January 2008 Archives
« Previous · Home · Next »
Who's More of a Sitting Duck for the McCain Juggernaut?
Filed under: US Elections
Barack Obama has just been announced to have been the most liberal senator in 2007. And indeed, that comes as little surprise given his church's ties to Louis Farrakhan.
Meanwhile, The New York Times reports about Billary's alleged corrupt deal with Kazakh strongman Nursultan Nazarbayev to funnel his country's uranium to Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra in exchange for Clinton's blessing Nazarbayev's bid to enter civilized Western society, thereby netting Clinton $30 million from Giustra by way of kickback for his charitable foundation. The Times must feel somewhat snakebit, having just endorsed Billary to retake the White House (apparently the Times are a bunch of closet Republicans, since the last time Billary was in office it accomplished far more Republican initiatives than Democrat, including most of all delivering the Congress on a silver platter).
On the Republican side, California governor "The Terminator" has endorsed John McCain, who's on an incredible roll towards the nomination after Mitt Romney embarrassed himself in the latest debate, totally failing to capitalize on conservative worries about McCain (that are, as they should, already starting to dissipate as McCain collects neo-con endorsements) and faced with two candidates who seem ideally suited for him to take out in November. And that's not all the good news. Democrat hearts should be all a twitter as it seems that there may be not one but two third party candidates, Mike Bloomberg and Ralph Nader. And they are. Such candidates will only divide the anti-Bush "alternative" vote and further empower McCain, who can himself tap deeply into the independent undercurrent.
Indeed, McCain looks across the aisle, he must be hard-pressed to decide which opponent would be more of sitting duck for him to blast out of the water. No credentials over here, seething conservative fury over there. What do you think?
del.icio.us | 
digg | 
technorati | 
stumble upon | 
furl | 
redditUh-Oh Russia: Now You are Going to Get What's Coming to You
Filed under: Russia ~ US Elections
My latest installment on Pajamas Media reveals the horrifying manner in which Vladimir Putin's Kremlin has obliterated every single opposition candidate from the March presidential election which would in any case anoint Putin's hand-picked underling as his nominal successor while Putin retains all the real power as prime minister. The final nail in democracy's coffin is the striking of Putin's own former prime minister Mikhail Kasyanov from the ballot. Check it out, and feel free to leave your comments as to the best way of responding to this final neo-Soviet outrage.
It's not an academic question any more. Last night, a triumphant John McCain, who has called for aggressively confronting neo-Soviet Russia, surged to a devastating victory in the Florida primary, eliminating Rudy Giuliani from the race and collecting his endorsement. Perennial loser Mike Huckabee, also a McCain fan, is staying in the race, drawing votes from Mitt Romney, whom McCain crushed in the Sunshine State by a much wider margin than expected despite being vastly outspent and facing a closed primary where independents could not help him; McCain already leads in the polls in most of the Super Tuesday states for the likely decisive final contest next week. Exit polls showed voters have more confidence in McCain than Romney on Romney's base issue, the economy, indicating he has little chance to stage a comeback. In other Florida news, despite the Kennedy clan endorsement of Obama (or perhaps because of it?) Hillary took him to the woodshed. McCain vs. Clinton? Let the salivating begin!
Who would be his best vice-presidential choice? Ideas?
McCain's time has certainly come, and none too soon given Putin's shamelessly barbaric actions against Kasyanov. America needs a new Russia policy, and it needs it yesterday. John McCain is precisely the man to step into the void and provide Regan-like leadership as the world once against struggles to hold back Russia's Iron Curtain.
Go, McCain, go!
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditIs Hugo Chavez in Big Trouble Financially?
Filed under: Venezuela
One blogger says so, based on a recent report in the Spanish language press that indicates his oil revenues may be drying up due to his own incompetence. Click through to check out the good news!
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditWe have a New "Paper of Record"
Filed under: US Elections
For my money, if there be such an animal, the nation's "paper of record" is the Washington Post, not the New York Times. Case in point:
On Monday morning, WaPo exposed Nancy Pelosi's green-hued fraud:
In November, the Democratic-led House spent about $89,000 on so-called carbon offsets. This purchase was supposed to cancel out greenhouse-gas emissions from House buildings -- including half of the U.S. Capitol -- by triggering an equal reduction in emissions elsewhere. Some of the money went to farmers in North Dakota, for tilling practices that keep carbon buried in the soil. But some farmers were already doing this, for other reasons, before the House paid a cent. Other funds went to Iowa, where a power plant had been temporarily rejiggered to burn more cleanly. But that test project had ended more than a year before the money arrived. "It didn't change much behavior that wasn't going to happen anyway," said Joseph Romm, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who writes a blog calling for more aggressive action on climate change. "It just, I think, demonstrated why offsets are controversial and possibly pointless. . . . This is a waste of taxpayer money."
The Post has also reported a major story on Russian dissident Oleg Kozlovsky, drafted into the army to silence him; the NYT has ignored both events.
Indeed, it seems that the Very Gray Lady had abandoned all pretense of objectivity and become an openly partisan screed no different than the Daily Kos. Rivaling the DK in blatant, seething hatred of America, it has been prominently touting for days on the same website a lengthy anti-American diatribe in its magazine, complete with multiple photographs of a tiiiiiiiiiny little America.
Could it be that the Times is trying a little misdirection, so we won't notice who's really got so tiny all of a sudden?
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditAn Open Letter to Michelle Malkin
Filed under:
Dear Michelle,
As a conservative female blogger with a litmus test in the forthcoming U.S. presidential elections, I think we have a lot in common. Ironically, though, our litmus tests drive us to the exact opposite conclusion on Senator John McCain.
I love the man, because his stance on Russia -- my litmus test -- is exactly correct. Boot them out of the G-8 and then do all that is humanly possible to contain their neo-Soviet aggression, which includes sending truckloads of cash to terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, shiploads of weapons to freaks like Hugo Chavez and, worst of all, nuclear technology to Iran. In general, Russia is seeking to destabilize the Middle East so as to keep oil prices artificially high, since their economy depends on oil. The Kremlin is trying to do in 2007 with natural resources what it tried to do in 1967 with nuclear missiles. I presume McCain's stance on other foreign policy issues will be just as good. I have no reason to think otherwise.
You hate McCain, because you think his stance on illegal immigration -- your litmus test -- is exactly incorrect. In the past, he's embraced a very liberal attitude towards what you call "shamnesty," a legal measure that would allow illegal immigrants already her to become legal with due paperwork and penance.
From what I can gather, you like Mitt Romney because he's tougher on immigration (Giuliani is on life support, and also apparently pro-immigrant, so you don't really have any other choice). It probably doesn't surprise you to learn that I disdain Romney because he's way, way too soft on Russia. Indeed, I'm not at all sure he has any clue what is actually going on behind the new Iron Curtain these days.
Now, I want to be clear in saying I'm completely sympathetic with your position on illegal immigration, and I'm sure that you're quite sympathetic to my position on Russia. You've routinely blasted Hugo Chavez, and you're one of the world's leading champions in the battle against Islamic extremism. So I'd like to ask you to take another look at Senator McCain.
He's promised that, if elected, he'll make establishing border security a priority over "shamnesty," and you say you don't believe him. I understand your concern, because he's been abominably wishy-washy on this point. But I think you'll have to agree that Romney has been just as wishy-washy on the subject of America's foreign policy, if not more so, and I'd like to think that Senator McCain is a man of his word. If you'll excuse me for saying so, I don't think you've done enough to criticize Romney on foreign policy, and I'm a bit disappointed by that. Frankly, the idea of him making our Russia policy terrifies me.
That is, it would unless John McCain were his vice president or secretary of state, and given full authority over U.S. foreign policy. In fact, I might even be satisfied if McCain were made ambassador to Russia, with carte blanche authority. Come to think of it, a Romney-McCain ticket sounds quite impressive, especially given the shaky nature of our economy these days, Romney's long suit.
I'd like to remind you that Senator McCain is a well-known maverick, and the old adage about hunting the tiger applies. If you shoot at him, you'd better kill him. If you miss or just wing him, you're lunch. If you deny McCain the nomination, that's one thing, but what if you don't? Are you certain you want to so weaken him that Hillary or Obama becomes president? Assuming he beats them, aren't you concerned that he'll turn a deaf ear to you, and hence grievously damage your cause? And don't forget, by alienating McCain from the process, rather than merely defeating him, you might remove a powerful vote-gathering force in the general election.
In my view, a bit of moderation is called for, and some constructive suggestions as to how this brave patriotic man can best be part of a Republican victory and government next November.
What do you say?
Best regards,
Kim Zigfeld
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditShe Should have Stuck with the Dollies
Filed under: US Elections
Writing in the New York Times (where else), Caroline Kennedy (whose cousin Joe is playing footsie with Hugo Chavez) says she's supporting Barrack Obama because he'll be a president "like my father."
And certainly, Obama is totally lacking in elected executive experience, just like her father, the last time in American history a such a candidate was elected. Without a majority of the popular vote.
So, if Obama wins, according to Caroline here's what we have to look forward to:
- Obama will lie to the nation about crucial facts like his health and his marital fidelity and his ties to organized crime
- Obama will disgrace the nation with a failed use of mercenary troops to do our fighting for us, like the Bay of Pigs
- Obama will start a war that will end badly, like Vietnam
- Obama will not complete his first term because he'll do something mind- bogglingly stupid like riding through Texas in an open car
- Obama's vice president will succeed him and be even worse, so that he won't even be allowed by his own party to seek reelection
- Obama will allow Russia to dupe him with a grandstand play like the Cuban missile gambit into abandoning a key U.S. strategic position in Europe
Isn't that exciting? What a paradise it will be! It turns out the Democrats are offering us a choice between another Kennedy and another Clinton. Oh joy! Rapture!
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditClintonian Waterloo in Dixie?
Filed under: US Elections
Well, women came out in droves to vote in South Carolina's Democratic presidential primary . . . and they voted for Barack Obama in droves. Looks like Operation Oprah is paying dividends big time.CNN says female turnout was 50% higher than it had been in the Republican primary a week earlier, and Clinton got clobbered, collecting less than a third of the vote, barely more than John Edwards, while Obama seized a majority. African-Americans also turned out en masse, comprising over half the electorate and going 75% for Obama.
Hmmm . . . when Republicans can't pick a nominee right away, apparently that's a sign of weakness. So that must mean . . .
The Daily Kos is crowing that a new national Rasmussen poll shows Obama, their preferred candidate (isn't this disqualification enough?), drawing to within 3 points of Hillary. Dissent is in the ranks. One Kozniak writes: "I left this adolecent [sic] crowd a long time ago, and now I am sick of reading the diaries of Edwards and Obama supporters 'outroving' Karl Rove in their witless atttacks [sic] on Hillary and Bill Clinton."
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditMr. Bush, Your Legacy is Calling
Filed under: Africa ~ US Elections
The blog of attorney Robert Amsterdam, one of the lawyers fighting to free Mikhail Khodorkovsky from the Kremlin's railroad job, is a leader in reporting on developments in the energy sector, where Amsterdam has considerable professional expertise.
In a recent post, one of his contributors, Tom Nicholls, explains how ExxonMobil is poised to bring a huge new supply of oil onto the world market by means of an exploration project off the coast of Angola, the sixth-largest supplier of crude to the U.S. He writes: "The 0.6 billion barrel oil project -- which has the capacity to produce 200,000 barrels of oil a day -- is a milestone for the US supermajor, the operator, and for the country." With this production, Angola will run up against its OPEC-imposed production cap, but a field operated by BP has the potential to bring another 200,000 barrels on line later this year. Within ten years, Angola will have the capacity to produce 2.7 million barrels per day, 800,000 barrels above its current cap.
If Angola's cap isn't increased, then there will be a dramatic disincentive for the oil majors to develop fields like these, and hence to increase world production and reduce prices. American action against Iraq should have secured a major flow of oil, yet we have seen prices skyrocket. Meanwhile, our government seems to be ignoring the need to confront OPEC over issues like Angola. President Bush recently approached the Saudis in this regard, but apparently has little to show for his efforts.
It's presidential election season. Have you heard any candidates talking about the means by which we can increase the world supply of oil and hence lower prices? If not, isn't it time to start demanding it?
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditAll Hell Breaks Loose in Kenya
Filed under: Africa
Mobs are running wild in the streets of Kenya. The New York Times reports: "On Saturday, hundreds of men prowled a section of the city with six-foot iron bars, poisoned swords, clubs, knives and crude circumcision tools. Boys carried gladiator-style shields and women strutted around with sharpened sticks. The police were nowhere to be found." AFP notes: "Around 800 people have been killed and some 260,000 others displaced across the country since the disputed poll on December 27 touched off a wave of deadly rioting and ethnic killings."
Once again the United Nations has proven itself utterly impotent if not counterproductive as its former chief Kofi Annan (shown above meeting with the leaders of the two opposing camps) flails helplessly with a cadre of African leaders to restore order. Annan stated that on touring the country he witnessed "gross and systematic human rights abuses" and then babbled nonsensically: "Impunity can not be allowed to stand." He refused to stay in the country long-term to work on the problem, and things only got worse after the symbolic meeting he arranged between the two sides.
He's completely useless, as is the UN. Time for a new paradigm?
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditAnnals of Anti-Protest Babes: Foxy Fascists Fuel Frenzy in Duma
Filed under: Protest Babes ~ Russia
"Heated debates in Russia's State Duma could be about to get even hotter. Among the brand new deputies to win seats are four female ex-athletes who have a history of letting it all hang out - for the cameras. All eyes are now on the Duma, to see whether these beautiful ladies bring a new kind of passion to political discussions."
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditBill Clinton, Foundering
Filed under: US Elections
Ouch!
As Bill Clinton scrambles furiously to get his wife (and himself) back into the Oval Office, more and more of his abysmal record (did somebody say "dot.com bubble"?) is being scrutinized and exposed, decimating his legacy. If his wife isn't elected, he'll be paying a pretty extreme price indeed for his risky foray back into the spotlight.
We've already pointed out that Clinton set the ball in motion for the invasion of Iraq and dropped the ball on Bin Laden.
Now, Slate exposes his fundamental fraud regarding African-American economic progress, showing that his claims of gains compared to whites are bogus:
As Clinton performed blackness, real black people got poorer. The poorest African-Americans experienced an absolute decline in income, and they also became poorer relative to the poorest whites. The richest African-Americans saw an increase in income, but even the highest-earning blacks still considerably lagged their white counterparts. Furthermore, the '90s witnessed the continued growth of the significant gap between black and white median wealth.
"Performed blackness." Ouch, that one's got to sting a bit. Wonder what color purple he'll turn this time.
And then Pajamas Media writes his epitaph: "Everybody hates Bill Clinton."
A sensible person would have known enough to keep a low profile the rest of his life after something like the Lewinsky scandal. This is so lame it's almost possible to believe he doesn't really want his wife to become president and is trying to sabotage her.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditAmericans Significantly More Peace-Inclined than Russians
Filed under: Russia
Back in November, my blog La Russophobe reported on poll data showing that, contrary to the absurd propaganda spewed by the Kremlin, Americans are significantly less warlike than Russians.
Now, here's more proof from the same polling agency, World Public Opinion:
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditRussia the Responsible, Civilized, Successful Country
Filed under: Russia
Russian "president" Vladimir Putin has complained that Westerners insist on viewing his country as "a little bit savage." Just look at recent events in Russia, and see how very right he is.
Russia is a peaceful, friendly nation. That is why it is firing missiles off the coast of France and shut down the British Council inside Russia. A New York Times editorial stated:
Culture and civil society are places to nurture shared values and interests, and this is especially important during times of diplomatic strain. Closing down the British Council's offices doesn't strengthen Moscow's insistence that it played no role in the Litvinenko assassination, nor does it support its arguments for why it won't turn over Lugovoi. All it does is make Putin and the Kremlin look like bullies -- with something to hide.
Putin is a powerful, confident ruler who respects elections and can be trusted to behave in a civilized, non-savage manner. That is why he had his chief rival Mikhail Khodorkovsky arrested before the last presidential poll, and has announced his intention to do the same to his main opponent this time, former prime minister Mikhail Kasyanov. It's also why he is intentionally withholding basic medical treatment to one of Khodorkovsky's incarcerated colleagues, in effect indulging in state-sanctioned torture and murder.
Russians have learned the lessons of the barbaric excesses of the Soviet past. That is why they are reestablishing the parading of missiles and tanks through Red Square on May Day, flocking to honor Lenin in his tomb there. They've certainly realized the perils of Soviet hypocrisy, which is why in so doing they have no problem calling any attempt to expand NATO the "expansion of a cold war relic."
First and foremost, Russia is an economic paradise, a juggernaut poised to dominate the globe. That is why, as stock market analyst James Beadle writes: "The benchmark RTS index has dropped 16 percent since peaking at 2339.79 on Jan. 14. This sudden loss of around $160 billion in market value stands in sharp contrast to consensus expectations, which predicted around a 25 percent upside and decisive decoupling from the slowing U.S. economy this year."
Where Russia's future is concerned, the sky is the limit. What progress! What an example to the world! No wonder Russia enjoys such prestige and influence in the world, for example having both its candidate for president and its request to snub Georgia summarily rejected by the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly. To doubly confirm Russian power and influence, Europe issued a continent-wide arrest warrant for Russian parliament member Andrei Lugovoi, who is believed to have participated in the murder of Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko in Britain.
My blog La Russophobe has a detailed reflection on the apparent irrationality of Vladimir Putin's foreign policy.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditMcCain, America: Surging
Filed under: Middle East
It's hard to imagine how the news could have been any better for him. Senator McCain must be walking on air.
First, a victory in New Hampshire. Then, a second in South Carolina. And finally, a front-page report in USA Today revealing that his surge is working and 75% of Baghdad's neighborhoods (356 of 474) are now secure (can we say the same of Detroit's, or Camden's?). Michael Weiss has a great blogger roundup discussing the thrilling report over at Slate. He quotes one blogger as follows: "Democrat friends, come over to the winning side now. Come on, guys. We're beating the tar out of al-Qaeda. Iraqis who, 13 months ago lived with little hope now are welcoming their neighbors home, regardless of their sectarian affiliation. The Iraqi parliament, emboldened by our wilingness to stay and do the hard work on their behalf has passed the first of what is likely to be several reconciliation laws."
Meanwhile, African-Americans are turning on Bill Clinton as their new standard-bearer goes after him big-time. Who would McCain prefer to run against, the lightweight Obama (who admits he inhales deeply and plays footsie with those who play footsie with Farrakhan) or the decimated, despised Hillary? Hard choice. Either way, he's all smiles.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditShould we pay politicians democratically?
Filed under: Philosphy
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditAmerica, the Indispensable Nation
Filed under: US Elections
Over the past four trading days, the Russian stock market has lost over 13% of its value (leaving brokers who sold the market to their clients as a safe haven based on Russia's oil resources looking like the crooks they are). The Indian Sensex Index took the second-biggest one-day loss in its history on Monday, and markets throughout Asia also suffered massive losses. Europe immediately felt the ripple effects.
The reason is simple: Us. Or rather, U.S.
America's stock market is dragging them down. See, the world depends on our purchasing power, and if that's taken away, the world's economy will collapse. The world depends on American buyers just the same way America depends on foreign oil suppliers, except to a far greater extent. America has made itself indispensable to the world. Checkmate. Game over. It's not clear, though, that the world has yet come to grips with this reality.
Without American purchases of crude oil, the price on world markets would collapse, and it would take the Russian economy with it. Russian investors know that, so they're selling their shares as fast as they can.
Without American purchases of Chinese and Indian crap, their nations would be buried under mountains of it. Chinese and Indian investors know that, so they're selling their shares as fast as they can.
Americans routinely ask what we might do to encourage foreigners to hate us less. But when was the last time you heard a foreigner ask how he might help the American economy do better, and thus help themselves as well? When was the last time you heard one speak up and say: "Hey, our future depends on these people you want to destroy. Shut up, already." Instead, it seems there is a whole host of benighted morons who delight in American difficulties, seemingly oblivious of the horrific impact on their own lives. Or else, they're simply overcome with bitterness and suicidal impulses.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditAnnals of Infiltration
Filed under: Venezuela
We've written before about the blood-curdling activities of the Kennedy family in cozying up to Venezuelan madman Hugo Chavez. Well, it turns out that they're not the only ones under the covers with him. The Times of London now reports that London Mayor "Red" Ken Livingstone (pictured) is "embroiled in fresh controversy after allegations that his most senior aides have been members of a Trotskyite faction that plotted to turn London into a 'socialist city state.'" Now seeking reelection, it's been revealed that "Livingstone also faced claims that his aides breached the Greater London Authority's codes of conduct by engaging in election fundraising while continuing to draw public salaries" and various other corrupt misdeeds. But perhaps worst of all is that, just like the Kennedy clan, Livingstone has made a deal with Chavez which "provides cheap fuel for London buses in return for Livingstone sending a team of consultants to South America to advise on recycling and public transport."
It seems that birds of a left-wing fanatic feather flock together.
Just in case you've forgotten who Chavez is, Pajamas Media provides a timely reminder: "Judge Monica Fernandez, a Venezuelan human rights advocate, was shot by on January 4 in what police ruled a botched car robbery. The night before the attack, she was branded an enemy of the state, a coup-plotter, and a fascist on a state television show which condemns those who dare to oppose the government's actions. Coincidence? Thor Halvorssen doesn't think so." Click through to gaze upon the horror.
And that's not all. He's a drug addict, too.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditDid you know John McCain's daughter has a blog?
Filed under: Protest Babes ~ US Elections
Triumphant in South Carolina, John McCain's candidacy offers new hope that the U.S. may soon obtain a real foreign policy. Huckabee failed to carry a majority of the state's evangelicals, and his margin of victory fell among them, indicating he is all washed up. Thompson's woeful performance in his native land means it's likely he too is out, leaving a three-man battle between McCain, Romney and Giuliani -- which would likely fall to two if Giuliani doesn't win convincingly in Florida. So McCain, written off not long ago, is amazingly resilient.
Over on my blog La Russophobe we note that the U.S. Ambassador to Russia is going to be replaced, and call for McCain to have a role in naming his successor (if not actually becoming that successor should he fail to get the nomination).
Did you know McCain's daughter (pictured, a major protest babe if there ever was one!) has a great blog relating her experiences on the campaign trail? Check it out!
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditThere's No Fool Like a Russian Fool
Filed under: Russia
Allow me to introduce Russian General Yuri Baluyevsky, who declared over the weekend on government-owned national television that "We do not intend to attack anyone, but we consider it necessary for all our partners in the world community to clearly understand that to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military forces will be used, including preventively, including with the use of nuclear weapons."
Apparently, this cretin thinks that by making this statement, he is indicating Russian strength and striking fear into the hearts of Russia's enemies. In fact, exactly the opposite is achieved.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditStunning Breaking News on Russia
Filed under: Russia
Two jaw-dropping developments on the Russian front.
First, the Jamestown Foundation's Vladimir Socor reports that "on January 16 Ukraine's President Viktor Yushchenko, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, and Parliament Chairman Arseny Yatsenyuk made public a joint letter to NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, declaring Ukraine's readiness to advance to a Membership Action Plan (MAP) with NATO and requesting a decision to that end by the Alliance at its Bucharest summit in early April."
Looks like they are acting none too soon since, second, Congressional Quarterly's Jeff Stein reports that a book about to be published alleges that "Tariq Rauf, the top U.N. official responsible for monitoring the clandestine nuclear programs of Iran and Pakistan is a Russian spy" who "hated America."
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditKozlovsky Makes the MSM
Filed under: Russia
Three weeks ago, we told you the outrageous story of Oleg Kozlovsky (shown above in the embrace of two fans of Vladimir Putin), shanghaied into the Russian army to stop him from criticizing the neo-Sovietization of his country by dictator Vladimir Putin. I followed up with a more detailed overview a few days later on Pajamas Media.
Now, at long last, the mainstream media has gotten around to reporting these events, specifically the Chicago Tribune via reporter Alex Rodriguez. The story has also been translated into Russian and is circulating on their wire service. The only prior MSM mention of the incident I'm aware of was a brief blurb in the Economist on December 28th, undoubtedly due to the continuing brilliant work of their Russia expert, Edward Lucas.
The Tribune states:
Oleg Kozlovsky has needled the Kremlin for two years, heading up an opposition youth movement, helping organize rallies against President Vladimir Putin and criticizing the regime in a Russian-language blog he puts out. Now Russian authorities have finally found a way to silence him.They drafted him.
Kozlovsky is legally exempt from conscription and has the documents to prove it. Nevertheless, on Dec. 20 police waited for him to leave his Moscow apartment, hauled him off to an enlistment office, and within 48 hours shuffled him off to a nearby military base where for a year he'll serve in a Russian army notorious for its brutality to conscripts.
The story was published two days ago, and seemingly hasn't yet been picked up by other MSM outlets, which only goes to further demonstrate their increasing obsolescence. It's an outrage that it takes us so long to respond to urgent matters of this kind, where lives hang in the balance. According to the website of his opposition group, Oborona, Kozlovsky has been spirited away from his home in Moscow to the city of Ryazan, but has forced the military officials there to give him a medical examination to verify his disability. He's obtained written confirmation that he is medically fit for military service only during time of war, but has still not been discharged, with the Kremlin squirming to impose additional medical analysis and other forms of bureaucratic torture while Kozlovsky remains in the Army's clutches. We could wake up tomorrow and read that he's been killed in any manner of "accident" or, worse, subjected to the vicious form of military hazing that is rife in Russia and has led one soldier to have his genitals amputated.
And if we do, our MSM will be just as much responsible as the Kremlin itself. If you read a newspaper that hasn't reported this story, you need to ask yourself what else you are missing, and to consider writing a letter to their editor demanding something better.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditA Stockmarket in Freefall
Filed under: Russia
You might think that the chart above is following the recent progress of the U.S. stock market, whose Dow Jones Industrial Average has plummeted in recent days, leading the Federal Reserve to announce support for a major new stimulus package to stave off possible recession.
But it's not. It's a chart of the Russian stock market, which has lost 8% of its value in the last three days. Lost it, even though the price of oil has skyrocketed (one of the major reasons that the U.S. stock market has tanked, owing to the consumer price inflation that has resulted) and Russia is one of the world's leading oil producers. On Wednesday, the Russian market suffered its worst one-day loss of the entire year.
The Moscow Times quoted Harvey Sawikin, a founding partner of U.S.-based Firebird Management, stating: "I think the market has gotten a bit oversold. The Russian market is very vulnerable to correction. When there's a correction, it's very sharp and very fast." As the paper notes: "Russia had been largely insulated from the global meltdown. But the tumbling stock markets suggested that the country is not quite as decoupled from global economies as it would like to think."
Pointing out the insane tendency of Russians to reward failure by lunatics like Putin and Stalin, Blogger Streetwise Professor observes that Russia's economic fundamentals are non-existent, the reason it cannot hope to weather economic storms: "With respect to the economy, Russia's performance under Putin looks far less impressive when one sees that Armenia, which has in no way profited from the energy boom that has fueled the Russian economy, grew almost twice as fast (13.6 percent) as Russia in 2007." Just as in Soviet times, Russians are fatally overestimating their own potency, causing their mouths to write checks their fists can't cash (in a fit of crazed cold-war arrogance, the Kremlin recently shut down the UK's British Council cultural offices throughout Russia, seeming to invite Britain to do the same in regard to Russian cultural institutions in Britain, like Pushkin House; the result is that Russia finds itself encircled by European lawsuits and Ukraine is being allowed into the WTO before Russia, allowing it to sit in judgment on the Russian application).
When will the world, and especially the Russians (and the Saudis), learn that bringing down American power would have the effect of trashing the entire world's economy? Or do they hate America so much that they will happily destroy the entire globe if only they can "get" America in the process?
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditManuela Paraipan: Austrian Opens Fire on Islam
Filed under: Middle East
Susanne Winter, campaigning for the Graz (Austria) city council said it is time that Islam was "thrown back . . . behind the Mediterranean," and alleged that Muhammad wrote the Koran in "epileptic fits."
Ouch. What was the reaction? Outrage! What did you expect?! Now read this.
del.icio.us | digg | technorati | stumble upon | furl | redditThere's Just no Substitute for "It"
Filed under: US Elections
David Broder, dean of political correspondents, in the Washington Post:
It was fascinating to watch the three top contenders for the Democratic nomination discuss their concept of the presidency during Tuesday night's MSNBC debate in Las Vegas. But it was also stunning to realize that the three current and former senators who have survived the shakeout process -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards -- have not a day of chief executive experience among them. By contrast, the Republican field is loaded with people who are accustomed to being in charge of large organizations. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee were governors of their states of Massachusetts and Arkansas, Rudy Giuliani served as the mayor of New York, and John McCain, as he likes to remind audiences, commanded the largest squadron in the Navy air wing. In the past, voters have preferred to entrust the White House to those with executive credentials. John Kennedy was the last sitting senator to be elevated to the presidency. Since then, the former governors of Georgia, California, Arkansas and Texas have dominated the list of successful candidates. All of them stumbled during their tenures in the White House, and only Ronald Reagan left the presidency with his place in the history books seemingly securely enhanced.
David comes a bit late to the party, I've been making this point here for some time. But it's nice to have MSM confirmation. And David overlooks a major fact: While it may be true that all those with executive experience "stumbled" while in office, Kennedy did too, big time. He didn't even manage to protect his own life and finish his term. Plus which, little things like the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, concealing his woeful physical condition and sexual peccadillos that would make Bill Clinton look like a choir boy may be the reason that, since his tenure, the public feels experience counts.
Proving once again how ignorant/insane they are, the feral lunatics at the Daily Kos responded furiously to Broder:
But nice how Broder parses his list. Missing from his list of recent Senators and members of Congress who became president are Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford, none of whom had any executive experience prior to their short stints as Vice President. On those various lists of the best and worst presidents compiled by scholars, Truman often ends up in the top ten, and Kennedy typically does well. Ford and Johnson seldom if ever appear in the bottom ten.
Apparently, the Daily Kos is unaware that Truman, Johnson and Ford became president only because they were vice president when the president died (literally or figuratively) in office (and/or that the point of Broder's analysis is electability). What's more, both Johnson and Ford were denied reelection, and Truman decided not to seek it. Apparently, they think not being in the bottom 10 is an accomplishment. Little wonder, then, that the Democrats haven't reelected an elected president with a majority of the popular vote since World War II, while Republicans have done this many times (Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush II).
What a bunch of totally clueless freaks. Heaven help America if their ilk ever govern.