Maybe Stalin wasn’t so bad?

This hardly qualifies as good news:

There’s no question that Stalin is undergoing a sort of renaissance in Russia. Despite the many millions killed or sent to labor camps during his reign, many now view his rule with a sort of hazy nostalgia.

True, they say euphemistically, he made difficult decisions, but on the other hand, it was a time that called for tough measures. And at least in those days, they often add, Russia was powerful.

Others go further. “The personality of Stalin is covered with lies and slander. There is tremendous injustice done to this person,” said Leonid Zhura, a former government bureaucrat who spearheaded the lawsuit against Yablokov.

On one hand, you can’t blame a country that’s been in decline for a generation or so to get nostalgic about the days when it ruled half the earth. On the other hand, anybody who knows even a little bit about Stalin-era imprisonments, killings and general paranoia-driven ruthlessness knows he was, outside of Hitler, the 20th century’s greatest monster.

Is Barack Obama wimping out on human rights?

I really hope this isn’t true:

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, today spoke of a new era of mutual respect in US dealings with Russia, amid claims that the White House had agreed to stop criticising Russia’s human rights record in return for improved relations.

Clinton’s visit comes amid reports that the White House had agreed it would no longer publicly criticise Russia’s democratic failings. According to today’s Kommersant newspaper, the US administration has rejected the critical stance of the Bush administration in favour of a new approach.

Obama’s reported plan to scale back criticism of Russia’s human rights record is likely to dismay international rights groups and Russia’s opposition. His predecessors Bill Clinton and George Bush regularly criticised the Kremlin for its war in Chechnya and the rollback of democracy under the former president Vladimir Putin.

I’m all for a clear-eyed appraisal of  U.S. interests and limits in the world. And I know that in order to pursue those interests, sometimes we’ve got to compromise our ideals a bit. But between this and the Tibet diss, I’m starting to get worried that Barack Obama is so clear-eyed about doing business with whomever is in power that he’ll forget that democracy and human rights are also U.S. interests. We can’t make them happen in every time and every place, but we ought to at least give a little lip service to those who do.

Can we really achieve a nuclear-free world?

That what President Obama says he wants to do. In this week’s Scripps Howard column, Ben and I tackle the possibility. I’m a little skeptical:

Is it possible to eliminate every last nuclear weapon on Earth?

Probably not. Pandora’s box and all that. But it’s a noble goal — one in which the striving may well make the world safer.

The new deal cuts the maximum allowable number of strategic warheads from a ceiling of 2,200 each to 1,675. That may not sound like a big deal; 1,675 nuclear bombs each would still be more than enough to lay waste to much of the planet. On the other hand, that’s 525 fewer nuclear warheads to consume each country’s defense budget during lean times — and fewer warheads that can “accidentally” end up in the hands of terrorists or rogue states.

Given the loosening nuclear-security standards in both countries since the end of the Cold War, a reduction in warheads can’t hurt. It will probably make us safer.

Obama has talked of creating a nuclear-free world. It sounds like a pipe dream. But it’s a pipe dream that President Ronald Reagan strived mightily to attain during his infamous Reykjavik summit with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. And it’s a pipe dream endorsed by Henry Kissinger and George Shultz — hardheaded secretaries of state in Republican administrations — among other top former officials. Presumably they haven’t taken leave of their senses.

The United States has been well protected by its nuclear arsenal. We may never make it all the way to zero nuclear bombs, but attempting to get there may radically reduce the number of warheads that exist in the world — and thus radically reduce the chances one will ever again be used in anger.

Being near things does not make you smart about them

At this point, making fun of Sarah Palin has a “shooting fish in a barrel” quality to it. But since John McCain continues to defend her candidacy, it’s worth taking a look at those defenses.

Last night, John McCain touted Palin’s motherhood of a special needs child as making her somehow qualified for the presidency. (He mentioned autism; Palin’s son, Trig, doesn’t have autism, but apparently her sister’s child does.) And that might be true, if the job description of a president involved spending more than, oh, 0.01 percent of his-or-her time dealing with the issues of special needs children. That’s simply not the case.

But this points to the larger way in which McCain’s campaign has tried to defend the mostly indefensible selection of Palin as McCain’s running mate. It’s clear that Palin doesn’t have much — maybe even any — expertise about the things that a president has to do. So they tout Palin by noting she’s near things.

• Her sister has an autistic child, so she knows about special needs policies and programs.

• Alaska is near Russia, so she knows about foreign policy.

• She’s lived in a politically corrupt state without taking a bribe, so she knows about reform.

You know what? I live near Dmitri’s, but I still don’t know how to grill an octopus, and I’m only barely competent in making hummus. Having proximity to issues is not the same as really knowing about them, much less having ideas about what to do about them. But that’s the best defense of Palin the McCain campaign has.