Aside from simply indulging in the dopamine rush that comes with regurgitating banal soviet analogies, what evidence do you have, at all, that Putin ordered Yanukovich to attack protesters or do anything for that matter?
We don't have time to address the meat of the issue, my good man. Haven't you heard? Russia banned pride parades and their president worked for the KGB, which is oh so much more insidious than the CIA.
Indeed, America has legions of very bright, knowledgeable specialists--salesmen, engineers, dentists, doctors, all products of departments that are often swimming in donations from wealthy donors, while the humanities are perennially underfunded. Historical context, comparative politics, philosophy, sociological thought prisms, hell even divisive identity politics departments like women's studies -- all these might well create an "uppity" population. Sure, the humanities may not offer lucrative careers but it has to do something with these things threatening to create people that are willing to go off-script.
American society will have a hard time shedding the illusion that the only kind of tyranny is statist. It's been woven into every narrative from the revolution to the Cold War.
The cognitive dissonance among the paleoconservatives is amusing, no doubt.
However misguided Russia's new law is, it has been blown out of proportion by the likes of Dan Savage, culminating in the misunderstanding above.
The law essentially bans gay pickets, parades and public activism. The clause that allows the authorities to deport gay tourists or detain gays simply for being so, doesn't exist to the best of my knowledge. It's only referenced by liberal leaning English language articles that all link to each other.
If you watch the public debates they've had about the law on Russian television, not even the LGBT activists have cited such a clause and they would be the first to do so. The gentleman who was on Channel One actually did an admirable job defending his position but made no reference to this.
The real root of the issue is the perennial myth that gays are made and not born. It is rampant in Russian society. Subverting this myth is the first step towards more understanding social policies. Until then, Russians of various walks of life will continue to think gays are a threat to their demographics. After the country's experience in the 90s (fresh heroin from Central Asia, organized crime, a spike in alcoholism and ethnic violence), they are simply having none of it, especially now that the country's birthrate is on a modest upswing.
Bingo. And what people like the other Bill on this post still maintain, against all evidence all to even the most novice Russia watcher, is the goofy scenario where Putin runs everything and pulls all the levers.
Yes, he's in charge. He's the first man since 1991 to wield any sort of power in the country, in fact.
This does not mean his administration is pursuing ends that Russians don't support. A stable and economically integrated post-Soviet space, an end to arbitrary Western invasions (that seem to happen where Russia has security or economic interests), and getting parts of the world economy to function on something other than the US dollar --all these things are in Russia's interests.
This is all reflected out in Russia's latest foreign policy declaration, which is available in English for anyone who is curious.
Truth be told, the cultivation of the tough guy image is starting to rollback on Putin a bit, from what I've read and the Russians I talk to. People are demanded less fluff and, say, a more salient plan for economic diversification or a more effective battle with corruption to facilitate foreign investment.
Translation: your single sentence confirms all my pre-conceived sentiments on Vladimir Putin, ones that thankfully preclude having to do any actually research on Putin's popularity (hovering steadily at 60-65% according to the *Western funded* Levada Center), the complex dynamic of the Kremlin clans (imagine a Mexican standoff), or admit that the biggest myth in foreign policy analysis is that of the power vertical.
The reality is that Russia's bureaucracy suffers from incompetence, not only because of petty corruption, but because the president's decrees are simply not carried out with any semblance of regularity. The Putin-as-czar nonsense is getting tired and adds nothing to the conversation save for helping ideologically tunnel-visioned activists get a nice fuzzy feeling.
Even if we're to take as given that the US has the moral high ground , "democracy" and "human rights" promotion comes with an inevitable degree of Orientalism. The US has used media outlets and certain talking heads (namely New Atheists Chris Hitches and Sam Harris) to push the more liberal segment of American society to support (or at least tolerate) the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq on the basis of women's rights.
The statement that the US is a bastion of democracy and human rights, of course, should elicit a chuckle from any thinking person nowadays. We use gay rights as a way to deflect attention from the backwardness of lobbyist clientelism (read: corruption), effectively pre-selected presidential candidates answerable to the same interests, the conspiratorially racist construct of the war on drugs, a for-profit prison system, a lack of respect for the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments, corrupted financial regulatory bodies, and a host of other absurdities.
Yeah, America is great if you're middle class, like most people on this site I imagine, but even we have to admit at a point that, outside of some honest local politicians, our government doesn't answer to us. It's some mixture of plutocracy and empire.
US attempts to "promote democracy" have never been undertaken separate from security and energy interests, anyway, nearly always leading to disaster, turmoil, and at worst, civil war. They have of course been relatively successful in securing energy interests, which was the point all along.
Afraid it's the NSA, FBI and DHS that are blowing the hot air, old chap. Every one of their claimed successes are comfortably indistinct (much like our shadowy enemies). Those examples that happen to be served up to the public with details are cases of entrapment. The FBI specifically, is great at foiling plots they set up themselves after spying on mosques in NY and Dearborn. The NSA then claims to have foiled a "second Boston". I implore everyone to think about how absurd that is for a moment.
In fact, it's their failures that, sadly, are quite unambiguous. Surveillance failed in Boston. It failed the people gunned down at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin. It failed everyone in Newton. It failed in Seattle only to be bailed out by the sound detective work of the UWPD.
There is no logical fallacy, you see; it just seems that you need everything spelled out for you and, like all good government lackeys, prefer the world of the hypothetical. If surveillance has proved ineffective (feel free to argue it hasn't; the burden of proof is yours), and the authorities persists in this practice, it's not unreasonable for Americans to suspect it has a different purpose than that which is stated.
Considering that nearly all foiled terrorist plots (many of them non-Islamic, mind you) are the result of good police work and not mass surveillance, yes, they must value the haystack itself. I mean they haven't found any needles besides the ones they place there (see: FBI entrapment). In Seattle, some good cops ran a guy's plates, searched his stolen truck, and found guns, explosives and Molotovs. Yet, this same man was questioned and released a few days earlier when a background check came up blank. The claim that this is for protection or, ya know, works is getting to the point of being insulting.
Aside from simply indulging in the dopamine rush that comes with regurgitating banal soviet analogies, what evidence do you have, at all, that Putin ordered Yanukovich to attack protesters or do anything for that matter?
We don't have time to address the meat of the issue, my good man. Haven't you heard? Russia banned pride parades and their president worked for the KGB, which is oh so much more insidious than the CIA.
Indeed, America has legions of very bright, knowledgeable specialists--salesmen, engineers, dentists, doctors, all products of departments that are often swimming in donations from wealthy donors, while the humanities are perennially underfunded. Historical context, comparative politics, philosophy, sociological thought prisms, hell even divisive identity politics departments like women's studies -- all these might well create an "uppity" population. Sure, the humanities may not offer lucrative careers but it has to do something with these things threatening to create people that are willing to go off-script.
American society will have a hard time shedding the illusion that the only kind of tyranny is statist. It's been woven into every narrative from the revolution to the Cold War.
The cognitive dissonance among the paleoconservatives is amusing, no doubt.
However misguided Russia's new law is, it has been blown out of proportion by the likes of Dan Savage, culminating in the misunderstanding above.
The law essentially bans gay pickets, parades and public activism. The clause that allows the authorities to deport gay tourists or detain gays simply for being so, doesn't exist to the best of my knowledge. It's only referenced by liberal leaning English language articles that all link to each other.
If you watch the public debates they've had about the law on Russian television, not even the LGBT activists have cited such a clause and they would be the first to do so. The gentleman who was on Channel One actually did an admirable job defending his position but made no reference to this.
The real root of the issue is the perennial myth that gays are made and not born. It is rampant in Russian society. Subverting this myth is the first step towards more understanding social policies. Until then, Russians of various walks of life will continue to think gays are a threat to their demographics. After the country's experience in the 90s (fresh heroin from Central Asia, organized crime, a spike in alcoholism and ethnic violence), they are simply having none of it, especially now that the country's birthrate is on a modest upswing.
Bingo. And what people like the other Bill on this post still maintain, against all evidence all to even the most novice Russia watcher, is the goofy scenario where Putin runs everything and pulls all the levers.
Yes, he's in charge. He's the first man since 1991 to wield any sort of power in the country, in fact.
This does not mean his administration is pursuing ends that Russians don't support. A stable and economically integrated post-Soviet space, an end to arbitrary Western invasions (that seem to happen where Russia has security or economic interests), and getting parts of the world economy to function on something other than the US dollar --all these things are in Russia's interests.
This is all reflected out in Russia's latest foreign policy declaration, which is available in English for anyone who is curious.
Truth be told, the cultivation of the tough guy image is starting to rollback on Putin a bit, from what I've read and the Russians I talk to. People are demanded less fluff and, say, a more salient plan for economic diversification or a more effective battle with corruption to facilitate foreign investment.
Very unlikely. It's not a perfect analogy but see the case of Victor Bout.
"you are, of course, correct, Mr. Zimmerman"
Translation: your single sentence confirms all my pre-conceived sentiments on Vladimir Putin, ones that thankfully preclude having to do any actually research on Putin's popularity (hovering steadily at 60-65% according to the *Western funded* Levada Center), the complex dynamic of the Kremlin clans (imagine a Mexican standoff), or admit that the biggest myth in foreign policy analysis is that of the power vertical.
The reality is that Russia's bureaucracy suffers from incompetence, not only because of petty corruption, but because the president's decrees are simply not carried out with any semblance of regularity. The Putin-as-czar nonsense is getting tired and adds nothing to the conversation save for helping ideologically tunnel-visioned activists get a nice fuzzy feeling.
Even if we're to take as given that the US has the moral high ground , "democracy" and "human rights" promotion comes with an inevitable degree of Orientalism. The US has used media outlets and certain talking heads (namely New Atheists Chris Hitches and Sam Harris) to push the more liberal segment of American society to support (or at least tolerate) the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq on the basis of women's rights.
The statement that the US is a bastion of democracy and human rights, of course, should elicit a chuckle from any thinking person nowadays. We use gay rights as a way to deflect attention from the backwardness of lobbyist clientelism (read: corruption), effectively pre-selected presidential candidates answerable to the same interests, the conspiratorially racist construct of the war on drugs, a for-profit prison system, a lack of respect for the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments, corrupted financial regulatory bodies, and a host of other absurdities.
Yeah, America is great if you're middle class, like most people on this site I imagine, but even we have to admit at a point that, outside of some honest local politicians, our government doesn't answer to us. It's some mixture of plutocracy and empire.
US attempts to "promote democracy" have never been undertaken separate from security and energy interests, anyway, nearly always leading to disaster, turmoil, and at worst, civil war. They have of course been relatively successful in securing energy interests, which was the point all along.
Afraid it's the NSA, FBI and DHS that are blowing the hot air, old chap. Every one of their claimed successes are comfortably indistinct (much like our shadowy enemies). Those examples that happen to be served up to the public with details are cases of entrapment. The FBI specifically, is great at foiling plots they set up themselves after spying on mosques in NY and Dearborn. The NSA then claims to have foiled a "second Boston". I implore everyone to think about how absurd that is for a moment.
In fact, it's their failures that, sadly, are quite unambiguous. Surveillance failed in Boston. It failed the people gunned down at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin. It failed everyone in Newton. It failed in Seattle only to be bailed out by the sound detective work of the UWPD.
There is no logical fallacy, you see; it just seems that you need everything spelled out for you and, like all good government lackeys, prefer the world of the hypothetical. If surveillance has proved ineffective (feel free to argue it hasn't; the burden of proof is yours), and the authorities persists in this practice, it's not unreasonable for Americans to suspect it has a different purpose than that which is stated.
Considering that nearly all foiled terrorist plots (many of them non-Islamic, mind you) are the result of good police work and not mass surveillance, yes, they must value the haystack itself. I mean they haven't found any needles besides the ones they place there (see: FBI entrapment). In Seattle, some good cops ran a guy's plates, searched his stolen truck, and found guns, explosives and Molotovs. Yet, this same man was questioned and released a few days earlier when a background check came up blank. The claim that this is for protection or, ya know, works is getting to the point of being insulting.