George Rebane
Probability is the measure of possibility.
H&I fires. The Russians are using an unusually insidious, deadly, and dastardly artillery tactic to kill fleeing civilians on negotiated evacuation routes. The tactic is called Harassment and Interdiction fires, and are designed to deny the enemy free use of designated areas over extended periods. H&I fires are conducted randomly with high explosive shells fired from one or two tubes, and set to denote at 50-150 feet above ground level. This results in an anti-personnel ‘kill circle’ of at least 200-300 feet radius depending on shell size. Historically artillery is the biggest killer on the battlefield, spraying shrapnel (extremely jagged and irregularly shaped pieces of steel ranging from bullet to tennis ball sizes) at extreme velocities around the detonation point. And whereas small arms military bullets travel at around 3,000 ft/sec, shrapnel comes at you at over 20,000 ft/sec. Targeting H&I fires on escape routes that are used only once by escapees is like shooting fish in a barrel – they never know whether or when its incoming, and they’re always out in the open. I wonder what a Russian battery commander feels when ordered to schedule H&I fires that he knows will kill/maim only civilians? Talk about war crimes.
Minds that never will meet. We have yet one more example of the Great Divide in progress. In my recent ‘Pentagon teaches socialism’ post’s comment stream we have one of our longtime leftwing readers deny acceptance of this important piece of anti-American news, why? because he considers the cited Newsmax “hardly a credible news source”. This reader is an established representative of this kind of progressive mentality – if the messenger is unfavorable, summarily reject the message. He never even bothered to examine the further referenced links which would have taken him to the DoD website where the conference was announced, described, and additional links provided. Instead, he and his consider CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, … and other lamestream news media as reliable, no matter that they don’t report news that doesn’t comport with the DNC narrative, and are unrepentant and uncontrite about most items they falsely report and/or spin. People of the Right have no problem consuming leftwing news and progressive literature – we demand to know it. However, those of the Left never lift the blinders they had carefully installed during their K-12 years. Such news consumption practices of the Left and Right are but one of many asymmetries that have made meaningful communication between the sides a rapidly fading episode in our country’s history.
[10mar22 update] Re the restraining order on my daughter. Nearly everything that has been admitted as evidence from the plaintiff at the hearing is a lie as corroborated by the available videos and the physics of the possible (e.g. see 1032am comment below). The judgement was a preordained political act.
[12mar22 update] Putin’s Rasputin bubble? Perhaps a little play on words, but a friend and reader sent me a link and asked whether I had ever heard of Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin. It turns out that Dugin has been the political philosopher and intellectual ideologue of Putin’s inner circle for some time now, dishing out his esoteric views on neo-fascist ‘Eurasianism’. (more here) Now I have never heard of Dugin or even that Putin has had an ‘inner circle’ of confidants. From what has been reported it appears that Putin has used the Machiavellian structure of alternating advisor circles whose members are political enemies of adjacent circles, thereby making it hard for a court conspiracy to mature sufficiently to topple the prince. But according to the referenced article, it appears that Putin’s Rasputin may have successfully implanted his ideas about the historical resurgence of a post-czarist Russia extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific. “Gestated in anti-communist right-wing activism during the waning days of the Soviet Union, indebted to a specifically anti-liberal and anti-Enlightenment philosophical embrace of authoritarianism, irrationalism, and hyper-nationalism, Dugin dreams of a reborn Orthodox Tsarist state surpassing the borders and spheres of influence as they existed before 1989, of a Novorossiya (New Russia) built not on socialist principles, but fascist ones.”
The mentality of a Russian soldier has always been a puzzle to westerners since at least the 1905 Russo-Japanese War. (Recall that my grandfather was a czarist conscript in that war, transported to and from Pacific rim battles on the trans-Siberian railroad in cattle cars which served as troop trains for Russian soldiers.) The Russian soldier has been distinguished by his overall and abysmal ignorance of his mission, especially as it fits into the geo-strategic situation du jour, and his lack of what the western soldier knows as patriotism. The Russian soldier always has found himself poorly led and poorly outfitted – his main goal is just to stay alive and go back home. To achieve this, he will follow any orders and do anything that lets him survive the day. Questioning authority is an unknown concept as long as it doesn’t put his life in immediate danger. However, he has been known to sabotage his own equipment, and even his own body, in order to avoid being thrown into the next maelstrom from which retreat often means summary execution. In this light one can understand Russia’s wanton shelling of Ukrainian civilians, be they in their apartments or fleeing on an open road.
Should They Still Honor Your Wishes?
George Rebane
Many people of means make charitable donations and bequests with caveats attached that they are told will be honored after they die. But not all people think that should be so. The practice of subverting the will of the dear departed has a long history. The Ford Foundation, founded in 1936 by Henry (died 1947) and Edsel (died 1943) Ford, is a good example of such radical repurposing that many such bequests have suffered. In the Ford Foundation case, the transformation started soon after Henry’s death and was directed by its trustees so far afield by 1976 that its then chairman Henry Ford II resigned in disgust.
So, here’s the question – to what extent should the departed donor wishes to charities be honored? We here consider only cases where the donor conditioned his donation subsequent to receiving bona fide and legal assurances in writing that his monies would be managed and dispensed according to his agreed upon wishes. In short, the donation/bequest was made as part of a two-party contract.
Historically, there has been a debate in how much and for how long charitable organizations should honor their donors’ wishes. As early as 1789 Thomas Jefferson weighed in to James Madison his strong opinion on donors setting aside real estate in perpetuum for a designated religious or charitable purpose. Jefferson said, “The Earth belongs to the living, and the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.” It might be a stretch, but one can see that sentiment applied to land, the desired uses of which may change over the passing decades as the country grows.
Leftwing political theorist Emma Saunders-Hastings teaches at Ohio State that philanthropy is a “deeply political activity” which gives the rich an outsized sphere of influence in a democracy, especially “in public life and by putting in place paternalistic relationships between donors and their intended beneficiaries." In sum, it promotes inequalities that should have no place in democracies. In her recent Private Virtues, Public Vices (2022) she argues against the notion wherein ‘donors claim to know, better than gift recipients, how their monies should be spent, placing donors’ ideas about what is best ahead of those of the beneficiaries.’
To many of us such a view about perpetuating donor values is a natural and acceptable given. Donors give to an institution either because they believe in the concordance of their values with those of the institution, or they believe the institution is trustworthy and capable of promoting the donor’s values as prescribed and agreed upon. Saunders-Hastings also has problems with the lion’s share of large donations coming from the rich whose values are definitely not those of the common folk, and therefore will perpetuate inequalities into the indefinite future, unless … .
Saunders-Hastings appears also being blind to a fundamental tenet of the nature of mortal humans. Most people who are capable of enduring works see these as an extension of their being for those still living after they die. Those with charitable instincts often see their wealth as delivering a twofer after they are gone – continuing to provide for a common good, and serving as a living memorial to a life well-lived and wealth well-placed. To date, America has benefitted greatly from such donors of a wide range of means, who are not necessarily the claimed out-of-touch plutocrats. (more here and here)
But we return to the main question – when the donated money was left in trust, is it ever ethical for society to then later violate that trust; and, if so, under what conditions should that be possible without communicating fraud to potential donors and shutting off the funding of good works?
Posted at 11:00 AM in Critical Thinking & Numeracy, Culture Comments, Our Country | Permalink | Comments (1)
Reblog (0) | |