Ukraine is not a proxy war

The Kremlin argues that this is fundamentally a war between Russia and the US with Ukraine as a proxy.

I understand and appreciate the geopolitical concerns of Russia and accept that both the US and Russia, like every country, pursue their own national interests.

However, I cannot consider both on equal footing and it is not only because one is a democracy, despite all its flaws, and the other, for all intents and purposes, an autocracy.

Let's look at the particulars.

There is no argument that the US has pursued its interests, often aggressively, including the invasion and occupation of third countries for prolonged periods of time.

Even though almost all of the countries the US invaded were autocratic with a long history of abusing their own people, in many cases these actions were taken unilaterally without UN approval, without carefully considering the aftermath, and with no solid reconstruction plans that would bring the countries back into the international community.

Where this applies, I believe that condemnation is the appropriate response.

In comparison, Russia is an autocracy that has a similar history of invading and occupying countries and instituting regime change.

Even in the worst cases in recent history (as far as I know and correct me if I am wrong) the US has not sought to deny the right to existence of the nations it has invaded and has not sought to annex their land and make it part of the USA. 

In comparison, Putin’s Russia denies the existence of a Ukrainian national identity and is seeking to annex land and subjugate the population. It is not clear what the ‘denazification’ plan exactly entails.

Thirdly, for the lands the US invaded, it had not already bound itself with an international treaty to guarantee their borders after asking them to disarm.

In contrast, Russia was one of the international powers guaranteeing the sovereignty and borders of Ukraine on the condition that they hand over their nuclear arsenal, which they did.

Russia unilaterally proceeded to violate that treaty.

The reasons Russia presented to justify this invasion have been largely dismissed as untrue by official organs of the international community after careful investigations.

Ukraine is also markedly not an autocratic regime. It has a somewhat progressive democratically elected government that Russia is trying to overthrow.

So, Putin might indeed view and present this as a conflict between the US and Russia for zones of influence, denying the right of self determination of smaller countries, but, fundamentally, for the reasons stated above, it is not. And indeed, if you read Putin’s own statements, this is an attempt to ‘reunify’ historically Russian lands, as he sees it. 

Russian expansionism was enabled by strong economic engagement by the West, the profits of which Putin used not to improve the living conditions of Russians, but to enrich himself, consolidate his power, violently suppress opposition and build up his military infrastructure. This is all very well documented.

The West believed that economic freedom and engagement with autocratic regimes would gradually lead to greater political freedoms and democracy. Given the history of the last two decades and in particular what is going on right now, it has become apparent the West was wrong in this assumption and we are now watching a major shift in policy.

Putin's propaganda paints the West as evil and hateful towards Russians. Granted, there are bad feelings from ex-soviet republics, who suffered tremendously under Soviet rule. But most Westerners genuinely want Russians to do well and be part of the international community.

There are still a lot of bad feelings for Germany as well, perhaps even more so than for Russia, but it cannot be denied that today’s democratic Germany is an integral part and equal partner of the international community.

Putin denies this future to the Russian people.

The final piece of the puzzle for me is that the USA, at least in recent history and despite the hawkish language, has not threatened the world with nuclear holocaust. Which the Kremlin is doing. Right now.

Anyone who, at any time and for any reason, suggests, either implicitly or explicitly, that mutual nuclear annihilation is a reasonable strategy, is by definition a psychopath.

Open-mindedness and the supernatural

Bullshit detection kit

Baloney Detection Kit

Warning signs that suggest deception. Based on the book by Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World. The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts.

Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").

Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.

Quantify, wherever possible.

If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.

Occam's razor - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.

Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?


Additional issues are:

Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.

Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.

Argument from "authority".

Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavorable" decision).

Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).

Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).

Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).

Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).

Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).

Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)

Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").

Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.

Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).

Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).

Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").

Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).

Confusion of correlation and causation.

Caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.

Suppressed evidence or half-truths.

Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"

(excerpted from The Planetary Society Australian Volunteer Coordinators Prepared by Michael Paine )

Review: Zeitgeist Addendum

There were too many mistakes and (il)logical jumps in the first movie that it deservedly was attacked by critical thinkers worldwide[1]. This one is not without it's flaws either, but it is comparatively less dogmatic, there are more interviews and the message you get out of it is a clearer one.

The movie is divided in four parts:

Part 1 deals with the current monetary system and it's flaws. In my opinion it presents things in an oversimplified manner and occasionally grossly misinterprets socio-economic principles. Still, it is interesting food for thought. 2/5

Part 2 continues from the first part with an interview with John Perkins, in which he reflects on his role as a self-described economic hit-man. Again, not so challenging. More scare-mongering than substance. 2/5

Part 3 introduces The Venus Project, a proposal created by Jacque Fresco for a sustainable future. This is a lot more interesting and thought-provoking although a lot of it's principles appear rather weak upon closer examination. Regardless of that, the issues that are raised are very real and the message is that they should be thought about and something should be done about them fast. 4/5

Part 4 examines the emergent and symbiotic aspects of natural law and what it means for humans. Again, quite an interesting treatment of an important subject. 5/5

For a more balanced review of the the different subjects treated in this movie and an expose of the films flaws check:
The Revolution that never was: An assessment of Keynsian Economics
Globalization and its discontents
Freedom from the known
The meaning of the 21st century


[1]

An article in the Irish Times said that

"These are surreal perversions of genuine issues and debates, and they tarnish all criticism of faith, the Bush administration and globalisation - there are more than enough factual injustices in this world to be going around without having to invent fictional ones. One really wishes Zeitgeist was a masterful pastiche of 21st-century paranoia, a hilarious mockumentary to rival Spinal Tap. But it's just deluded, disingenuous and manipulative nonsense. [...] If you pretend to know only truth, in truth you know only pretence."

The "Moon Landing Hoax" and are such questions important?

Hi,

Was it all faked? Was this just another Meg Ryan sex scene?


But seriously ... I wrote this in case anyone ever pops up the question. No, not THAT question...
I usually avoid discussions on these subjects like the plague, but there you have it.

Feel free to forward if anyone brings the issue up. Whether you want to bring it up gently or shove it in their faces is up to you :)

Some time ago a good friend asked me whether I believed the moon landings were real.

I must admit that I was flabbergasted that such an assertion can be made in this day and age but conspiracy theories have always seemed to hold a strange sway over people.

I will address this point later because I feel it is quite important.

To me, the moon landings represent one of the crowning achievements of our civilization (admittedly, some of our other achievements are rather more dispiriting). They have been a huge inspiration and unifying force for humanity. They have made us realize, much more than anything else, that we are one species and that our planet is an interconnected and fragile habitat. The moon landings were largely responsible for setting the foundations of the Environmental and Green movements in recent decades.The first photographs of the Earth from space are simply awe inspiring.

I cannot begin to describe what an amazing journey that was and what these astronauts had to go through to prepare themselves for it. But I can readily state that the hoax claim does disservice to the memory of the visionaries who died working to make these programs a reality and to those who managed to muster the strength of will to endure the harsh training, risking their lives and everything they held dear to achieve this amazing feat: to go where no human had been before.  It is hard to understand the sacrifices these people made. So it is with sadness that I read stories of harassment like these:

09/10/02 — A wire story released this week said police are investigating allegations that 72-year-old former astronaut Buzz Aldrin punched 37-year-old conspiracy theorist Bart Sibrel in the face after Sibrel asked him to swear on a Bible that he really did land on the moon.

It was a whole generation's mystical experience of a lifetime, making us feel so grand and so small at the same time. It took the Apollo 11 crew about two days to travel the approximately 380,000 km that separate the Earth from the moon.


The whole experience has been chronicled in a multitude of media, books, interviews, TV programs and was reported with excitement all over the world in 1969. This was not the first mission that had tried. There were several others before it, both Russian and American – but this was the one that made history.

One of my personal favourites is a documentary made entirely from footage of the Apollo missions: "For All Mankind", you can get it on Amazon. (Brian Eno's score still gives me goosebumps after all these years).

You can also watch it here:

But what is worrying is that fake moon landing statements can still unashamedly be made when a simple 5-minute search on the internet yields a treasure trove
of evidence debunking every "moon landing hoax" claim ever made. So I did a quick Google search and, after a minute of sifting through the garbage, I hit gold:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm

and

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

and

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

These are just three of the sites where people have done their research and spent hours to reveal the conspiracy theorist claims for what they are; A pile of trash. You see, it is extremely easy to make a batshit crazy claim seem appealing but it often takes a lot of effort to debunk it. For the moon landings, sometimes it requires two or three PhDs in various subjects (physics, engineering and perhaps biology) to even begin to be able to address each individual point, not to mention information about the operation itself. Those programs were a huge effort that involved hundreds of people working over many years to get to that point. It is virtually impossible to know every little detail about them.

Conspiracy theories still maintain a seductive grasp over many people. They have been used as political tools by authoritarian regimes in the past, as well as today, to push controversial political agendas, unify the masses under some dubious pretext and forge national consciousness by identifying an external enemy/conspiratorial entity - among other reasons. They are also typically used to spice up our sometimes mediocre and unexciting private lives, responding to the perennial human need to feel that we live in a infinitely mysterious and deeply intriguing unchartable Universe. Such theories often claim there are ominous forces trying to control our everyday lives and create the pleasant illusion of a cause worth fighting for. In short, believing in conspiracy theories often injects meaning into people's lives while taking away some personal responsibility. It is not our fault things are the way they are. It is the government, aliens, the illuminati, you name it. This is why people who believe in them often continue to do so even when incontrovertible evidence has been presented before them. They sometimes even use the evidence, in a perverse twisted logic, as further proof that their theory is correct!

The sad truth is that most people don't care enough to investigate the validity of such wild claims. Because it takes time. Because we all have better things to be doing. And they simply believe whatever tickles their fancy. Yet it still remains important that we spend time and effort disproving these theories whenever they crop up, even though it may seem stupid and pointless. Even though it may be beneath us. Because the harm they can cause is immense and at their worse they can lead to countless deaths of innocents. Take for example the lasting damage the "Protocols of the learned elders of Zion" hoax has made to Jewish people. Ultimately, it is a wave of barbarism we are resisting, a return to the Dark Ages before the values of the Enlightenment imbued our society, when people were ruled by fear of the unknown and charlatanism, superstition and prejudice were rife. The so-called Age of Reason that came with the Enlightenment was the opposing force rising up against this barbarism, when the appetite to learn more about the world and our part in it, a desire to understand better, pushed back the darkness of superstition and mystical beliefs. For, understanding something, equally means diminishing fear of the unknown. So that, in time, we may grow to accept it for what it truly is. And perhaps sometimes even love it.

Seeking this understanding takes away nothing from the grandeur and mystery of the Universe; Yet it adds a vital new perspective and several more layers of reality to marvel at!