TygrBright
TygrBright's JournalIt is an old conflict.
Human history is a series of conflicts to define what constitutes and conveys power.
On one side, there is the despot whose power derives from a source other than those under control. Superior force, technology, wealth, etc., embodied in the Rule of Will - that is, the will of the despot. Fundamentally, this is inequity, concentrating the means of power.
On the other side, there is the long, slow struggle to define sources of power shared among members of human groups and delegated upward, embodied in a Rule of Law - defined for all and enforced for all. This is the struggle for equity.
They are not always mutually exclusive. Despots often rely on cabals of other would-be/wanna-be despots and those whose self-interest is served by the despotic power model - this is how monarchies and theocracies evolved. But always, the means of power - wealth, military resources, access to knowledge, etc., are strictly controlled and concentrated in the narrowest possible tranche of beneficiaries.
And groups can derive forms of despotism when they become too exclusive and a fear-based dynamic separates members from a world of threatening outsiders - they may willingly embrace a populist despotism and turn their backs on equity if it seems to threaten inclusion of those designated as outsiders.
Broadly-sprawling upheavals, especially wars and their aftermaths, often create a dynamic favorable to the development of a Rule of Law. The chaos of war, the damage, and resulting temporary structural, economic and social fluidity offer opportunities to codify equity in new ways. The European "Revolutionary Wave" of the mid-19th Century followed the conflagration of the Napoleonic Wars.
These periods of progress are generally followed by a countervailing backlash from the holders of wealth, resources, technology, etc., especially those held over from, or influenced by, ancien regimes, and supported by the still-extant institutions of those regimes. (Institutional religion is usually involved in such backlash.) They focus on degrading the codes that limit individual acquisition of power, and reversing the progress toward equity.
Thus the Gilded Age that closed the 19th Century in an orgy of escalating wealth inequity, the restoration and propping-up of senescent monarchies, and unchecked excesses of capitalism.
It took two World Wars with a major worldwide economic disruption in between them, to re-open the doors to forms of government aligned with equity and wealth distribution. Even then we were left with a substantial block of the world's peoples still under the yoke of despotic systems focused on concentrating power and rejecting equity. And a substantial block of designated "outsiders" still denied the benefits of equity under the aspirational Rule of Law.
And all that time, the backlash has been building in the Rule of Law nations, working as always to undo the codification of equity. Working to cripple the enforcement of laws and regulations created to enable broader distribution of wealth and power. Working to concentrate the means of power - in our society, wealth.
Now we stand again at the beginning of a time of intense, world-wide social upheaval - multiple tidal waves of climate disruption, pandemic, and war are crashing around and against us on all sides.
Let us be prepared, this time, to find the Golden Thread again. To twist it tighter, to weave it closer, to tie it securely to a better and stronger Rule of Law, more compassionate political structures focused on equity, and a more broadly shared security founded on equitable distribution of wealth and other means of power.
The stakes have never been higher. The survival of our own species and millions of others on this life raft in space depend upon it.
somberly,
Bright
Here's an idea for the Oligarchs' mega-yachts...
Seize and impound the lot of them. Then form a joint venture company with Ukraine to remodel them slightly, and run them for 5 years as a luxury cruise line running high-priced cruising tours and generating lots of revenue.
After 5 years, their "luxury" factor and the novelty will wear off a bit and they can be refitted to a less-exalted level of accommodation and service and run as a combination eco-tourism and citizen-science fleet doing research tours and project-based engagement on climate change and mitigation. Maybe another 5-10 years doing that, with the "tourist" end paying the bulk of the expenses.
After that, refit and recommission them as a mercy fleet, with hospital facilities, refugee facilities, environmental action services, disaster response, etc.
Ukraine, if they wish, can have the lead role in coordinating the project, and receive a share of revenue from those first 5 years as some reparations from the oligarchs who supported the P* regime.
Just a thought.
creatively,
Bright
An Appreciation of Ukraine Propaganda Strategy
I have never in my lifetime seen such an AWESOME propaganda game by anyone. Not even P* in his 25-year war on democracy has been able to make such a stunning impact, with such immediacy, and with such intense focus.
The big picture objective: "Portray invading Russian soldiers as dupes of their exploitive, uncaring facist leader"
Hence we see the videos of them looking/being lost, surrendering to civilians, crying at the relief of calling their Moms, etc.
Hence we see the offer to release captured Russian soldiers to the custody of their Moms.
Hence we see spin like "Hungry Russian soldiers loot Ukrainian shops" - think of all the other ways that could have been framed.
This accomplishes several things:
First, and most obvious, it makes the Russian Army look like stumblebums who can't adequately care for their own personnel, and the Russian leadership (well, P*) look like a brute willing to exploit their people, put them in harms way, and all while keeping them underfed and underprovisioned, etc.
Second, it provides a morale boost for the Ukrainian people, and a very positive spin for Ukraine's image in the eyes of the world.
But third, and perhaps MOST important:
It deliberately avoids "psychological escalation" that dehumanizes and demonizes their adversaries, which would heighten the risk of their own people - military and civilians both - responding with retaliatory cruelty and violence that could produce a cycle of escalation, increasing casualties and degrading perception of Ukraine as well as Russia.
It is masterly, and shows an astounding level of expertise, discipline, and restraint from Ukraine's leadership and its people.
Bravo!
appreciatively,
Bright
The World has Had Enough
I'm not a historian other than an amateur reader of history. The closest "Okay, that's it, we need to shut this s**t down" moment I can think of is when the Austrians abandoned Napoleon. And that was on a much smaller scale.
Even then, the Swiss kept their skirts pulled aside.
History is a river, and we have been through a lot of rocky rapids lately.
But now we are in a millrace... and... just possibly... a turn in a good direction.
hopefully,
Bright
The magnitude of Putin's f**kup reveals the extent of his mental deterioration
He has defined unachievable victory conditions. Seriously, it doesn't take a high-level military strategist to understand that the invasion, occupation, and conversion of another state rests on a whole lot of factors that were PATENTLY not present or not favorable in Ukraine.
He has put his prestige and his credibility on the line for this unachievable goal, and then executed his deployment and engagement with stunning ineptitude.
And finally - and here's the kicker: He might have been able to get what he said he wanted, without firing a shot.
He believes Ukraine is, essentially, Russian. Culturally, historically, etc. There is actually a grain of truth there - Ukrainians and Russians are more alike than not in many ways. Like the English and the Scots, they're also defined by some pretty important differences. But they are more alike than either of them is like (for instance) the Kazakhs or the Estonians, or the Poles. They do share a lot of history.
And during the Soviet era and in the immediate aftermath of the breakup, they still shared quite a large overlap in economic activity, resource exchange, and mutual investment.
And Ukraine has always had a substantial segment of its population that have been ideologically aligned with a lot of the right-wing, nationalist, white Christian supremacist beliefs that Putin has gone to such pains to support in Russia and its helot states.
What Putin wanted was a Ukraine aligned with Russia, willing to be a buffer against the West.
He might have been able to achieve that, had he heeded the old saying about catching more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Working slowly and steadily to build economic ties with Ukraine, to couple their fortunes in mutual development ventures, continual support of pro-Russian political parties, magnates, and politicians was on the verge of paying off for him.
Then came the loss of the Yanukovich regime.
The old, needle-sharp ex-KGB stinker that was the Putin of the 90s and the early aughts, would have welcomed an opportunity to identify and begin undermining the pro-Western opposition, sowing chaos the way he has done so effectively within the Western democracies that terrify him.
An operator who can bring the United States of America to the brink of rejecting democracy over a slow, quiet, 25-year campaign should have been able to subvert the growing liberal European-aligned parties of Ukraine in his sleep, standing on his head, with one hand tied behind his back.
But he didn't. He got rattled. He got impatient.
And that should have clued the world in... he was losing it, even then.
Of course, anyone who has amassed that much raw power, killed that many opponents and "nuisances" with vicious impunity, is going to continue to be very, very dangerous, even as their cognitive skills deteriorate.
They become even more dangerous, in many ways, as they become less effective.
And that's what we're working with now.
This will be a costly decline and fall.
For all of us.
somberly,
Bright
"We're invading. Get in there and take.... Ottawa?"
Russian soldiers are experiencing something very like I imagine American soldiers would, should they be deployed against (all good forbid!) Canada.
"Wait, what?
They're our next door neighbor!
They look like us!
A lot of them speak intelligible English!
We vacationed there last year!
We're supposed to... what??? REALLY?!?!
No, really?
These aren't skeery faceless enemies in a strange, hostile-feeling place.
They're... neighbors. They're like us.
Why are we doing this?
WTAF?
Yeah, okay, I have my orders, I'm in the armored vehicle and we're heading toward (some Canadian city) but....
Oh hellz, they took the road signs down and the satnav's on the blink again...
Why did this nice Canadian lady... I mean this enemy civilian... just give me a handful of maple seeds?
And why is there a portable crematorium following me?"
Spare the average Russian grunt a moment of sorrow. Pretty sure they don't wanna be where they are.
thoughtfully,
Bright
Information in Wartime
Dial back your expectations.
Check your assumptions.
Even the "good guys" are now in wartime communications mode.
Every node of the U.S. Government and the U.S. Military is keenly aware of the permeability, manipulability, and ubiquity of hostile observation and analysis, in every one of the many communications channels that are accessible to us, the 'general public.'
This means that everyone involved in dealing with the Russia/Ukraine war - not just Russia and Ukraine but all the allies and partners and parties connected by economic, social, and political ties to either belligerent - have two priorities for every communication:
1) Deny any useful intelligence to hostile observers/analysts; and
2) Use communications strategically to influence and/or manipulate friendly and unfriendly observers/analysts
Communications channels are a weapon in modern conflict. Putin has known this for decades and has been engaging in an information war since the 1990s.
Everyone else is playing catch-up in that department, but with generally better technology and access.
NATO governments, at least, also understand the necessity to maintain the confidence of their own public in communications about the war. They are walking a careful line - provide accurate information where it cannot provide useful intelligence to Russia and its helots, and ensure that disinformation intended to manipulate Russia and its helots will not cause domestic harm and/or loss of confidence.
All this is to say that the usual "noise level" of conflicting, unreliable, and downright harmful information has escalated twenty-fold or more, in the last few weeks, and is still going up.
We need to be aware of this, and to respond accordingly. I have a few helpful suggestions:
1. Don't get hung up on the reliability/unreliability of any particular item of information or even any particular information source or channel. Just accept that there will be a percentage of unreliable information in every channel, from every source. Don't waste energy in futile debate. Be willing to say "Possibly reliable, possibly not", and move on.
2. Be extra-vigilant about passing along information that has a high emotional impact factor - that is the information most likely to be manipulated and strategically deployed by all parties. We know war is hell, we know people are suffering. We can help through established, reputable international aid channels. Passing on heart-tugging horror stories isn't necessarily helpful.
3. WAIT, before responding to, or engaging in discussion of, or passing on an item of information, especially a provocative one. Wait until it's reported with consistent elements from multiple sources.
4. Take frequent offline breaks. Immersing ourselves in the information stream is like being on the fringes of a war zone because the information stream IS a war zone, now. It's bad enough for those who have no choice but to be there. Certainly, we have a moral obligation to stay somewhat informed. But keep some healthy limits on it. If anyone's participation in the public discourse and response to this war is to be useful and constructive, that person should stay healthy and balanced, as much as possible.
5. DO stay in touch with friends and family, keep human contact in your life, engage in normalcy as much as possible. See above.
It's hard to know that such suffering is being inflicted, and not be able to do much more than stay informed. But even staying informed can be a helpful response, if it's done thoughtfully and carefully. It prepares us to respond constructively in other ways when the opportunity is at hand.
somberly,
Bright
Dear Russia: We don't hate you.
I'm really hoping that Americans can resist equating ALL Russians with the greedy, corrupt old Soviet-era oligarchs who have tyrannized over your state since those few first hopeful post-USSR days faded.
I think a lot of us know that Russia is full of young people hoping for a future better than becoming cannon fodder in an endless war machine propping up the fortunes of wealthy Putin cronies.
We know that there are families with children, working to build a future in communities looking for economic hope.
We know that Russia is more than a terrified, hollow shell of autarky feeding Putin's net worth and fragile old-man ego.
We know Russia is a place of deep cultural and spiritual roots and traditions, and a long history of struggle to escape top-down oppression.
We know Russia could be a place of hope and promise, building friendships in a worldwide community of nations eager to help and share economic, social, and cultural progress.
We know all this.
Just as we hope the world knew that America was more than an orange-faced blustering dictator-wannabe trying to destroy not just our own democracy, but our role in helping promote democratic equity worldwide, between 2016 and 2020.
We got rid of him.
Democratically.
We know you don't have the same resources, even in the damaged and threatened form we still have them in America.
But we also know you have immense strength as a people, as a nation, and as human beings.
Do what you must.
We'll help as we can.
It's possible we could be great friends and allies in the future, when all the sad, broken, fearful, tyrannical relics of the past have been kicked to the curb.
Worth a try?
За нашу дружбу!
hopefully,
Bright
On Rope
We've all heard the saying "Give them enough rope..." with the implication that 'they' will plait that rope into a noose for their own necks.
And that does happen quite often, if you listen to the various law enforcement and investigative and intelligence agency experts.
But there is another possibility, which is "Give them enough rope... and they'll weave a cats-cradle tangle so complicated as to catch the pursuers in its meshes while they melt away."
At some point, paying out the rope becomes a greater risk for the investigators than the target.
Where are we now?
minatorially,
Bright
Let's be completely clear about "media bias," hmmm...?
Accusations of media bias are as perennial as dandelions.
Whoever feels disempowered identifies the media as being "pro" the people/ideas/party they blame for keeping them down.
But here's the real deal: "The media" has always had biases - and they have always tended in the exact same direction: What makes money for the media. What protects media moguls and shareholders.
It's that simple.
If siding with the underdog makes a great story that will generate attention and make money, they'll side with the underdog. If ginning up fear against those who can conveniently be othered helps protect media moguls' interests and shareholder value, they'll run the gin 24/7 at max volume.
When you see media bias, don't assume it has anything to do with actual opinions or points of view held by reporters, editors and publishers.
"Cui bono?" (Who benefits?)
Audience share leads to ad revenue leads to share value. It's not ideology, it's not partisanship, it's not any kind of agenda beyond that.
This is gravity. This is water flowing downhill. This is inertia. This is the Newtonian Law of capitalism.
Media, in America, is by and large capitalist. Audience share leads to ad revenue leads to share value.
The only thing that has ever affected this in any way is regulation, which the media (naturally) spins as "contrary to the First Amendment."
When you hear ANY media outlet getting all outraged and huffy about the First Amendment, read the subtext thus:
"If we actually had to consider journalistic standards, accuracy, and the public interest, we would lose audience share, ad revenue, and share value, so MAKE NOISE ABOUT FREEDOM OF THE PRESS SO WE CAN KEEP MAKING MONEY BY PAYING ATTENTION SOLELY TO OUR BOTTOM LINE!"
Media has been regulated in the United States since the establishment of the Post Office as a function of the Federal Government. (Yes, the Post Office is a media channel. Think about it. And now think about how diligently Big Capitalist Media is working to take the Post Office down...)
The earliest media regulation in the U.S. were rules about what could, and could not, be sent via the USPS. The USPS, you see, is a "commons". That is, something functional to the fulfillment of fundamental rights and individual flourishing which needs to be protected by the law, also for the sake of future generations. (Capitalists have been attempting to destroy and degrade the concept of "commons" since forever, but it's one of our oldest legal concepts, underpinning the very recognition of the difference between a republic and an oligarchy or autocracy.)
In 1934 the FCC was created to regulate access to another commons: the "airwaves", that is, media access to broadcast frequencies.
Media regulation comes in two forms: Access, and content. In law, they're regarded somewhat differently, and the history of various precedents and legal decisions in the United States demonstrates this. But they are both subject to regulation, even within the First Amendment guidelines.
Rules about mail fraud date to 1872. The Fairness Doctrine lasted from 1949 to 1987. Regulations about halftime entertainers' costume failures come and go even today.
The battle between capitalist media's ability to accumulate obscene wealth for its large shareholders, and the government's ability to protect and regulate the commons, has never stopped. Until recently, geopolitical and socioeconomic realities maintained some balance of power, but as wealth inequity has risen and media power has consolidated, the commons have lost ground.
As the GOP has become a wholly-owned tool of the wealthiest and most malevolent capitalist oligarchs, the apparent bias of the media has become yet another strategy for promoting partisan division.
But in reality, the media takes no account whatsoever of anything beyond audience share leads to ad revenue leads to share value.
And we will have very little success turning that tide until we understand that, and find ways to turn it against them.
glumly,
Bright
Profile Information
Member since: 2001Number of posts: 20,758
