16 July 2011. VOR Presents… Tears over the “Bulgariya”: Kazan Mourns Its Dead

Salvage crews are going to raise the sunken cruise vessel Bulgariya from the bottom of the Volga; they expect to begin doing the necessary work after 17 July. Fifteen people remain officially “missing”; there were 208 people in total (both passengers and crew), rescuers managed to save only 79 of them.

******

Transport Minister Igor Levitin said that Ministry of Emergency Situations (MChS) divers would continue working to find the bodies of the missing dead at the site of the sunken wreck, both until salvagers raise the vessel, and after they bring the wreck to the surface, as well.

******

Meanwhile, according to First Deputy Prime Minister Ravil Muratov of Tatarstan, the sunken vessel would probably be raised from the riverbed before the bodies of all the victims of the shipwreck are accounted for. Almost 200 divers have been surveying the wreck site over the last few days. In all, the search and rescue operation involved 1,144 personnel, including 197 divers and 84 psychologists, as well as 188 pieces of equipment, including 11 river ships, 24 boats, 6 airplanes, and 6 helicopters.

******

The double-deck diesel-electric-propelled river cruise vessel Bulgariya, built in 1955 in Czechoslovakia, sank on 10 July during a storm on Kuibyshev Reservoir in Tatarstan, three kilometres from the shoreline.

******

The sinking of the Bulgariya left ten children without parents; the state issued documents to find them guardians.

******

More than 30 RF MChS psychologists are in Tatarstan helping the families of victims and relatives of those killed in the accident. They help people cope with acute stress reactions such as anger, aggression, anxiety, guilt, and fear, and also provide them with the information that they need to find aid in their distress.

******

The RF authorities declared that 12 July would be an all-Russia day of mourning for those killed in the wreck of the Bulgariya.

******

On 14 July, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (1952- ) laid a wreath at the memorial to those killed in the Bulgariya sinking. He placed roses onto the spontaneous memorial at the river port of Kazan, the capital of Tatarstan, where people brought candles, flowers, and toys in memory of the victims of the tragedy.

******

People paying their respects at the memorial at the Kazan river port.

******

The first funerals for the dead of the Bulgariya tragedy took place in Kazan on 13 July. The captain of the ship, 55-year-old Aleksandr Ostrovsky, was buried in the town cemetery. Per established maritime tradition, his officer’s cap was on the lid of the coffin. Not only his family members, but also the surviving crew members of the Bulgariya came to give him their Last Farewell.

******

Relatives of the victims mourn at the cemetery.

******

15 July 2011

Voice of Russia World Service

http://rus.ruvr.ru/photoalbum/53289504/53289507/index.html

Video. 16 July 2011. Here’s Some Patriotic Vids… Examples of Healthy Narodnost

Here’s some “embodiments” of Narodnost from many countries:

******

******

******

******

******

******

******

******

******

******

******

******

******

******

Of course, there’s many more Narodi… with their own customs, folkways, faith, and pride in their people and land… these are only a few. I started with Russia, and I ended with America… two Narodi that I’m connected with intimately. Remember… it’s the People… first, last, and always!

BMD

 

16 July 2011. A Point to Ponder…

There’s nothing wrong, indeed, there’s much right, with expressions of narodnost… just remember, other folks feel just as strongly about their own…

______________________________

Editor’s Foreword:

This time, I offer not a quotation, but a short article, for you to think about. Its points made me read it over twice more after I read it the first time (it’s short enough that I urge the same on you).

BMD

******

Patriotism Versus Nationalism in America

Independence Day marks, of course, one of the annual peaks of patriotic expression in the United States. Mixed in with American patriotism is sentiment that’s more appropriately labelled nationalism, even though Americans almost never apply that label to themselves. The label’s avoided partly because of the more negative connotation of the word “nationalism” compared to the far more positive associations of “patriotism”. However, the American usage isn’t just a matter of semantics. In some other countries, the term “nationalist” is willingly accepted. The word is part of the name of major political parties, which have sometimes been the ruling party, in countries such as Taiwan and Bangladesh. The unnamed nationalism that’s found in the United States is wrapped up with American exceptionalism. The sentiments involved aren’t just another flavour of nationalism that one would see in places such as Taiwan and Bangladesh, but a specifically American variety that couldn’t arise in those other places. Not recognising nationalism explicitly is part of what’s exceptional in American exceptionalism. As I’ve addressed earlier, nationalist-driven exceptionalism has several unfortunate effects. Because nationalism isn’t the same as patriotism, it behoves us to recognise the difference. George Orwell, in an essay written 66 years ago, offers this perspective:

Nationalism isn’t to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By “patriotism”, I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world, but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself, but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.

Orwell held a broad, and decidedly negative, conception of nationalism, which might involve loyalties to something other than a nation-state. He had his fellow English intelligentsia of the 1940s in mind, but some of what he describes in his essay is easily recognisable in the American nationalism of today. This includes not only the pursuit of ever more power, but also a self-righteousness and a conviction that one’s own way of doing things is superior to everyone else’s and is universally applicable. As we engage in the worthy and pleasurable expression of patriotism… “Devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life”… not only on the 4th of July, but all through the year, let’s stick with pure patriotism, and, keeping Orwell’s distinctions in mind, not let it get confused with our nationalism.

5 July 2011

Paul Pillar

The National Interest

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/patriotism-versus-nationalism-america-5568

Editor’s Afterword:

I quibble with Mr Pillar’s distinction between “patriotism” and “nationalism”… it’s founded in a distinction found in the English language. In Russian, we have two words, patriotizm and narodnost… one of foreign derivation, the other of native invention. The first is “patriotism” of the Western sort; the second is more akin to the German Völkische, a concept hard to “English“ adequately using a single word, perhaps, the best that we can come up with is “nationally-minded” (using the European definition of “nation” as compared to a “state”). Indeed, zapadniki often use the derisive pejorative “kvasnoi patriotizm” (kvass-drinking patriotism) to attack nationally-minded people.

If one has narodnost, one understands that other people have their own Narod, which they have just as strong feelings about as we do. Therefore, a narodnik isn’t a racist hater, a narrow-minded flag-waver, or a bigoted missionary. Yes, the narodnik honours the flag; yes, the narodnik respects the state; yes, the narodnik serves in and supports the army… but the narodnik sees these things as the embodiment, the enfleshment, indeed, as the incarnation of the Soborny (Collectivity) of the Narod. The Narod lives in a particular place, speaks a particular language, and (often) follows a particular religious faith, which makes it a distinctive Soborny. This is what the konvertsy don’t understand about Orthodoxy… Orthodoxy is rooted deeply in the soil of certain places… Orthodoxy is rooted deeply in various particular cultures… Orthodoxy isn’t an intellectual construct, a credo that neophytes can tinker with at will and whim; it’s an ontological reality; one either accepts it or rejects it for what it is.

In short, I think that the shortcomings of Mr Pillar’s piece lie in his particular American narodnost and in the limitations of the English language. I think that Mr Pillar and I would get on very well, indeed. Would like some varenniki, Paul? They’re very good with sour cream and sautéed onions on top…

BMD  

16 July 2011. Paul Ryan is an Abysmal Catholic Who Spits on His Pope’s Teachings on Social Justice

THIS is the world of Paul Ryan… oh, he’s on the top rung, dontcha know! This is why Americans NEED unions. Any questions?

______________________________

There’s been much adulation of one Paul Ryan in the Neanderthal rightwing press. Much is made of his Catholicism (as they do over his nappy-wearing pal, Reinhardt Priebus)… what they don’t tell you is that Mr Ryan isn’t a Catholic in any but the most formal sense, he’s a believer in Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, NOT Catholic Christianity. That is, he believes in the most evil ideology to come out of the disordered 20th century. Strip down his ideology to its essence and you find that he believes in “might makes right”… after all, Mr Ryan’s a millionaire, and his wife’s a corporate lawyer… would you call ‘em average folks?

Since he makes a big show of his Catholicism, does he agree with his pope on social issues? After all, they’re an important part of Christian belief. Here’s an excerpt from Caritas in Veritate from Benedict XVI Ratzinger, the Pope of Rome:

From the social point of view, systems of protection and welfare, already present in many countries in Paul VI’s day, are finding it hard, and could find it even harder in the future, to pursue their goals of true social justice in today’s profoundly changed environment. The global market has stimulated, first and foremost, on the part of rich countries, a search for areas in which to outsource production at low cost with a view to reducing the prices of many goods, increasing purchasing power, and, thus, accelerating the rate of development in terms of greater availability of consumer goods for the domestic market. Consequently, the market has prompted new forms of competition between States as they seek to attract foreign businesses to set up production centres, by means of a variety of instruments, including favourable fiscal regimes and deregulation of the labour market. These processes have led to a downsizing of social security systems as the price to be paid for seeking greater competitive advantage in the global market, with consequent grave danger for the rights of workers, for fundamental human rights, and for the solidarity associated with the traditional forms of the social State. Systems of social security can lose the capacity to carry out their task, both in emerging countries and in those that were among the earliest to develop, as well as in poor countries. Here, budgetary policies, with cuts in social spending often made under pressure from international financial institutions, can leave citizens powerless in the face of old and new risks; such powerlessness is increased by the lack of effective protection on the part of workers’ associations. Through the combination of social and economic change, trade union organisations experience greater difficulty in carrying out their task of representing the interests of workers, partly because Governments, for reasons of economic utility, often limit the freedom or the negotiating capacity of labour unions. Hence, traditional networks of solidarity have more and more obstacles to overcome. The repeated calls issued within the Church’s social doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum, for the promotion of workers’ associations that can defend their rights must therefore be honoured today even more than in the past, as a prompt and far-sighted response to the urgent need for new forms of cooperation at the international level, as well as the local level.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

In short, the New GOP ideology is godless heresy  in the eyes of Benedict… and in the eyes of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill too. Both the Church and Catholicism agree… people have rights that transnational corporations and their shameless political whores such as Mr Ryan CAN’T transgress. Oh, yes… Benedict meets with people such as Vladimir Putin, Dmitri Medvedev, and Aleksandr Lukashenko… not Paul Ryan (who hobnobs with unrepresentative rightwing clergy who write in First Things and Touchstone).

Don’t be fooled… the major Christian leaders oppose the ‘baggers and all their works. Remember… Sectarians aren’t Christians; therefore, Baptists, Pentecostalists, Mormons, and other “born-again” flotsam don’t qualify as “Christian leaders” (that especially includes Franklin Graham… a perfect illustration of how sons of illustrious men are all too often boobish mediocrities). If you’re a Christian, you must vote “against” the New GOP. That doesn’t mean that you have to agree with their opponents… it’s simply that the New GOP is objectively evil; they piss all over the actual legacy of the Republican Party as it was handed down by Lincoln, TR, Ike, Goldwater, Nixon, Lindsay, Ford, Rocky, and WFB. Don’t forget, Ike warned us about the Military-Industrial Complex, Nixon wanted a Guaranteed National Income, Goldwater spoke up for gay rights, and TR demanded that the government regulate business. Ann Coulter would call ‘em RINOs… Republicans In Name Only. Actually, Ms Coulter and all the rest of the rightwing “conservative” commentariat are the RINOs… either they don’t know the true heritage of the Republican Party, or, they, with full malice and deliberation aforethought, stand AGAINST it.

That’s not right… and I weep for people I know who were once Republicans, but were left behind by the new rightwing extremists who’ve seized control of their party. However, that’s the way of it, now… shall they join us in fighting the godless Neoliberal Corporatist monster? God willing, yes…

Barbara-Marie Drezhlo

Saturday 16 July 2011

Albany NY