As the Russian military regroups and moves to attack Ukrainian cities in the East, it is withdrawing from towns it controlled for more than a month. The evidence of sadism, torture, and war crimes against civilians shocks the conscience of everyone but the man who started the war, Vladimir Putin. He and he alone has the power to stop the killing.
By now, we have all seen the trrrible carnage on the television news. But the revelations keep coming. Sometimes words shock even more than pictures.
This was reported in today’s Washington Post.
BUCHA, Ukraine — The name of this city is already synonymous with the month-long carnage that Russian soldiers perpetrated here.
But the scale of the killings and the depravity with which they were committed is only just becoming apparent as police, local officials and regular citizens start the grim task of clearing Bucha of the hundreds of corpses decomposing on streets and in parks, apartment buildings and other locations.
ISome of the cruelest violence took place at a glass factory on the edge of town.
On the gravel near a loading dock lay the body of Dmytro Chaplyhin, 21, whose abdomen was bruised black and blue, his hands marked with what looked like cigarette burns. He ultimately was killed by a gunshot to the chest, concluded team leader Ruslan Kravchenko. His body then was turned into a weapon, tied to a tripwire connected to a mine.
“Every day we get about 10 to 20 calls for bodies like this,” Kravchenko said.
Hundreds of corpses litter the streets of Bucha, some of them beheaded.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Closing in on the final chapters of Garry Kasparov’s, “Winter Is Coming: Why Vladimir Putin and the Enemies to the Free World Must Be Stopped” (2015) and it specifically illustrates just how the years 1999 to 2014 was one extended Munich of appeasement by the West. It’s disheartening. I never realized just how horrific things were for democracy in Russia.
I have to read this. I’ve listened to a bunch of talks by Kasparov online. He’s an extraordinarily intelligent and compassionate person.
The ubiquity of camera-equipped smartphones will probably have as big or more of an impact on how the world sees war and wartime atrocities as television had in the Vietnam War. Imagine if during WWII every person over age 12 had a video camera and could circulate footage around the world near-instantaneously.
That is a good point. It is hard to hide in this day of video on demand. What is interesting is the degree to which mis-information has bubbled to the top in this brave new world of video. I really do not know what to make of it.
Definitely the flip side of the coin. It’s going to get complicated, especially as “special effects” (including deepfake) get cheaper and more sophisticated.
Exactly the case, FLERP!
We are at a turning point. The world needs to make it clear that the bloody, evil creeps like Putin who do this stuff belong to a past era, that they can no longer deny, deny, deny, and that they will be brought to justice.
And the freaking UN needs to invoke Resolution 337A, overrule the Security Council, and send in an overwhelming peacekeeping force NOW.
So lets say I agree with you. That does not change the reality of what will happen. So, China , India , Indonesia, Pakistan, Brazil , Bangladesh and Russia (obviously) 7 of the 10 largest countries are not sanctioning Russia. That represents (represents, loosely used ), 1/2 the world population right there without going through the entire list.
And you think there is widespread support for a peacekeeping force.
This war if it proves anything , proves that a congressman was correct in the mid 70s. He was listening to the joint Chiefs crying at a hearing that they need more weapons to fight the Soviet threat . He asked them if they would trade places with a Russian General . You can guess the answer.
American weaponry is making mince meat out of the Russian Army . And we are not shipping them anywhere as much as was sent to Afghanistan. A Grandma with a Javelin can take out a Russian tank.
Time to up the anti and ship more weapons like anti ship missiles to raise the costs to Russia even more.
The line in the sand should be WMD . And I believe it is understood.
Bob and Joel,
I just want to compliment you both for your insights and also point out that THIS is the kind of discussion that is possible when two people may have different perspectives, but one of them isn’t supporting their point of view with lies and false narratives.
Joel and the troll who calls himself “Daedalus” may in the end support some similar policies (not totally similar), but Joel’s support for those policies is based on reason and evidence. Daedalus’ is based on propaganda.
I continue to believe that people who amplify propaganda should be marginalized and not treated in a way that legitimizes and amplifies their false narratives.
Bob and Joel provide an excellent example of how folks converse when they are concerned with ideas and truths and the world. It is how Diane Ravitch approaches her blog.
Others like Daedalus are a prime example of how folks converse when their goal is simply to keep pushing and amplifying their false narratives.
Thank you, Bob and Joel.
Ah! Calling names! That always works (on the playground). I’m embarrassed to say that I did that myself (in second grade).
Daedalus,
I apologize to you for calling you a troll – I assume you are not and are really a teacher. And I apologize for the analogy I made below where I used ridiculous leaps of logic to accuse you of something without an iota of evidence. I think my point was lost in that, so I’m sorry.
However, I really urge you to re-read your posts here. You seem extraordinarily locked into a point of view that is beyond illogical and that’s not what a science teacher should be doing.
There is a very big difference between skepticism – which is a good thing – and uncritically dismissing any and all evidence that supports something you don’t want to believe as “insufficient”. You are holding one side to an unreasonable standard of evidence while you offer up random “possibilities” that have no evidence whatsoever to support them.
There would be no science at all if that was how science was taught. Anything “may” be true but nothing at all can ever be true.
Thank you, NYPSP.
Wow! I’m really surprised. Based upon the human tendency called ‘projection’, I was pretty sure that you were, in fact, a ‘troll’. You have proven me wrong (I hope).
Making assumptions about people who post comments is a natural outcome of the curtain behind which online communication takes place. Should we chance to talk ‘face to face’, communication would be far easier, the natural way (and perhaps more honest). I don’t think people would be so prone to ‘name calling’ if they had to face each other across a table, over a beer.
Apology is accepted, and I hope for more fruitful communication in the future. You and Bob appear to be constantly dialed in, however at my age I only sample now and then.
Putin must pay for this. We are going to need a UN Special Tribunal.
This brilliant and extremely knowledgeable person makes the extremely important point that the old way of the brutal strongman is much more difficult to sustain in the age of smart phones. The whole world sees this, and the lies don’t work anymore.
Many others in this series, The Putin Files, that are really worth watching. I highly recommend the ones with Yekaterian Schulmann, Julia Ioffe, Masha Gessen, and Strobe Talbot.
Yekaterina*
The only people surprised and/or shocked by the “Horrors of Bucha” are people that do not know Putin’s history. Putin is a monster and has been a monster for most of his life. Putin did not become a monster when re invaded Ukraine.
A welcome for Putin, the butcher of Chechnya
This article is more than 21 years old
Hugo Young
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/apr/18/russia.chechnya
Russia’s military intervention in Syria backs ‘butcher Assad’, UK PM Cameron says
https://www.dailysabah.com/world/2015/10/03/russias-military-intervention-in-syria-backs-butcher-assad-uk-pm-cameron-says
Who Is Putin the ‘Butcher’? The Enigma Around Him Persists
March 29, 2022
by Dawn Clancy
“In Putin’s mind, at least, “Russia is Putin” and “Putin is Russia,” making Ukraine, which was once part of the Soviet Union, “very personal,” said Aubrey Immelman, a professor of psychology at St. John’s University/College of St. Benedict, in Minnesota. Immelman, who studies political personalities, told PassBlue that “make Russia great” really means “make Putin great.”
“His journey from deep poverty to reportedly off-the-charts wealth and megalomania has been well documented. But his early youth provides insights that could help explain his current mind-set. …
https://www.passblue.com/2022/03/29/who-is-putin-the-butcher-the-enigma-around-him-persists/
It’s a continuing horror show, with civilians, civilian residences and the infrastructure being targeted. People have no access to clean water, food and proper medical care as they are being bombed relentlessly by the Russians. Pet dogs are going feral and eating the corpses lying in the streets and in the ruins of private homes. In spite of the overwhelming odds (Russia has one of the world’s largest military forces and with nukes), Ukrainians are putting up a very brave defense of their homeland. How long can they hold out against this relentless assault?
A paradox of the nuclear age: nuclear weapons have both kept the peace and now allowed for terrible atrocities to occur without effective resistance. For several decades after World War 2, the Soviet Union had a significant superiority in conventional military forces in Europe. The deterrent to a Soviet invasion was the American monopoly on nuclear weapons, what John Foster Dulles termed the doctrine of massive retaliation: if the Soviets invaded, they would be demolished back to the stone age. However, once the Soviets had a meaningful nuclear counter-force, the threat massive retaliation was no longer credible, and the long Cold War – not a hot war – followed.
Russia under Putin can only get away with its aggression and atrocities in Ukraine because of NATO’s fear that intervening in Ukraine will trigger a nuclear war, at best limited, at worst strategic, worldwide, humankind destroying nuclear war. Times have changed since the 1960s: if Russia didn’t have nuclear weapons in 2022, NATO conventional forces would crush the weak Russian military within days. NATO (mostly American) fighter jets would annihilate all Russian armored vehicles in short order. Russian troops would be sitting ducks and would be killed, wounded, or captured to the last man.
Here’s the big question: if a major UN force – meaning mostly NATO forces – pushed into Ukraine, how would Putin respond? Would he order tactical nuclear weapons to be deployed? Would his officers obey such an order, knowing that carrying it out might mean the destruction of Russia and the deaths of themselves and/or many of their loved ones?
Does anyone here still oppose developing and deploying the most effective anti-missile defenses that scientists can invent? Will pro-military conservatives be willing to raise taxes to pay for such a system?
Should we develop and deploy the most effective anti-missile defenses that scientists can invent? Should we be willing to pay for these?
yes and yes
Part of the reason I decided to become a teacher was that almost the only people attracted to my skills and background were in the war business. Hiroshima was a wake-up call for scientists. It demonstrated the way people and ideas could be used to create horrific atrocities entirely against their will and sense of ethics. I didn’t want to join that duped group.
If we deploy ‘effective anti-missile defenses’, we should be sure they will be used for ‘defense’, and not as a means to eliminate a deterrent to our imperialistic activities.
Putin is now retrenching and resupplying in preparation for renewed brutal assaults in Eastern and Southern Ukraine. Given what this person Putin is, it seems highly unlikely that he will stop unless he is stopped. The world has a choice. It can give Ukraine the arms and humanitarian aid it needs to stop him, and it can send in an overwhelming UN Peacekeeping Force, or it can see done to Odessa what was done to Mariupol.
Unfortunately, you are correct about the choices. There is no sugarcoating the potential horrors whichever choice is made. Is preventing the murders of thousands of Ukrainian civilians worth the risk of nuclear war? Or will Putin back down – or be overthrown – if the UN/NATO forcefully resists his further aggressions?
Could it be that those bodies were produced by the Ukrainian military ‘rooting out’ collaborators? How would you know otherwise? Ukraine recruits people ‘with military experience’ (i.e. already trained to kill people) from all over the world. There was no mention, or clear evidence of people dead in the streets until several days after the Russians left.
Where is the definitive finding by a neutral entity that the bullets were Russian made? How about the fragments from the bombs of the ‘Russian airstrikes”? All has been accepted without any physical evidence. To a science teacher, this is unacceptable.
Our American mass media ( not ’embedded’ with the Ukrainian military and reporting from that position) only ‘sees’ what it is allowed to see and interprets what will make it richer. Remember Iraq?
But, I’m breaking my rule, here. This is an education blog, and we should not be discussing the Ukraine.
There were satellite images showing corpses in the streets of Bucha a week before Russian troops left. You are echoing Putin propaganda. Are you aware that the UN General Assembly voted today to remove Russia from the UN Human Rights Council. The UN Russian Ambassador said what you wrote.
Show me the images. After all, we saw ‘satellite images’ of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ labs in Iraq, yes? I’m tired of being lied into war. Remember the Maine? The gulf of Tonkin? The aforementioned ‘WMD’ and the vial of anthrax? The babies ‘torn from incubators’?
No one knows how many corpses are in Mariupol because it is still a battlefield. The city, which had 500,000 people before Putin invaded, is now a wasteland, with virtually every building destroyed. The International Red Cross has repeatedly attempted to bring in water, food, and medical supplies, but Russian troops will not let them pass.
Do you think the Ukrainians are bombing themselves? Are the Ukrainians blocking humanitarian aid and closing evacuation routes?
Are the photographs of Mariupol fake?
“The Ukrainians”, like any people living in a nation, are not all of one mind. My question is, “How do you know who did the damage”? What are you sources?
The satellite images from Bucha that were dated a week before Russian troops left. The overwhelming majority of nations in the UN.
What are your sources?
Do you doubt that Putin’s military demolished Mariupol? Do you think the Ukrainians bombed themselves? Who blocked the Red Cross from bringing aid to Mariupol?
Thank you, Diane, for your good sense and for your compassion. It’s utterly crazy for anyone to think that the slaughter by Russia in Ukraine is some sort of breathtakingly elaborate hoax. That notion ranks with thinking that the moon landing was a hoax or that George Soros is fielding Jewish Space lasers. It’s idiocy. And it shows the extent to which ideology can be blinding to obvious realities.
Daedalus: All the news coverage, all the videos we are seeing from many news sources from many countries shows the devastation and destruction in Ukraine. Huge apartment complexes being destroyed and you think it’s all faked by the Ukrainians. Do you even believe that Russia invaded Ukraine? News flash, one of the world’s biggest military forces invaded a much smaller country with massive bombing and missile strikes on military, civilian and infrastructure targets. The Ukraine did not invade and attack Russia, get a clue. At this point, the amount of Ukrainian deaths has to be in the thousands.
Yes, I do believe Russia invaded parts of Ukraine.
Also, did you know that Russia spends about 1/13th the amount on it’s military budget as the US? Did you know that the US spends as much as the next 12 or 13 countries, COMBINED! And, Russia is, therefore, at the bottom of that list.
All of that is irrelevant. The U.S. did not invade Ukraine. Putin did.
Who has a bigger military: Russia or Ukraine?
the UN charter says that no sovereign nation should invade another sovereign nation. Russia signed the Budapest agreement in 1994, along with the U.S., UK, and Ukraine. Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for recognition of its sovereignty and security guarantees. Putin must have forgotten.
Has that stopped the US from invading Iraq, or Afghanistan? Has that stopped from the Israeli conquest of Palestine?
Exactly, Joe Jersey.
One can’t make up stuff as crazy as the notion that the atrocities in Ukraine are made up. Let’s start with the fact that this is an ILLEGAL invasion, the Crime of Aggression, under international law.
This is what such comments sound like to me: The truth THEY don’t want you to know: all of this is a CIA film shot on a backlot in the Nevada desert. Russia is actually conducting folk dances in Belarus and conducting cultural exchanges with the Ukrainians, who have greeted them with flowers. This is a US/NATO mischaracterization of the annual Russian/Ukraine Pushkin Festival.
Good one, Bob.
Daedalus, there are interviews with the relatives of the dead in Bucha. You are repeating obviously, blatantly false Russia propaganda. The whole world is watching this, and the denials are absurd. A person who would believe those will believe absolutely anything.
To a science teacher, completely ignoring the evidence from actual observation of phenomena is unacceptable.
To a science teacher, nothing is ‘obvious’. ‘The whole world’ is getting it’s info from ‘sources’ which are dominated by the corporate press. Did you do the observation, yourself? Even so, don’t you know that any particular observation is only a single data point? I mean, Carl Gauss solved that problem 150 years ago.
Chris Hedges was kicked out of mainstream media because he reported on American war crimes in Iraq (he spoke Arabic, which gave him a different perspective). Julian Assange is being tortured to death for showing images of Americans committing war crimes. And, of course, there’s Judith Mill above the fold on Page 1 of the NYT. So, these incidents reported ‘obvious’ situations that turned out to be false.
I annually showed an ‘Ascent of Man’ episode to my advanced physics classes that was hosted by Leo Szilard. It was about modern physics, but was rather political. At the end, Szilard was bending down and bringing up a handful of muck from a pool at Auschwitz. He pointed out that the pool held the ashes of his ancestors, and showing the dripping muck to the camera he said, ‘This is what comes from certainty’.
Science is primarily an inductive undertaking, and induction is not absolute. However, at a certain point, the evidence becomes overwhelming. No one who is rational thinks, anymore, that the Earth is flat. No one who is rational thinks that Russia is not committing, right now, in Ukraine, the Crime of Aggression, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity. The evidence is abundant and obvious. Is it possible to cook up alternative hypotheses? Yes. All this is actually an illusion being fed to your brain, which is in a vat outside the Matrix. Possible? Well, I guess. But completely implausible.
Implausible to you (clearly). But what about the other historical hoaxes promoted to send our country to war, or to facilitate it’s ‘obvious’ genocide of the native North American population?
It was ‘abundantly obvious’ that mass was a constant, that distance was a ‘known’, and so on… until Einstein came along. Also, ‘completely implausible’ is, well, an oxymoron?
Right about “completely implausible.” That’s an oxymoron. But yes, that the Earth is flat appears to me, gullible as I am, to be implausible. Same with the brain in the vat explanation for life, the universe, and everything.
Well, Bob, concepts such a ‘flat’ or ‘spherical’ are generated by the human brain, and those concepts only ‘work’ so long as they are useful for helping us negotiate our future (or, facilitate our continuation as a living species). Earth as ‘non-flat’ works well for now (and has for over 2,000 years), however that may not ‘work’ forever.
On the other hand, when one attempts to demean another’s arguments by ‘reductio ad absurdum’, when one stoops to rhetorical tricks, it’s a sure indication of logical insecurity.
We apparently disagree on Ukraine because I have very little first-hand information and you are ‘certain’ based upon the media you see and hear. I would expect a ‘thinking person’ to keep an open mind, particularly given the lessons of History. We won’t know the ‘details’ for many years, and (like the Kennedy assassination) may never know the full story.
That the human brain has limited access to ultimate realities is a notion strongly warranted by comparative anatomy of cognitive and perceptual structures. We perceive the icons on the screen created by the operating systems of our minds, not whatever underlying realities there are–to complete this metaphor, the states of registers inside the computer. However, that being so does NOT, emphatically does NOT, suggest that there are no realities–that, for example, we might discover that the Earth is actually spherical. That the “operating system” of the human mind creates useful shorthand “icons” corresponding to underlying realities that differ is obvious enough. This has been quite clear ever since Kant. However, the reality of the underlying, correlated phenomena is not to be dismissed as a result. Yes, you have a design that makes you see a car barreling down on you in a particular way, and a creature differently constituted would see it in a different way. But both had better get the heck out of the way of the car. And I think we can safely forgo adding to Navy operations manuals a warning that the ships need to make certain not to sail off the edge of the Earth. LOL.
No, Bob. The Earth is not ‘actually spherical’. It’s how we perceive it with our limited nervous system, for the reasons I previously indicated. And, given my understanding of science and history, I would be surprised if that ‘fact’ [concept] wasn’t changed in the future. Assuming, of course, there is a future for our species.
Assuming, of course, there is a future for our species.
You and I are certainly in agreement about that, Daedalus–about that’s being an increasingly questionable assumption. We aren’t doing anything substantive about climate change. And 77 years after the founding of the United Nations and 227 years after Kant proposed the idea in his essay “On Perpetual Peace,” the world STILL has not coalesced around support for effective means of preventing states from violating one another’s territorial integrity.
Indeed.
Which calls into question the evolutionary benefit of ‘states’, but that’s another topic.
One of the severe toxins poisoning the body politic in the United States is the notion that there is no such thing as truth, that there is only whatever people choose to believe or are forced to believe by the powerful. The Trumpian “post truth” world. Fascists are all over that idea, as are postmodernist D students in philosophy.
And it’s an example of the either-or fallacy, D, to imply that one who believes that there are realities and things that are true and things that are false are absolutists. I detest religious “thought” for precisely that absolutist tendency. All that said, no, there will not come a time when we discover that it was only a perceptual mistake that made us assume that the Earth was not flat. And there is no philosophizing away the murder by Russian aggressors of the children and grandmothers and pregnant mothers and dads of Ukraine. The notion that Ukrainians are themselves killing their populace and laying their cities flat, under direction of the CIA, to make Russia look bad is utterly ridiculous. It’s not simply a point of view among equally warranted points of view.
The top of this morning’s news was about a missile strike on a railway station where many people—mostly women and children—were trying to evacuate.
From the Boston Globe
“KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — A missile hit a train station where thousands of people had flocked to flee in eastern Ukraine, killing 50 people Friday, Ukrainian authorities said, while warning they expect to find more evidence of war crimes in areas abandoned by Russian troops.
“Photos from the scene showed bodies covered with tarps on the ground and the remnants of a rocket with the words “For the children” painted on it in Russian. About 4,000 civilians were in and around the station, the office of Ukraine’s prosecutor-general said, adding that most were women and children heeding calls to leave the area before Russia launches a full-scale offensive in the country’s east.”
Daedalus: how should we interpret this report?
A. It didn’t happen. The photos are fake and the “bodies” are actors.
B. It happened but the Ukrainians did it to gain sympathy.
C. It happened as the media reported.
D. Believe nothing unless you personally witnessed it.
From the Washington Post:
“KRAMATORSK, Ukraine — At least 50 people were killed and 98 injured Friday at the Kramatorsk train station in eastern Ukraine, according to the regional governor, in what Ukrainian officials said was a Russian missile attack as hundreds of evacuees were waiting to escape a looming Russian offensive in the area. Pavlo Kyrylenko, head of the Donetsk regional administration, said the death toll rose from an early count of 39. He vowed on Telegram that the deadly strike would not deter Ukrainian officials from helping citizens who are trying to leave as fighting in the region intensifies. A large piece of a missile landed 100 yards from the entrance of the train station. On the side of the missile remnant, the words “For the children” in Russian were visible as police investigators documented the scene. The phrase in Russian connotes “revenge for our children,” apparently in keeping with Moscow’s rationale that the war is being fought to protect the separatist Donbas region and Russia.”
Whatever the vagaries of human perception, Russian aggressors are, right now, murdering Ukrainian babies and turning Ukrainian cities, full of people, into ashpits. And parroting propagandistic pretexts and denials while this is happening is shameful and borders on collusion.
And unlike in the past, THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING THIS, almost in real time. It’s all there, plainly, to see.
cx: that we might discover that the Earth is actually flat
https://news.yahoo.com/ukrainian-woman-says-she-raped-090126516.html
You are right that none of us has visited Bucha and interviewed survivors to determine whether Russians or Ukrainians perpetrated the atrocities. We can’t believe what we read or see. Why do you choose to believe the Russians? You don’t deny that the Russians invaded Ukraine. I assume,though I can’t be sure, that you agree that Russian troops were sent to take control of Ukraine. That’s the usual reason for a military invasion. I assume you know that the invasion is a violation of international law. What are your sources for believing that Ukrainians butchered other Ukrainians? Why do you believe them?
My guess is that the death toll in Mariupol will be far higher, given the density of population and the Russian refusal to allow the International Red Cross to bring humanitarian aid to those civilians ofMariupol. Do you think the IRC is a reputable source? Do you believe the photographs of Mariupol, which show it as a devastated city of burned out buildings? Whom do you think bombed that city and reduced it to rubble?
The Earth is flat, Obama put chemicals in the water to turn high-school kids transgender, colloidal silver cures Covid, babies are brought by storks, there’s a reptilian alien spaceport under the Vatican, and Russia is liberating Ukraine. All equally plausible.
And isn’t it OBVIOUS that Zelenskyy is actually Elvis Presley, preserved cryogenically and reanimated by the NSA?
One cannot make up stuff as ridiculous as the claims being made by the Russian propagandists and regurgitated by extremists in the US. I’ve tried, here, but my attempt falls short of the transparent and extreme absurdity of those claims.
How’s this one: everything that UN observers, journalists from around the world on the ground in Ukraine, satellite photos, ordinary Ukrainian citizens, etc., are saying about what’s happening in Ukraine is all staged. It’s part of the largest disinformation campaign ever, a film being shot by the CIA in the Nevada desert and directed by the revenant ghost of Elia Kazan with funding by George Soros and the secret head of the Illuminati, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Oh, and Build-a-Bear is a front for Bilderberg.
Trying hard, here, to come up with something as totally uninformed and wacko as the claims made by D.
And what about the pedophiles paid by Hillary to kidnap children and hide them in the basement of a pizza parlor? Ukrainian no doubt. Except for Matt Gaetz.
Yes. Terrible. Perhaps we should all go liberate the enslaved children in the basements of our local pizza parlors.
Hmmm….. Close to name-calling?
Daedalus,
Could it be that it was you who massacred those Ukrainian families? How would we know otherwise? Where is the definitive finding by a neutral entity that you weren’t the one who massacred Ukrainian families? How would we know otherwise? Where is a neutral body to prove it was someone other than you?
Your logic is impeccable.
Do you fit the definition of an ‘internet troll’?
Daedalus,
Do you fit the definition of Holocaust denier?
After all, those folks make the same arguments you do, and make the same false equivalencies. Where is the proof? We were lied to about other things, so this must be a lie, too.
Is there any amount of evidence that would ever convince you that the Russian atrocities happening in Ukraine is not a hoax? I doubt it from your many posts.
Leopold II of Belgium, Enver Pasha, Kim Il-sung, Yahya Khan, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Seko, Milošević, Théoneste Bagosora, Saddam Hussein, PUTIN.
Mass murderers. It’s time for the world to make Putin the last of these.
I meant to type ‘now embedded’ instead of ‘not embedded’. Slip of a bandaged finger.
Clearly, our media is in bed with the Zelensky regime and the US military. Why don’t they focus on the history of support for ethnic cleansing among the people that now live in eastern Ukraine?
On another note: Congratulations to brilliant, learned, compassionate, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson! Oh, and what is the exact opposite of heedless, in all its connotations? She’s that, too.
A leading conservative voice on the atrocities in Bucha:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/04/the-horror-of-bucha/
On rare occasion, I find myself in complete agreement with an article in the National Review. This is one such. Thanks for sharing it, Mr. Safely.
I had one moment of pause when the Editors of the NR, in this piece, suggested that war crimes charges against Putin et al. were moot because the perpetrators wouldn’t show up to be tried. Despite this, they should be indicted and, I believe, tried in absentia where necessary. It’s simply too important for the world body to make the point that if you behave in this manner, you will be brought to justice. A conviction by a UN Special Tribunal would have the positive effects of sending the right message about such behavior and of forever ostracizing the butcher Putin from intercourse with civilized persons on the world stage. It’s time to say, basta. Here’s an excellent discussion of this issue of in absentia trials:
https://globaljustice.queenslaw.ca/news/the-absconding-accused-and-the-icc-an-examination-on-the-legitimacy-and-capacity-of-the-international-criminal-court-to-hold-in-absentia-trials
The ICC doesn’t allow for trials in absentia. Putin, et al would have to be turned over by Russia or by some other country if they left Russia. That’s part of the reason why some war crime tribunals have taken years or even decades and why certain genocides and war crimes still have not had justice.
TOW, I’m aware of what the Rome Statute says. Please read the article that I posted above. It goes into detail about this. The UN makes the rules, and it can unmake or remake them.
Oh I agree! There are several parts of the UN charter that need remaking, as this crisis had laid bare (my 9th graders have point blank asked me HOW Russia has a permanent veto on the Security Council in a situation like this). I hadn’t read the article. Mea Culpa.
These are butchers. What ever happened to “never again”? As the world watches Ukrainians are being slaughtered.
When President Zelenskyy addressed the Security Council, he put it bluntly and correctly. Either you act on his, or you might as well disband. It is long past time when the world as a whole said, this is unacceptable. You cannot simply make up pretexts for violating international law by invading other sovereign states and murdering civilians. The reason for being of the UN is precisely to prevent this from happening and to act to stop it when it does. Zelenskyy also made the point that this COULD BE a historic turning point at which the world finally became serious about the mission of the UN.
Trostyanets, Ukraine lies in ruin as does the villa-home that once hosted Tchaikovsky. Now people line up in front of the Tchaikovsky Music School for Children in order to collect food. The concert hall was used to sign up volunteers for the UKR Territorial Defense Forces.
https://www.classicfm.com/composers/tchaikovsky/trostyanets-destroyed-russian-army-ukraine/
Butchers, rapists, and vandals–the Russian aggressors in Ukraine.
Ukrainians will have LONG memories of this.
So, will the Russians do the same to Odessa? There were evil cretins in the US under Truman who wanted to drop one of the bombs on Kyoto. Another breathtaking cultural site.
I remember the museums being bombed in Tehran in the brutal, illegal, criminal Second Iraq War. Places in the birthplace of civilization housing artifacts of that birth. Of no concern at all to the barbarians in the Shrub maladministration.
You have patience of a saint Bob . I had a back and forth on FB today with a Trumpanzee. It was on a topic relating to the Biden economy When he veered into never never land, I finally turned to him and said he would do better on a Q page than a union. So I checked his profile page and there it was ,the moon landing was fake.
There is no reasoning with the delusional .
Once, Joel, years ago, I was teaching in a Catholic school. I was racing into the office after class to photocopy some papers, and I almost ran into our head hood (this is what we affectionately called our AP), who said to me, “Oh, I thought you were St. Anthony!” I’m not making this up. One of the teachers had lost her purse, and Sister was saying a prayer to St. Anthony for its recovery. “Sorry, Sister. Left the halo at home,” I replied.
I dearly loved that woman. One of the kindest, most generous, most compassionate people I’ve ever known. Extraordinarily giving of herself to the kids and to the colleagues in her charge.
The Ukrainian invasion has also been a colossal disaster for the hapless Russian conscripts sent to fight it. NATO estimates 40,000 captured, injured, or killed.
I am having a difficult time understanding the arguments put forward by the apologists for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. They seem to be saying that Nazis who run Ukraine, in response to Russia’s attempted liberation of the country, have been seized with a desire to murder their own civilians by the thousands and destroy their own homes, schools, hospitals, train stations, highways, farms, factories, oil refineries and storage facilities, and cultural landmarks and that somehow all the ordinary Ukrainian citizens, journalists from around the world, and observers from the UN and from various humanitarian and relief organizations like the Red Cross and Amnesty International are colluding with the Ukrainian Nazi government, successfully, to disguise the mass killing by Ukrainians of Ukrainians and the destruction by bombing of much of the country as Russian atrocities.
This isn’t rational. It’s childish and outlandish and bizarre. It makes Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Jewish Space Lasers sound rational by comparison.
And, given the necessity for a united world response to stop the mass murder occurring in Ukraine, making bizarre arguments like those seems very like complicity and collusion.
Careful, Bob….
Were you ‘colluding and in complicity’ with the killing of half a million Iraqi children due to the sanctions in Iraq? How about the current blockade of Afghanistan? And, of course, Venezuela? Did you approve of the bombing of Hiroshima, or believe the BS that it ‘saved American lives’ by preventing a ‘land invasion’? How did you feel about the genocide in Indonesia (the Jakarta Method)? How about ‘Operation Condor’ in South America? Are you willing to accept responsibility for all of your opinions that might have supported the killings of civilians in the past?
As it has been said, we see ‘through a glass, darkly”, and those who think otherwise are the real fools. But, sadly, it’s the fools who are more persuasive. So, you have a choice.
I was attacked here for calling the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki war crimes. And as regular readers of this blog will know, I have repeatedly commented, often in some detail, about the fact that the Second Iraq War undertaken on false, cooked-up pretexts, was a Crime of Aggression under international law, and involved extensive War Crimes and Crimes against humanity. I have no idea why you would imagine that I support or supported such crimes. I don’t, and I haven’t. More sloppy thinking without factual warrant.
Then, you and I apparently agree. Sadly, the US refuses to join the ICC (as does Russia). Therefore, it’s up to us to control our own country’s atrocious overseas exploits.
Personally, I did some protesting when I was a bit younger, and despite massive rallies in DC and NYC, nothing much happened to change the Pentagon program. So, what are the options?
I think Voltaire (Candide) had the right opinion … Tend your own garden. After many years of ‘engagement’, it’s sad to realize that we can only push the needle a tiny amount.
I doubt that we agree, Daedalus. I think that in a dangerous world, one must have an overwhelmingly strong military capable of deterring would-be aggressions. And I strongly support the NATO defensive alliance, for the reason made obvious by Russian incursions into Georgia and Ukraine. Walk softly and carry a big freaking stick.
Daedalus and Bob,
I see where you disagree. Daedalus suggests that the best reaction to violence outside our borders is to ignore it and cultivate your garden, like Candide.
Bob believes that the world must stop war crimes and atrocities against civilians (through the UN peacekeepers or some other multilateral group) before it becomes genocide and before the perpetrator is emboldened to invade another country.
Why is our world so dangerous? How have we contributed to that situation? Is it human nature to kill one another, as female mantises chew off the heads of their mates?
I found a recently published book by Graeber and Wengrow (The Dawn of Everything) to be optimistic. Anthropology is not my specialty, but their analysis gives one just a glimmer of hope for the near future, assuming we can get there. It also indicates (on the other hand’ that a drive toward division is ‘natural’. So, some positive and some depressing.
Darwin never engaged with the ‘social’ (‘social darwinism’ is a fabrication invented to assuage the consciences of the powerful and dupe those who found themselves dominated). Darwin was concerned with the physical differences that led to ‘species’, or ‘specifics’. Was Darwin ‘right’? Well, at present that’s the best we have to ‘explain’ the complex genetic soup in which we live. As I previously said, that’s our current understanding, but is subject to change in the future.
Yes. See my longer note, below.
And, obviously, whataboutism is not rational argument. It makes no sense to say that the United States government should not have prosecuted John Gotti for murder because . . . Wounded Knee. And repeating Russian propaganda in support of this war at a time when Russian forces are murdering babies and leveling homes and hospitals and schools and factories and infrastructure and cultural landmarks throughout Ukraine is shameful. It’s disgusting.
Some selections, Daedalus, from recent comments by me on this blog:
December 31, 2021
The most evil? Perhaps when the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on two civilian cities at a time when Japan had already been practically leveled by conventional bombing and when the Japanese high command was already debating terms for surrender.
September 11, 2021
Outstanding. The decision to wage war on Iraq is one of the stupidest ever made. And unfortunately, the WAR CRIMINALS who pushed us into this breathtakingly counterproductive and cruel nightmare were never held responsible.
March 21
Dienne, stop, just stop pretending that there are two sides, one of which opposes the war against Ukraine but supported the Second Iraq War. I suspect that almost all of the people who post here opposed BOTH wars FOR THE SAME REASONS, because they were crimes of aggression, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.
The Second Iraq War was, under any reasonable reading of international law, a Crime of Aggression made under false, cooked pretexts, in which Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes were committed.
March 19, 2022
No. It absolutely was not justified in doing this [dropping the two atomic bombs on civilian targets]. The rest of the world understands this. Many in the U.S. do not. At the time when these bombs were dropped, the US had already laid Japan flat, destroying most of its major cities with conventional bombing. The Japanese high command was debating the terms of its surrender. The dropping of these weapons, in my view, was an avoidable horror of the first magnitude.
March 19, 2022
Here’s an interesting read on this subject [of the Second Iraq War]: ex-CIA Director George Tenet’s In the Center of the Storm. He details how the Bush Maladministration manufactured false intelligence to make the claim that Iraq was developing WMDs, and this they wedded to a principle of preemptive force (the so-called “Bush Doctrine”) with only a eunuch’s shadow of justification in international law.
March 11, 2022
The former head of British intelligence once commented that Bush Jr.’s War in Iraq simply spread fertilizer on the little seeds of terrorism.
March 10, 2022
Saddam Hussein was a truly evil fellow. He grew up a street thug and worked for the Ba’ath Party as a hitman. The United States engineered his rise to control of the party and of Iraq. A Frontline documentary describes how in one of his first actions as President, Hussein called a party conference and stationed armed guards at the door of the auditorium. Then, he read out, one by one, a list of those who had opposed him. And one-by-one, the guards took these into the hallway at the entrance of the auditorium and shot them. Thus he brutally made clear how things would work in the new Iraq. He used chemical weapons on the Kurds, indiscriminately killing civilians, including children, in an extraordinarily brutal way. He created an ecological disaster by draining marshlands. He ran a police state. And he had delusions of grandeur. He was LITERALLY rebuilding the ancient city of Babylon (Seriously, I am not kidding), with his name written on every brick. Like Osama bin Laden before him, Hussein started out as our guy (for that story, see the outstanding book The Looming Tower, by Lawrence Wright) but then slipped away. He turned increasingly toward Russia. After Bush Senior sent him the wrong signal (telling the Iraqi foreign minister, Tariq Aziz, that he, Bush, was not interested in Hussein’s territorial dispute with Kuwait), Iraq invaded Kuwait, and, on coaxing from Maggie Thatcher, Bush senior intervened in the First Iraq War. This was legal under international law because it was conducted in response to an unprovoked aggression. Ofc, that wasn’t Hussein’s view. His view was that the Americans and the Brits had carved out Kuwait as a rich client oil state and so stolen the oil fields that were by rights Iraq’s patrimony. I well remember Azis saying, “Those people (the Kuwaiti rulers) don’t even speak Arabic. They all grew up in boarding schools in France and England.” Hussein’s view was that Kuwait was rightfully Iraq’s, and he wanted that oil wealth with which to reclaim ancient glory–for the rebuilding of Babylon. I suspect that most American know little or nothing of all this because they don’t pay attention.
The Second Iraq War was an entirely different story. This was an illegal invasion of a sovereign state on a cooked-up pretext. A really revealing view of this can be found by reading CIA Director George Tenet’s autobiography At the Center of the Storm. Tenet, who can hardly be called a leftist (lol), details how the Shrub maladministration cooked the intelligence and faked the case for WMDs, which became the pretext for the invasion. According to Tenet’s book, the only WMDs found in Iraq were barrels of chemical weapons, supplied to Iraq by the United States back in the days when the two countries were cozy and Hussein was our guy. And, according to Tenet, the U.S. bombed that chemical weapons storage facility to destroy the evidence. In this Second Iraq War, the US ruthlessly carpet bombed the country into submission. That war was an example of two kinds of violation of international law: the crime of aggression and war crimes against civilians. Truly evil, and if there were justice in the world, those who perpetrated it would have long ago stood in the dock at the International Court of Criminal Justice.
Now, Putin is committing the same crimes in Ukraine that the U.S. did in that Second Iraq War, and also on faked pretexts, and it’s just as stupid and evil as the Second Iraq War was. Whataboutism about that is not an excuse. Putin is a mass murderer and war criminal.
Yes, Hussein was a brutal dictator and got what he deserved, but hundreds of thousands of innocents suffered for his crimes, alas.
I think you are playing the whataboutism card.
If the US committed evil deeds anytime, anywhere, we have no right to object to war crimes committed by Putin. Why be troubled by atrocities? I’m troubled. I’m outraged. It’s a nightmare. The world cannot stand by and watch Putin order the wanton murder of Ukrainian civilians -and blocking humanitarian aid and bombing evacuation routes.
The Ukrainian people will have very long memories of this, as well the people of every NATO country in the Russian “near abroad.” I always thought that Putin was a reptilian Chekist, but I didn’t think that he was breathtakingly stupid. Well, he fell into the same trap that autocrats always fall into. He created a climate of fear around himself in which people wouldn’t tell him the truth but, rather, told him what they thought he wanted to hear, and he created a culture of graft and theft from the Russian people that operated all down the line from him. Thus the macabre Keystone Cops Russian military after many billions were supposedly spent modernizing it. Here’s the thing: Putin won’t back down. He’s like Macbeth: “I am waded into blood so deep that to return were as tedious as going o’er.” (I’m quoting from memory, so that might not be exact.) The one thing he cannot bear is shame, humiliation, defeat. He and Trump have that in common. The only way in which this will stop is when his rapists are stopped by force, and what is at stake here is no less than what will be acceptable in the world going forward–whether the world as a whole will insist upon the rule of [international] law.
Careful, Daedalus….
Were you ‘colluding and in complicity’ with the killing of millions of people when you didn’t want to do anything about Saddam Hussein for the decades he was in power? How about all the death and destruction and the oppression of women in Afghanistan, while you opposed taking any action that might stop the Taliban from their extreme repression and violence against women. Did you join Lindbergh in opposing going to war against Germany because what happens to 6 million or so Jews amounts to a hill of beans in your crazy mixed up view of the world. What did you personally support that would have stopped the genocide in Indonesia (the Jakarta Method)? Are you advocating that everyone who isn’t Native American return to whatever country their ancestors came from and give up their property to the people who were slaughtered so this country could support folks like you and your ancestors?
What were you doing to stop the butchering in Chechnya? The same thing you were doing to stop the massacres in Ukraine?
Are you willing to accept responsibility for all of your opinions that supported the killings of civilians in the past, and support them right now, in Ukraine?
Was it your intention, NYCPSP, to write a satire, here, of the attack that D made on me–attributing things he didn’t say to him as he attributed things I didn’t say to me? No sure. But, ofc, Daedalus did not take the stands you attribute to him (or her, as the case may be).
Bob,
Yes, guilty as charged. I know I should refrain from responding, but I think Daedalus lives in a very fragile glass house when he posts like that.
What Daedalus’ post doesn’t address is the fact that non-action doesn’t make one less guilty when atrocities are being committed elsewhere. “America First” (but we have no responsibility for what happened to the Native Americans) isn’t a moral stance. It is simply a choice that causes bad results also. Maybe allowing Hitler to wipe all the Jews off the face of Europe would have “saved more lives” overall but that doesn’t mean that folks who advocated for “staying out” were somehow absolved of those deaths, while folks who advocated for fighting Hitler were completely responsible for all the deaths caused by the war. It doesn’t work that way.
I remember that there were people who didn’t care what atrocities Saddam Hussein committed on his own people or on the Kurds. Many hundreds of thousands dead and these folks were demonizing the US for having sanctions on Iraq to try to force Saddam into some restraint on his complete abuse of human rights by putting sanctions on him because sanctions hurt people.
It’s true that sanctions hurt people, but standing back and letting a dictator brutalize people also hurts people. One choice is not more moral. It is just a choice.
And sometimes, as with Putin’s brutalizing of Ukraine, the best of two choices is pretty obvious. There is not an easy answer as to whether the US should commit troops and I think Biden’s trying to thread the needle here seems the best of all bad options. But when it comes to condemning Putin and using other methods to put pressure on him to stop his brutality and help Ukraine withstand it, how does anyone believe that doing nothing absolves them of responsibility? It doesn’t. But Daedalus seemed to believe it does.
German journalists and the Ukrainian government have released a lot of intercepted radio communications among Russian soldiers specifically ordering the killing of civilians and the shelling of civilian targets. And, horrifically, rape of Ukrainian women by the Russian marauders also seems to be occurring frequently.
Thank you, Diane.
So, a day after being removed from the UN Human Rights Council, Russia has outlawed within its borders a slew of human rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, both of which have reported from on the scene about the ongoing murder by Russian troops of civilians in Ukraine.
We have no intentions of invading Ukraine. We are only conducting exercises.
We did not blow up the theatre full of children and their mothers that was marked Children. The Ukrainians did that to their own children and mothers.
We did not blow up the train station full of fleeing Ukrainian children and mothers and old people. The Ukrainians did that to the Ukrainians.
Our suspension of 30 human rights groups had nothing to do with our removal from the UN Human Rights Council or with the fact that these groups were reporting on atrocities committed by our troops. We have outlawed human rights groups because we respect human rights.
Remember this infamously, obviously false retraction? “I said the word ‘would’ instead of ‘wouldn’t.’ The sentence should have been, ‘I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be Russia.'” –Donald Trump
Welcome to the alternative facts universes of Tsar Vlad, Don the Con, and Putin apologists like Margorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, Madison Cawthorne, and Tucker Carlson.
Universes in which the Earth could be flat, could be roughly a sphere, depending on which you choose to think.
Darwin did not give birth to the theory of evolution. The idea that life on Earth has a common ancestor is ancient, predating the emergence of the city-state and of written records. It’s a theory enshrined in many of the ancient wisdom traditions of the world, and the theory also has deep roots in the Western tradition: ancient Greek philosophers, including Lucretius and, some argue, Anaximander, promulgated various versions of an evolutionary hypothesis. In Anaximander’s weird version, all life originated in the sea, but early humans grew inside fishes. Many peoples of the world have long organized themselves into clans with supposed animal ancestors. So, for example, Charles Eastman, aka Ohiye S’a, tells us in The Soul of an Indian (1911) that his people, the Santee Dakota, trace the ancestry of their clans to a progenitor, Little Brother Man, who mated with various animal brides, whose progeny were those clans. So, the idea of nonhuman animal ancestry of humans has been around for a long while. Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was a proponent of the evolutionary theory, and long before Darwin published the Origin, educated Europeans were familiar with the theory, though it was considered controversial.
Second, Darwin also did not coin the phrase Survival of the Fittest. That phrase was coined by the intellectual gadfly and popularizer Herbert Spencer. Rather, Darwin advanced the theory of Natural Selection, a description of the mechanism by which evolution works. The theory is simplicity itself. Darwin noticed that organisms are not alike at birth. They differ in their traits. He also noticed, influenced by Thomas Malthus’s An Essay on the Principle of Population, that not every creature could survive—that in competition for scarce resources, some would thrive and some would fail. Those organisms whose traits enable them to survive long enough to reproduce will have those traits passed down to subsequent generations. Those who happen to be born with traits that do not enable them to survive to reproduction will, ipso facto, not have progeny carrying those traits into subsequent generations. Of course, Darwin did not know the underlying biological mechanism that produced variations of traits among organisms. That knowledge would have to await the rediscovery by science of Gregor Mendel’s paper on the genetics of peas. It’s genes that encode for traits, not the traits themselves, that are passed down.
Oddly, most people of Darwin’s time reacted to Darwin’s theory with horror. In an 1860 debate at Oxford University, Bishop Samuel Wilberforce reportedly asked Thomas Huxley whether it was through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed his descent from a monkey. Such superstitious aversion to evolution persists even today, especially in the United States, despite overwhelming evidence of evolution provided by animal breeding, comparative morphology, the fossil record, genetics, and molecular biology. Disbelief in the basic science is especially common among the poorly educated (only about 30 percent of American adults have four-year college degrees). In her book Going Rogue (2009), former beauty-queen and Vice-Presidential running mate Sarah Palin wrote that she didn’t “believe in the theory that human beings—thinking, loving human beings—originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea” or from “monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees.” Ms. Palin’s horror is not surprising in someone who devalues nonhuman animals to the extent that she evidently does. As governor of Alaska, Ms. Palin threw her weight behind aerial hunting of wolves and removing polar bears from the endangered species list, and she is an avid hunter herself, a hobbyist murderer of wildlife. In 2008, in her first major public address after being selected as her party’s vice presidential candidate, Ms. Palin revealed her astonishing degree of ignorance of evolutionary biology, saying,
Sometimes these dollars go to projects having little or nothing to do with the public good—things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not!
A day or two later, her running mate, Senator John McCain repeated this talking point. The bit about the fruit flies wasn’t just another piece of rural idiocy from the former beauty queen. It was written for her by McCain’s advisors. What she said was the campaign’s official line. This leads one to wonder: How does someone get to be a United States senator or the governor of one of our fifty states without knowing that fruit flies are the most common subjects of genetic research and that much of what we know of genetic mechanisms comes from studying them? Anyone with the slightest interest in science, with the slightest curiosity about how the universe around them works, would surely know that. Anyone who occasionally read books or magazine or newspaper articles about scientific topics would know that. We are at a point in the history of our species at which we have sequenced the genomes of ourselves and of many of the creatures with which we share this planet; when we are developing genetic therapies for the over 4,500 diseases with a known genetic component; when we have developed techniques allowing for the creation of genetic chimeras, creatures with genes borrowed from other species; when we are at the brink of controlling our own evolution and possibly, even, of creating new human subspecies. And yet, at such a time, those who would lead us know nothing, NOTHING AT ALL, about genetics, not even what is known by, say, someone who has recently completed an elementary school science curriculum.
The Wilberforces and Palins of the world cannot see the astonishing beauty of the fact that we and all the other creatures on this planet, from the smallest viruses or bacteria to the great Sequoias and blue whales, are, literally, one family, that when we destroy the salmon and the tuna and the dodos and the passenger pigeons, as well as Kingman’s Prickly-Pear (date of extinction: 1978) and the Columbia Basin Pygmy Rabbit (date of extinction: 2007), we are literally killing off members of the great family to which we belong.
Reactions to Darwin’s book were mixed. People at the top of the Western power structure disliked, of course, the notion that they were not created first and given absolute dominion over that afterthought, the rest of created beings, but they LOVED the notion of the Survival of the Fittest, for this they took to explain the actual dominion that they had, by the late nineteenth century, enforced throughout the world. John D. Rockefeller, the ruthless creator of Standard Oil, called such monopolies as his and the weeding out of competitors the “way of nature” that gives us marvels like the American Beauty Rose. The wholesale slaughter, enslavement, and subjugation of indigenous peoples throughout the globe was taken by followers of Spencer’s Social Darwinism, which horrified the gentle and reflective Darwin, as proof that they, the white Europeans, were the fittest of peoples, and justification could be found in the notion that they were simply following the dictates of a nature “red in tooth and claw,” as Alfred, Lord Tennyson, and Jack London (borrowing Tennyson’s phrase) famously described it. Such Social Darwinism, as this version of the evolutionary theory came to be called, appealed, in particular, to those atop the emerging capitalist hierarchy. In our time, evolutionary theorists have anguished over “the problem of altruism,” for example, and over the “problem of homosexuality,” for neither seemed explicable in terms of survival-to-reproduction of individuals. It turns out, however, that altruistic behavior is rather easily explained in strict evolutionary terms. The classic formulation of the answer to the “problem of altruism,” in evolutionary terms, was given by W. D. Hamilton in 1963: If you are so built as to cry out when a predator approaches your pack or clan, you might well be eaten for your trouble, but some of your cousins, carrying some of the same genes you do, might survive. From the perspective of “selfish genes,” it makes no difference whether you survive or whether two of your siblings or eight of your cousins do. And homosexuality and bisexuality are also easily dealt with in the context of the theory. One incredibly successful survival strategy is cooperation, and sexual behavior, in addition to serving the purpose of mate selection, can also serve the purpose of increasing group cohesion, as does grooming. The now-well-documented fact that most higher vertebrates are bisexual in both genders and use sexuality not only for mating but also for group cohesion purposes, rather as they do grooming, is explained by this line of reasoning, as is the fact that in every human culture in which there have not been explicit cultural prohibitions against homosexual behavior (as, for example, among the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Apache), bisexuality has been the norm. In other words, it is probably the case that when it comes to sexual orientation, “You have to be taught/before it’s too late/before you are six, or seven or eight” to restrict yourself to partners of the opposite gender.
The main point, however, is this: Natural selection is simply the differential survival and reproduction of organisms, and all those attributes that make for goodness, such as nurturing, hard work, cooperation, compassion for and generosity toward others, and concern for not fouling one’s own nest, ALSO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SURVIVAL OF ONE”S GENES. (The population geneticist Joan Roughgarten, in her book Evolution’s Rainbow, is particularly eloquent and persuasive on this point.) It’s time to throw over the Man the Hunter myth for a more nuanced theory of human evolution and cultural development (Grandma the Knowledgeable Tuber Forager is a good place to start) that takes into account the ways in which such traits enabled us to flourish by working together. And it’s time, as well, for us to recognize that the ethic of exploitation, extirpation, genocide, and ecocide that has characterized Western culture in the past four centuries is not natural but is, rather, an aberration, for it is not in the evolutionary interests of any creature to destroy its own habitat and to run through, unsustainably, in a short time, the resources needed for its continued survival. The way of cooperation, the way of the UN, is our future or, frankly, we shall have no future.
In other words, the great lesson of evolution is not that we are genetically predisposed to exploit. Rather, it’s likely that just like other great apes, we are genetically predisposed to cooperate and to be opportunistic. In this respect, we apes are a lot like crows. These big brains of ours have more to do with the sexiness of being bright and with the ability to work out and maintain complex, cooperative social relations than they do with giving us the capacity to figure out how to kill or dominate whatever is weaker than us. And now that we have developed these big brains, perhaps we ought to start using them to build upon the best of our genetic inheritance, on our ability to love and to cooperate and to nurture and to care for our planetary nest and, at the same time, to relish and protect our freedoms (that opportunism I mentioned earlier). And because we humans are one big family, we have a duty to use our big brains to end genocides and wars and atrocities like Putin’s “special operation” in Ukraine.
Another great revolution is occurring, right now, in evolutionary science–epigenetics–which falsifies previously held simplistic notions about genetic inheritance. It turns out that environmental conditions have powerful influences on gene form and expression and can make significant differences in what genes get passed to offspring, the forms that these take, and whether they are expressed in outward traits (phenotypes). So, the stuff that used to be said and that, alas, persists in high-school textbooks–the stuff based on twin studies that purported to establish rigid heritability of traits like intelligence was wrong. There are some Lamarkian factors at work. For a SUPERB introduction to this emergent field of epigenetic science, see Jablonka, Eva and Mary Lamb. Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life. Rev. ed. Bradford, 2014.
Was this written to me, Bob? I think I mentioned Darwin (don’t know that Diane did).
Copernicus is given credit for asserting that the Earth revolved around the sun. In fact, Hipparchus stated that position, and it really depended upon which ‘real’ reference frame you decided to adopt. Some reference frames are more ‘useful’ than others.
Copernicus, however, was resisting the ‘official dogma’ of the European Church. However, before he published, he sought and obtained the permission of the Pope. Galileo was a generation too late to get the Pope’s blessing.
Darwin spent a great deal of time on the ‘Beagle’ documenting diversity. He, likewise, revived an old perception, but with added detail. And, in doing so, he directly confronted the remnants of the Age of Darkness (European Church). That doesn’t mean that Darwin is trivial (in the common sense of the word).
All animals (and plants) seem ‘predisposed to exploit’. However, some do it individually and others in cooperative groups. I agree with you that cooperative effort (for humans) is the best course for the continuance of our species, but that’s my opinion.
And, about ‘big brains’… Is that an asset or a death sentence? After we are gone, bacteria and algae may very well remain until the sun expands and cooks the earth. Neither have brains.
I was not correcting you on this, Daedalus. I was expanding on your point.
Oh…. Thanks.
BTW. Here’s a pretty cogent article on Ukraine background by someone who probably knows better than I: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/#comments
Jacques Baud is a pro-Russian conspiracy theorist who previously worked for Russia’s state foreign television service, RT. Here, from the Wikipedia France page on him:
Jacques Baud . . . fait cependant l’objet de critiques pour avoir relayé plusieurs théories du complot.
Jacques Baud is a subject of criticism for having spread several conspiracy theories.
Selon le journaliste Antoine Hasday, publié par Conspiracy Watch, un entretien de Jacques Baud donné à RT France « coche toutes les cases du conspirationnisme géopolitique »18. Ce dernier, parfois invité par les médias traditionnels, est également intervenu sur la web-télévision d’extrême droite TV Libertés, ainsi qu’auparavant sur RT France18. Interviewé sur cette dernière chaîne par Frédéric Taddeï en septembre 2020, il minimise notamment le bilan humain de la guerre du Darfour qu’il réduit à 2 500 morts (contre 300 000 selon l’ONU) et nie la responsabilité de l’armée syrienne dans les massacres à Homs en 2011 et dans les attaques chimiques de la Ghouta, de Khan Cheikhoun et de Douma entre 2013 et 201818. Reprenant à son compte l’argumentaire officiel du régime syrien de Bachar el-Assad, il affirme également que les photographies prises par le photographe militaire « César » ne sont pas celles d’opposants politiques morts sous la torture, mais de soldats de l’armée syrienne18. Jacques Baud blanchit également la Russie en estimant que l’empoisonnement de Sergueï et Ioulia Skripal a été causé par une « intoxication alimentaire » et que l’empoisonnement d’Alexeï Navalny est probablement « le fait de la mafia »
According to journalist Antoine Hasday, published by Conspiracy Watch, an interview with Jacques Baud given to RT France “ticks all the boxes of geopolitical conspiracy”18. The latter, sometimes invited by the traditional media, has also intervened on the far-right web-television TV Libertés, as well as previously on RT France18. Interviewed on this last channel by Frédéric Taddeï in September 2020, he minimizes the human toll of the war in Darfur, which he reduces to 2,500 deaths (against 300,000 according to the UN) and denies the responsibility of the Syrian army in the massacres in Homs in 2011 and in the chemical attacks in Ghouta, of Khan Sheikhoun and Douma between 2013 and 201818. Taking up the official arguments of the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, he also claims that the photographs taken by the military photographer “Caesar” are not those of political opponents who died under torture, but of soldiers of the Syrian army.18. Jacques Baud also whitewashes Russia by considering that the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal was caused by “food poisoning” and that the poisoning of Alexei Navalny is probably “the work of the mafia”.
So, he’s your guy if you want summaries of the Kremlin propaganda line on any subject. However, I will post about this specific article as soon as I am finished with it. (I started it. I noted that there is a propaganda tell at the very beginning of it: “it is not a question of justifying the war,” which suggests, of course, that that is precisely what he is going to attempt to do. He then goes on to say that “it is not a question of who is right in this conflict.” Russia has committed the Crime of Aggression and a multitude of Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, under international law, in Ukraine, and has been doing these things since the early 2010s. But I guess that Monsieur Baud is paid well to ignore these and make up pretexts for them. He then goes on to say that “The term “pro-Russian” suggests that Russia was a party to the conflict, which was not the case,” despite the fact that from early on in the conflicts in Donbas, Russia has been sending in troops, first with irregular uniforms (Russian little green men), and then, dropping all pretense, out-and-out regular Russian forces). But, I’ll continue. It’s always fascinating to learn what apologists for murderous dictators are saying.
So, it’s clear up front that this article is the equivalent of a piece of Sean Hannity or Laura Ingram or Tucker (spell that with an “F”) Carlson on Faux News. But I shall address the rest of it shortly.
An account as old as War, and another name to add to those where the wrath of an occupying army was visited on the civilian population. It is the most depressing, disturbing or anger-building aspect of reading military histories when you reach the part when a good historian does not spare you from the costs heaped upon the civilians.
Here is the evidence of a demoralised, frightened, angry army, falling back, lashing out venting its frustration; one cause of the Wrath. What will happen now, is that gradually the words ‘Russia’ or ‘Russian’ will become associated with brutality and butchery; as has happened to many nations before. Which is unfair on many Russians.
The acts also increase the chance of NATO becoming directly involved, as pressure grows to punish The Kremlin Court even harder. Some might say this is all part of Putin’s new strategy, to have a show-down with The West over Europe.
He should bear in mind, those who start wars of this magnitude do not always get to finish them.
What will happen now, is that gradually the words ‘Russia’ or ‘Russian’ will become associated with brutality and butchery; as has happened to many nations before. Which is unfair [to] many Russians.
Yes! This is what the reptile, Putin, has done to his country. Ukrainians and all the NATO countries will have very long memories of this evil.
I so want to see Putin and his henchmen in the dock at a special UN Tribunal. But I would settle for him ending up like Mussolini or Gaddafi.
Yes….He wouldn’t be the first Czar to be on the wrong end of a Court Coup….
Or is Soviet style ‘retiring’ through health concerns and dying suddenly.
The damage done to relations with the West and Western supporters will take Russia itself a long time to repair…. That’s assuming this war does not step up to NATO involvement which is another matter entirely
Bob…
Calling someone a ‘reptile’ is beneath you. Putin is as human and mammalian as you. And, of course, why are reptiles automatically considered repugnant? Time to stop the rhetorical tricks designed to make it seem that killing Putin (or Russia) is just like squashing a spider in your house. This is how people are trained to kill other people.
Let’s rely upon our ‘through a glass, darkly’ human logic instead of equating people with other life forms. Please, Bob, don’t go down that path.
Thanks for the dispatch from the Alternative Facts Putinist Universe in which Ukrainians are murdering their own citizens–babies, toddlers, pregnant women, grandmothers–by the thousands because they are just zany like that.
Sorry, the Putin comment was unfair to reptiles.
I see that you emphatically reject my appeal to engage in a logical way (devoid of rhetorical name calling). I’m sorry to see that ‘Bob’ Somehow, I thought that you might be more ‘rational’, but my hopes appear to be misplaced. You have encouraged me to waste my time.
Daedalus, I am utterly appalled by what Putin is doing in Russia right now. It breaks my heart. Yes, I am emotional about this. But not irrational.
Let me ask you this, Daedalus, do you support Tsar Vlad’s decision to make calling the most recent of several Russian incursions into Ukraine a “war” instead of a “special military incursion” a crime punishable by 15 years in prison?
First, you ignore my main points (whaboutism, the suppression of the American press, and my ignorance about what Putin actually thinks). As a result, you have not given a ‘response’ at all.
‘Tsar Vlad’ is you up to your rhetorical tricks, again. Rhetoric works, but it signals a need to bolster an opinion because of inadequate logic.
Tsar Vlad is an extremely accurate characterization. It’s not hyperbole or a rhetorical trick. He is now a breathtakingly wealthy absolute ruler in Russia but one dependent upon networks of spies and secret police and wealthy cronies, just like the Tsars before him. But among these, he is an activist Tsar–one who has published his imperialist manifesto, “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians,” which is an extended argument for the recreation of a Eurasian Greater Russian Empire. So, he has illusions of becoming his namesake, Vladimir the Great of Kievan Rus’.
No one is going to arrest you here, D, for posting that piece by M. Baud. So much for suppression of speech and the press in the US. Quite a difference from Putin’s Russia.
And Putin has left a long, slimy trail. The world knows what he is, and those who didn’t just got a wakeup call.
And I did address the whataboutism issue. I said, in some detail, that both the latest invasion of Ukraine and the Second Iraq War were crimes of aggression, on false pretexts, involving extensive war crimes and crimes against humanity.
I did want to comment on your characterization of M. Baud. He was associated with NATO, and your criticism of his analysis was entirely an attack upon the author (ad hominem), not the substance of his paper. That’s rather ‘Trumpian’, isn’t it? Again, effective, but not at all logical.
I thought of doing that, Daedalus, but it’s all ground we’ve hashed and rehashed in these comments for over a month now. I have my limits. I’ve addressed all this stuff many times. It’s transparently false Putinist propaganda, abundantly refuted, and obviously so.
Baud simply repeats the Kremlin line. ALL of these points have been addressed in comments on this blog ad nauseam already. I refer you to the comments on Diane’s earlier posts about the Ukrainian conflict. So, for example, yes, there are neo-Nazis in the Ukraine. There are also neo-Nazis in the United States, and Zelenskyy and his government are not Nazis. The man is Jewish, for crying out loud. And no, the Ukrainians are not a pro-Russian people longing to be “liberated” by Russian troops and made into a Russian client state. The freely elected Ukrainian parliament, the Rada, voted overwhelmingly to remove the last Russian puppet president, Yanukovych, from office and shortly thereafter issued a warrant for his arrest for mass murder. Yanukovych fled back to Grandfather Putin. And Zelenskyy was overwhelming elected President of Ukraine with 73.2% of the vote. And the argument that Putin had to invade to prevent having more NATO on his borders makes no sense whatsoever. If Putin were successful in annexing Ukraine, this would create ADDITIONAL NATO borders along the border of his new “family-sized” Russia. And, at any rate, NATO is a DEFENSIVE alliance, and Russia has nothing to fear in terms of an incursion into its territory by NATO and hasn’t had since it obtained nuclear weapons. I’ll stop there. Your comment reminds me of those who say, “See, THEY don’t want you to know the truth about the shape-shifting reptilian aliens among us. They refuse even to address the arguments.” Can they prove that there aren’t? At some point, it’s a waste of time to explain why the transparently, obviously false is false. Should I write a long piece explaining why Trump was wrong to say, repeatedly, that stealth airplanes are actually invisible? At some point, one simply says, “Basta.” This is too crackpot for discussion.
neither were honored by Ukraine
correction: neither were honored by Russia or Ukraine
The same Alternative Facts Universe where the Earth is flat and Unborn Baby Sings like Elvis because the truth or falsehood of any proposition is simply a matter of how one chooses to view things. LOL.
OK. I’ll try to stick to dictator, homophobe, liar, mass murderer, sociopath, kleptocrat, criminal, imperialist, chauvinist, mob boss, dissembler with the moral compass of parasitic wasp larvae.
But hey, go ahead, D. Believe the folks who repeat the nonsensical, imperialist disinformation from Mr. “I have no intention of invading Ukraine,” the guy who has spent decades murdering opposition leaders and journalists, the one who remade the Russian Duma into one made up of elected officials whom he chooses and voters have only the right to approve, the one who has shut down all opposition media in his country, the one who recently called for a purging of the country of dissenters. Go ahead, believe that guy. Putin, Stalin–brothers from another mother.
Stalin appears to Putin in a dream, and Putin asks him if he has any advice.
“Yes,” says Stalin. “Kill all your enemies and paint the Kremlin blue.”
“Why blue?” asks Putin.
Odd. I thought is was the US that wants to kill Assange. Curious, one finds it hard to read Sheer or Hedges in the NYT nowadays. And, our ’emgargo’ on Russia (and others) involves stealing from people that deposited their money in US banks.
You may find this amazing, but I don’t have a direct line to Putin. Come to think of it, I don’t think Putin is actually allowed to broadcast on US media. Come to think of it, I think it’s the US that has imposed a ‘media blackout’ on all info coming from Russia, so …..
But, you may use the ‘whataboutism’ criticism, so… Consider this: Once there was (possibly) wise man who advised that one should ‘ignore the splinter in your neighbor’s eye before you tend to the log in your own’. That’s ‘whataboutism’ in spades.
Do I really have to post here the many interviews with Putin by American journalists, posted on or broadcast in American media? The many, many interviews with Putin’s spokespeople?
And, do you think that American media should have done more to ensure that member of the German American Bund and the American Nazi Party got more airplay? Oh, wait. They did. And every time I open a news feed, now, there is Putin giving a speech, Peskov being interviewed, etc.
And since Hedges and Sheer and Oliver Stone and the other off the deep end Putin apologists have been so effectively suppressed here, you must not know anything about what they’ve had to say, right? Because none of that is available.
But, ofc, it is available to anyone who cares to open a browser or Youtube and do a search or get on Amazon or Barnes and Noble and order a book. Because this is not Putin’s Russia, where the conversation is strictly controlled from the top.
I can’t open my news feed right now without encountering Dmitry Peskov or Sergey Lavrov. Do you think that Julia Ioffe or Masha Gessen or Gary Kasparov or Vladimir Kara-Murza is similarly all over Russian media? Nope. Oh, no. Kara-Murza was poisoned, twice, by Putin’s thugs.
Did you mean to say ‘Zelensky’ instead of ‘Putin’? Seems to me ‘Z’ is getting far more airtime, lately. Of course, I don’t watch TV much, so maybe Putin is a commentator on CNN.
But. as i said, ‘Bob’, the United States needs to tend to the beam (or log) in it’s own eye and stop butting into the business of people halfway around the world.
Daedalus, the notion that the war would end if only Ukraine agreed to the Minsk Agreements is absurd. First, there were two different Minsk Agreements, so I don’t know which you are talking about. Second, under both, the Donbass region would remain part of Ukraine, though under the second, Ukraine would make them relatively autonomous states in a Ukrainian federation, and that’s not what Russia is requiring now. It has declared these independent republics (but, ofc, Russian puppet republics like Belarus). But here’s the big one: Third, why would you think that another round of “let’s do Minsk” would end the war in Donbass WHEN IT NEVER DID BEFORE. These agreements were practically splattered with the blood of the ongoing conflicts at the moment of their signing.
If only Ukraine would surrender, the war would end.
Why do they insist on their independence, their right to strive to be a democracy, their freedom not to be a Putin-owned principality?
Oh, and another thing. Both Hedges and Sheer were ‘respected’ NYT reporters, but made the mistake of actually reporting the activities of US actions in the Middle East. Oops.
Do you question which sovereign nation invaded another sovereign nation?
Ukraine did not invade Russia.
Russia invaded Ukraine.
Putin assembled almost 200,000 troops on the border.
He said that he had “no intention” of invading Ukraine.
But he did.
What should other nations do? Nothing, because it’s not our business.
There were voices like yours in the late1930s and 1940.
None of our business. Ignore it and it will go away. “It’s our fault because of the Versailles pact, which created Hitler.” All true, but if we had done nothing, Europe would have been overrun by Nazis.
Ukraine did not invade Russia.
Russia is reducing Ukraine’s cities to rubble.
Don’t you believe Putin should stop the war and stop the killing?
Dianne..
I do not question the fact that Russia invaded the Eastern region of Ukraine. Nor do I question the fact that the government of Ukraine has been the recipient of tons of weapons from us prior to this invasion. Nor do I deny the fact that 2 accords were signed in Minsk, and neither were honored by Ukraine. Nor do I deny that one of the first things Zelensky did was to officially declare that Russian was not an ‘official’ language, thus smacking a huge ethnic population in the face. Nor do I deny that his military minions (or, perhaps, masters) instituted a civil war (oxymoron) on the people in the East many years ago.
Now, those ‘people in the East’ may not want to be part of Russia, but neither do they want to be shelled by the ‘Azov Battalion’. I’ve seen estimates that up to 14,000 have been killed since 2014, but where was the outrage? Where was the ‘Western Media’?
I get it. You are not against Putin’s war. You think the Ukrainians forced Putin to invade and attempt to take control of the entire country. You regret that we are sending arms to Ukraine. I don’t.
It’s true that Zelenskyy has been omnipresent on American TV.
Why doesn’t Putin appear on “60 Minutes”? I bet the producers would love to get an interview.
Why doesn’t he defend his war to the UN and go to every other venue?
I think he knows he is an aggressor. He stole Donbas and Crimea, now he wants more.
Why is he criminalizing all protest inRussia?
He wants all of Ukraine.
He dreams of reassembling the Russian empire.
Let him say so to the world.
One other thing, Dianne…
Zelensky could stop the war by simply reaching an agreement with Putin. Probably all it would take would be to implementing the previously agreed upon ‘Minsk’ accords. The US (and NATO) don’t want that. Neither does our corporate media. Neither does our ‘arms industry’.
Any relationship is a ‘two way street’. Blinken’s interaction with his Chinese equivalent made it crystal clear that the US is in a ‘My Way or the Highway’ mode at this time.
The New York Times is a private entity. It can decide who and what it wants to publish.
Bob…why are you wasting your time and talent today?
Good question, rratto. In hopes of influencing the opinions of others besides those actively engaged in this conversation. Tossing seeds upon the wind.
But let’s deal, specifically, with RT America (RTA), the platform that Chris Hedges was reporting for and that disappeared, along with Hedges’s stories. First, it wasn’t the US government that shut down RTA. Sickened by the pro-Putinist, anti-Ukrainian propaganda on RTA, Meta (parent company of Google) and Facebook chose not to continue carrying it. These are private companies. That was within their legal right. If Hedges doesn’t own his content that was on RTA and cannot therefore repost it elsewhere, that’s his problem. He should have considered his contract with RTA more carefully. But if he did own his content, he could do that. Nothing in US law would prevent him from doing so. If he has a beef about his content disappearing, he should sue RTA. Maybe his buddies in Russia will pay up. Second, RTA was not a news organization. It was a Russian State Propaganda organ, the content of which was controlled by Putin’s government. It was allowed to operate freely here in the US. The US government did not ban it. In the United States, we do not have strictly state-owned major media organs, though US citizens can access Voice of America, if they want to, which is operated by an agency of the US government. Even publications like Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times, and Marine Corps Times, and Defense News are owned by private entities, in the case of these, The Sightline Media Group. In the US, media of vastly varying slant operate freely, from World Socialist Web to Truthout and Alternet and The Nation and Democracy Now to The Atlantic and The Washington Post and CNN and The New York Times to The National Review and CATO to Breitbart The Washington Examiner and Fox News and The Daily Stormer. In Russia, alternative news sites have been closed down by the government and almost all news is via state-owned, Putinist broadcast media.
state-owned or tightly state-controlled, with assassination or imprisonment for any journalist who dares go against the Putinist Party Line. Complete Thought Control.
No, Bob… Stop ‘shifting the goalpost’ and attacking the messenger instead of tending to the message. Let’s talk about Hedges. What did he say that was a lie?
Hedges was axed from the NYT because he (a speaker of Arabic) came up with stories based upon his interviews in Iraq. The NYT was all (Rah, Rah, Sis Boom Bah) for the killing of Iraqis (and, Muslims in general, excepting the Saudis, of course). In order to continue in his profession (journalism) he needed an outlet, and there was RTA. I think Red Barber had paved the way, and I think (not sure) that he reported that the amount of censorship he encountered was far less than that he experienced in American media companies.
Now, Hedges has been erased by Youtube (not the Russians). Russian conductors have been stopped from performing in the US by Americans, not Russians. The Russian Tea Room has been covered in graffiti by Amercans, not Russians. I could go on if I had the energy.
As they say, the first casualty of war is the truth.
The New York Times was, indeed, a cheerleader for the Second War in Iraq. This was shameful and disgusting.
Yep. And now the question becomes, “Why was the NYT a cheerleader?”
I once edited a column for a local paper (and wrote occasional editorials). As you can imagine, our little stable occasionally butted heads with the overall management. On one occasion, as we going into a meeting, the chief editor turned to me and stated, “You have to understand, a newspaper is first and foremost a business”. This was a ‘slap upside the head’. I had always thought that a newspaper was a newspaper, and that’s why it had First Amendment rights. Even at the local level,hosever, ‘big money’ calls the shots.
You are right about that. The concentration of ownership of news media in the US and the reliance of the media on ad revenues are enormous threats to democracy. We desperately need to start enforcing anti-trust legislation in this country.
Once again, Yep. And that would be tending to the log in our own eye.
I’m probably out of this discussion for a few days, but it’s good to end on a conciliatory note (major triad chord). Peace.
Yes. On that we are agreed.
RT was an is a creation of and creature of the Russian government, serving as a tool for propaganda, not news. It’s a creature of the Russian equivalent of 1984’s Ministry of Truth. It’s in no way a free, independent news organization. Putin has eliminated those in Russia.
But I used to check it out sometimes to see what the official line coming out of the Kremlin was, as I check out Fox “News” to find out what the global fascist movement is up to.
It’s Russian state-controlled media, but all media in Putin’s Russia are now state-controlled.
Also, Bob, your characterization of ‘State owned or tightly controlled state associate assassination’ of reporters pretty much fits the Assange affair. Or, the Saudi assassination of Kashogi (our ‘buddies’), Hmmmm?
In theory, we have more control over our own government (of course, the Princeton Study showed that the only ones with influence are the wealthy). So, why not concentrate on those areas where we may have a chance at some influence?
On the other hand, if one is in approval of US imperialism, well, we citizens need to sit back and ‘respect our elders’.
So I take it that you consider Julian Assange some sort of hero? He’s not.
Not that I have any desire to go down the time-wasting rabbit hole of arguing that with you.
We can thank Julian Assange for the election of Trump in 2016. “But her emails!”
Exactly. And you can thus thank him for empowering the likes of Stephen “Goebbels” Miller, for every child separated from his or her parents at our border. Gee, thanks, Julian!
Julian was so blinded by ideology and by his desire for self-aggrandizement and self-protection that he was a willing tool of the Russian manipulation of the 2016 election. Treasonous.