Ukraine and Human Nature: Poo-Tee-Weet.

In my more Hubert Humphrey youth, I used to believe that there really WAS an arc of history bent toward “progress.” I believed that most human beings, at bottom, just wanted to be left alone to live their lives in peace, that most people had no desire to harm others. Well, I gave up that naïveté about the same time I gave up religion. But still, it took me a damned long time, despite all the overwhelming evidence, to realize that—at any given moment—at least half of humankind does NOT want peace and security, but rather YEARNS for the excitement of anger, violence and conflict—with family, neighbors, co-workers, people of other colors, faiths, nationalities. And that the boundaries between peace-lovers and conflict-lovers are not fixed in either space or time: the same average joe might, depending upon external events and his own psychological state, transform overnight from a Milquetoast to a Minotaur. So, I conclude, sadly, that there is nothing meaningful to say about the war in Ukraine, or about human nature itself, except—as Vonnegut’s canary incoherently chirrups at the end of Slaughterhouse Five: “poo-tee-weet.” 

Here’s a picture of the “Tsar Cannon” in Moscow. (It was never actually used in battle: too big). So it goes.

Love a Country, Hate Its Sin

I have always been a Russophile: I love the literature, the music, the art. But this war in Ukraine is criminal and unforgivable. I want to blame Putin alone—leaving aside the Russian people themselves— even though that is probably naïve. Still, c’est compliqué. I feel a bit like I felt during America’s wars in Vietnam and Iraq—betrayed in my love for a country by that country’s stupid, brutal and ultimately “wrong” leaders—plus their credulous minions, of course. How long, and up to what point, is it possible to maintain one’s love of a country in spite of that country’s insane/inhumane policies? How long can one hate a country’s sin and still love that country?  Question to revisit in upcoming U.S. elections? …

The Perils of Putin’s Pauline

In general, I think the news networks are giving us an accurate picture of events unfolding in the war in Ukraine. But I do sometimes feel “manipulated” by interviews and photo narratives that are clearly chosen for their emotional impact (and viewer “appeal”) rather than actual “newsworthiness.” Of course, we all sympathize with the victims of Putin’s war. It’s a given. But I wish CNN et.al. would keep us focused on the overall tragedy and less obsessed with mawkish melodrama (“viewers may find these images disturbing”). This war is clearly NOT a simplistic Hollywood movie in which, yes, the good guys are tied to the tracks, but are ultimately—we knew it all along—rescued (hurrah!) from the clutches of the villain. This is NOT the “The Perils of Putin’s Pauline,” designed to give virtual (and safe) frissons to TV audiences and good ratings to CNN. To indulge in such manipulation of the news amounts to journalistic bad faith. Stop cheapening the suffering by using it for tabloid-style screeching, sermonizing, and money-making.