This article first appeared in New English Review.
As a former DEA agent, I have rather mixed feelings about the prisoner exchange with Russia involving Brittney Griner and convicted arms trafficker Viktor Bout. On the one hand, the 9-year sentence handed down to Griner for having cannabis residue in her luggage at Moscow airport was clearly excessive under any standard. I am glad she is free, but I just hope she has changed her attitude about her country and will now be proud to stand for her National Anthem.
As for Viktor Bout, it is just another example of what happens when democracies trade prisoners with dictatorships. We get the short end of the stick. Viktor Bout has been described as arguably the world's largest arms trafficker. He was lured to Bangkok in 2008 in an undercover operation conducted by DEA, where he was arrested and sent to the US. He was serving a 25-year sentence when the prisoner exchange took place this week.
Many, like myself, feel that we should have insisted that Paul Whelan, a former Marine held in Russia on spying changes since 2018, be included in the deal. He has been in Russian custody considerably longer than Griner, but his ordeal continues as Griner is now back home.
Derek Maltz is a retired DEA agent who was head of operations for the agency prior to his retirement. He is a leading voice on the dangers of Fentanyl in the US. He has spoken out against the release of Viktor Bout and points out the hypocrisy of the Biden administration's push for gun control while sending Bout back home to Russia-especially at a time when Russia is involved in its war against Ukraine and is struggling. Can Bout help revitalize the arms supply for this unjustified invasion? We shall see. Lest we not forget, there were DEA agents who risked their lives undercover to capture this man. I can only wonder how they are feeling now.
Even if Bout doesn't resume his role as a major international arms trafficker, the symbolism behind the deal is enormous. Rest assured the next time there is a mass shooting in the US, Biden and his minions will step up to the microphone and bemoan the lack of action on gun control. Hopefully, there will be someone in the press pool who will raise their hand and ask," But what about your release of Viktor Bout?" Of course, that would have to be Peter Doocy of Fox News, the nemesis of White House mouthpiece, Karine Jean-Pierre. I don't see anyone else doing it. No doubt Jean-Pierre is preparing her talking points about how serious this president is on curbing gun violence.
It would seem to me that we should insist that prisoner exchanges involve prisoners who committed roughly equal "offenses". This clearly does not fit that definition. Of course, I seriously doubt that we have any Russian citizens serving hard time in the US for simple possession of cannabis. Lacking that, I don't really know who we could have sent to Russia in place of Viktor Bout that Putin would want.
Peter Strzok?
19 comments:
I just want to address the following:
"I just hope she has changed her attitude about her country and will now be proud to stand for her National Anthem."
While I respect your feelings about the flag and the national anthem, I don't think that you're giving Griner the same respect.
Standing for the anthem, saluting the flag, etc. are all symbolic gestures. For some, it's all about showing respect for the country, but symbols mean different things to different people. For me, those are actions of conformity and to NOT do them feels like more of an appreciation of this country's values of freedom and individual choice than taking part in what feels like an act of conformity and subservience to the state - something that's a hallmark of totalitarian societies.
So, you're assuming that you know Griner's motivations for not standing in the first place.
Secondly, just because Russia is objectively worse, that doesn't mean that America deserves (what probably seems to her) blind obedience and worship. She's a black lesbian, and her experiences are probably a bit different than a straight white man's. Maybe she has good reasons for feeling the way she does? Just because Russia is worse, that doesn't negate any grievances that she has with her home country.
I just don't think it's right to tell people how they're supposed to feel. Maybe we can work on making this a country where everyone genuinely feels enthusiastic about our anthem and flag? I don't think that we'll ever get there, but I think that's a better way to the goal than minimizing the grievances of others.
Let me put it another way. In international venues, it is a tradition that we stand for all anthems even those not our own. For example, in the Olympics, athletes and spectators stand when all anthems are being played. It is not out of loyalty or symbolism, it is simple respect for another's country.
When I lived in Germany, Thailand and Italy, I always stood when their anthem was played. In the case of the Royal Anthem in Thailand, one had better stand. Not to stand for an anthem is a conscious act of disrespect for that country, whether it is your own or someone else's.
The question begs: Would Griner stand for another anthem and not stand for her own at the same event? What kind of message would that send?
When people like Griner, Kaepernick or Rapinoe choose not to stand, it is an active sign of disrespect for their country. They can do so because it is a free country, and nobody is saying they should be arrested for it. But others are also free to express their opinion of it.
I recall in 1968 when John Carlos and Tommy Smith raised their fists at the Mexico City Olympucs They were sent home and subjected to wide criticism. That was a different time, and today, I can understand why they made the gesture. Sure, Griner may have a different perspective as a black lesbian than I do, but up until she was arrested in Russia, she was living a blessed life as a famous athlete in the freest country in the world-not perfect, especially given our history, but still the freest.
A couple of things:
"she was living a blessed life as a famous athlete"
What do you know about her life? Either before or after she became a famous athlete? That's a lot of assuming on your part.
"the freest country in the world"
I don't know how anybody who's an adult can actually say this. I don't hesitate to say that we are definitely more free than some places, but the entire world? What metric are you even using? Do you think that rape victims in Texas are feeling very free now that they have to carry their baby to term?
And how can you say that the country with the highest incarceration rate is "the freest"?
Again, I wonder what metrics you're even using, as it sounds like nothing more than propaganda. I tried looking up at organizations that rate countries on the amount of freedom that they have, and agree or disagree with how they figure it out, at least they provide their criteria.
With those (Freedom House, Cato Institute), the United States ranks pretty high. But it doesn't rank the highest.
For one thing, we still enjoy more freedom of speech in this country than any of our European allies. I have Swedish friends who tell me they are very reluctant to criticize the immigration policies of their country publically. They fear they could lose their jobs and be unable to find future employment. That is in the socialist paradise of Sweden.
Look at people like Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who has been prosecuted at least twice for criticizing Islam and Muslim immigration. Look at Austrian activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolfe who has been prosecuted for the same offense in her country.
No, we are not totally free, and there are distinct threats to our freedom coming mainly from the left. Look at what is happening and being revealed in social media (Twitter).
As for Brittney Griner, I supported bringing her home. As it turns out it was a bad trade, but at least she is home. Maybe she has unhappiness in her life, but surely she is not poor. She is a famous basketball player and she lives in a time in the US where gays are much more accepted than a few decades ago. Most importantly, she has a country that cared enough for her to trade a bigtime arms dealer for her freedom. I hope she is now feeling a sense of gratitude to her country and a sense of happiness that she was born an American.
Are you under the impression that there are no consequences for left-leaning or liberal speech in this country? Look at Kaepernick. Remember the Dixie Chicks? Do you think that in the more conservative parts of this country, one can be openly atheist or even a Democrat without risking losing their jobs? (I have a friend who lost a teaching job at a Mississippi public school when they found out he was an atheist.)
What's typical of people who are so entrenched in tribalism is that they only care about freedom when it comes to their side.
If you right-wingers cared so much about free speech, you'd talk about the "don't say gay" and "anti-woke" legislation that's being pushed by conservative leaders.
And the thing with Twitter is that they're a private company - unlike these Republican leaders who represent the government. They can do whatever they want. Musk is learning (the hard way) that he's going to be in hot water if he allows the platform to be a free for all (which is why he got smart enough to end Kanye's account again.)
I swear, you conservatives are like sheep who are concerned about the sharp teeth of the dog while ignoring the fact that the wolf has already eaten three of you.
And here's the thing - one can be glad that they're an American and STILL protest its injustices. Those two ideas aren't mutually exclusive.
I wonder how well-read you are on the Civil Rights movement. Do you even realize that you're using the exact same talking points now that were used against MLK? "Things are better now." White people sure like to tell black people what the right way to protest is. Reminds me of King's words:
"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
With all due respect to your friend in Mississippi with whom I sympathize, you are not making much sense. As for Kaepernick and the Dixie Chicks, have they been arrested or prosecuted for their stances? So the Dixie Chicks lost fans and the NFL lost fans over Kaepernick. Nobody fired Kaepernick. He made himself a free agent and other teams chose not to sign him. Consequences? Yes because most owners concluded that their fans did not want Kaepernick (who would have been backup anyway). Compare those cases with this from Norway.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/norwegian-filmmaker-faces-3-years-prison-saying-men-cannot-lesbians
So do you think Norway is freer than the US? Look at Iran where protesters are being given death sentences.
Funny, as one who remembers MLK and his assassination, I don't recall people admonishing him that things "are better now". Things were not better. They were horrible. Were you around then? (I don't know how old you are.) You may be well read on the Civil Rights Movement, but I lived through it. ( I was not a civil rights activist. In retrospect, I think I should have gotten involved)
I was comparing Kaepernick and the Dixie Chicks to what happens to conservative voices here in America. No, none of them have been arrested or prosecuted for their stances. But neither have any conservatives for their stances. I was responding specifically to your assertion that attacks on free speech are coming from the left.
I'm pointing out that conservatives are very hypocritical when they complain about what Twitter does to censor speech because it's happening to conservatives but turn a blind eye to similar instances of the free market canceling liberal voices.
But if we're talking about actual government censorship, which is the real threat to free speech, it's coming from places like Florida and Texas, where educators have to watch what they say or they'll get fired. (This is why I mentioned my friend. He was technically working for the government, which fired him because of his religious beliefs - something that's completely unconstitutional.)
Does that make more sense now? I'm talking strictly in America. The threats to free speech, on the government level, are coming from the right.
But, to your point about what happened in Norway, now we're getting somewhere. I was asking you what your criteria was for "freest". If you're talking strictly about freedom of speech, then I think that I'd probably have to agree with you. I have very mixed feelings about "hate speech" laws. I think that what this woman said was kinda silly, but I'd hate to see people suffering legal consequences for that sort of thing in this country. If she suffers financially because people no longer want to do business with her, then that's just too bad for her though.
So, when I hear the word "freest", I don't just think about freedom of speech. It seems like that's your only criteria though. Or am I wrong about that?
"So, when I hear the word "freest", I don't just think about freedom of speech. It seems like that's your only criteria though. Or am I wrong about that?"
It is probably the most important freedom. Of course, if you want to be somewhere with legalized prostitution, you can go to Europe (or Nevada).
Freedom of religion is certainly an issue in some parts of the world. I am referring to many countries that are majority Muslim and discriminate against and/or outlaw other religions.
Are you aware of the latest FBI scandal, where they allegedly met with social media to help them silence "disinformation"? Troubling, right?
If you look at university campuses where speech is a big issue, it is the left that attempts to silence conservative, pro-America, pro-Israel speech. I know that from my own experience.
Personally, I defend the right of others (on the left) to have their say. I would never try to silence those I disagree with. In fact, I have defended their right to speak when I was at UC Irvine. It's just that I insist on my First Amendment rights to express a different opinion. I think where we might disagree is over the issue of whether schools and teachers should be imposing their personal political and social beliefs onto our children. Students should be educated and not indoctrinated, and you cannot deny that there is indoctrination going on on the part of the left. I was an activist on the UCI campus, but I never one time took my personal beliefs into the classroom.
So in the cases of Florida and Texas, just how is it that teachers have to watch what they say? Does it mean that if they advocate LGBTQ rights, CRT, or criticize the REd White and Blue etc they can be fired, or are they being told not to impose their personal views on students? I need some particulars.
Okay, I'll give you freedom of religion as well. At least, in theory we have freedom of religion. You live in California though, so you could be a Christian, Muslim, atheist, or even a Scientologist and it probably wouldn't make much difference. In other parts of this country though, the "no religious test" part of the Constitution is conveniently ignored.
I've read up on the latest thing with Twitter, and it seems like that's not panning out quite the way Musk indicated that it would. Again, Twitter can do whatever it wants. If they were threatened with legal action, then that would be wrong. However, if you're going to take issue with Dems influencing Twitter, then you have to take issue with the fact that Fox News, OAN, and Newsmax are basically propaganda arms of the Republican party. Shoot, Sean Hannity is basically the Baghdad Bob to Trump's Saddam Hussein.
We've gone over the "educated vs. indoctrinated" before, and I don't think that your issue is indoctrination. If you were, then you'd be against having students do the Pledge of Allegiance, saluting the flag, singing the anthem before games, etc. That's indoctrination no matter how you slice it. Now, if you want to argue that it's a "good" kind of indoctrination, that's fine. After all, you probably indoctrinated your kids to brush their teeth before going to bed, but I don't think that anyone would take issue with that.
Furthermore, I can't take accusations of indoctrination on the part of the left too seriously unless the person also takes issue with the idea of religious schools - especially those that teach young-earth creationism, anti-LGBT ideology, etc. You'd also be against military recruitment on high school campuses. (Shoot, if you hate "indoctrination" in general, then you'd have to automatically be against the military!)
But what I'm talking about are things like the teacher in Missouri who was fired for "teaching CRT". As I've pointed out to you before, this term is becoming a catch-all for "teaching about race that we don't like". And whether you agree with this sort of a lesson or not, I don't think that it qualifies as "indoctrination", and it certainly isn't worth firing a teacher for it.
https://www.salon.com/2022/04/13/fired-over-crt-missouri-high-school-teacher-accused-of-teaching-critical-race-theory-loses-job/
Here's another:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/08/matt-hawn-tennessee-teacher-fired-white-privilege/619770/
And check this out, teachers fired for criticizing the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-the-war-on-american-teachers-20220427-ploa6upgs5dvpoccsnqxsh7dou-story.html
As for not taking your personal beliefs into the classroom, that's easier to do in some classes than others. If you're teaching math, then it's easy. But if you're dealing with history or literature then it's nearly impossible to remain neutral. My best teachers would give their thoughts but allow students to openly disagree and never graded us based on whether we agreed with them or not. I was going to say that teaching science would be easy to be neutral as well, but there's an active anti-science movement in this country that wants to pretend like established facts are up for debate.
Let's be real here though, Fouse. This is all just a moral panic. It's exactly the kind of thing that authoritarian regimes do. The Nazis attacked the education system. The Bolsheviks did the same thing. But what has the biggest influence over a kid? It's always going to be their parents and their upbringing.
I don't know about you, but when I grew up, teachers had a hard enough time just getting students to listen to them, period. I don't know anybody who looked to them the same way they do their parents or even a priest/pastor/rabbi/etc.
OK, so Fox and Newsmax are basically propaganda arms of the REpublican party. Outside of Fox and talk radio, pretty much everything else is a propaganda arm of the Dems. CBS, ABC, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, Public Television, the universities, most all of the major newspapers, Hollywood. So you want to take Fox away?
I just hope you are paying attention to how the Twitter files being released by Musk show how the FBI advised social media outlets like Twitter to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story.
"I was going to say that teaching science would be easy to be neutral as well, but there's an active anti-science movement in this country that wants to pretend like established facts are up for debate."
Are you referring to the Climate Change debate? Or perhaps, the perhaps, the outdated idea that there are two genders, and that men can't get pregnant?
"So you want to take Fox away?"
Where did I even say that?
And I find your claim that all of those media outlets to be Dem propaganda to be laughable. Some of them? Like MSNBC? Definitely. But conservatives basically consider anything that doesn't go along with right-wing propaganda to be automatically Democratic propaganda. What people need to realize is that it's all CORPORATE propaganda. They'll broadcast whatever they need to in order to get ratings.
And again, did the FBI threaten Twitter with legal action? Call me if that happens. Right now, it's a nothing burger.
As to the climate change "debate", that debate only exists in the media. Climatologists aren't debating it. I consider that "debate" to be as serious as the flat earth "debate". (And I think that the false narrative over climate change is partially to blame for crackpot ideas like that making a comeback.) And honestly, I'd be impressed if a climate change denier could even correctly identify what it is that they say they don't believe, because it usually involves some silly argument like "It's cold in December!"
Only two genders? That's interesting.
Just curious, have you ever looked at the actual science on this?
Because are you talking about biological sex? Sure, most people are born with either an XY and testes OR an XX and ovaries. Those are the two genders, right?
But what about XX intersex, where "The person has the chromosomes of a woman, the ovaries of a woman, but external (outside) genitals that appear male."
Is that a man or a woman? Two genders, right?
Then there's XY intersex, where "The person has the chromosomes of a man, but the external genitals are incompletely formed, ambiguous, or clearly female."
There's also gonadal intersex, where a person has BOTH ovarian and testicular tissue.
That's not all, as there are a bunch of other varieties.
So, if you meant biological sex when you said "gender' then you have to either explain to me why these don't count, or that they don't exist, or that you're wrong to think that there are "only two". (Fun fact, intersex varieties account for the same amount of people who are born with green eyes and/or red hair! Or do you think that there are only two colors of eyes?)
Now, if you meant the way that a person expresses themselves, which is what most people, including actual experts in this field, mean when they say "gender", then you're still wrong.
In this case, the idea of gender is a social construct. The sheer fact that society is allowing for more expressions beyond "man or woman" is all the evidence that we need that it's a social construct. The concept of a third gender is a relatively new one in our society, but there are other cultures that have had one all along, including native Hawaiians, Tahitians, and I believe some Native Americans.
So, if different societies have different ideas as to what gender is, and if not all of them conform to the "only two" idea, then how does one argue that it's NOT a social construct?
To answer that question, yeah, conservatives are treating scientific fact like it's up for debate when they're too afraid to admit that the world isn't as simple as they want to believe that it is.
Social construct? You give yourself away. I think I asked you once before if you are a college student, Phd, or professor. I strongly suspect you are a product of academic brainwashing.
Either way, you and I are talking over each other and wasting each other's time.
I realize that there is a tiny % of people born with sex organs of both genders, (it's called an abnormality) but other than that, I stick to the old adage that there is male and female. If you want to try and make the case that there are 57 genders, knock yourself out, but pls do it somewhere else.
I see that you are either unwilling or unable to address what I actually said.
And I also always know when I'm winning a debate when the other person has to put words in my mouth. (57 genders? What?)
You are right that being born with both sex characteristics is an abnormality. But so are green eyes.
I'm going to stick to the old adage that there are only two eye colors. My argument is just as valid as yours (only I know that I'm being ridiculous.)
You are quite correct on two points. You did not say there are 57 genders. I was quoting some absurd academic source I have long forgotten. In addition, you are being ridiculous.
Then what's the flaw in my argument, Fouse?
You say that there are only two genders, right? I'm going to assume that you're using the word interchangeably with biological sex, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I actually care about not misrepresenting another person's point.
I gave you examples of people who don't fit neatly into the male or female category. They account for 1.7% of the human population. (What's 1.7% of 7 billion? A lot, right?)
You dismiss them as an "abnormality". But how does that change the fact that they are neither male nor female? And again, how is this different than insisting that there are only two eye colors when green is an abnormality at pretty much the exact same rate as intersex people? At the very least, you have to acknowledge the existence of THREE: male, female, and "abnormal".
You say that I'm "brainwashed", yet you cannot even address the point. Does a brainwashed person try to construct a logical argument, or do they just make sweeping dismissals of things that they don't want to think about? I can articulate what your point is, but you won't even attempt to understand what mine is.
But sure, I'm the one who's brainwashed...
Wait a minute. This "1.7%" of the world's population. Are you talking about people born with both sets of genitalia (male and female), those who identify with the gender other than what they are born, gays, lgbtq, or any combination of the above? Because if you are saying that 1.7% of the world's population is born with two sets of genitalia, that is absurd.
I wanted to make sure that I got this right, so I double-checked. I initially meant "intersex" people, which wouldn't necessarily include homosexuals.
Seems like the claim is being disputed though. It's 1.7% if we include EVERY situation that affects one's chromosomes. From what I've read, most clinicians don't include many of those as "intersex" (like being born with an extra chromosome or an incomplete one).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/
So, your skepticism is warranted in this case. A closer figure for people who are born intersex (neither male nor female) is .018%.
And yes, that's a lot lower. About a hundred times lower.
I don't think that changes my point though. This means, if I did my math right (please check as I may have made a mistake), is that of the world's 7.8 billion people, there are 140,400,000 people who don't fit neatly into either the "male" or "female" category (if we're talking biological sex).
I imagine that many of them identify as either male or female (which is what we mean by "gender" - not your biology but how you think of yourself and present yourself) and probably "pass" for one or the other. In other words, you may have known a few in your lifetime, but since you didn't see them naked, you just assumed that they were one or the other.
Anyway, the point is the same. Are most people male or female? Yes. No question. But are those the only two options? No.
Let's keep going with the eye color analogy. Even if green eyes accounted for only .001% of the population, we wouldn't say that there are only blue and brown eyes, right?
Thank you for recehecking.
There are actually some points we can agree on. Gay people, those born with both sets of genitalia, etc should be treated with respect and compassion.
Where I hold firm (and you may disagree) is that people like Lea Thomas should not be competing against female athletes and unless he/she has had the full surgical procedure, he/she should not be allowed into a woman's locker room. Agree or disagree.
I also feel that too many of our schools and universities are trying to turn transgenderism into some sort of fad, where all of a sudden so many kids are claiming to identify with the opposite gender. I also object to any kids being changed to the opposite gender before they are old enough to make a more intelligent decision not to mention their parents being involved in the decision if they are still kids.
I think we both should consider stats in this area with suspicion. With all the new definitions and the involvement of PC, I foresee a lot of unreliable stats being thrown our way.
I don't think that transgenderism isn't a fad so much as acceptance is becoming more commonplace. In the past, people either conformed to what society expected - which often led to depression and/or suicide.
It's similar to what we saw with left-handedness. When they stopped forcing kids to write with their right hands, suddenly there were more left-handed people. (Of course, there weren't. We were just being more honest about the actual numbers.) It's also similar to homosexuality. A lot more kids come out than when I was in school, but I sure know a lot of people I graduated with who came out as adults. If they could have felt accepted when they were kids, the rest of us would have known about them a lot sooner.
As for children, there is a lot of misinformation out there. Surgery isn't happening on minors. The only thing that is happening is that some of them receive hormone blockers. If for some reason they change their mind, they can just stop taking them, and they'll go through puberty the same way that they would anyway.
And yes, always be skeptical of statistics. 78% percent of them are just made up.
Post a Comment