Cyreenik Says
History repeats itself... but not exactly. In this case, we are not watching a repeat of Russian expansiveness of the late 1930's -- the time when the newly formed USSR took over the Baltic States, half of Poland and tidbits elsewhere.
What is different this time?
o The USSR went bankrupt in 1989. That's why it broke up. Dreaming of a replacement for the USSR is an expensive dream, not a profitable one. The more Putin spends on Sochi Olympics, Syria and Ukraine adventures, the more he is courting a similar fiscal fate for his Russia. His supporting oligarchs are acutely aware of this, and if it happens they won't be happy. Update: This 23 Mar 14 WSJ editorial, Putin's Potemkin Economy by Ruchir Sharma, talks about the delicateness of the Russian economy.
o Europe is not being wracked with a deep, scary, social revolution. During the 1930's adventure, fascism and communism were credible social alternatives throughout Europe, and Germany under Hitler was actively playing "Let's share the pie." with the USSR under Stalin. This time Europe is stable and Germany under Merkel sees no benefit in supporting this Russian adventurism.
o The communication revolution has changed how governing is conducted. In the 1930's people saw their live-action news in carefully edited News of the Week newsreels at movie theaters. Today the world sees the protests and violence real time from tens of thousands of points of view. That makes a difference in how protesting is handled by both protesters and the government.
For all these reasons the Ukraine crisis is not the Appeasement Crisis of 1938 with its subsequent Munich Agreement. Things will go differently this time.
That said, keep in mind that the Ukrainians brought this down upon themselves by installing bozo government after bozo government since the breakup. They desperately need to get good at governing.
Commercial airliner accidents are not interesting for me. The coverage is a media circus fueled by the widespread fear of flying many humans have. This is the same fear that sustains the religion that the TSA has been since its creation. (here is my description of that) But this accident is turning out differently... so differently that I'm getting interested.
My first impression was that this plane shredded itself into a million pieces when it broke up for some reason while at cruising altitude and cruising speed. This is what a jet liner will do if there is even modest structural failure at that speed and altitude -- Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerby is a famous example of this kind of failure. (And this is why the first episode of "Lost" lost my interest: it couldn't happen that way.)
And, given how shallow and clear the Gulf of Thailand is, finding wreckage of this sort should have taken half to a full day. Likewise, because it is so shallow, if the plane had somehow descended in tact, it would also be really easy to spot -- satellites would see it instantly.
Conversely (reported days later), some of the plane's sensors were indicating the plane flew for hours after it dropped off radar. If the plane flew for many hours, how come the passengers didn't get the feeling something was amiss, and start phoning home, or taking over the plane, or something equivalent? And how come the various radars that it would have passed in those hours of flying could not detect the plane itself -- transponders turned off or not? Very strange.
As a result, the longer this mystery goes on of how long the plane flew, and where it flew to, the more intriguing I find it to be. I am also impressed with how confused the reporting has been on this -- the media and the Internet are sure willing to listen to anyone... anyone on this incident. I see this as an indicator of the huge amount of emotion wrapped into this. It may be a unique mystery, but it is still Circusland. <sigh>
In sum, this crash is different, and the story around it is going to be different. I'm watching... and it is spooky how much this is coming to resemble a Lost episode! <grin>
This thought is inspired by a 10 Mar 14 Sacramento Bee article, E-cigarettes face restrictions as cities update smoking ordinances
by Cathy Locke, which describes how more California cities are changing smoking ordinances to treat e-cigarettes the same as traditional cigarettes. I see this as an example of heart thinking paying no attention to head thinking, because e-cigarettes are a completely different technology from traditional cigarettes -- about all they have in common is the cigarette part in their names.
One of the biggest differences is variety. Only a handful of substances are compatible with cigarette form, fit and function. E-cigarettes, on the other hand, can accommodate the much wider variety of substances that can be vaporized by heat -- ninety percent of these have nothing to do with tobacco (or cannabis for that matter).
As Lindsey Freitas, policy manager for the American Lung Association in California, puts it in the article, "We’re really concerned that we just don’t know what is in them." The way I read it, that means it could be good, it could be bad, it could be life-saving, it could be benign. But the fear is strong in this one, Obe Wan. Freitas goes on to say, "The American Lung Association in California advocates treating e-cigarettes as tobacco products."
This choice is walking away from a new tool/technology based on "from the heart" thinking. The big social cost here is the powers-that-be are disenfranchising those who see the difference -- this "outlawing government" is not representing their interests, "So why support it?" Result: We are opening another front in the War on Drugs. <sigh>
Another big cost is in human material progress. This is a tool that can better solve some existing problems and open up opportunities to solve problems that don't currently have solutions -- this can be another kind of inhaler.
What is better than outlawing is to experiment, and learn, and benefit.
-- The End --