Something that needs to be said

Leave a reply

I completed the hunters safety course back when I was about 12 years old in the late 1960’s. I got a kick out of target practice and plinking tin cans or watermelons just like everyone else. I remember stalking imaginary prey in the countryside along Lizard Creek in Iowa, just itching for a reason to fire the .22 caliber rifle at it. I might have actually hit a bullhead in the creek (properly pronounced ‘crick’) but it got away. In retrospect, shooting at a fish was cruel and pointless. As a high schooler I went elk hunting in the mountains of northern Colorado. We never saw an elk.

Shooting is something that I never latched on to for some reason. Probably because guns weren’t a big thing in my family. My farming parents and grandparents in Iowa never fought in the world wars because of the accident of their birthdates. My father served in Korea, but just after the war. I saw my grandfather shoot a badger once, but only because he was afraid we’d stumble upon it. Today I have a .22 caliber antique Ruger revolver somewhere in storage that I inherited. That is my arsenal.

I guess I’ve been lucky. I’ve never had the fear of foreign invaders taking over North America by anything less than global nuclear war. I’ve never had a fear of a tyrannical government, at least until Trump and his motley band of demented idiots came along. I have never lived where I felt I needed to keep a gun at the ready. And I’ve never had the need to strut around like a peacock in tactical gear packing pseudo-militaristic weapons.

Guns are too deeply imbedded in American culture and in the basements of citizens to ever be gotten rid of by a government ban. There would be a civil war before guns could be confiscated, which I doubt will come to pass.

The great advantage guns give you is the ability to commit severe and instantaneous violence from a safe distance. Since the invention of gunpowder in China, the utility of blasting things at people has been lost on no one. The firearm has long been popular as an enabler of protection, conflict and crime. So popular, in fact, that most Americans are stuck between the brick walls of gun violence and second amendment arguments with no resolution to the conflict coming anytime soon.

There is one thing we can do, however. Something that a civilized citizen of this amazing democracy can easily do. We can urge fellow citizens to simmer down a little. We can show some restraint in the reflex to use, carry or flaunt our firearms in public, especially as a half-hidden means of intimidation, as a first step. On the streets and in the movies.

In American entertainment, guns wielded by attractive actors and actresses are the usual tool for the resolution of conflict. The accurate portrayal of shooting technique and the highly realistic effects of a bullet on the human body have become an art form in US entertainment. Not so in British television I have noticed. There is generally very little gunplay in Brit TV entertainment. And they still manage to tell a great story through well crafted writing. How can a kid grow up in America and NOT come to the conclusion that pointing a gun or shooting someone is the most effective way to settle a dispute?

It has been said jokingly that the second amendment has become the founding document of the angry white male gun club. This may be an exaggeration but we cannot forget that the amendment defines a right, not an obligation to use. It is not an invitation to aggressive, belligerent behavior with weapons. It does not give the person pointing the weapon the right to be judge, jury, and executioner unless in self defense.

There will always be people, some of them fearful, who harbor an unusually large fascination with weapons. Realistically, these folks are probably beyond reasoned persuasion to a lifestyle less oriented to paranoia mixed with weaponry. But we can try to improve this American civilization around them overall to one that more substantially values non-violent means of conflict resolution, either in reality or in the movies. Plenty of other countries can do it, why can’t we?

Civilization and CRT

2 Replies

With the birth of every child, civilization must start anew. Parents and other adults are the major actors in rebuilding civilization and their first duties are to teach the child how care and fend for themselves in an often hostile world. Wariness is critical to surviving potential threats out in the open or those that lurk in the shadows. Adults must encourage wariness but not to the point of freezing solid in fear. Nuance is required in order to balance the threat/benefit relationship with the main goal of living as long as possible. In more precise terms, children must be educated and given examples of how to use that gained knowledge to not only live longer, but better as well. Seems obvious.

Today we see a movement in US civilization towards the disassembly of K-12 public education in favor of throwing those resources to conservative private and parochial education. Here in Colorado there is a silent group with out-of-state funding methodically getting far right, like-minded school board members elected. And it’s working. These groups wrap themselves in the flag playing Yankee Doodle, while often carrying a cross, and blow popular rightwing dog whistles as loud and often as they can. Currently, Critical Race Theory (CRT) is the most popular generator of dread fear among a great many in the population.

The fear that the CRT “threat” seems to be aimed at is the American liberal arts education taught in the public schools and in universities. First, some clarity. A liberal arts education is not about indoctrinating kids to be a democrat. The word “liberal” has come to be an epithet in common usage by many. A liberal education is actually meant to learn about a variety of topics and ways of thinking- to be less dogmatic and narrow. It encourages open minds. It tries to be neutral on the religiosity scale as well. And it has been quite successful for generations. Look around and you’ll see an endless assortment of objects and systems whose invention was by people educated under the liberal arts education.

Definition from Wikipedia: “Usually global and pluralistic in scope, it can include a general education curriculum which provides broad exposure to multiple disciplines and learning strategies in addition to in-depth study in at least one academic area.”

It seems that encouraging open mindedness or broad knowledge is exactly what they don’t want. What they want is actually indoctrination into “their” knowledge and thinking using their narrow definitions. It is about a narrow form of mind control, not objective facts and analysis. There is a fear that an accurate study of actual US and world history or science leads kids astray, away from God and country, to a world of anti-Americanism and to eventual eternal damnation. But, an accurate accounting of US history must eventually come to grips with the moral issues of slavery and the origins of the Civil War or the long, unfinished story of racism. To paint it over with heroic tales of settlers on the Oregon Trail while ignoring details of the slaughter and confinement of Native American to the reservation is an affront to reality and in all likelihood will eventually be made known to students anyway. Hiding the truth is a fools errand.

In my estimation, the American liberal arts education in the public schools, while flawed, has been a success. It has helped to provide a vast store of knowledge and skill that has lead to inventions and systems that have extended and improved our lives. Yes, the story is not perfect, but it is not over yet. To place the education of our young in the hands of politically partisan actors peddling extreme conservative views and possibly into corporate control is to steer our civilization into a less democratic, darker future.

See the comments section for more elaboration on this topic.

Ukranian Professor

1 Reply

As an undergrad back in the early 1980s I took a year of Russian language as part of a planned minor in Soviet studies with Air Force ROTC. Let me first admit that a single year of a foreign language is not entirely useless, but it is close. When I eventually traveled to Russia on business in 2000, my miniscule Russian language skills were practically of no use. I could still read and pronounce the words, though. The problem with knowing just a few sentences is that the person you are speaking with assumes that you are fluent and starts talking. That’s where you shrug and they get the idea with noticeable disappointment.

The professor teaching the Russian language course was a Ukranian by birth. He was near retirement at the time and had a thick accent. It took only a short time for me to prove to him that I had little talent for foreign languages generally and Russian in particular. But, I did have the best accent in the class. My high school German classes were an early indication of the slippery Teflon coated language region of my brain where nothing sticks.

The professor’s name was Ivan <redacted> (pronounced ee-VAUGHN) and he had a average frame topped with a big shock of white hair. He was always in suit and tie and had a gregarious personality. He was an accomplished and inspiring teacher and would even teach Russian off-campus at night when asked. He sponsored the campus Russian club whose members were especially fond of the art of pysanky, or Ukrainian Easter eggs.

The professor had an interesting past. As a child growing up in Ukraine, as he tells it, his family’s village was overrun by the Nazis in WWII on their way east. Figuring that the Nazis couldn’t be any worse than Stalin, they stayed put in their village and survived the invasion. But later in the war when the Red Army pushed back the Nazis to the west, they were reported to kill villagers who did not fight to the death or flee to the east. Anticipating this, the whole family packed up and fled west. He said that their group was fired upon by aircraft as they left. Eventually they ended up in some kind of camp in western Europe. After a year post-war in the camp, the family moved to Brazil where he completed his education and acquired teaching credentials. He eventually made his way north to the USA and became a university professor.

Who knows, maybe the story is embellished a bit. Doesn’t matter. I feel lucky to have made his acquaintance and to have picked up just a tiny bit of his language.

Assorted Thoughts on our New Nuclear Age

Leave a reply

If you search Google News for ‘nuclear war’, you’ll find links to articles from a large variety of sources. Putin’s invasion and belligerent behavior has resulted in a great deal of media buzz which is rightfully spooking the world. Better relations with Russia began with the fall of the Soviet Union and has lasted to some degree up to now- about 30 years duration.

Along with the invasion of Ukraine, Putin has been making threats suggesting to some that we may be heading back to a world of nuclear brinksmanship. Nuclear sabre rattling largely disappeared sometime after the fall of the Soviet Union. For the past 30 years the world has carried on as though nuclear weapons don’t exist anymore. Everyone knows that the major powers have nuclear weapons and understands the rationale for Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). This has been in the background. Yes, there are outliers like North Korea and Iran.

Ronald Reagan took exception to the logic of MAD and in 1983 announced the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), sometimes derided by the name “Star Wars”. Reagan promoted the plan by asserting that orbiting SDI platforms would make nuclear weapons obsolete, at least with strategic weapons like the ICBM. It was a grand plan to make the world safer. It certainly made the world safer for defense contractors. Many of us think that the program was really meant cause the Soviets to go bankrupt in trying to keep up with the west in SDI technology. After the Soviet Union collapsed, enthusiasm for SDI in its original form faded away. You can read about it in the SDI link.

With Putin, steel must be met with steel. He only respects strength. For this reason it may have been a mistake to announce that there would not be a no-fly zone enacted over Ukraine. Handing over certainty to Putin only emboldens him. We should have said that it is on the table and left him guessing.

The big question is what to do if, in desperation, Putin uses a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine? How should NATO respond? Whatever it is, there must be an unambiguous response. The choice for Putin to use a tactical nuclear weapon will only be difficult the first time it is used.

On the lighter side, if you don’t already know, now may be a good time to familiarize yourselves with nuclear weapons effects and how the bombs work. If you’re in Vegas, stop by the National Atomic Testing museum. Get familiar with mankind’s fastest and most spectacular expressway to the collapse of civilization! Remember, nuclear explosions are effectively point sources of heat and pressure. The effects fall off as an inverse square law with distance. Distance is your friend.

On the personal level, try to come to terms with the stochastic nature of radiation damage and the existence and effects of background radiation. The dose/response curve to radiation gets quite fuzzy at the lower dose levels. Remember, exposure and dose are not the same.

The tragic effects of this invasion on the Ukrainian people is horrible. But I have Russian friends and have been to Russia. I grieve for the Russian people who are unwittingly on this dreadful misadventure of Putin’s. During the last 30 years of relative peace Russians have known a much improved quality of life. It is awful to see this ripped away from them. Russia just can’t shake itself free of despotic leadership.

David Brooks has an insightful article on Putin’s view of the world and Russia’s place in it. An excellent interview can be found in Der Spiegel describing Putin’s character by Ivan Krastev from the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna.

Hard and Soft Propaganda

Leave a reply

There is an interesting Op-Ed in the LA Times on the nature of propaganda and how it is used, written by Megan Hyska of Northwestern University. Putin’s recent exercises in the application of propaganda is used as an example. Persuasion isn’t always the goal. You’ll probably recognize that these techniques are used everywhere. I won’t repeat any of it here, but it is worth a glance.

WTF? Die to Abolish CRT?

2 Replies

So #45 is at his incitement game again. He asked spectators in a rally in South Carolina recently to be willing to die to abolish critical race theory, CRT. He said, “The fate of any nation ultimately depends upon the willingness of its citizens to lay down, and they must do this, lay down their very lives to defend their country …”, and then he said, “If we allow the Marxists, and communists, and socialists to hate America, there will be no one left to defend our flag or to protect our great country or its freedom …”.

Wow! Marxists and communists? In the USA? Really? An old bogeyman has resurfaced from the cold war days and has come to plague the hearts and minds of unsuspecting innocents going about their business. The horror! The horror!

When he says “to die”, what exactly does that mean? This can easily imply some kind of participation in violence. Does he mean to participate in a struggle to physically attack school board members who do not acquiesce to or even understand their demands? At what point should an opponent and a proponent of CRT fight to the death? With his usual cageyness, #45 leaves these details for individuals to sort out and suffer the legal consequences in his name.

The great and powerful Oz clearly hopes that fear and anger from the phony threat of CRT will translate into votes and political contributions. Fearmongering has been a conservative strategy for decades. And it works! Remember how Reagan turned the word ‘liberal’ into an epithet? Americans of a certain mindset will reliably continue to eat it up with a spoon. How disappointing it is to see so many countrymen be so gullible and persuaded by such transparent manipulation.

Will Russian Sanctions Work?

Leave a reply

It remains to be seen if the economic sanctions imposed on Russia by the west will have even a smidgen of effect on Putin. Western sanctions on the USSR had substantial effect on the Soviet people back in the cold war days, but the leadership of the USSR lasted for a very long time in this condition. It is naive of us to think that it will be any different with the Putin regime. Look at Iran and North Korea. They have lived under extreme sanctions for a very long time while under the tight control of their leadership and even have developed or will develop nuclear weapons.

One difference today in Russia is the relatively large middle class. They are accustomed to a lifestyle where goods and services are abundant. The smack down of the Russian economy will adversely affect them. But will it make a difference in Putin’s autocratic behavior? In the past, Putin’s response to dissent has been to crack down using the police and security services to enforce draconian law. Putin does not report to the Russian people. Like the old story of boiling the frog, he has cannily built a tight power structure around himself over time.

Will pinching the finances of the oligarchs make the difference? There is already talk of them turning to block chain schemes to park their money. Sanctions mean that money will begin to flow elsewhere. It seems doubtful that Putin would have allowed this kind of Achilles Heel of a powerful class to exist. Some think that the oligarchs report to Putin and not the other way around.

One beneficiary of this situation is thought to be China. It surely hasn’t gone unnoticed in China that the disconnection of western business will provide a great many business opportunities in Russia as well as an expansion of their sphere of influence. All we can do is to watch it unfold.

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine will bring negatives to his regime. Whether it will bring him down seems unlikely. Historical precedence does not give much hope to the idea that Putin will have a ‘come to Jesus’ moment and cause him to relent.

Russia’s status as a nuclear power worries everyone, of course. Adherence to the strategic doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) between nuclear states has limited warfare to the use of conventional arms for generations. It has been the doctrine of the US to incorporate a fire break between the use of conventional and nuclear arms. Whether this is true for Russia is unclear. They may see nuclear arms as part of a normal escalation in force. This would be most unfortunate if true. How the west would respond to the release of nuclear weapons in Ukraine or against other states of the former Soviet Union is also unclear, but there are surely contingency plans for this eventuality somewhere in the pentagon. I hope.

The unifying affect on the west in responding to Putin’s aggression is encouraging but it may not be enough to stop Putin from further invasions. Let us hope that this madman can be contained.

American Devolution

Leave a reply

It used to be that I couldn’t understand how the Nazis came into power with Hitler appointed as chancellor of Germany in 1933 and how in the ensuing years the German people could support the foul rhetoric and authoritarian nature of the Nazi Party. What kind of mindset did people have then? Now it’s not such a mystery. History isn’t repeating itself exactly, but there is a definite rhyme to it.