Russia: World Chess Champion Versus KGB Judo Practicing President

I've been reading news stories about disturbing political developments that Robert Amsterdam, a lawyer who has worked for Russian clients, has been posting about Russia on his blog. Not that this is really startling news, but the recent incidents in what's turning out to be a heavy handed and rigged government election to put President Putin's successor in place, a reversion to standard Soviet practice, only reinforces the sense that the Putin government is digging the country into a deeper hole, reverting Russia into a new post-Soviet version of the repressive pre-1985 authoritarian state.

The efforts of retired world chess champion Garry Kasparov, now a Russian politician protesting the charade of an election in Russia, and trying to run for the position of president of the Russian Federation, are courageous, but ineffectual. For the Putin-led government controls all the news sources, so simply doesn't allow dissent or protest to be broadcast, nor for that matter public protests and rallies.

Though it's claimed Putin's government enjoys support of the majority of the population, one can certainly assume that it would decrease--just how much is an open question--with an open press and investigative journalism. Perhaps sensing that a mere spark of protest could eventually start a fire, as it had in Ukraine in late 2005, the Putin government has brutally put down protests, with police beating protesters and arresting them. For now Kasparov has taken to the internet to broadcast his candidacy for president, and more importantly provide much needed criticism of the current president's disregard for adhering to democratic process.

One wonders how the government will choose to handle him, because he is well-known throughout the world. Will one of Putin's henchmen venture to slip some poison in his soup, as was done to current president of Ukraine, Yushchenko, as he was running for office against a Ukrainian pro-Putin candidate? It remains to be seen just how low Putin's government will stoop.

For now thanks to genuine democrats, like Kasparov, the undemocratic transfer of the presidency in Russia will be put in a brighter spotlight, exposing the true thuggish, authoritarian face of the current Russian government, which makes itself out to be a benevolent, paternal government that must rule with force and a strong hand.

Recent attempts to silence Kasparov have shown that it's likely that the transfer of power won't be anywhere as smooth as Putin anticipated. Government justifications for cracking down on legitimate and legal protests and rallies will ring quite hollow. And, Putin won't easily perform a judo flip on a wily rival like Kasparov, at least as long as the world is watching. But it's high time for democratic nations to speak out more forcefully at the travesty of electoral politics in Russia where there are no debates even allowed. To begin with, censure Putin and insist that he and his government respect the rules of democracy. To stop overlooking the increasingly flagrant disregard for rule of law being practiced in Russia only encourages it to continue.

For a recent article by a Russian human rights activist published at Open Democracy see:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-institutions_government/russia_civil_society_4573.jsp#

http://www.robertamsterdam.com/

The Dilemma of Handling a Difficult Student

Recent newspaper articles have brought to light the bizarre and disruptive of behavior of the college student Cho Seung-Hui, who went on a shooting rampage on April 16. He had been behaving strangely in classrooms since 2005. This case brings to stark light one of the most difficult situations in teaching for the college instructor and administration--how to handle a disruptive adult student in a college classroom.

A problem can arise because such a student's behavior must directly threaten the instructor or students or clearly interfere with classroom instruction. Only on evidence of such behavior can such a student be removed from the class; therefore, any behavior that falls short of meeting those criteria will allow such a student to remain in the class. Unfortunately, that leaves room for behavior which can cause considerable discomfort for the students and the instructor, as the recent case of Seung-Hui reveals. In one creative writing class, for example, most of the students dropped out of the class because of his presence. In this case, the disruption is implicit: students felt so disturbed by another student that they voluntarily left. In another class, Seung-Hui refused to speak, participate, and wore sunglasses and a baseball cap. Though he was an inscrutable, dark, brooding presence, he was not a disruptive one.

Repeatedly, Seung-Hui's professors brought the matter of his behavior up to their department, college administration and security, but as long this student did not verbally or physically threaten anyone in the classroom, as long as he did not impede teaching or learning in the classroom, there were no grounds for his removal from the classroom. In one instance, Seung-Hui would meet separately and privately with a professor outside the classroom.

The most incriminating evidence against Seung-Hui was his creative writing, which featured brutality and violence. Students and professors who read it were mortified by it. But again, as long as this writing did not name or implicate anyone in the class or university for that matter, it did not constitute grounds for dismissal from class.

Within the parameters they were able to work under, the professors, administration, and security seemed to have done what they could. They felt frustrated because they sensed something terrible was transpiring and could not intervene, constrained from doing so because of regulations that protect freedom of expression and speech. There seems to be no easily formulated resolution to this dilemma--how to handle a student that deeply troubles other students and instructors, yet who never crosses the line in threatening them. We clearly don't want the classroom to become authoritarian, which would stifle intellectual growth and freedom, but at the same time, we can't allow a troubled and potentially dangerous individual to abuse the freedom offered in a university classroom.

In effect, ever careful and obliged by law to respect one individual's freedom, a student was allowed to harbor and develop his violent delusions, which gradually compelled him to act on them. At some point the humanity of the student Sueng-Hui had been lost, taken over, eclipsed by a violent and inhumane spirit of destruction. This tragic case calls for a reconsideration of when and how university administration and security can and should intervene.

For exceptional cases, guidelines and provisions need to be formulated so the educational experience isn't allowed to deteriorate, as it clearly did for both students and instructors at Virginia Polytechnic. When one student's quest for freedom of expression goes awry that student needs to leave the class. For students and instructors deserve to learn and be taught in a setting where they feel safe and respected.

Note on the image: this is an imaginary portrait by Man Ray of the Marquise de Sade, an eighteenth century French writer, who advocated the right to pursue pleasure with absolute freedom in his writing, which in his life often led to repeated arrest and imprisonment. This image came to mind because Richard Wolin used it for the cover his book, The Terms of Cultural Criticism.

The Rule of Eighteenth Century Rights

Reading more about the recent shooting tragedy, I realize that a ban on handguns is unlikely because most Americans, anywhere from a half to two thirds, cite the second amendment right to bear arms as something they cannot part with. It's intrinsic to their sense of self-identity as Americans.

Considering the second amendment in historical perspective, we see that it was written at a time America was a frontier state in which there was only minimal civil authority and protection in place. Thus, understandably, there was a clear justification for an individual to assert he had a right to protect himself. Clearly, however, society has changed since the late eighteenth century and the justification for the right to bear arms to defend oneself no longer makes sense. There are few if any areas of desolate wilderness and total lawlessness.

But that fact is overlooked by advocates of the right to bear arms. From their perspective, it simply doesn't matter that the environment and society has changed. Of course it has they would acknowledge, but that cannot and should not affect the inviolability of their right to bear arms. Any concession of this principle would undermine it, hence its inviolability.

In this regard, they are correct, and you cannot argue with them, or rather their essentialist argument. Furthermore, without a majority of Americans opposing their claim to a right to bear arms, their position will prevail.

Looking at this issue in a larger perspective, we can see that various areas of the world hold on tenaciously to ideas and customs which puzzle outsiders. To outsiders these ideas and customs don't make sense, but to the people who hold them, they do; moreover, they define their identity. Thus, to part with such an idea and custom that defines you is something that is difficult or that cannot be conceived. In effect, you cannot ask people to change a policy or practice or custom, which they regard as intrinsic to who they are.

Only the cumulative effect of negative consequences or the slow process of gradual education or a political upheaval will result in change. In United States, I would surmise that the former two factors will eventually change the hearts and minds of people, make them consider changing their identity and their views on the issue of restricting and then banning handguns altogether. Practically speaking, for now the most that can be expected in terms of legislation about handgun possession and ownership in United States is that the pressure to impose more restrictions will increase.

Personally, I can play only a small part in this contentious issue of handgun control in America, adding my voice to the chorus of others informing readers in a manner that isn't accusatory or condescending, but thought provoking.

Columbine Again and Worse

Reading the news on Monday, April 16 caused palpable shock and horror. A young and demented man has killed 32 people and himself at Virginia Polytechnic Institute. If this can happen there, it can happen anywhere, where you work, go to class, shop, meet, and you feel vulnerable and threatened. And you feel terrible for those who died and were injured. It feels as if the tragedy of Columbine is being played out again, but this time with even more victims.

This is the deadliest shooting incident in American history. There have been several such terrible incidents since the 1960s. Something needs to change, some policy measures taken, and legislation passed to prevent such incidents from recurring. A debate needs to begin concerning hand gun ownership and purchase. Michael Moore's documentary film "Bowling for Columbine" was a critique of an American obsession with guns and a usually unreasonable fear that fuels their desire for self-protection. Strangely, this insistence on insuring one's own self-protection overlooks the fact that the right to bear arms, handguns, also allows a a few angry individuals to wreak murderous havoc.

My position is that handguns should be banned, as they are in other advanced nations, like Japan and the United Kingdom. These nations don't suffer from the bane of handguns--an annual loss of thousands, tens of thousands of innocent victims, which America suffers. The only exceptions I would make for people who can own and possess handguns in the United States are for police and military personnel.

Is this a fair or just policy to ban handguns? No, by no means, for it punishes the vast majority of law abiding and peaceful registered gun owners who are not murderers, nor who will ever become murderers. But this policy will make our society safer, making it more difficult and less likely for handguns to be obtained by potential murderers, thus reducing innocent lives lost to handgun murderers. A handgun ban will make it less likely individuals such as the young man at Virginia Technical, will carry out their deadly plans. Imagine, it took him only 15 minutes to buy his first gun.

But given the great number of handguns already owned legally or illegally in United States, I am under no illusion that this policy will show significant and immediate results. Doubtless, for the right price, for example, an individual intent on murder, will likely and unfortunately still be able to manage to illegally purchase a handgun from an unscrupulous seller. Still, this will make acquiring a handgun much more difficult to obtain. It will take more than a simple and convenient visit to a gun shop.

Are there really any viable alternatives?! Advocates of the right to bear arms and the gun lobby are the chief opponents of a ban on handguns will argue there are. But it seems to me that no matter what efforts are taken to detect someone planning to carry out murder, there will be someone who eludes detection. And no matter how much security we provide, not every institution and building can be made into a secure place such as a court house or restricted airport area, where you are searched and need to pass through a metal detector before entering.

Unless this step of banning handguns in United States is taken, there will only be more such terrible incidents of senseless murder in the future. My hope is for far fewer, and dream, is for none to occur. Let's learn from and emulate nations like Japan and United Kingdom--and ban handguns in United States.

For a link on this issue, see "Gun politics in the United Kingdom":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

And I came across a comment in the New Yorker by Adam Gopnick that puts the gun issue in comparative perspective--see the Comment for the text.

Smoking Ban in Illinois 2008: Whose Rights Are Lost?

I was happy to read that a nonsmoking bill has been passed in the Illinois state senate, and if would pass the house and get the governor's approval, it would ban smoking indoors in all virtually all public places and businesses in Illinois on January 1, 2008.

As a concession to smokers, I should say that a universal nonsmoking ban is too draconian. Why not set aside some smoking bars and nightclubs, though doubtless the exact number and "fair" percent of them would be cause for controversy. Otherwise, it seems like the tables are turned completely against smokers, and I can understand why they would be upset.

Personally, smoking bothers me when I occasionally go out to concerts, bars, or nightclubs, because first, I am forced to wash my clothes and hair after being exposed to it; and, second, sometimes, it prevents me from going out to such places or going out altogether, for most other casual social gathering places, like cafes, close at 9 or 10 PM.

A sizable minority, up to a third of people, it seems, are unhappy with the possibility of statewide smoking ban because they feel their right to smoke is being unfairly curtailed. They admit that though their activity may be harmful to themselves and others, others can simply choose not to expose themselves to their smoke, just as they can choose to not expose themselves to any other activity they dislike.

This argument, however, operates on a mistaken assumption in defining free choice because there are so few, only a handful of nonsmoking bars, nightclubs and concert venues. Thus, there really isn’t much freedom to choose a different casual gathering place that stays open late at night.

For now even if a businesses owner of a bar, nightclub, and concert venues with a bar would like to make it a non-smoking place, he or she is compelled to allow smoking as long as their competitors do so, otherwise he or she may go out of business or lose a lot of business. Thus, one could say that even owners of night spots don't really have the freedom to make their establishment smoke free given the fiercely competitive environment!

A problem I see with the argument that you can avoid any activity you dislike is that smoking is different from say, playing music loudly or people drinking alcohol to excess, both of which occur at bars and nightclubs. However, if you dislike loud music, you can wear earplugs, and if you are uncomfortable with loud and silly drunk people, you can move away from them. But you cannot move away from the smoke inside a room.

Finally, let me conclude by considering the health issue of second hand smoke. The scientific evidence is incontrovertible that prolonged exposure is harmful to your health, causing disease and death in some cases. Thus, the health of people who work in smoky workplace is put at risk. Is this a choice too, putting your health at risk on the job? Though it can be argued, and I concede, correctly that you can choose to work elsewhere, I would respond that it may be difficult for people who work late in the evenings and usually on weekends to find comparable evening and late hours that would fit their schedule, especially since most already work at a regular job during the week. But more importantly, no one at any work place should be subjected to any well known and documented health hazard.

Note on image: This is the international symbol for a non smoking area. See the comment for the AP news release.

Overspending Abroad, Paying for It at Home

Funding Militarism Abroad and a Breakdown of Domestic Infrastructure

The looming disaster facing Chicago's elevated and underground train system (CTA) was a feature today in the New York Times, a sign that the situation is dire and only to threatens to get worse in the immediate future. Specifically, tracks and stations are old and being replaced, which has been lengthening waiting times, even doubling them, and the reconstruction of several stations will only make matters worse in April.

This is simply a short, informative article, and not a longer piece which touches on deeper underlying problems, but as I read it, I was thinking about the larger context of this issue. To be sure, to some degree this is an internal problem of mismanagement, as well as lack of adequate state funding, but I wonder even if those factors were not contributing causes to the transit system's decline and shortfall in funding, would there still be a problem? Probably, I surmise, there would still be one.

The larger issue behind this issue of CTA's impending problems is a lack of federal funding for public transportation, which results from simply a lack of available federal funds for it. Where is the money going? What is a higher priority? Clearly, it's national security and defense, military spending, especially for the last few years for the Iraq war. Even without this war, military spending was high; the last few years, it went out of control.

Thus, the war, distant and abstract, to most of us, who have neither been in military service, nor are related to someone it it, has come home. America has overreached itself, and is beginning to suffer the consequences.

Listening to an interview on a public radio station today, Worldview, of Chalmer's Johnson, a retired historian of East Asia, who has just published his third book critical of American foreign policy and militarism, led me to jot down these points.

In a recent conversation with a friend, the issue came up of why isn't there more protest and dissent against the American invasion of Iraq. Well, it seems, plainly that most people are not directly affected by it, at least until now.

See the comment for the New York Times article; photo: Pieter Breugel's Tower of Babel

Chalmers Johnson, Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic (Feb 2007)

For the interview of Chalmers Johnson about his recent book, Nemesis, you can listen to NPR's Worldview
http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/Program_WV.aspx?episode=9579