I worked with AI back in the '80s, and back then several start-ups were peddling "Inference engines" for $500 or so a copy -- software that you could feed "rules" and it would give you answers.  They didn't really work -- demonstrations looked great so long as the domain was very limited and artificial -- and they soon disappeared.

We still have materialist-type neurologists insisting computers are capable of great feats of logic, and that is true, and they are wonderful for mass data storage and sorting and fact calculation and modeling, but they don't "experience" the world the way they do and everything is of a reflexive nature, without real sentience.  The problem is we just don't know how the human brain (and many animal brains) produces sentience, and until we do we will not be able to do it in machines.

Of course the efforts should still be carried out.  Maybe they will succeed and thereby we will better understand our brains, but I'm not optimistic and think most of it is hype to get funding or tenure.

I like the idea of "scripture" -- writings we can depend on to give us hope and counsel and so on, but the Old Testament just doesn't qualify.  (A couple of books in it, like Ecclesiastes, might).  Most of the OT is just the writings of nationalistic Jews trying to set themselves above the rest of mankind.  All cultures like to try to do this some way.

What we need is some sort of world council to set a better canon -- one less narrow and with better moral standards.

Sigh.  Of course this will only lead to ten times as much assistance to the Peshmerga forces, and to all their other enemies, if not a public outcry for direct British involvement.  How stupid they are.

Phycalist materialism

I think the widely imagined scientific materialism is not so.  Most scientists avoid the issues involved, and are rather unsettled about it.  Materialism of course (there is nothing but matter and the void) went out the window at the beginning of the twentieth century when physics taught us that matter is nothing but a kind of compressed energy.  It tended then to be replaced by "physicalism," but that is much harder to define -- there is nothing but energy and the void just doesn't make it, since we also now know that there is no void, at least in our cosmos.

We use to have a sense of what "matter" is.  This has been destroyed and there is no good way to define "energy."  It has properties and can usually be measured, but it can also be "potential."  It is more a case of balancing the books than have a real "thing."

A problem for the physicalist is what to do about consciousness and sentience and all that.  Of course it is brain activity, and brains are physical, but that is about all we can say, and we suspect there are things going on in our heads of which the neurologist will never know.  Things we feel and experience seem inescapably outside science.

Still, that is not a license to go off into the wilderness believing that we have mental feeds from our toaster.  All we have the right to say without evidence is that we don't know.

Vietnam now, it seems, is officially a market economy with socialist orientation.

I wonder what "socialist orient market economy" means.

I suspect it means the party plans to privatize a lot more businesses, but out of respect for the past, it will still use the word "socialist" somewhere -- just oriented, you understand, in a market economy.  For those not attuned to these subtleties, "market" means "capitalist," but that word is rarely used in polite Vietnamese society.

Bombing Japan

The Japanese bombings are difficult to be rational about, or even to think about.  I know my parents and grand parents told me that at the time they were delighted, considering the difficulties and hardships brought about by the war, but they later had misgivings and ended up thinking some other way to end the war would have been better and that probably Japan would have surrendered anyway once Russia entered the war, but we will never know.

Morality instinct

I think evolution provided us with instincts to stick with the ideas and behaviors we are taught as children (in some cases the childhood indoctrination), so that when we go against them we feel bad things (guilt, fear) and when we follow them we feel much better, relaxed and even full of joy.  The evolutionary benefit of this should be easy to figure out.

Our "conscience" is one of those things we are taught -- the mores and rules of our culture.  Hence people can end up doing perfectly awful things but feel nothing if they were not taught against it in childhood.  For the most part, however, because of a sort of natural selection among cultures, what the culture teaches is fairly moral and usually a reasonably good guide.

Our beliefs are another thing -- which can have the serious downside that we believe things stubbornly rather than changing them into opinions subject to critical scrutiny.  These beliefs can be compared to furniture we sit on without noticing they are there -- we don't see them as subject to question and can react emotionally when others do, sometimes in some cultures with deadly effect.  I have found meditation about such things useful.

Whether or not "good" and "evil" exist as objective realities in themselves is a philosophical question.  I feel that we should analyze our beliefs about good behavior rationally, rather than the emotions our instinct produces, but this is hard -- not just to recognize the effect the instinct is having on us (such as creating harmful revulsions) but also to force ourselves to avoid intuitive judgments.  Various philosophical schools have tried to reduce the rational process down to deduction from fundamental principles, with a good deal of success, although in some cases with difficulties in highly artificial theoretical scenarios.  Study of this ethical history is a good idea if one wants to discern what is really good and bad rather than what our culture and instincts tell us.

We know that some people seem to be born without the instincts described above, and feel no emotions when they do wrong -- the tendency is seen to run in families (hence is genetic) and is usually called sociopathy.  I think this phenomenon serves to provide extremely strong evidence of the correctness of my opinion as described above.

Morality without religion

I think religion makes people more inclined to follow the precepts of that religion's teaching.  Whether this is more moral or not depends on the details of that teaching.  A religion can bring about, instead, extremely immoral behavior.

The person without religion has to make up their own minds and assume personal responsibility for what they do.

Here is a view of the founders of the US -- I think maybe more objective than what one usually gets.  Every country seems to want to deify its founders.  The American Founding Fathers were, except for Franklin, white male aristocratic wealthy landowners (Franklin was probably America's first millionaire and was a self-made entrepreneur).  They were fairly spread over the political spectrum, from the extreme right (Hamilton) to the center right (Washington and Adams) to the extreme left (Paine and, slightly less extreme, Jefferson).  The actual constitution was written mainly by folk in Washington's camp, the Bill of Rights by folk in Jefferson's (Jefferson opposed the original Constitution).

They were of course all well educated gentlemen, with but a couple of exceptions not Christian but Deists, although except for Adams they didn't ever express much antipathy to Christianity in public.

Many of them owned slaves and to my knowledge only Adams ever expressed any dislike of this -- being from Massachusetts that would not be surprising.  Jefferson appears we now know from DNA evidence to have been a hypocrite on that subject, having had a slave woman for his mistress (this was about then but he adamantly denied it), and not freeing any of them until his death (such manumissions for slaves close to the master were common).

The political system they created was in my opinion not very good, and has not been among the reasons the US has been so successful.  Presidential systems are inherently subject to gridlock -- something that at one point led to the Civil War and which has always, except in a few periods of one-party rule (reconstruction), hindered American political action.  After the Founders passed, very few men of distinction made it up, and then by accident -- Lincoln, TR Roosevelt -- because the political election system and general franchise fosters non-intellectual and emotional and -- well politicians rather than statesmen.

Reincarnation (rebirth)

I have had experiences that I could interpret as traces of a past life, but if one lives in a culture where it is taken for granted -- much as many Americans take Heaven for granted -- such experiences cannot be trusted entirely, but are nevertheless suggestive.  I think people around the world have such things happen to them but unless their expectations are clued, they dismiss them.

The claims just can't be tested scientifically any way I can think of.  Therefore a rational person has to withhold belief, and leave it as an opinion that it seems likely, and no more.

I will say though that a universe where sentience is like electric charge or energy -- preserved but constantly changing -- the idea sure makes sense.  It is way too easy, though, to go overboard here -- this is speculation since no one knows what sentience might be or where it might came from (although actually much the same can be said of electric charge or of energy).

One must be compassionate and not judge, but one also must not be naive and unwise in thinking everyone out there is good.  Most often the good ones are on the side of right and the evil ones on the side of wrong, and an objective observer has little trouble telling them apart.

More belief mockery

Believers should not get away with putting their beliefs or their faith outside the limits of rational attack by arguing that each person has freedom to believe what they want (or with any other tactic, for that matter).  They don't want to question their beliefs and don't want any one else to bring up things that are uncomfortable to them and raise doubts.  Attacking such beliefs on rational grounds is not a personal insult unless one uses invective.

Faith is one of those things.  The meme called "Christianity" has this teaching -- that God gives you faith.  It is really clever.  If you don't believe, then God has overlooked you, so you believe and attribute it to God while in reality it is a cop-out for believing what you have been indoctrinated with and want to believe.

I've seen the testimonials of people who have "come back" and their testimony of the joy and relief they felt.  Breaking with indoctrination is hard -- one feels guilt and fear -- and giving in and going back to the indoctrination gives you relief from that plus a good dose of serotonin to boot.  Thus most of those who have been indoctrinated into rigid beliefs in childhood either stubbornly stick with them in spite of reason, or they become hostile (sometimes extremely so) to those who "did that to me" and hate their prior religion.  Neither is healthy.  Rational skepticism in the absence of "belief" or faith -- with just reasoned opinions -- is the best.

Belief mockery

That others mock us doesn't mean we need to mock them, and, in fact, we are better off if we don't -- both from a karmic viewpoint and from how the world sees us.  (Karmic viewpoint = how our behavior affects or changes us.)

Mockery, though, is much in the eye of the beholder.  Usually the one handing it out doesn't see it as such, and is insensitive -- or the opposite may be the case and the person who thinks they are being mocked is too eager to assume it.

Criticism is not mockery.  Nor is humor.  Not even both of them together is mockery.  I would make my feeble effort to define mockery as requiring a malicious element in it.

Some rules of English grammar that should be dropped.

1.  Eliminate the insistence on "complete sentences."  Sometimes sentence fragments are just fine and in fact effective.

2.  Stop fussing about correct use of pronoun case.  "Me want a cookie!"  is wonderful.  Of course in that case humor is intended, but a sentence like, "She gave pencils to Mary and I" has the benefit of avoiding the alliteration and is not usually misunderstood, sounds natural, and even if it is a case of being "over-correct," so what.

3.  In that vein, the language should eliminate "whom" except as object of a preposition (where "who" still is distractive).

4.  Ban "shall" from legal documents.

5.  In fact, only allow "shall" in the polite request, "shall we" to keep the distinction between it and the question "will we?"

6.  Stop being so fussy about agreement between subject and verb.  All kinds of subtleties would become possible if the rules weren't so rigid.

7.  Change the punctuation rules at the end of the sentence to be logical by stopping the insistence that closing quotes must be outside the end-of-sentence mark.

8.  Drop the fussing about comma splice and other uses of the comma and make its use optional depending on need for clarity and style.

9.  Agree that a period is optional after common abbreviations such as "Mr".

10. Don't worry about dangling participles.  So what if someone can read it in a ludicrous way -- they won't, and if they do that's their problem (or maybe gain in pleasure). 

11. Allow use of a period rather than a question mark except for sentences intended to be questions but are not grammatical questions.  "Are you happy."  "You are happy?"  Rhetorical questions should also not need a question mark.  (Basically that would mean the question mark would indicate up-tone).

I would lie to someone who demands information I don't want to give and to which they have no right.  Refusing to answer is not a good solution, as then they assume the worst.

Pearly gates

I would much prefer there were pearly gates awaiting me than either rebirth (which I think likely but does not preserve me, only my "life spirit," whatever that might be) or extinction (a distinct possibility).

However I am too proud to let what my intellect tells me be overcome by what I would like.

When there is no note and no sign (depressive behavior is not really a sign -- unless they talk about killing themselves or the hopelessness of life) then one wonders and hopes the police do their job.

I wish the world were wealthy enough that everyone could talk to a mental health specialist at least once a month.  Absent that maybe they should put anti-depressives in the drinking water (of course that is absurd, but I do know people who are not depressive but still take anti-depressives and they are happier).

There are two things I would say to a suicides survivors:  First, do not judge.  They were depressed, and that is a disease condition -- one should not judge them any more than one would judge someone who dies of some other deadly disease.  Second, do not feel guilty -- even if the suicide note blames you.  Again, it is the disease talking.  Sometimes we think, "If only I had done such and so."  No -- we are not supermen and cannot read minds.




Well, at least that is what I've learned from my counselors (fortunately I have insurance that covers that stuff).

If there is a "God" who has a physical form, they you should get rid of the capital "G."

Pills for sleep, constipation

I'm a believer in not suffering if there is a pill available to fix the problem, but I learned the hard way that this approach should be avoided when it comes to sleep and to constipation.

Abuse takes many forms, and sometimes parents abuse their children and don't know it.  Ignoring the child when it wants attention, or insulting it by telling it it is bad or stupid or some such thing, or teasing the child and embarrassing it in front of others, or relentless tickling or roughhousing when the child gives "enough" signals, or, of course, punishments that involve denial of food and such.  We can even abuse a child by failing to hug it or tell it you love it and will care for it.

That abused children often (more often than we care to admit) do the same to their children is an ongoing disaster.

Insomnia

There are all sorts of books peddling all sorts of nostrums for insomnia, some of value others questionable.

The best sleep advice is to go to bed and get up at the same time every day, weekends and holidays included, have a dark and quiet and cool place to sleep, don't have a TV or reading lamp in the bedroom, and if you don't get to sleep just tell yourself you are getting rest anyway and that helps and stop worrying.

Nice clean sheets, a comfy quilt, a mattress you are comfortable on, and lots of pillows to wedge here and there (different sizes and shapes and fluffiness) too, but take care you don't end up just rearranging the blankets and sheets and pillows all night.

Finally, find out what foods and drinks contain stimulants and avoid them, and try some warm soup.  Avoid pills and alcohol -- they seem to help but are traitors.  (There are exceptions to this but it is a good general rule).

I understand that one should have a ritual before going to bed -- especially taking a warm shower or bath -- and avoid TV and computer and bright lights and even reading (although personally sometimes certain books put me to sleep).  Sleep also goes better if the room is either pitch black or you wear eye shades; they take getting use to but I carry them with me all the time in case I want to take a nap somewhere.




If you have any sort of chronic pain or cough, get up and deal with it if you can.  That can be a real bitch when you are awake and there are no distractions.

Everyone is much nearer death than they imagine.

Evidence of God

I would like to respond to the argument that atheists would not accept any evidence that God exists short of personal revelation.


It is not correct.  There is evidence I would accept, such as an asterism in the form of the Tetragrammaton.  I would probably accept the clear occurrence of a miracle done under controlled conditions, but religionists have an excuse for why this doesn't work similar to the one psychics use -- it goes away when you control the conditions.

Or, perhaps, the Bible were really the spiritual book people say it is, and the history of religions were not so bloody and hypocritical, or if religion really did have an uplifting effect on its adherents.  This would not be as persuasive as an asterism, but it would be good evidence.

If you want to claim something so important and so extraordinary as God, you have to realize with intellectually mature adults the default is going to be skepticism.

I should stipulate -- theistic religions.

I must say, also, that personal revelation is probably the last thing I would accept.  I don't have so much ego as to think such a thing would be real instead of my own mind.

Science is not just experiments: it is also observation and thought.  Astronomers, for example, rely on mathematics and thought experiments and coming up with scenarios to explain observations (one cannot experiment on black holes, but one can study them).  Ideally one's scenario should go further than just explain observations but also predict things that observers can then go look for.

Daydreaming

I day-dream for at least a half hour every morning after I wake up but before I get up.  It is very pleasurable, and there is to my mind nothing wrong with pleasure taken in moderation.

Of course after I am up the world comes at me in force and mind wandering like that is subject to so many interruptions it becomes impossible.

People sometimes kill themselves.

Others are judgmental about it.  Some say if they want to do it they should go ahead and do it and get out of everyone's hair with their self-pity.  Others say it's a sin against God.  Even others say it's caused by demon possession.  Finally, and this is probably most common, there are those who say the suicide had to be insane to do such a thing.

There are many reasons people do this, and a lot depends on the culture.  The Roman aristocrat who fell on his sword rather than be executed in one of the brutal ways Romans tended to execute people was doing the honorable thing.  Many societies see some suicides as honorable.

Most of us can imagine a scenario where we would kill ourselves -- incurable disease combined with unremitting nausea would do it to me (pain I can handle better).  Probably also a disease that promised in the future to render me helpless and a burden.  We all die someday and some things are worse than death.

However, suicides today most often are associated with the set of diseases put together as "depression."  Those who have never experienced it have to remember that this is not "being sad."  It is another thing entirely.  It is a cloud of blackness that pushes you down and doesn't let you think at all clearly but only makes the world hopeless with no escape.

One thing to remember is that depression is not insanity in the usual sense.  It is a mental illness, but not one that involves irrationality (I sometimes think it is a case of being too rational).

Psychiatry has tried all sorts of ideas on how to deal with this, and often can have a temporary effect, at least until the depression passes, but then they lose the patient next time around as the disease figures out the psychiatrists tricks (not unlike the cancer evolving resistance to the treatment).

It is true that how we look at the world is a great part of the problem -- the old "glass half empty or half full" sort of thing, but knowing this does a depressed person little good.  Truth is, one can always think up the negative side of things, as the world is not all that good to people and most young people have their ambitions squashed fairly fast anyway.

It is purposeless to try to find a purpose in life.  The vast majority of us have only one purpose in our existence -- to give life and happiness to our children.  This is something of an evolutionary trick, since usually the children don't turn out as expected and sometimes turn on us, and we have to adapt.

In the end the only real treatment for depression is going to be medical, not psychiatric (psychiatry is seen as a branch of medicine, but its methods and training are different).  The widespread bias against dealing with emotional problems with pills needs to be overcome -- diseases are best treated with pills, although in some cases other forms of intervention can work.

There is no guilt associated with being depressed -- the tendency runs in families and is just part of the baggage we are born with.  It is useless (and in my opinion evil) to tell the depressed to get over it and stop being so self-involved.

Finally, there is no guilt associated with someone who has actually committed suicide.  They should be treated as anyone else who has died of a chronic disease.  The death should be reported as such (not covered over -- society needs to know the reality) but without blame or shame or as a scandal.

Causality as karma

I don't think it's necessary to use the possibility that the universe was once a singularity to say the universe breaks "its own rules."  The rule is that of causality, and we know this rule is constantly broken, that causality may be something of an illusion based on probability and the statistical "law of large numbers" rather than something inherent to existence.

It reminds me a little of the Buddhist and Hindu idea of karma -- what you do has consequences.  We know those consequences are not preordained but just made more likely when you behave certain ways.

Everyone is much nearer death than they imagine.

The life we find on the earth occupies but a vanishingly thin layer near its surface, even when you count deep rock microbes.  It has no effect at all on what goes on through the main mass of the planet.

Distinguish between life (complex molecules with that mechanically reproduce themselves using material from the immediate environment) and sentience (the experience of life and sensory input and emotions and thoughts).  The biosphere is not sentient and is composed mainly of things not sentient.  Anyone who says otherwise needs to prove it.

Russia is getting scary

I did a survey of several Russian newspapers available in English on the internet.  They all take the same line. 

The difference between this and Western reporting, where newspapers are all over the place -- although in the Ukrainian case both leftwing and rightwing papers are similar and the exact opposite of what Russian readers are getting -- is striking.

It is discouraging too.  There is plainly no freedom to publish against the government in Russia -- something that can only be said to be fascist.  That is a strong word and a few have taken me to task for using it to describe Putin, but I think the evidence is strong. 

There is the resurgent militarism and military boasting, the use of nationalism for political purposes, the clamping down on the press and other forms of expression, the use of hoodlums and criminals as enforcers, the close ties with cartels and industrial lords, and of course the anti-gay campaign (pick a disliked minority and persecute them).  It is all too familiar.

Russians in Ukraine

I must say I have a real problem with Russia thinking it has the right to meddle in other countries to "protect" the rights of Russian nationals there.

That was the excuse Hitler used to seize Czechoslovakia, and it was no more valid then than now.  A nation should act as much as possible to protect overseas citizens and nationals, but not nationals of another country, no matter what the cultural links.  The only exception is when human rights are involved, and then it should be without regard to the ethnicity or culture of those being persecuted.

Actually this is nationalism, and the citizens and nationals of any country owe their allegiance to the nation they are part of, not any other country, and so the rebels in Ukraine should be seen as really simply traitors putting ethnicity ahead of nation.  When ethnic groups fail to realize this they bring discrimination and persecution down on their heads, and should not be given foreign assistance.

Eating blood -- if one eats meat, why not?  As a westerner I have a cultural problem and can't bring myself to do anything but carefully pick out the bits of blood in my noodles or whatever and set them aside, although of course I say nothing.

One should not eat blood for the same reason one should avoid organ meats -- the iron and metallic load is too great (and other reasons -- this is not a medical blog so research it yourself).

However many religions prohibit blood consumption on its own for superstitious reasons -- it seems the precursors of modern Jews thought the soul was in the blood, or some such thing, and this got passed to Christians and Muslims, so that in most countries there are special laws regarding the draining of blood from slaughtered animals.  The Muslims appear to have taken this way to far and demand slaughter methods that are barbaric and cruel.

Of course common sense tells us that even after draining the blood there will remain a lot of it in the meat.  I don't know how the religions who make a big deal of this rationalize this simple fact.

I read in the Bible's Book of Acts that the apostles lifted most of the Jewish dietary laws from Christians (to ease the conversion of Gentiles) but did leave the "abstain from blood" in there.

So now we have at least one Christian group, Jehovah's Witnesses, who expel members who have a transfusion or allow one for their children to save the child's life, and insist the child be allowed to die.

Even if there were an ethical reason for not eating blood, and I can see no rational justification -- just authority and superstition -- this reflects a horrible and tragic and, indeed, evil, application of ethics.  When presented with a choice of two wrongs, one must choose the lesser -- and a child dying versus a blood transfusion -- sheesh! -- obviously breaks that fundamental rule.  

Eating meat

Something I've wanted to post about for awhile is the need for mankind to get off meat, or at least drastically reduce what we eat.

Of course there are ethical reasons -- meat is from sentient animals and although a case can be made that such animals might actually have better lives (and a good deal better karma if one sees this as valid -- and of course at a loss of karma for humans involved), the reality is probably that they lead lives of suffering, considering how many of those who raise animals for slaughter treat them.

But there are three other reasons.  There is the environment, our health, and cost.  The burden on the environment of ever-increasing animal husbandry offsets much that the world does to slow climate change, and those who make personal sacrifices for the environment but continue to demand meat are being hugely inconsistent.  Also of course red meat is well known to contribute to modern diseases and suffering.  Finally, leave the meat out and the food budget gets much lower, leaving money for other pleasures or charity.

I don't think it would be a good thing to completely eliminate meat, since it does add certain nutrients difficult to get otherwise, and it is very pleasurable.  The pleasure however can be gotten by keeping its use down as a sort-of condiment rather than a main dish and experimenting with meat substitutes.

If one does decide to leave meat out of one's diet, one should remember the maxim that, when a guest, eat what is served, and not fuss or cause one's host to even be aware.  The amount of rudeness and arrogance sometimes seen in vegetarians is unfortunate and counterproductive.

Putin says he could take Kiev in two weeks.  Probably true but arrogant and, of course, taking it would be only the beginning.  The Ukrainians will not just fold with the fall of a city.

We seem to have a fascist on our hands.  The world, and especially Europe, would do well to pay close attention.  After what Russia has been through, this isn't too surprising, and nationalism is an easy enough way of thinking for those who are so inclined.  I doubt most Russians would buy what is going on if the actually knew the details.

Wolves at the door

Democracies (countries run by popularly elected politicians) tend to not pay much attention to wolves until they are at the door.  There is instead a constant cry that the democracy causes the presence of wolves and that military spending in particular is (always, no matter how small) excessive.

The reason is mainly because wolves often self-destruct, and besides it interferes with re-election.  The public does not like to make sacrifices to protect itself.

I read a nice piece in Huffington yesterday about the history of Wahhabism in Saudi.  It seems terror and brutality have been a core part of not just that part of Islam but part of Islam in general through its existence -- that killing and raping the non-believer is not only acceptable behavior but is commanded.  (I add that Islam is not unique in this respect).

As a tactic, up to maybe the end of the nineteenth century, it usually was successful.  People will and generally should submit to preserve themselves and their families.  Alexander the Great was generous to cities that surrendered without a fight and engaged in general slaughter and rape and enslavement and looting when there was resistance.  It worked and he was able to take Asia Minor with only a few real sieges.

I don't think it works at all in today's world.  What it does is alert democratic politicians and the public to the presence of a wolf.  The wolf needs to wait until its power is too great for the democracy to resist, and, until then, play ball, for the most part -- as the Chinese seem to be doing.

Politicians like Obama and the Clintons love to save money by weakening the country's military, so they can buy votes with social programs.  (I don't know that it is as crass as that -- maybe they think they are doing the right thing -- hard to understand though.)

Of course if one spends really excessive amounts on the military, one can weaken the domestic economy, and this ain't good either -- and ends up reducing the amount available.  In the States, though, the weak economy is from other causes.

The Muslim terrorist and extremist groups think the old brutality and fear tactic still works.  That was behind 9-11, which only served to give Bush the chance to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, although what he achieved has now been frittered away.  At least for a couple of years the public understood the danger, but they don't like sacrifices and want them to stop.  A couple of years is about all a determined leader has before the clamor forces compromise with evil.

Now ISIS, or whatever it will be called, is doing as much, telling the world the wolf is at the door.  If they had pulled their uprising and then been civilized about it, instead of going on a murder spree, the world would have seen it and not liked it, but have done nothing.  As it is Obama is being dragged into doing something (it seems as little as possible) by his own public.

In other words, terrorism today is stupid.  It achieves very little if anything except alert the world to your evil.

 

Russian feet in the door

I appreciate the email last night the explained how Russia had promised to honor Ukraine's sovereignty in return for Ukraine handing over its nuclear weapons.

It would seem once the Russians got that danger out of the way they had no intention of keeping their side of it.  They just needed to wait a decent interval and for something to take place that gave them an excuse.  (I also note an unsettling tendency of Russian authorities here and there casually mentioning that Russia still has nuclear weapons -- lots of them).

Russia seems to be in the business of setting up small enclaves out of parts of former USSR republics.  It has done it in Moldova and Georgia and now apparently will in Ukraine.  They find an area where, because of Stalin's brutality, Russian ethnics predominate, and force the creation there of a separate political entity, controlled, however, by Russia.  These are basically criminal regimes run by criminals with no legitimacy or international legality.

There is a temptation to think the locals should be allowed to make the decision, but this cannot be allowed unless the sovereign country agrees to it (as with Czechoslovakia).  Otherwise the world will end up with no end of ethnic groups and sub-groups, majority or not, clamoring for independence.  One can imagine the Navajo setting up their own state in the U.S. Southwest.  A state, once legally constituted, can decide for itself whether it wants to divide itself up or not, but this cannot be imposed from outside and inhabitants who try to do this on their own can and should be suppressed.  (Of course here in the case of Ukraine they were being suppressed -- we have instead a foreign invasion -- come to think of it, that is what happened in Georgia too).

When one either moves or otherwise comes to be a citizen of another country, it is incumbent on that person to give up their loyalty to the mother country and be patriotic, loyal citizens of the new country.  That doesn't require giving up one's culture, at least right away (it usually happens naturally after a few generations).  People who do not do this but stick to loyalty to a foreign state set themselves up to become traitors.

Still, these enclaves present to Russia an excellent foot in the door for eventually gaining back its empire, although of course now it won't be Communist but more Fascist in nature.

Nationalism is exceeded only by ideology and religion in irrational perversity and the people it can kill and the lives it can ruin, and only by a little bit.  Partisanship is only a tad behind.

East Ukraine

I begin to think Russia will first set up an East Ukraine rather than emulating Hitler and using nationalism to occupy the whole country.  That is good, but of course it means a hostile Ukraine (much more hostile now) will remain on its western border, so we will see.

Still, this East Ukraine, populated mostly by ethnic Russians, will be subservient, and probably quickly invite the presence of full-time Russian soldiers.

That would mean being, legally at least, an independent country, which has the small benefit of giving Russia another vote everywhere, but otherwise means nothing and can be undone any time with a simple annexation vote.  There is a dollop of hypocrisy here -- Putin can pull back and say he didn't invade and didn't annex, while in fact of course he effectively did.

It is, however, now probably the best possible solution, considering the rabid Russian nationalism we are seeing.  It is interesting that similar attitudes in Serbia gained them nothing -- I guess Russia is a bigger country.

Ukraine should have been left to work out its problems on its own, but Putin saw personal political advantage domestically, and went on to prove that he is without scruple or honor.

Wizards and witches sometimes don't know they are magical beings, but the Ministry of Magic does, and watches.