Ukraine: Why it Matters (Simplified)

Today, February 24, 2022, marks the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia. It is the largest military action in Europe since WWII. Most Americas are likely to ignore this headline or simply think it doesn’t impact them. For right-wing Americans, this news does matter insofar as they are fans of Vladmir Putin. And this is a part of why this invasion matters both globally and for the U.S.

 

Vladmir Putin, a dictator by any measure, is a former Soviet Union-era Kremlin operative who has been seething over the collapse of the Soviet Union since 1991. He blames the collapse on NATO nations; his distain for NATO is no secret. Putin’s goal with Ukraine – as with Crimea and similar former Soviet territories previously – is to ‘put the band back together’ and put NATO on notice what with Poland, a NATO nation, being right next door to Ukraine.  

 

Putin’s pretext for the invasion, which he said he had no intention of in recent weeks, is to destroy Ukraine’s military capability as they supposedly pose a threat to Russia. This is a fanciful justification. But this justification is important as if the invasion is successful despite otherwise ‘severe’ sanctions (Putin has never cared about sanctions) this will provide other authoritarian leaders a reason to invade whomever they want under the pretext of preemptively defending themselves. On a more basic level, this invasion expands the power of an authoritarian leader the world could do without, especially when you consider the currently warm relationship between Russia and China. The world is trending towards more and more authoritarian regimes. Even in the U.S. both the far-left and far-right fringes would love nothing more than absolute power.

 

[Certainly, the far-left will condemn this particular military action because they can’t verbalize their true intentions, but seeing Putin in action is likely to embolden the worst factions of the American far-right. Just a few days ago, Donald Trump praised Putin.]

 

Not only does this military action disrupt stability in Europe, but it further destabilizes politics in the U.S. Already this morning I’ve heard the question, “Why now?” Consider that the mid-term elections are a few months away and if President Biden reacts poorly, a GOP wave of elections is assured. If Biden handles the situation well, there is still time for Russia to aid GOP candidates in some other manner, likely more social media disinformation campaigns.

 

There is an impact to the U.S. economy as well as the only reason any country cares about Russia is – bottom line – Russia’s oil and natural gas exports. U.S. markets opened on news of the invasion to oil jumping over $100 a barrel. Given the intimate relationship between oil and the world’s economies, this is bad news. Putin is aware of this and knows he can hold the world an economic hostage with Russia’s oil and gas.

 

What should be done in response? The international community will slap (more) ineffective sanctions on Russia, which is why I personally favor a full-on military and cyber-attack response since 1) this is the only language Putin understands and 2) to cripple Russia’s military and banking institutions before Russia can strategically withdraw its oil and gas. This would have the added benefit of rattling China. I’m not going to say this wouldn’t be a very dangerous route to pursue, but it is the only option in stopping Putin from terrorizing the world in the future.

 

Of course, that is my opinion. I’m not a foreign policy expert. But then, neither were the last two previous presidents.

Theory Parker: Citizen of the World

I’ve long maintained that one of the worst ideas to ever plague mankind is nationalism. Nationalism, the identification with one’s nation and its interests typically to the detriment of other nations, is a natural outcropping of tribalism which, long ago, used to be on a small enough scale as to not be harmful on a global scale. But, thanks to population growth, the internet, and all the other streams of media that know the value of sowing division, tribalism and nationalism have become so strongly embedded in people’s psyche that they would become virtually rudderless without these identity markers. When the alternative to being rudderless is being a detriment to other members of the human race, I, as a thinking and rational person, would choose to be rudderless. Only I am not; my county is the world. More on that momentarily.

The thing about concepts like tribalism and nationalism is that it divides people along often arbitrary lines. As a citizen of the United States I’m supposed to hate the Chinese for letting COVID-19 out of their country and wreaking havoc across the globe? Last time I checked, viruses didn’t have nationalities, doesn’t care what tribe you belong to, and will potentially kill you regardless. (Funny story – as of this writing the U.S. has more cases than any other. Americans are the ones spreading it more than any other nationality, so, I guess we’re supposed to hate Americans given the preceding logic.) Even within the United States, citizens are often raised to have contempt for their neighboring state because, well, because someone drew a line somewhere.

Tribalism and nationalism strictly ignore what binds people everywhere together – the fact that we’re all people where by ‘people’ we mean human beings. Undoubtedly it is difficult for nations to fight a wars if their troops think of the animals they’re fighting as anything more than that. Here, I’m reminded of a line from the movie Saving Private Ryan (I think) where one or the troops asks another, “Why are we fighting the Germans if we’re probably going to be friends 30 years from now?” (I’m paraphrasing). People everywhere have more in common than they think such as the need for food, clean air and water, shelter, friendship, intimacy, and a sense of belonging (e.g. tribalism). Of course there are nuances to these concepts but the point is people often have to conceptually go out of their way to dehumanize others in order to get a sense of any self-worth. Why should this be the case?

This shouldn’t be the case because it is clear that throughout history cooperation between people has been more productive than going to war or worse, committing to genocide. Squabbling over irrelevant things like which side of an egg to crack open accomplishes nothing and wastes time, though to be sure, people have killed each other for less, such as being a woman. What’s really at stake when people commit wholeheartedly to tribalism or nationalism is power, that goddamn exertion of power human beings are so bad at getting over. Certainly, Nietzsche’s Will to Power is more or less in the nature of all human beings, but it can be nurtured out of a person as easily as its flames are fanned by manipulative forces. Or, the Will to Power can be overcome by introspection. I overcame it through self-analysis when I realized (fortunately early enough) that I didn’t like people telling me what to do, especially when they didn’t have good reasons for wanting me to do what they wanted. This allowed me to examine the world through consecutively larger lenses.

And so I came to a point where I realized it’s irrelevant that I happen to be American by an accident of birth. (I find it repugnant when people do this, are proud of something they had no choice in being.) I could go so far as to say that I have so little in common – value wise –  with my countrymen and women that I’m actually not American. I’m a simple human being, much the same as any other, and if I owe allegiance to any group – which I don’t – it would be the human race whether that person is red, white, blue, or black. It doesn’t matter which country’s ideology one subscribes to, one is still part of the whole. We should then act accordingly because the differences one makes along ideological lines are less than the lines drawn between species (though, even at that point, we’re all still living things). The more one sees the bigger picture, the closer we can become. Divisions we’re supposed to prescribe to are typically driven by the rich and powerful. Recognize this and the less likely we are to be coerced to kill for them in wars. The only way I could possibly find myself fighting for my country of birth is if the entire world was at risk, such as in World War II. The ‘War on Terrorism,’ a situation the U.S. helped create, not so much. I’m sure I would fight for my own preservation, but until that’s required of me I have better things to do.

There are still many countries to visit and many cultures to experience. I find it fascinating to do so because one never knows when they’re going to come across a situation where they find people doing things better than they were doing within their own culture. And this is the value of experiencing other cultures; it allows you to see problems in a new light and therefore possibly solve them with different thinking. In the supposed words of Albert Einstein, “We cannot solve problems with the same kind of thinking that created them,” which he apparently said upon musing about a post-nationalist, post-militaristic world. It is clear no one culture is superior to another in successfully propagating the human race or in securing its future, so why is the idea so widely subscribed to? We already know and we already know that it’s false.

I owe allegiance to no country because no country has demonstrated it is superior to any other. (Proponents of American exceptionalism are easily defeated and will not be entertained here.) My allegiances are made on a case by case basis. My judgements are cast on a case by case basis. The world is too rich, too ripe for exploration to remain within one’s shell for too long. For it’s a myth that the shell offers protection. It does provide insulation, where being too cozy with one’s own ideas for too long leads to mental weakness, inflexibility, and worst of all, controllability. These are not a good things. If humanity as a whole would only recognize themselves as such, as human, the fewer robots there would be hell-bent on destroying it all.

I Bielibe It's the Hair

An open letter to Justin Bieber:

Look kid, I just saw the headlines, again. Even though I didn’t read the story, I already know the whole “testing positive for pot and Xanax” thing isn’t going to help you personally. Neither is driving an expensive sports car recklessly around the neighborhood, turning up your stereo way too loud, having confrontations with your neighbors, or – especially – being carried up the Great Wall of China by bodyguards. Yeah, that last one didn’t make you look like a god. You looked like a pussy. Because you are a pussy. And you’re a pussy because of your hair.

Your hair looks really feminine. It doesn’t matter if it’s the new-wave bowl-cut, shaved on one side, or the Kid & Play retro-80’s up-do. It still looks really soft, just like the person it’s coming out of. Granted, it’s not your fault you lost the genetic lottery, having the kind of hair silk worms would die for, and you certainly did make the most of your misfortune in terms of bilking cold, hard cash from a demographic that is sexually confused. I am curious, though, how do live knowing you’re such a pussy, that no matter how much blow you snort, no matter how much pot you smoke, no matter how fast you drive, no matter how much money your fans fill your treasure chest with, you’re never going to get respect? Shit, you could be a better entertainer than Michael Jackson and still no one would respect you. But, I offer you a way out.

Boy, you’ve got to cut your hair off. Like, all of it. Like, now. Sure, you’re laughing all the way to the bank right now while you party your little heart out. Sure, you’re just barely 20 and doing all the crazy shit everyone does at that age, but everyone else doesn’t get mistaken for Miley Cyrus. A decade from now, there isn’t a fan of today’s pop music that will be able to tell you apart from her when looking at your photo. Is that what you want? You’re alleged to be an evangelical Christian; problem is, I’m sure they frown upon sexual ambiguity given their patriarchal worldview. On the other hand, I guess evangelical Christians pride themselves on being followers, and you’ve certainly got that wrapped up as yet another teen star spiraling out of control.

Is this what you want Biebs, to be like everyone else? Granted, being a follower has its advantages, but you are in a unique position to re-invent yourself. By why do that since your money will last forever, prompting you to ‘retire’? Yeah, what you don’t realize, babe, is that the way you’re partying, that money ain’t going to last long, forcing you to put out another album and tour at some point. Might as well get started writing some new tunes now, before you finally do something stupid enough to get you locked up with large black men who like PYT’s like you. Then you’re really going to have something to sing about. (Um, you might want to skip gratuitous drug references on your next album; that’s Miley’s shtick. But if you are in fact the same person, then by all means.)

For your own sake For everyone else’s sake, cut off your hair. It won’t weaken you; you’re not Samson. Cut off your hair and splash some Rogaine on your face and chest. Shit, don’t forget your balls while you’re at it, if you got ‘em. I’m not sure you do. After all, it’s easy to act like a maniac when you’ve got plenty of money to get you off the hook. So cut off the hair. Hey, it worked for Britney, didn’t it? Yeah, cut it off before I do it for you.

The Case Against Unalianable Human Rights

Pro-life advocates, death penalty opponents, and opponents of euthanasia typically share a moral absolutist position in common; namely, that human beings are endowed with unalienable, intrinsic human rights. However, a critical analysis reveals that the concept of such human rights is flawed and hence, neither unalienable nor intrinsic. In order to demonstrate this, we will first address a definitional issue. Second, we will look at the history of human rights to see whether or not there is any indication that human rights are unalienable or inherent. Then, we will address some counter arguments to the thesis presented herein. Upon this examination, it will be shown that the concept of unalienable human rights has no legitimacy

            First we must ask, what are human rights? The United Nations attempted to answer this question in 1948, declaring, “All human beings are born free and equal” (“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”). Adding to this declaration, the United Nations listed twenty-nine articles in defense of negative rights—liberties not to be interfered with—such as the right to privacy, to associate with whom one chooses, and to change one’s beliefs, without obstruction or retribution by another person or institution. To clarify human rights even further, The Boston Review’s Jeremy Waldron wrote of these rights as unalienable; “It means rights that may not be given away by those who have them, and therefore…reasonable people would [not] have found it prudent, in certain circumstances, to alienate these rights” (Waldron). Thus, it is reasonable to conclude from these definitions that human rights are simultaneously intrinsic; they are not meant to be dependent upon instituted legalities or cultural relativism. Human rights are also typically regarded as applying to individuals and are practiced within the confines of an individual’s right to choose their own actions.

            Semantics are, unsurprisingly, a challenge to any declaration of human rights. What is meant by “human being”? The definition of “human being” is as notoriously missing from the United Nation’s declaration of rights as the definition of “men” was from the Declaration of Independence. [That is to say, non-white Anglo-Saxon men were not regarded as men in 1776.] Is a human being an autonomous being capable of choice? Is it a mass of living human cells? The fact is, many animals are capable of making choices and can operate as independently as any human. Does that make such animals human? Nor can we regard living cells as human beings. If that were the case—as far as being human relates to having rights—stem cell research, organ removal, and male masturbation would all have to be criminalized. Nothing in any definition of “human being” offered here or otherwise, suggests that human rights are unalienable or intrinsic. If the definition of “human being” presumed human rights, then there would be little need for the phrase, “human rights.” It shall be noted, though, that a failure to define what a human being is does not necessarily preclude rights. However, this does send us looking for another way to validate unalienable human rights.

            At this juncture, we might ask where human rights come from. Human rights are generally assumed by its advocates to be inherent in one’s being human and, as Thomas Jefferson wrote, self-evident. As we’ve already seen, any appeal for rights upon the definition of “human being” is superfluous. We might also wonder, if human rights are self-evident, why human rights as a concept didn’t appear in the Western world in writing until the 17^th and 18^th century. While the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the French Declarations of the Rights of Man (1789) served as the basis for many modern human rights documents, one might be reminded that the rights declared in these documents, “When originally translated into policy, excluded women, people of color, and members of certain social, religious, economic, and political groups” (Shiman 6). If human rights are indeed self-evident, why were so many people excluded from exercising them? If human rights are self-evident, why was the French Revolution of 1789-1799 followed by the Reign of Terror in which 20,000 “enemies of the Revolution” were executed via the guillotine? Certainly we risk an oversimplification of each of these situations, but situations like these do nothing to advance the concept of human rights.

            Again, the absence of an idea doesn’t necessarily preclude its existence. In the case of human rights though, it is reasonable to assume (given its timeline in Western philosophy) that human rights as a concept evolved in response to the social, economic, and political inequities that arrived with or were exacerbated by the Industrial Revolution. Egalitarian societies have no concept of human rights because such inequities do not exist. Asian cultures that place the welfare of the community before the welfare of individuals likewise have no developed sense of human rights. Jack Donnelly, professor of International Studies at Denver, wrote in response to this observation, “Human rights ultimately rest on a social decision to act as though such ‘things’ existed…Like all social practices, human rights come with justifications” (Donnelly 20-21). There appears a strong indication that human rights are culturally relative. Human rights, it seems, is the advent of cultures that prize individuality and one’s freedom of expression.

            There are any number of objections a human rights proponent may now make, but for the sake of brevity, we will assess a few of the most commonly raised defenses.

            Proponents of human rights sometimes claim that human needs dictate human rights. The obvious question arises then as to what constitutes a need. Postulated by renowned psychologist Abraham Maslow, there exists a hierarchy of needs. Fundamentally, humans need physiological needs met first in order to survive, with safety needs and social needs met in that descending order of importance. With respect to human rights, based upon Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, the best we can say is that human beings may have a right to air, water, food, and shelter. According to Maslow, “If these fundamental needs are not satisfied then one will surely be motivated to satisfy them. Higher needs such as social needs and esteem are not recognized until one satisfies the needs basic to existence” (Maslow). If this view is correct, any rights beyond physiological needs require justification. This is perhaps why The United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in several of its articles that rights shall not be arbitrarily suspended. In other words, there may be conditions in which human rights are suspended and if that is so, human rights are not unalienable.

            Another common defense of human rights is for its proponents to claim that those opposed to human rights have other interests at heart. Interestingly, the countries that abstained from voting on the United Nations’ universal declaration in 1948 were among the greatest human rights abusers during that era. [Those countries included the Soviet Union, South Africa, and Saudi Arabia.] It would be outlandish to deny that governments would sometimes obstruct the rights of its citizens, whatever those rights may be. But this is not wholeheartedly the case. If we may appeal to cultural relativism again, it may be that certain cultures have no knowledge of human rights because they have no need for such a concept. In order for the idea of unalienable human rights to hold, it must be shown that participants within a culture are incorrect to place their community’s needs ahead of the needs of individuals; it must be shown that the needs of one outweigh the needs of many. The idea that individual rights trump collective rights is hardly unassailable: it arguably leads to selfishness, greed, and crime.

Thus, individual rights can create as many problems as it helps solve. If we quantify how much good proclaiming human rights does, we are consequentialists. If we are consequentialists, the needs of the many can at least sometimes outweigh the needs of the few. Thus, human rights once again cannot be unalienable, not as they apply to individuals. [Of course, we should be wary of any possible tyrannical effect mob rule could have. It seems reasonable that there should be some formulation of human rights in any system of democratic government.]

            Third, even though human rights as they are currently conceived is a secular concept, it is not uncommon to hear the argument that human beings are imbued with rights by a divine creator. Naturally, this begs the question, which god? In order to conclude that some divine authority has imparted rights upon human beings, it would need to be shown that a god or gods existed. If history is any indication, arguing for the existence of God has been fraught with difficulty. Trying to establish God’s relationship to human beings has been even more difficult than that.

            The concept of human rights most of all suffers from the is-ought problem. That human beings have unalienable rights is not the case. Even so, we should think a case can be made for what ought to be regarding human rights if we are all concerned about bringing value to individual lives. However, the definitions of “human beings” and “rights” need to be resolved first, or they’ll forever be contentious. We would also need to formulate human rights that do not interfere with cultural practices if we are at all of the opinion that every culture has inherent worth. [We should venture to say that this is usually the way Westerners think even though such thinking does not coincide with the current concept of human rights.] Circumstances permitting, it seems permissible (sometimes even necessary) to conceptualize human rights. There is no need to postulate that such rights are unalienable, though. The desire for rights alone should be sufficient.

REFERENCES

Donnelly, Jack. Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. 2^nd. Cornell: Cornell University Press, 2003.

Maslow, Abraham. “Maslow Hierarchy of Needs.” Abraham Maslow: Father of Modern Management. 2005 Abraham-Maslow.com 15 February, 2009

Shiman, David. Teaching Human Rights. 2nd. Denver: University of Denver, 1999.

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights." The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 2008. The United Nations. 10 Feb 2009 .

Waldron , Jeremy. "Inalienable Rights." Boston Review. May 1999. 15 Feb 2009 .

Theory Parker (c) 2009