these emails anymore.

Progressive talking points generally seem to follow the same pattern. Maybe someone decided to dumb it down a bit, deciding that pithy slogans and fear mongering were easier and sexier than winning an argument based on sound policy. Why inform the people when you can take a shortcut?

Sure, hate and ignorance will cohere the torch-wielding mobs (temporarily), but there are multiple problems with this strategy. Perhaps the most worrying is that engaging in this kind of dialogue–and I use that term as loosely as possible–necessitates an arms race of vitriolic rhetoric. Nearly everyone complains about how divided the country is. Let’s just divide it more, shall we? “But they did it first! We have to fight back!” And so it goes…
Besides selling citizens short, this approach dilutes the argument and dissolves credibility. If the other side is so bad, what makes your side better? When spokespeople bury their legitimate points in screeds against others, it’s very difficult to separate out the noise.

Another thing progressives don’t seem to understand is that the conservatives they so loathe at least pretend to stand for something. Of course, being “the party of no”, voting against bringing even the barest of legislation to the congressional floor, shutting down the government, and bringing lawsuit upon lawsuit against nearly everyone and everything to promote their self-described “culture war” should stand on its own as abhorrent behavior. Obviously, many of these people are “against” much more than what they are “for”.

There is a caveat, however. Decisions like the Hobby Lobby decision handed down by the Supreme Court are cloaked in the nebulous, but always-appealing brand of “freedom”. Personal liberty, historic imagery, and inalienable rights are so ingrained in the psyches of Americans since kindergarten that these tropes are difficult to argue against. Sure, there are nuanced polemics about “whose freedom is really being protected” and true (but often long winded and depressing) anecdotes about how many groups faced and continue to face discrimination throughout American history. Most of us know that “the good old days” weren’t really that great and that all of American history has been a kind of gilded age fight for the furthering of freedom.

For a brief stint, progressives followed President Obama’s line in repeating the ethic of equality. This idea should be compelling, but like scissors cutting paper in Rock, Paper, Scissors, “equality” is often no match for the far stronger sentiments evoked by “freedom”. This paper-thin concept that we should live a more egalitarian life is not something most people care about. Besides being fraught with the historically anathema association to communism, equality is more of a communitarian idea. If someone else getting more means that I lose some, why should I give that up? People are not persuaded by the idea of less for themselves; they are stirred by the possibility of more for themselves.

What should really be put forward is something along the line of fairness. If progressives can argue for fairness for specific groups or, especially, tailor this idea to individuals, I think they would be more successful. Framing an argument is important. Just as people are grabbed by headlines, the thesis and tone of an argument are what will stick in people’s minds more effectively than slews of statistics. This is not to say that arguments–both written and spoken–should skimp on content. I am instead promoting the idea that a measured, but consistent approach be taken when presenting issues of concern.

The idea of paycheck fairness is difficult to argue against. The main argument I heard by those against passing concrete legislation that sought to make it more difficult to discriminate against women in the workplace was that it simply wasn’t happening. That is a negation of the premise, but not an outright rebuttal.

If hot button issues like climate change and immigration are proving difficult to advance on, try changing tactics. There are always going to be ideological differences and “bridging the divide” is much easier said than done. It only serves to exacerbate the wound when you either aren’t really trying or have lost the argument before you’ve even started.

The Hobby Lobby and Citizens United decisions aren’t fair to most people, plain and simple. Even if we accept the premise that the rights of a few (those in charge of companies) are being impeded, what about the millions of workers and millions of voters impacted by such decisions? What laws like this state is that those who have money and power are worth more than the vast majority who have less. If you own a company or you have lots of money and friends in high places, you are legally entitled to a greater say in the workings of what is supposed to be a democratic country. The rights of a few (whose rights I would contend are not really being infringed) bump up against the rights of the much less powerful many. This is a corporatocracy that caters to vested, ideological (and often very misinformed) beliefs that simply is not fair.

Show people why THEIR rights are being restricted. Be FOR something instead of solely against something. Live up to your name, progressives, and be truly progressive. Maybe then we’d have a slightly better shot at mobilizing people. People want to do what’s in their interest. I believe that people would rather get something for themselves than hurt others. As long as politics operate in a zero-sum fashion (which they don’t have to, but they tend to), make people want to win. That is almost always more persuasive than making the other side lose.

Computers, Compassion, and Corporal Punishment: Alan Turing to Today’s Bloggers and the State of Human Rights in the World

Tags

#Sochi2014, 1951, 2009, 2013, 2014, 2014 Olympics, 2014 Winter Olympics, A.I., AI, al Assad, Alan Turing, America, anti-gay laws, apostasy, artificial intelligence, assad, Badawi, bashar al assad, Betchley Park, blogger, bloggers, capital punishment, castration, chemical castration, compassion, computer, computers, corporal punishment, crime, crimes, democracy, Draconian law, Draconian laws, England, Enigma, Enigma Machine, ethics, free expression, free speech, freedom, freedom of expression, gay, gay laws, gay rights, German, Germany, Gordon Brown, heresy, homosexuality, international affairs, international relations, Islam, justice, labor camp, labor camps, law, middle east, morality, morals, north korea, Olympics, pardon, political prisoner, political prisoners, politics, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, prisoner, prisoners, Putin, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Elizabeth II, Raif Badawi, Royal Pardon, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabian blogger, Sochi, Syria, torture, Turing, Turing Test, U.K., U.S., U.S.A., uganda, UK, United Kingdom, united states, United States of America, US, USA, Vladimir Putin, Winter Olympics, World War 2, World War II, WW2, WWII

I meant to publish this a while ago, but didn’t. With the start of the Winter Olympics in Sochi, and the worldwide attention on Russia’s extreme anti-gay laws, this post seemed especially appropriate now. I’d also like to thank Tim Schleck for his contributions in the field of knowledge of Alan Turing and the time and effort he spent offering his opinions as I wrote the first draft of this post.

I’m going to write about two seemingly disparate topics. There is a direct link however, to how societies treat their most vulnerable and most vocal citizens. This is not true everywhere, at all times, but it’s pervasive enough that it warrants attention.

Recently, the pardon of Alan Turing made international headlines. On December 24, 2013, after 61 years, Queen Elizabeth II issued a royal pardon for Turing’s crime of homosexuality. This act of pardoning is seen as progressive in some circles because it dovetails with a movement of greater acceptance of homosexuality in the UK (including the recent national legalization of same sex marriage). Others, however, see it as a kind of window dressing.

Alan Turing was a brilliant and visionary pioneer who helped formalize the theoretical underpinnings of computer science. Two of his most well known accomplishments are that of the Turing Machine, a precursor to personal computers, and the Turing Test to measure artificial intelligence. (If you’ve ever seen “Bladerunner”, the test given to the replicants is similar.) The personal accomplishments of Turing’s short life are extensive and have played a critical role in the development of technology in the 20th and 21st centuries. By collaborating on the very first computer that was used to crack encrypted messages generated by the German Enigma machine, Turing played an invaluable part in aiding the UK and the allied powers to victory in World War II.

While the Queen’s gesture is certainly better than nothing, I would argue it’s too little, too late. An opinion writer at CNet seems to agree: http://m.cnet.com/news/alan-turing-gets-royal-pardon-on-homosexuality-crime/57616268 Turing was betrayed by the very government he so expertly aided in its most desperate hour. Government agents stalked and monitored his daily activities, resulting in the revocation of his security clearance, smear campaigns against him, and his eventual trial. He was charged with the then criminal act of homosexuality (called “gross indecency”) for admitting to having sex with a man, for which he was offered the “choice” of jail time or chemical castration. After choosing chemical castration, Turing’s suffering intensified. When he was found dead two years later after biting into a cyanide-laced apple, many people attribute his apparent suicide to his societal and governmental condemnation and subsequent punishment.

The pardon itself is sparse and offers no real apology. While former Prime Minister Gordon Brown issued an official apology in 2009, he only did so after bowing to the pressure of an intense internet campaign. Turing was a pivotal man in history, and although the standing of a citizen in society should not determine his or her treatment, it’s instructive when looking at other people who deviate from the norm of who offer value to their societies in a way that challenges convention. The most vocal may also be the most vulnerable, especially in strictly conservative countries.

The number of political prisoners in the world is unknown, but if the hundreds of thousands of documented Syrian prisoners and victims of torture and murder by Bashar al Assad’s government are any indication, holding individuals as political prisoners is not a rare phenomenon. Syria, while in the throes of a civil war, is no anomaly. These are all people who have been put in prisons because they challenged the government in some way. It may have been purely due to their very existence as members of a certain religious or social group seen as a threat that landed them in these hells. In countries such as North Korea, entire families are forced into oppressive labor camps where children are born into lives of captivity for no actual crimes. There are others who speak out against the actions of their governments, courageously trying to inspire more egalitarian and democratic laws in their home nations.

One such example is a Saudi Arabian man named Raif Badawi, who, due to his allegedly seditious activity–blogging about greater freedom in Saudi Arabia–has spent a year in prison, enduring physical and psychological torture. He is being charged with a crime akin to heresy: denying Islam. His punishment? 600 lashes and seven years in prison with another 3 months tacked on for disobeying his parents–an actual crime in Saudi Arabia. He has already been found guilty of various “cyber crimes”. If he’s found guilty of “apostasy”–the official name for the denial of Islam–he will be sentenced to death.

Yes, you read that right. If the 600 lashes themselves don’t kill him, he will then be executed. The idea of heresy in 2014, you ask? What is this, medieval Europe? No, it’s the present day Middle East. Of course, it’s not fair to take a monolithic view of an entire region, but any government that condones corporal punishment and capital punishment–especially for the supposed “crime” of expressing oneself–obviously does not have basic human values as its moral compass. Not beating and killing someone for writing a blog (however seemingly insulting) is not even a progressive stance. This is not an issue of cultural relativism or a so-called “Western value”.

What hope do we have for humanity if we turn a blind eye to such atrocities? These actions occur every day. Far from the exception, they are commonplace. The fact that people like this blogger know the risks of speaking out, and choose to do so anyway, stands as a testament to just how brave they truly are. It also presents a stark contrast with the agents who seek to silence them by the most cruel and permanent means available.
That United States officials have very little to say on the state of political prisoners (particularly those in countries with which the U.S. is a close ally or trade partner) is beyond shameful. It is detrimental to the reputation of the United States, and it gives the signal that countries can get a free pass. There are a plethora of ethical and strategic reasons why those in government positions outside of the offending countries should be doing more. Of course, the United States practices its own forms of cruelty. That doesn’t absolve Americans of the responsibility to do something more to help out fellow human beings anywhere in the world.

After the Olympics end three weeks from now, and the media buzz dies down, try to remember the dismal state of human rights in Russia. Remember how anachronistic the criminalization of Alan Turing’s homosexuality seems, how “gross indecency” was a prosecuted crime. Think about how he was only one of over 100,000 men in the UK to be punished for such a “crime”. Think about how that was over 60 years ago, but today, from Uganda (where you can be killed for being gay) to Saudi Arabia (where you can be killed for attempting to engage in free speech), human rights are not protected universally. We need to be aware, and learn from the horrors of the past. That this horrific backwardness still exists anywhere is unacceptable.

Cognitive Dissonance: Conservatives and Government

Tags

allure, allure of government, America, American government, anarchist, anarchists, anarchy, atheism, atheist, atheists, Ayn Rand, Bible, campaigns, Capitol Hill, cognitive dissonance, communism, communitarianism, congress, conservatism, conservative, conservatives, D.C., DC, demographics, demography, diversity, E.P.A., elections, entitlement programs, entitlements, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, equality, federal government, food stamps, freedom, gay marriage, governing, government, Grover Norquist, gun control, guns, health, health care, healthcare, Henry David Thoreau, hypocrisy, ideology, Kryptonite, laws, Leviathan, libertarian, libertarianism, libertarians, limited government, local government, marriage equality, media, National Parks, Norquist, On Walden Pond, politics, power, Rand, religion, reproductive rights, S.N.A.P., safety, same sex marriage, secular, secularism, secularist, secularists, security, self reliance, small government, smaller government, SNAP, social security, socialism, society, stability, state, state government, states, taxes, Thoreau, U.S., U.S. Government, united states, United States Government, US, US Government, Walden, Walden Pond, Washington, Washington D.C., Washington DC, white house, women's rights

I have a pretty simple question. This is not meant to alienate anyone, but I’m curious about the answer. If you consider yourself a conservative, and claim government as the enemy, why would you want to be a part of the system?

I’m not quite sure when conservatism became synonymous with spending no money and dismantling government as we know it, but here we are. If you’d like to reform the system in such a way that it better serves people, to make it more efficient, I understand that. That does not, however, mean destroying the Environmental Protection Agency, privatizing all education, and taking a sledgehammer to unions. It doesn’t mean cutting food stamp programs by billions of dollars to starving children and families because Ayn Rand gave you the idea that you could pull yourself up by your bootstraps and, you know, ideologically, it just doesn’t sit well with you that there are people out there “getting handouts”.

Recently, I was attacked by someone as I know as being the kind of person who “loves government”, and who defends its practices. While this is a blanket statement–I don’t support everything the federal government of the United States does–yes, I tend to support government. Since when should that be an insult?

This is a word of warning to the anarchists and the so-called libertarians and all the others who fancy themselves modern day revolutionaries. We live in a country comprised of approximately 320 million people. Among those 320 million, there are varying states of education, income, opportunities, and health conditions. Even from state to state, living conditions vary widely. We live in a patchwork society of diverse demographics, from age to culture to ethnicity.

But more important than even our differences are our connections to one another. Even if you don’t believe in a kumbaya ideal or attach the words “communism” or “socialism” to anything that remotely resembles cooperation, you have to admit that we must interact with one another in society. We merge on the same roads. We go to schools and workplaces with others. We purchase goods and services on a daily basis. These are the basics.

And we all benefit from services provided by the government from traffic lights to mail delivery to public libraries. It was often cited in the direct aftermath of the recent government shutdown that the biggest winners were the National Parks. Even the most self reliant among us love our national parks. And who can resist nature? Thoreau did write about Walden Pond, after all.

Government–from the lowest levels to the highest–has a role to play. This role is a significant one. Whether we’re talking about “entitlement” programs or passing the very laws that enable us to live in a stable society, we need government.

Grover Norquist’s colorful imagery of shrinking government to the point that we can “drown it in the bathtub” is disgusting. I’d really like to see where all these people would be without government services.

You can’t say “hands off my guns” (and my taxes and my religion), and then decide that government overreach is non-existent when it comes to “pension reform” or controlling reproductive choices or shutting down marriage equality or denying atheists and secularists the same respect as religion (often mainstream Christianity) is afforded.

Is that the real aim: to remake society in one’s own image? To so fundamentally alter the landscape of the United States as to comport a self-styled combination of the Bible and the “good old days”? To decry diversity and change and progress? Perhaps the most effective way is to declare the evils of the monstrous government that swallows all of our money, that ever-growing Leviathan run by the evil corporatists and opportunists who work in a place worse than hell. This place–gasp–is called Washington, D.C., and it’s where dreams go to die. Worse yet, it’s where the government bogeymen are killing all of your dreams too.

…Except that many of the government haters work there too. From local governments to state houses, thousands of people who won elections on the idea that government is the root of all evil are reaping its benefits in the form of salaries, health care, jobs, contracts, success, relative levels of fame, and the furtherance of their agendas using the tool that’s supposed to be their kryptonite.

I’m a vegetarian. I hate the entire system that goes into the production of killing animals so that people can eat them. Do I continue to eat meat, and say how horrible the system is? No. If it’s so abhorrent to you, government haters, how can you be a part of it? Are you trying to change it from the inside, out? That begins with a respect for its very existence and the admission that you want to be a part of that system, at the very least. If principle is so important, at least be honest with the public and yourselves.

U.S. House Republicans: The New Entitlement Class

Tags

2012, 2012 Presidential Election, 2013, A.C.A., ACA, affordable care act, barack obama, Boehner, compromise, compromises, congress, debt, debt ceiling, debt ceiling debate, deficit, democrat, democrats, DNC, George Stephanopoulos, government shutdown, Harry Reid, hostage, hostage situation, hostages, house, mitt romney, obama, obamacare, partial government shutdown, politics, president obama, Reoublicans, republican, RNC, romney, senate, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader Reid, Senator Cruz, Senator Ted Cruz, Speaker Boehner, Speaker John Boehner, Stephanopoulos, Tea Party, Ted Cruz, U.S. House, U.S. Senate, US House, US Senate

Just about a year ago, the familiar refrain leading up to the 2012 US Presidential Election boiled down to the basic tenet of American conservatism vs. progressivism: how much should the government take care of its people? More specifically, how “big” should the national government be, and what should be its role in the everyday lives of the country’s citizens? One of the major themes of the Republican National Convention was “We Built That”, an ethic encompassing the idea of personal empowerment–that individuals and businesses are capable of quite a lot on their own. It rejected the idea that “no man is an island”, insisting that hard work and determination are the only necessary ingredients for sustained success in the United States. A parallel theme of the parasitic “entitlement class” also took shape. Although every Republican would love to forget Mitt Romney’s “47%” comment, it’s instructive. It underscored and perpetuated the belief of millions of people that a large portion of American society is comprised of freeloaders. The “builders” work hard to make this country great, and the “moochers” suck it dry without contributing anything of value.

These themes are straight out of the RNC play book. Many Republican strategists still hold these beliefs. They argue that “smaller government” benefits us all. Who needs regulations? Let Wall Street run rampant. Dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency! Those nice corporations–after all, they’re “people”, just like you and me–would never overpollute the air water.

Well, those same leaders who have so strongly espoused the “builder” mentality have become the destroyers. In a purely self-indulgent, crybaby way, they held the entire country hostage. Make no mistake. This is not hyperbole, and it’s not a partisan view. Because a few select Congresspeople (mostly self-professed Tea Party Republicans) decided they hated President Obama, or the Affordable Care Act, or any accomplishment President Obama stood for, SO much, they decided to convince the rest of their caucus in the House to tie any budget bill to the defunding of the law they so lovingly call “Obamacare”. What the hell is this? They knew the president would not dismantle his “signature achievement”. They knew that the new fiscal year began on the same day that Americans could start registering for exchanges on the new healthcare plan. So why not put two and two together? They voted 45 times to repeal the ACA! The Democratic-led Senate turned it down or didn’t even bring it up for a vote all of these times because if you feed the trolls, they just bother you more. President Obama would not sign a bill “gutting” the ACA. The Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the law. President Obama won reelection, campaigning on the passage of the ACA. Public opinion polls consistently state that Americans feel favorably about the new healthcare law. If all of this weren’t enough, anecdotal evidence from people whose lives were saved due to provisions in the new law speak much more convincingly than those who don’t want to pay for it or who decide it’s government overreach.

I’m not going to get into an in depth discussion of the Affordable Care Act here, but the backbone of the legislation–the individual mandate–is a long-promoted REPUBLICAN idea. It is based on the principle of individual responsibility. Republicans hate moochers, remember? Progressives aren’t thrilled with the idea that the system is nowhere near a single payer (national healthcare) system, and there are quite a few issues with it; however, a minority of people can’t just do whatever they want to get rid of a law they don’t like because they “think it’s a bad law”. Too bad.

Those Tea Party Republicans in the House–who are mostly ideological people from small towns who have never held office before, and have no idea how the government works–were buoyed by more visible people such as fellow Senate newcomer and all-around attention whore Ted Cruz.
They pushed the country into a partial government shutdown. (I’m going to include a post on a government shutdown primer since not everyone knows what the shutdown entails.)

This has grave consequences for the country. True “patriots” would never do such a thing, and especially for purposes of bald self-interest. And in many cases, the term “self-interest” is completely apropos since some conservative Congress members are very worried about primaries in their gerrymandered districts posed by even more ultra-conservative candidates put up by ridiculously wealthy donors whose money (“speech”) can be spent nearly unfettered thanks to our lovely Supreme Court, whose justices, as we know, are ALWAYS looking out for the best interests of the people.

The government shutdown, now in it’s 11th day, shouldn’t have happened at all. We’re getting closer and closer to the date at which the national debt ceiling must be raised. As has been repeated constantly, paying off the debt is paying for costs already incurred. The county had to pay for money it already spent. Deciding to default (as some Republicans would like to do) is irresponsible at best, and ridiculous and disastrous at worst. The United States has never defaulted on its debt in its history, and the majority opinion on doing so is that this could very possibly equal a worldwide economic recession or depression, plus countless other terrible ramifications.

Republicans who claim that it’s now time to examine the dangerous path of ballooning deficit and the exploding debt (here’s looking at you, John Boehner), really have audacity. If they were so concerned about the economy, they wouldn’t have set in motion a government shutdown that has cost the country billions if dollars, and put nearly a million directly out of work. They wouldn’t play a game of brinkmanship with the possibility of default if the president and Democrats don’t agree to their ridiculous demands of significantly cutting entitlement programs.

Senate Democrats have already agreed to a compromise with House Republicans to pass a budget with spending at the levels House Republicans wanted (continuing the sequester), and “Speaker” Boehner reneged on his deal with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Boehner admitted this to George Stephanopoulos. Democrats already compromised with Republicans! “Piecemeal” legislative efforts by the Republicans or blaming Democrats and the president in front of National Parks and monuments for their closures as PR stunts are not “compromises” by the Republicans.

This is their fault. And they wanted it this way.

The once-proud “builders” are happy to set the fire, and to stand there and watch it burn.

Members of Congress continue to receive paychecks even as “nonessential” government workers do not, and the city of Washington, D.C. goes unfunded. Worse yet, members of Congress receive the gold standard in healthcare plans, and to date, no Congress member has turned this down. The people can pay for their perks, but not get paid or receive healthcare at an even slightly diminished cost?

I’m pretty sure that’s called mooching. What entitles the select few to receive benefits when others work hard? What ENTITLES them? Many of them aren’t even working for their constituents!

And conservatives say they hate an entitlement class…