Environmental Ethics
and Public Policy
Ernest Partridge, Ph.D

HOME PAGE                             
    Philosophy and Religion
    Ethics, Moral Issues, the Law
    The Environment

On Politics
    The Crisis
    Foreign Relations, War, Peace
    The Media
    The Elections
    Civil Liberties and Dissent
    Republicans & the Right
    Democrats & the Left
    Lies, Propaganda & Corruption
    Culture War & Religious Right
    Coup d'Etat, 2000

Published Papers

Unpublished Papers

Reviews, Lectures, etc.    

Internet Publications


Lecture Topics

Conscience of a Progressive
    (A Book in Progress)

A Dim View of Libertarianism

Rawls and the Duty to Posterity
    (Doctoral Dissertation)

The Ecology Project

For Environmental Educators

The Russian Environment

    (Critiques of Post Modernism)

Notes from the Brink
    (Peace Studies)

The Gadfly's Bio Sketch

The Gadfly's Publications

The Online Gadfly: Editorial Policy

The Gadfly's E-Mail: gadfly@igc.org

Classical Guitar:
"The Other Profession





(Formerly "The Gadfly's Blog")


2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011,
2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004

Before 2004

I offer below, random musings, reflections, correspondence, scraps of work-in-progress, and other such miscellany, perchance worth sharing but not ready for the prime time of formal publication.  

Much of this material has been adapted from personal e-mail correspondence. While I am perfectly free to use, revise and expand on my side of these exchanges, use of the "incoming" correspondence is problematic. I have neither the right nor the inclination to include the words of my correspondents if they can be identified either by name or description.

If I am confident that the correspondents can not be identified and if their part of the exchange is essential to the exchange, then I might quote them directly. Otherwise, their ideas will be briefly paraphrased, only to supply context to my part of these conversations. In no case will I identify the correspondents by name.

On the other hand, signed letters to The Crisis Papers and The Online Gadfly are fair game as are other comments published in the internet. They were submitted with the clear understanding that they, and their signatories, might be made public.

Some of this content, especially from earlier years, has been imported from the Crisis Papers blog, as will be evident as you read these "jottings."

Incoming correspondence will be identified by italics. My contributions will be in plain text.


April 9, 2017:

Exchange regarding "Vladimir Putin as Emanuel Goldstein." OpEdNews.


"Vladimir Putin may be as evil and as threatening as we are told. But before we agree to believe this, are we not entitled to evidence and a reasoned argument, along with informed rebuttal? If not, then what are we getting other than propaganda and "proof" by repetition, whereby Putin is presumed guilty until proven innocent, as scant evidence is offered as to either his guilt or innocence."

How scant is evidence that Russia took Crimea?

"Russia and China have vetoed a draft UN resolution calling for the crisis in Syria to be referred to the international criminal court -- ignoring support for the measure by 65 other countries and all other members of the security council."

How about Nemtsov's death?

Let us discuss all or any of these.

Submitted on Saturday, Apr 8, 2017 at 12:14:28 PM

Reply to BFalcon:

Perhaps a re-reading of my essay might shed light on your questions. Remember, I am no fan of Putin. Also, we should resist the American habit of falling into polar thinking. There are many shades of grey between black and white. Between "yes" and "no" may be the wiser, "I just don't know." The MSM's recent record of outright error and unsupported propaganda (e.g., Saddam's WMDs and Powell's lies), provides us abundant reason to doubt what we are told by our media.

To your points:

RE: Nemsov. Informed observers report that Nemsov was a spent political force in Russia, of no great threat to Putin -- while alive. But as a martyr, a much greater danger, as subsequent events have demonstrated. Especially so if Putin ordered the killing in the shadow of the Kremlin, next to St. Basil's Cathedral. Still, I am willing to believe that Putin ordered the murder if I am presented compelling evidence. None so far.

RE: Crimea. Another grey area. I wish Putin had not taken Crimea. This has caused Putin and Russia a lot of grief. Still I can understand his motives, even if they were morally unjustified and strategically unproductive on balance. At the time of the annexation, it seemed likely that Ukraine might join NATO. Russia's only warm-water naval base is in Crimea (Sebastopol). Imagine Newport News, San Diego or Pearl Harbor about to be absorbed into Russian, or Russian allied, territory. And what would we do if Russia set up missile bases in Cuba? Well, we know the answer, don't we? Finally, an issue rarely raised: it is clear that most Crimeans would prefer to be Russian than Ukrainian. Shouldn't they have a say in the matter? Crimean secession (initiated by Crimeans) with compensation to Ukraine would have been a much better solution. If Yanokovitch had not been overthrown, it's a good bet that Crimea would still be a part of Ukraine.

RE: the veto. Shame on Russia and China! Still, don't forget that John Kerry and Sergei Lavrov (Russian Foreign Minister) together worked out a cease fire in Syria, only to have it scuttled by a US military attack. "An accident" we were  told. This Syrian bloodbath has to end, and it can only end through negotiation, which means a willingness of all sides to make concessions. Do you see any other way? Maybe WWIII?

Here's an interesting article from the independent Russian website, Meduza.

Ernest Partridge

Submitted on Sunday, Apr 9, 2017 at 5:45:45 AM

Reply to Ernest Partridge:

Is it really believable that Nemtsov was killed so close to Kremlin by somebody not related to Putin? And only one camera was working?

Taking Crimea is a crime, pun not intended, whatever motive.

Veto even more. Protecting criminals is criminal.

As for ending the war in Syria, there are many ways. If Russia decides to cooperate Assad is gone. ISIS needs to be defeated and will be. As for the future, it is tough but possible.

Submitted on Sunday, Apr 9, 2017 at 8:07:58 PM

Reply to BFalcon:

We simply have two very different ways of interpreting the world: you prefer bipolar perspective (black hats vs. white hats), while I recognize shades of grey. You "reason" from conclusions (Putin is a criminal, Crimea is crime) to a search for supporting "evidence." I prefer to examine evidence and then draw conclusions. Everybody (myself included) thinks your way. It's called "confirmation bias." But there are means to overcome this bias: e.g., scientific method and legal due process (rules of evidence). Striving, however imperfectly, to think like a scientist or judge requires rigorous cognitive discipline. But there are rules of evidence and logic to guide us.

E.G. Nemtsov: You: Putin did it, now let's find some "evidence." Me: Maybe Putin did it, maybe not. Absent independently verified evidence, no conclusion. We just don't know. Proximity to the Kremlin is not evidence against Putin who can order a murder anywhere. A hit on the Bol'shoi Moskvoretskii Most (Cathedral Bridge), which by the way I have walked across several times, is an embarrassment for Putin, resulting in troublesome protests.

Yes, the annexation of Crimea was arguably a crime. But not "plain and simple." International law is not "plain and simple." (Those damned "shades of grey" again!). By the same rule of international law, the Iraq war and last week's missile attack in Syria were crimes.  So?  Great power conflicts are not constrained by, or conducted according to, "law." The international scene is a Hobbesian state of nature, to the peril of us all. The UN and the Nuremberg Tribunals were meant to change that, and clearly they have failed. As I said, Putin should not have annexed Crimea, at least not in the way he did. He could have done so legally at the initiative of the Crimeans. You have not addressed my question: Don't the Crimeans have a right to choose their national affiliation? Isn't that the message of the Declaration of Independence? ("Consent of the governed"). What Talleyrand said of Napoleon applies to Putin: "It was worse than a crime, it was a blunder."

And finally, "if Russia decides to cooperate..." You make it sound so simple. Why not say "if the US decides to cooperate"? But of course, "we don't need to cooperate: we are righteous, and the Russkies are evil." To be sure, many influential Russians have a polar view. Result: no cooperation, and the war continues. For negotiations to succeed, mutual cooperation is essential, which means both (better "all,") sides, including Syrians, must be willing to make concessions. Which is what I said at the close of my previous.

To which I add: ISIS, due to its behavior, is disqualified from negotiations. It must simply be defeated. The same rule applied to Hitler,

The world is very complicated. Simplistic, dogmatic and polarized thinking can not lead to solutions.

Enough! I didn't expect to go on this long.

Ernest Partridge
Submitted on Sunday, Apr 9, 2017 at 9:54:48 PM




Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. He has taught Philosophy at the University of California, and in Utah, Colorado and Wisconsin. He publishes the website, "The Online Gadfly" (www.igc.org/gadfly) and co-edits the progressive website, "The Crisis Papers" (www.crisispapers.org).  Dr. Partridge can be contacted at: gadfly@igc.org .