and this just...

Wow.

Since I do try to hear other points of view, I figured I'd read an article with a headline indicating the left was overreacting on the war crimes but -

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/01/war-crimes-hysteria-on-the-left.php

And, well, here's the thing. 

Trump clearly uses Twitter to float trial balloons, and then walkbacks or tries to find a 'legal' way to do things that don't go over well. 

I only had to see the back and forth of some of his earlier chaotic policy changes to figure that out (remember the whole 'banning Muslims' thing?)

So, sure, he hasn't actually committed a war crime. 

That is only because of the feedback he gets. 

If you don't make it crystal clear that it's NOT ok... Well, do you honestly think he'd rein himself in?

Which is pretty much why I wrote my previous post. 

We, as a people, need to send a clear message that it's a bad idea. 

So very, very, very bad. 

And I am disappointed that too many people are willing to blindly support him, to the point where they'll actually try to justify committing war crimes, instead of send that message. 

Untitled

I had a bit of discussion on Twitter yesterday, and I'm sort of upset about some of what I'm seeing, so I figured I'd try typing it out here.

In college, I tried a variety of things. Tai chi. Ballroom dance. Hapkido. 

One of the things that stuck with me was that martial artists have options.

If someone attacks you have choices -

Block it. 

Hit back. 

Dodge it.

Move with it, make them overextend and lose their balance... And throw them, or put them in a joint lock, or whatever. 

Its easy to narrow your focus, get tunnel vision, and think it's binary... But it's generally not. 

So what disturbed me on Twitter was all these people acting like we only had two options - be weak and do nothing, or commit war crimes.

Like... We have a whole range of options. Do nothing, sure. Sanctions. Striking military targets. 

Why did so many people seem to jump straight to war crimes?

I cannot express how... Disappointed I am right now.

Because it's not just the President. It's all the people who support, enable, and encourage him. 

I find the ones claiming to be Christian to be the most offensive, personally. (Turn the other cheek, anyone? If you sit in silence for 10 minutes and are honest with yourself, do you really think Jesus wants this? It's insulting to all the good Christians I respected and admired that these people claim to speak on behalf of them, and Jesus, and God.)

But really, all of them, no matter what their reasoning, are enabling this. 

So much for the rule of law. 

So much for principles. 

So much for truth, justice, and the American way. 

Apparently, for some of us, those things are as strong as tissue paper. 

God help us all. 

Odds and Ends

I've been reading that book on Stalin, and it brought up a bunch of other things that I decided to type out here... hoping to untangle the complex muddle.

As usual, there are about a million caveats to everything, and I'm only doing a superficial look at some pretty deep topics.

Guess it's a good thing I'm writing this in a semi-obscure corner of the internet. ;)

Okay... where was I?

So this history book was talking about some of the factions within Russia's revolutionary movement (i.e. Bolsheviks vs Mensheviks), as well as the cultural support for autocracy, and various other things that I really don't have the cultural context to understand. (Autocracy? Really? I don't see why you would dismiss the hundreds of years of history we have proving what a bad idea this is... but okay. Seems plenty of Americans today agree, given that they seem bound and determined to recreate a strong authoritarian figure with few checks and balances on their power. More fools they.)

Anyways. Lenin (and Stalin) seemed to support the idea of some sort of technocratic elite guiding the peasantry... which, honestly, is part of why far right and far left are sometimes not very different from each other. I mean, when you propose a strong central authority that 'knows better' than the ignorant masses... it's pretty much the same sort of system no matter what fancy labels you put on things. You just get a different group at the top of the heap. (Like the 'children's book' I keep mentioning, Hope for the Flowers.)

I say contradiction, because we were founded as a republic... with the belief that 'all men are created equal', and yet many of our Founding Fathers were slaveowners who clearly did not believe that lofty ideal. And we created a system where the masses could vote, except that we actually restricted voting rights to land-owning white men, and put in place the electoral college and Senate to help counterbalance the masses.

Do we believe that average citizens can make wise decisions, should have a say in their government, and should be represented by said government? Or do we really believe that there are people who 'know better', and should guide us to the 'right' decisions even when the 'ignorant masses' disagree?

Yes, I put single quotes around those things to highlight the phrases that generally embody an elitist attitude.

There are times when I get... well, both points of view, tbh. We - fallible human beings that we are - have a tendency to get into fads and things, and can sometimes be very foolish indeed. I don't think I even have to use political examples for this - just look at business, and the various fads that sweep through corporate America, like Lean Six Sigma. (Which is not to say the fads are bad, necessarily, but all too often businesses seem to jump on the bandwagon because that's what all the other cool businesses are doing, and they aren't actually doing the work to manage change effectively, so no matter how good these ideas are they become yet another 'check the box to keep the boss happy' kind of thing.) Or businesses decide to sell the physical assets they own, because that's what the cool accounting strategies say to do... and then some years later we can't get the addition or upgrade to our warehouse because now we're renting it from someone else, and that owner doesn't support doing so. (An oversimplification.)

Consider economic bubbles, and how every Christmas some toy is the latest craze. Tickle Me Elmo, anyone?

And yet, despite the craziness of humanity en masse, there are problems with letting a 'technocratic elite' make all the decisions.

First and foremost, the tendency to grow arrogant and dismissive of views that don't agree with yours. After all, you know better. It happens so much so that the Law of Unintended Consequences shows what a powerful force it can be. The tendency to live in a bubble, where you only see a narrow view of an issue, and thus have trouble coming up with real solutions.

Then there's all the usual problems of groupthink and whatnot - if your technocratic elite all go to the same sorts of schools, and all get trained to think the same way, then you don't have a very diverse body of thought... and tend to dismiss the out-of-the-box thinking that comes from those who don't have the same background.

Which almost inevitably seems to happen. I don't know why it is, but God (or evolution) seems to love putting talent and creativity in out-of-the-way places. So much so that I tend to think this is more firmly on the 'nurture' side of the nature-vs-nurture debate. As soon as one group gains control and manages to shunt out competition in one area, it stagnates and stultifies and some completely different area starts flourishing almost as a counterpoint. (i.e. Hollywood started as a place for creatives to make movies... then when it got locked down and commodified to the point where it became formulaic and less creative, we got the growth of indie films. YouTube... well, you have to wade through a lot of crap and mediocrity, but you can also find golden nuggets of creativity there. This is part of why I say that any time you hear complaints about a 'talent shortage' what you really have is a pipeline problem. We are bursting with talent and creativity, and if you struggle to find it you should take a long, hard look at your recruiting system.)

So... sometimes the people who study a topic really do know better, and sometimes they really don't. Which doesn't really help much, does it?

More and more, I keep thinking of something my brother said a long time ago - that the true virtue is wisdom. I forget what philosopher he was drawing on for that, and I'm sure I'm misremembering it, but there's a lot of truth to it. Wisdom is the difference between boldness and foolhardiness, caution and cowardice.

There is never going to be a perfect system. Whatever system you come up with, there will be flaws. And people who will try to exploit those flaws.

The system only works when the majority of people are wise enough to make it work, and to avoid those flaws. (And boy, oh boy, is there a lot of foolishness going around today... as people who really ought to know better are one by one dismantling all the checks and balances and various measures to keep the craziness in check.)

This whole debate is also, in many ways, similar to the debate over whether or not we elect politicians for their judgement or to implement our will.

To which I will say... yes.

Or rather, it is the interaction between the two, the debate as someone 'knowledgeable' tries to persuade others to their point of view (and succeeds or fails) that is important. We shouldn't blindly go with the masses when we truly think their wrong, and we also shouldn't blindly assume we know better and ignore the masses.

It should be a dialogue. And one in which we are open-minded, and continue to evaluate/assess our policies. (This ties back to some earlier posts on whether it's better to have a good plan, poorly executed... or a bad plan, well executed.)

I honestly don't like getting too caught up in any specific ideology, because all of them are short-hand for a complex and messy reality. If that particular way of looking at things is useful, great. If it isn't, try another. (In public policy we called it 'evidence-based practice'. I want what works, not what you've convinced yourself will work. And that again is a very superficial statement on a deep topic, because how do you decide what is a sign something is 'working' or not? Works for who? How?)

So anyways...

Stalin (and Lenin, who led the Bolsheviks initially) made a mistake, to my mind, by deciding that his technocratic elite knew better than the peasant masses. It meant that when the Bolsheviks came to power they also ruled as autocrats. I think. Still reading up on that, ofc.

Which is not to say that the Mensheviks were right, either.

Or rather, to bring in yet another complex subject -

It's a bit about how some change comes from the top down, and some comes from the bottom up...

And the most effective changes really do both. There's support from the top, and support from the bottom. If it's only from the top, it's like all those business fads I talked about earlier - people check the box and mouth the words, but drag their feet and continue to do things their own way... and just sort of wait for the people at the top to leave, or get tired and move on to a new best thing, or whatever.

And if it's from the bottom up, with no support from the top, then it generally doesn't get the support it needs and just makes people frustrated and cynical.

(This also, btw, shifting gears completely because it's my blog and I can do what I want... is part of why Trump has demonstrated what a horrible leader he is. Or maybe the difference between being a founder and taking over a large and complex organization as a CEO well after the organizations history has been established. You see, anybody who has ever taken a leadership position in the latter has had to deal with the sort of resistance I just described. There's organization history. An established way of doing things. And people are resistant to change. You have to convince them that the change you want to make really is for the better... and managing that change is a talent a great CEO will have.

All this talk about a 'deep state' is because Trump doesn't know how to deal with those sorts of problems. I mean... JFK had a fit - iirc, can't find the details online - because he wanted a sign for the CIA headquarters taken down and it took far more work than it should have to find someone in his own government who could get it done. These are the challenges you deal with in any sort of large-scale organization.

But Trump is labeling that sort of leadership challenge as 'traitors' and a 'deep state'... because he really, really, really sucks at leading in any sort of organization where he can't just rule by fiat.

Such a shame his supporters are willing to tear down any such obstacle to doing that. We fought a whole revolution against a king, and made it clear we don't like kings, and these guys are essentially trying to reinstall a de facto king. It's about as un-American as you can get.)

Anyways. Lenin and Stalin's belief in a top-down technocratic elite was wrong.

And I find myself wondering what would have happened if someone wiser had prevailed (and why does so much of this history seem like a horror story, where the worst decisions keep getting made, over and over again? Did someone put a curse on Russia? And why do I keep sensing parallels to our own history today, where I fear we will continue to get people making foolish decisions. I hope I'm wrong, because I don't really want to see what happens if the foolish powers-that-be don't wise up before it's too late.)

Some Musings on Rasputin

I finished the book on Rasputin. It was interesting, thought-provoking, and yet I'm not really sure what to make of it.

There are a lot of different layers to this. Rasputin himself, of course. The rumors and conspiracy theories surrounding him. The effect of that on Russia, and the Romanov dynasty. How much of it was Rasputin himself, or the tsar and tsaritsa, or I don't even know what.

The author did a good job of portraying the complexity surrounding him, I think. I also think I keep trying to place this in my own context, and run into some definite cultural differences.

What do I mean by that? Well... if I were to consider someone holy, I would expect to see certain things. Great compassion, for example.  A lack of the pettiness and fear that is all too common in we more worldly people.

And... maybe this is Peter's influence on the Roman Catholic Church, but... not a lot of sexuality? Or if it's there, it'd be the wholesome kind. (Explaining that would take a whole other blog post, I think. The most conventional example would be a devoted husband or wife, but what I suppose it's really about is the difference between making love and f***ing. And I don't associate 'making love' with the sort of creepy, borderline predatory, behavior that seems to be documented w/regards to Rasputin. He doesn't seem to have crossed that line, so far as we can tell over 100 years later, though there are numerous accounts ascribing some sort of hypnotic power to him and that adds another layer to the incidents described.) Plus there's the drinking...

The reason I say that's a cultural thing is that apparently there's some sort of history of the starets, which I don't quite understand and may be getting mixed up with other things, but seems to allow for a sort of holy peasant, and part of that may include drunkenness? And even rudeness? Idk, I definitely seem to be lacking the cultural context to understand that.

He sounds like... well. Like most people. A mix of good and bad. Except his mix was particularly dramatic, with the 'good' seeming almost holy and the 'bad' making others view him as a con or a fraud.

I can almost see why the tsar and tsaritsa dismissed so much of the criticism of Rasputin. From their perspective, I'm sure it seemed like yet another example of the sort of BS people believe about those in power. The sort of thing you don't give credence to by addressing. Except that, in this case, that seems to have been a mistake.

So I also find myself thinking about what the best way of handling it all would have been. Should have been.

I also wonder, sometimes, why there was so much blatant lying going on. Like... I get how rumors can get exaggerated and twisted. Anyone who has played the childhood game of 'telephone' should know that.

But to deliberately say something you know is false?

I said before that I kept wanting to label people 'good' and 'bad', except it sometimes seemed like it was more a matter of 'a mix of black and white' and 'a mix of even more black, though still some white.'

To add another layer to this, I can't help comparing the events over 100 years ago to the world of today. Oh, not in any obvious way. But that feeling of conspiracy theories growing, and taking on a life of their own? Of the truth not mattering in the slightest?

Of everything balanced on a knife's edge, ready to tip one way or another at any second?

Yeah... that's eerily familiar right now.

So, anyways. Finished the book. Liked the book. Lots to think about.

And, of course, I started another one. This time it's about Stalin, because I've found I sometimes get interesting insights when I read a different book on a somewhat similar topic. Not sure how quickly I'll read it, but that tactic is already showing itself... as I try to place Stalin's childhood experiences and some of the comments on Romanov policies towards Georgia (and a bit of foreshadowing about the fall of the Romanovs) into the context of Rasputin and the history I just finished.

Edit: oh, and what the heck was ip with their police? And administration, in general? Like, the police were investigating Rasputin. Then stopped. Then started again, and followed him for quite a while... But only some of this seemed to be done with the knowledge of the tsar and tsarista? Clearly they weren't as in control as you'd think for an autocratic system. And even though that seems like an obvious statement, in some regards, I always thought that had more to do with the challenges of one (or two) rulers administering an entire nation and not so much that the police seemed to do their own thing? 

Oh, and Merry Christmas

Since that article caught my eye, and I wrote a post for the first time in ages, I suppose I should give a quick update. And wish everyone a Merry Christmas.

Seems everyone's schedules were better suited to celebrating Christmas early, so I was visiting the fam yesterday and a few days before, but came home last night. My poor puppy has been on antibiotics since Thanksgiving, and making sure he gets his daily dosage has been a real pain. (also worried about whether it'll do the job, since we didn't get a definitive diagnosis, and the costs, but for now he's mostly fine).

Being home alone for Christmas day itself is kind of weird, but I called various relatives (even though I just saw some of them) and it's been okay. Got to talk with my sister about the latest Star Wars movie, played some Christmas music, caught a few good Pokémon..

So quiet, but kind of relaxing. 

There's some potential changes in the works, maybe, but I don't want to post anything public until it's more likely to happen. 

So - Merry Christmas everyone :) 

Alienation

I don't necessarily agree with his analysis of the causes here, or the proposed solutions, but I think this article captures something very important about what the average person experiences in the world today -

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/josephbernstein/in-the-2010s-decade-we-became-alienated-by-technology?__twitter_impression=true

One of the best quotes:

“Alienation online — and perhaps offline as well — is not ingrained,” he wrote. “It comes from a reflexive assumption that powerful political and media institutions don't care, won't listen, and will not respond.”

Don't care?

Won't listen?

Yeah. And like that study a few years back, about how much the wealthy are able to influence policies and law (and how little the average American does. As shown by how there's still been little to no change on hugely popular policies like changing marijuana laws), too many people feel like what they think doesn't matter.

In a weird way, that's what some Trump supporters feel. Weird in that they then support a guy who doesn't really have their best interests at heart, but I guess I should give credit for making them feel heard or something.

Anyways. 

Alienation. We are seeing the effects of mass alienation, and those feelings seem to manifest in a variety of dangerous ways. 

I just wish that the people who could do something to change that - the ones that don't seem to care, or listen, or respond - saw that for the problem it is and actually addressed it. 

Doggie Health Problems

So over Thanksgiving, the people who were housesitting for me had to take my youngest dog - Phoenix - to the Vet ER.

He had a fever of 106, was pretty much not eating or drinking. Or moving.

After a few days with an IV, and antibiotics in the IV, he was doing much better and I was able to bring him home... but we didn't really know what the root cause was.

He'd tested positive for something (neospora, I think?), and the antibiotics clearly helped...

But when he was first brought in they said he had almost no white blood cells. Or platelets.

Like, possible diagnosis had ranged from tick-bourne illnesses, to genetic immunocomprise issues, to fighting off a severe infection somewhere.

At a check up last week, they'd checked his blood and had seen the white blood cells returning, so that was good.

But today, well... Today they said he was running low again.

Which means that we haven't found the root cause, and he's not really okay. He's fine, for now. Still on antibiotics (and trying to avoid eating them when I give them to him). He's acting more like his old self, energetic. Playful.

But it will probably come back unless we run more tests.

And here's the thing. I don't like putting a price on my dog's life, but I'm also not comfortable committing to paying whatever it will take to fix this. Because I've already spent over $1000, more like $1500-2000, on his care and treatment.

If I knew that doing a ~$700 CT scan would find the problem, and that treating it would only be a bit more, I would totally do it.

But we're talking about tests, when we don't really know what's wrong in the first place. Maybe that will find it, maybe it won't.

And then, once we do find it, we have to treat him. Which could mean surgery (if it's an infection in his head, for example). Which would be... what? Another $1000?

I'm already annoyed that this set me back (wanted to spend this whole year paying off debts, and all that. Now that I've graduated and am gainfully employed.) If this had occurred in another year or two, I think I'd have been fine. But... right now? It's like the cliche - two steps forward and one step back.

There's always some unexpected emergency.

So I have this possibly gigantic bill coming. Or maybe not. But at what point should I say it's too much?

Ugh.

He's so young, though. And otherwise seems in perfectly fine health. Like, how can I not agree to doing whatever it takes?

Some days...

Some days I really wish I didn't have to struggle within these constraints. (And yes, I know I'm already better off than most.)

What would it be like, to have the resources to do what I truly want to do in life? What would it take, to get there?

And can you get there, while still being a good person? ('cause, you know, very many of the ones we hear about in the news don't seem to have managed that. Seriously.)