Why Can't the West Acknowledge the Russian "Invasion" of Ukraine for What It Really Is?

To call Russia's invasion of Ukraine "an invasion" would call for a response that neither NATO nor Washington is ready to give. So the West equivocates, as it dithers and delays, incomprehensibly dismissing a mass movement of Russian troops into neighboring Ukraine as mere "interference."

Putin perpetuates this status quo by his repeated use of "lying" about his illegal military actions in an independent nation, making statements that both he and the West know to be untrue, in the process reviving the use of propaganda, a favorite tool of the former Soviet Union. 

Yet no one dares to challenge him, to call a spade a spade, to call invasion for what it is. Even President Obama himself refers to the invasion as an "incursion." 

This implausible denial of an invasion that has been occurring for the past few months is indeed a novelty I have not yet seen in Western politics. It is nothing but a form of cowardice. After all, to accurately name things, brings with it an ethical and moral responsibility to see them accurately, for what they are, and then for taking the necessary and appropriate actions -- a responsibility the West has repeatedly shown itself shamefully unwilling to accept.

So Putin plods on, plowing further into Ukraine, in large part only because we allow him to do so....

We all know what the truth is, yet the West not only keep hesitating, but also keeps searching for euphemisms, instead of simply stating and therefore acknowledging what is actually occurring.

And no, what has been going on in Ukraine has never been a "civil war," as it was formerly termed, so implying that the military actions there were arising spontaneously from within, rather than as a result of outside Russian provocation. (Also, with the use of the term "civil war," came the implication that what goes on within the nation was its own problem, making a similar shoddy case for Western inaction.)

I have even heard the Western media previously refer to the Ukraine situation as "The Ferdinand," implying that all the invasion is just an insignificant territorial dispute involving a major power and a largely unknown nation, and is therefore better left ignored, lest it become a powder keg that will set off a nuclear war. 

What does the use of all these misnomers and euphemisms and equivocations imply? Is the simple straightforward truth no longer relevant?  And what is all this use of newfangled milquetoast terms like "incursions" and "interferences" really all about? After all, we all know good communication requires clear and precise diction and avoids the use of vague, imprecise words that serve more to obfuscate than to communicate. Are we really no different from the former Soviet Union in that we no longer seem to be able to speak freely, clearly, and with conviction but express ourselves in some sort of distorted doublespeak. 

Have we all become puppets trying to appease Putin?

For how long will the West allow Putin to continue with his obvious lies in his war of aggression? For how long will we indulge him in his yearning for a return to Soviet times and in his quest for territorial expansion, as we dilly dally about sanctions and choose to not only ignore but remain oblivious to the larger implications of his actions and to the the humanitarian dictates of international law? For how long can the West deny its ethical and moral imperative to act decisively in the name of freedom, human dignity and justice?   

In the meantime, I am just getting more and more worried about Ukraine.... 

(c) Olya Thompson

Unethical Labor Practices and the Bangladeshi Factory Collapse

American multinational companies, including Walmart and Sears, make their profits by outsourcing their work -- at the cost of exploiting poor laborers in developing nations who work in unsafe conditions and do not make a decent wage.   In that sense these companies not only have a role but were complicit in the horrific Bangladeshi factory collapse.

The Bangladeshi workers knew the factory was unsafe. Despite their articulated fears, nothing was done, and they were forced to continue work there. Other abuses abounded in Bangladesh, such as recurring factory fires, yet no one paid attention or took responsibility.  

Who are these people who run these corporations that outsource jobs that are performed in unsafe conditions, rather than provide a decent wage for unemployed American workers? How could they be permitted to opt out of providing the protections that developed nations require by law? How could they be allowed to bypass the regulations that govern worker safety here?  

Obviously, the leaders of these corporations do not care about decent working conditions or worker safety in poor nations, as long as there is a profit to be made. The fact the we now have a global economy may have enriched them, but at what cost to others?

Is this what we Americans call "free enterprise?" Is this what American capitalism has come to stand for?

It is unconscionable for American companies to sell such goods, considering the circumstances under which they are made. Their labor practices reveal the moral and ethical corruption that lies beneath this era of unprecedented accumulation of wealth.

And those who run these multinational companies are responsible for our nation's increasing financial divide. These corporate leaders who earn astronomical salaries now make up a large part of our nation's entitled 1 per cent. When it comes to greed and exploitation of others, they have no scruples.

How would our nation respond if a disaster, such as the predictable Bangladeshi factory collapse, occurred here? This tragedy calls to mind the fatal fire of 1911 at the Triangle factory that operated in New York City under sweatshop conditions, and other such abuses, that led to the formation of unions and protections for workers here. Ironically, these very protections now make employers claim that American workers are too expensive to hire as they opt to "outsource" or send jobs abroad.

Obviously, foreign workers that make goods for American companies are in need of such protections too.  The horrific death toll at the Bangladeshi factory, as of today, May 31, according to the Times, numbers 1,129.

On Libya: We Reap What We Sow

"What difference does it make!" Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shouted down the investigators at the Congressional hearings in a fact-finding inquiry as to the circumstances of the tragic death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Libya.

"What mattered was that four Americans died," Hillary went on, evading the question.

The controversy centered on whether the attack in  Benghazi was a result of a spontaneous uprising triggered by a hate video as initially reported, or whether it was a planned attack one the United States should have anticipated, which clearly turned out to be  the case.

Hillary was cheered on by her supporters for her chutzpah in standing up to her questioners.

But the point was that it did matter. And her defensive reply, even to Republicans making this into a partisan issue, was neither an adequate nor appropriate response. Certainly she did not address the circumstances of this tragedy, which cast a dark cloud over her tenure as Secretary of State.

She then acknowledged she took the "responsibility" for it, but not the blame.

I myself was wondering why our nation even  had an ambassador in Libya, given the lawlessness there. In addition, it was reported that Stevens himself had expressed concerns about his safety that went unheeded by the State Department. One also wonders why he was protected not by American security personnel but by a hired Libyan militia that in the end, as any observer might have predicted, failed to cooperate with tracking down the perpetrators. 

I cannot help but think back to Clinton's reaction as Secretary of State after she viewed a video of the barbaric and gruesome death of Col. Muammer el-Qadaffi. "We came, we saw, he died," she said blithely, as though our nation were some sort of conquering Caesar.

Our nation ignored those humanitarian calls for an investigation into the dictator's shocking death, although killing a captive without trial is illegal according to the laws of the Geneva Convention. We did not press Libya for justice, although the graphic video captured the images of the perpetrators. Instead, we joked about how dictators deserve to die.

Such actions or non-actions had consequences. Our nation cannot condone behavior that appeals to man's basest emotions, and then naively expect others to abide by the dictates of international law.

In a sense, we initiated this mess by our involvement in the NATO air attack that downed the dictator, euphorically claiming we liberated Libya, only to see our delusions of bringing democracy there give way to the rise of its militant factions. We then ignored the subsequent ominous pronouncements of Sharia law and the abrogations of personal freedoms there.

Those militants who stormed the Benghazi compound on the anniversary of 9/11 and killed the ambassador and three American citizens turned out to be no different than those who barbarically killed Qadaffi. A most sickening video of the burning compound and the obviously brutalized ambassador who reportedly died of smoke inhibition clearly made this point. As before, the perpetrators were known and identifiable, and the Libyans, as before, predictably did nothing.

It is about time the we acknowledge that there is a dark and grim side of the Arab spring, the rise of jihad and internal chaos. Clearly now, as before, Libya has no interest in holding its militants to account. And our efforts to bring to justice those involved in the attack on Benghazi are in vain.

Violence begets violence. We reap what we sow.

As we initially ignored barbaric actions that violated the sensibilities of any human being, we now find ourselves helpless to do anything when our own citizens are subjected to the same shocking form of Sharia justice.

I myself feel extremely sad about this most predictable United States foreign policy disaster.

http://olyasthoughtsonlife.blogspot.com/2012/01/on-libya-and-democracy_24.html

(c) Olya Thompson

On Cheating at Stuyvesant High: Take 2

In the wake of a Stuyvesant High School cheating scandal in June, involving 70 students, comes a shocking recent New York Times report that reveals an astonishing underlying “pathology” of academic dishonesty at the school. Students unabashedly describe unflattering breeches of ethics and even exhibit an extravagant sense of entitlement to such behavior:

“It’s like, I keep my integrity and fail this test -– no,” a senior actually says, “No one wants to fail a test.” The latter remark is indeed true. But this very student seems unaware that there is an obvious alternative to cheating in order to pass a test -- one studies for it. Yet this very same student says studying for the test is “a waste of time.” So what does he expect? Well, he expects to cheat.

A recent alumnus blames his actions on a French teacher he says he “had lost all respect for.” The teacher taught him nothing, he claimed, taking a passive approach to learning (and so missing out on the benefits of acquiring another language). When other students were openly discussing the answers on a test, he says, “Should I not listen?”

Obviously, these students are not of the mind of Sophocles, who had said, “I would prefer to fail with honor than win by cheating.” More likely, they are apt to dismiss the great philosopher as a fool.

Instead, it looks like the tired “everyone does it” excuse has become the mantra at this most elite New York City public school: The school newspaper, The Spectator, revealed in March that 80 percent of students in a survey of 2045 students were not embarassed to admit that they cheat.

Students who spoke to the Times on the condition that their names not be used, detailed how take-home exams (that used to depend on trust and individual effort) have now become a collaborative group endeavor. They also spoke of copying homework, not to mention detailing other methods of cheating they used.

Students rationalized such behavior as a choice between keeping their integrity versus getting onto their dream college:“The only way you could have gotten there,” a recent graduate said, “is to kind of botch your ethics.”

The ringleader of the initial June cheating scandal, Nayeem Ahsan, had explained to New York Magazine that he used his cell phone to send answers to several classmates on one Regents exam, in order to get help on two others.

Such revelations are a pretty bad indictment of the values that predominate at the school. After all, it was our own Teddy Roosevelt who said, “To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society.”

And what do such values say they about student success in future life and work endeavors, not to mention their success in the competitive colleges they aspire to? (And indeed in the wake of this scandal, comes one at Harvard, where a take-home exam turned into a dishonest collaboration.)

Also damaging to the school’s reputation are its teachers who are described by students as being “understanding” and complicit in unethical student behavior by not following policies. A student caught cheating on a math test with a sheet for formulas, for example, was not reported because she had been accepted into an Ivy League school.

One wonders if it is the teachers or the students who are running this school. One would have thought that this top city school’s mission would have been to instill those very ethical values its students see as unnecessary. Amid such revelations as those detailed above and an investigation by the Department of Education that resulted in suspensions for up to 10 days for the students involved, it is no wonder that the school principal resigned.

The new school principal has announced some changes intended to restore the school’s tarnished reputation: The cell phone ban is being enforced. Students now have to review and sign an honor code. Teachers are directed to talk about academic dishonesty. (And interestingly, one of Harvard’s responses to its own mass cheating episode was also a possible plan to require classes on what constitutes cheating.)

Yes, one would like to think the grown-ups are in charge now.

But these “new” policies pose an obvious problem. These capable students already know that the behaviors they are engaging in are wrong. So will an honor code make any difference? How is one to to believe that these students will really care about integrity?

Much more likely, it seems, they will continue in their “do-anything-as-long-as-you-can-get-away- with-it” ethos.

Not surprisingly, there appears to be no surfeit of student scruples: Rather than accept responsibility for bad behavior, a student had sued the school about a suspension that will appear on her student record, claiming that the school is damaging her chances of getting into an elite college.

It is somewhat reassuring to hear that as of the latest update, the student lost her case.

     (c)Oya Thompson

Paul Ryan, Ayn Rand, and Charles Dickens

I've been reading so much about Ayn Rand lately. Her work has suddenly come into vogue, being used to justify this era of greed -- in a nation so rife with huge economic divisions that it has come to resemble Medieval Europe -- a land of overlords and serfs.

I could not believe any mature person would take the works of Ayn Rand and her "philosophy of selfishness" seriously. Yet Paul Ryan and others of his ilk have cited her as a major influence. Of course, Ryan did this, only to repudiate her later, in view of the public ridicule he received. Then he incongruously cited Thomas Aquinas as his mentor -- as he proposed to cut social programs. 

Ryan was so impressed with Ayn Rand's views that he was known to hand out copies of her most successful book, "Atlas Shrugged," as gifts to his staff.  The book, a fantasy dystopian novel  -- a once-popular genre that also produced George Orwell's 1984 -- uncannily reflects the niggardly mentality of our era: The productive leaders of her society go "on strike" and abandon the rest of mankind, creating a society of  their own. This scenario is ironically not unlike what is effectively occurring in our era of globalization, where joblessness has hit an all-time high. Rand's leaders are driven by what she calls "ethical egoism" in her philosophy. Quite understandably, Rand and her views were never the subject of mainstream scholarship, but her ideas did develop a cultlike following. Now, her work has become as a sorry symbol for what is happening in our times.

I read Ayn Rand in high school, before I  went on to read more serious socially responsible literature. It was not long before I saw her main characters to be of merely cursory interest. "Shallow" would be the more apt word. Man's highest purpose is his own happiness? How selfish! Also, this self-centered point of view is frightening, as it provides an underpinning for ruthlessness. Not surprisingly, her philosophy has come to justify capitalism in its most extreme form -- the goal of making money at all costs, no matter what the cost --  including the exploitation of others.

Rand's view of the man who is born a superior human being and succeeds by virtue of his own exceptionalism is almost a version of the Aryan superman, who came to dominate Hitler's thinking. I suppose that's how Ryan sees himself, as one of the elect, as opposed to others, who are not as deserving nor as talented. Now that's a pretty scary and not a very egalitarian philosophy in this nation that espouses democratic values. As Ryan's own career shows, the idea of the lone individualist is a myth, as one suceeds only with the help of others.

It is indeed sad that Ryan never moved on in his reading to enjoy the old-fashioned novel, say, like that of Dickens who does not write about the acquisition of money but about its corrupting influence. His edifying caricatures of misers, such as Scrooge and Fagin, provide a lesson in greed: Those who hide away their profits benefit no one, not even themselves. Unlike Rand and her "moral relativism," Dickens is a consistently moral writer, whose purpose is the betterment of society. His destitute and exploited heroes can serve as foils for those of Rand, whose grandiose heroes lack a moral compass in a godless world. A reading list that overlooks the greatest works of literature and philosophy, and primarily relies on Ayn Rand is sophomoric and sorely limited and does not say much about a party that considers Ryan one of its great "thinkers."

Rand's version of exploitative capitalism is indeed an embarrassing philosophy  in a land where capitalism has gone awry. Particularly at a time when never have profits from business been higher, and never has the number of those taking advantage of them been lower. Dickens' more earnest and universal message of social responsibility would have provided a good humanitarian and unifying counterpoint that speaks to all of society, not just the 1 or 5 percent, and would have served Ryan better. But that is certainly not what Paul Ryan or his message of elitism and disenfranchisement are all about.

On Cheating at Stuyvesant High School

I should have been shocked by that cheating scandal that involved 70 students at Stuyvesant High School, New York City's most prestigious public school. But it didn't surprise me at all. Rather, it was just one more example of what unfortunately has become all too endemic in our schools.

Student cheating in this most recent incident was explained away as due to pressure. The pressure was blamed on competitive parents who expect their children to get into the best schools. And then, there was that prevalent attitude among students that "everybody does it." The students who participated in behavior that was clearly ethically wrong experienced no real consequences, other than retaking the test.

What does this say about our schools' responsibility to instill values of honesty and integrity?

Not much.

It seems to me that ethical standards have eroded over the years. I remember when cheating used to be considered an abominable breach of trust, a social stigma, a reason for expulsion. Besides, if students cheat in school, then what does this say about their integrity in future endeavors? Do these things no longer matter, because we live in a you-can-do-anything-unless-you-get-caught
society?

 Worse still, many of these parents of "high-achievers" do not model honorable and ethical behavior in their own lives. So what can one expect from their kids?

As though it were trying to explain this phenomenon away, an article I came across said that everyone will cheat, given the opportunity.

Everyone?

Well, I object to myself being included in that category. And no, I do not believe that we all are selfish and self-serving and will do anything if our behavior is unchecked. I personally tend to side with Sophocles who once said, "I would prefer even to fail with honor than win by cheating."

Besides, school should be about so much more than test scores. There is the innate satisfaction of learning for the sake of learning that students who are only concerned about grades miss out on. There is the experience of  broadening one's horizons and developing an intellectual curiosity that an education should be all about. There is also that standard of individual responsibility and code of honor that students should hold themselves up to and follow thoughout their lives.

It is indeed sad that our culture is no longer shocked by cheating. I don't even know if  most people today would even call this latest episode a "scandal." I doubt that it will even have a lasting effect on the reputation of the school. Unfortunately, cheating these days is so prevalent that it no longer seems unusual.

Indeed, what is most telling about our culture is that people are no longer surprised or shocked by dishonesty, but by true honesty.