US immigration debate from the progressive capitalist position.

As with all radio show posts, this is only a short writeup. Please go to the blog and click on listen. If you want to subscribe via RSS, use this http://cyrillvatomsky.com/rss.cfm URL in your RSS reader.

Most of the show was dedicated to US immigration discussion. My position in general is:

  • This country can not afford economic and moral implications of expelling 12 million people one way or another.
  • There is no simple solution to this problem, which creates a fertile ground for peddlers of simple solutions that can just do nothing but offer snide remarks about people that try to do something about this disgrace.
  • The whole country, including 12 million illegals are all victims of a fallacy -  that laws of supply and demand can be changed by a decree.

Many callers disagreed.

Other subjects (in the second hour) were French elections, Gaza, and some Russia related stuff already covered by my blog posts.

 Enjoy.

Does Putin want Iran to have nukes and extend Presidential term to seven years?

I am not sure how to take this yet. The tone of the Kommersant article just released this Monday morning (it is still Sunday in California) is most certainly in jest. But it does refer to the interview Russian President Putin gave to world media before the G-8 summit.

Here are some puzzling excerpts:

"Would you mind if Iran came top possession of nuclear weapons" - asks on of the journalists.
"I sure don't" answers Putin absorbed in the process of eating strawberry soup.

Does this sound like an incredible revelation? Am I missing something? Strawberry soup?!

And how about this:

Further, closer to the end of the interview, the President stated that an "appropriate" extension of the presidential term length might be five or even seven years instead of the current five.

Is this the "STOP THE PRESSES" comment or what?

There was a strange and unclear reference to Ghandi in that article, here is an explanation from Times Online. The man is either delusional or he has departed from reality, which is basically the same thing:

“Of course, I am a pure and absolute democrat,” he said. “But you know what the problem is – not a problem, a real tragedy – that I am alone. There are no such pure democrats in the world. Since Mahatma Gandhi, there has been no one.”

Once again, it is apparent to me that when leaders clamp down on free press, they become hostages of their own making. When pressed about democracy, Putin answers:

“Let us not be hypocritical on human rights and democratic freedoms,” he said in a swipe at other countries, which is his favorite rebuttal technique. “Let us look what is happening in North America. It is horrible – torture, the homeless, Guantanamo, detention without normal court proceedings.” In Europe, he said, “we can see violence against demonstrators, the use of gas to disperse rallies”.

As if the last 30 years did not happen. The man is living in the past as well as in the sky. No wonder he laments the demise of the USSR. And he absolutely does not understand that order does not tramp freedom:

“If people want to express disagreement, they should have that right. But they should not impede people going to work, normal urban life – then the Government must take measures to restore order.”

Strangely, there is nothing in the Times piece to corroborate quotes from the Kommersant article. Quite possibly these statements were not interpreted adequately or misunderstood by foreign reporters.

Here is more. One of the callers asked me this question and I have to admit, I was not aware of this yet :

In an interview published by Italy's Corriere della Sera on Sunday, Putin also suggested that Russia could respond to the threat by aiming its nuclear weapons at Europe.... "If the American nuclear potential grows in European territory, we have to give ourselves new targets in Europe," he was quoted as saying. "It is up to our military to define these targets."

Does he understand what is he saying? Over the last several months and since the Litvinenko affair Russia must have gotten precious little of good coverage in the international media. Most of what Mr. Putin's administration has done over the last year or so in terms of international politics were a string of unmitigated disasters as if deliberately designed to alienate everybody. His Munich speech, his clumsy attempts at comparing US with Nazi Germany, Russia's hysterical assaults on Georgia and Estonia, all of the widely covered internal problems with freedom  and now right before he goes to meet with the G-7, he smugly threatens to aim missiles at Europe, while comparing himself to Ghandi?

Go figure.

June 3rd 2007 Embassy of the New World Order Braodcast

As always - this is not a transcript, only a brief outline of the radio show. Go to the blog site and click on "listen" button there when it is available to listen to shows and podcasts. Either listen there or download to your podcast software.

Opening with Hugo Chavez closing RCTV down. Similarities with Putin's policies are obvious. Also obvious is that Chavez is not against media moguls, he is fine with corporations that support him. Just like Putin is. And just like Mussolini was. Fascism, once again is a form of socialism where government and monopolism merge.

Moving on to other subjects, involving recently blogged ones like the Moscow Mayor Luzkov's law suits, rediculous ban on  export of medical specimen as well as perceptions by Russian people of who their friends and foes are.

Moscow Court Rules Against Yukos Capital - Who Would Have Guessed...

When Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned in London last year, the expected and understandable reaction for many was to point fingers at Vladimir Putin as the main culprit. Not that details were known or there has been any direct evidence of the Russian President playing professor Moriarty. It did not matter because the context of Mr. Putin's behavior, his rule, his policies and his past made is so very believable and probable that he had something to do with the murder.

When Mikhail Khodorkovsky of Yukos, was arrested, I, like many others believed that Putin - The President of Russian Federation, not some oil shark or a corporate raider after all - was crushing his potential political opponent. Feudalism for sure but at least he had some interests of the country in mind like any autocratic leader would. They do have these interests at heard, don't they?

That impression gradually subsided and was completely reversed when I learned of appointment of one Igor Sechin, Putin's long time confidant and an errand boy to become a top dog in Rosneft, a quasi private-state oil company, and when subsequently Rosneft became the primary beneficiary of the state instituted shameless devouring of what promised at one time to be the first real Western type Russian corporation - Khodorkovsky's Yukos. At that time, facts just lined up so well that a simple conclusion could not have been avoided - the whole kabuki theater has been set up for personal gain of Mr. Putin and his coterie. A very shallow behavior for a president of any country, except maybe Nigeria or Zimbabwe.

So, it is not a surprise that red flags came up right away while reading a Kommersant account [link in Russian] of The Moscow City Court of Arbitration decision to nullify the previous ruling by The International Court of Arbitration in favor of Yukos Capital and against Rosfneft. Previous action of Russian power structure related to Yukos were so blatantly in your face that the first thought that comes to mind is "Yeah, right, I wonder why." A state branch of some kind makes a decision in favor of Rosneft and against some entity related to Yukos. Now, how strange is that?!

Unfortunately Kommersant Daily did not have the article on its English side of the web site. I sometimes wonder why are there two distinctly different faces to Kommersant? So here is my quick translation of one of the paragraphs with my comments in square brackets:

The Law on International Business Arbitration [presumably a Russian Federation statute] allows nullification of rulings only in extreme cases, specifically when Arbiters had made grave procedural violations. Rosneft [which filed a motion to reverse the previous ruling] found [read - claimed] two [procedural] violations: the company did not have enough time to study documents and that Arbiters had a conflict of interest. Rosneft claimed that the conflict of interest resulted from participation of two of the three Arbiters in Arbitrage Conferences in Moscow and in Vienna, while a Law firm by the name of Nomos was on the list of conference organizers, and that same law firm later represented Yukos Capital before the International Court of Arbitration... 

Further in the article, Kommersant refers to a Rosneft legal counsel as claiming that no quid pro quo was necessary to establish a conflict of interest, but a simple contact between Arbiters [as conference participants] with conference organizers [of while Nomos was one]. An obvious conflict of interest if you ask me, exacerbated by both parties actually having a gall to be in the same city at the same time.

It appears that Russia has finally discovered the rule of law, doesn't it? Unfortunately, just like in the case of Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzkov, the rule of law is used to take a letter of the law to defeat the purpose of the law. When a court has been politicized, how (un)ruly is the law?

It is not clear, states Kommersant if the nullification was a result of the court agreeing with Rosneft's claim or not, but previous legalese frivolity of Russian officialdom makes it irrelevant. Just like it was with the Litvinenko affair.

One just has to ask if power structures of Russian officialdom understand how much mistrust do they generate both internally and externally by that in your face thuggish attitude? Or is it the case when lack of critical media contributes to degradation of critical thinking among the rulers themselves, making them sanitized to awkwardness of their own authoritarian actions. This is the road to eventual downfall of any authoritarian structure. Crushing dissent and cutting off critical media will eventually detach state decision makers from reality and they will start making clumsy laughable and dangerous mistakes.

This applies to all levels of state power where Tolstoy's "Puny Napoleons" will mimic their big bosses with eagerness and glee. Look up Siberian Light's account of Kasparov's travel problems: a farcical example of completely unnecessary knee jerk reaction of petty policy enforcers.

How to Defeat Freedom of Speech Without Really Trying.

How does a democratically elected authoritarian ruler (nice one, isn't it?) deal with freedom of speech? After all, if he is democratically elected, then he and others had aired out issues and controversies, speculations and disagreements in the grand ancient tradition of Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité, right? Strictly speaking a democratically elected leader can not be authoritarian. At least for a day. At least until ballots are cast, counted and he is shown to be a real winner of democratic process.

After that all bets are off of course.

Naturally, if that democratically elected leader is an authoritarian jerk at heart, he will not like pesky critics. Imagine how much does it hurt to hear wild untruths about yourself  after all the years slaving to improve lives of your subjects. Where is the gratitude, dammit?!

Imagine one Yuri Luzhkov, the boisterous and uppity mayor of Moscow. On his watch the city sprawled and turned into one of the most expensive cities on Earth to live in. Billions were made and lost in Moscow over the years and some of them were made by his wife. And who would be so uncouth as to begrudge Mr. and Mrs. Mayor a penny saved for retirement? Only Forbes would but those damn Americans are so uncivilized anyway.

It hurts to no end I imagine to hear that damn free speech. Even if it is true. Especially when it is true. But what do you, an accomplished authoritarian with a passion for tennis, do to stop it? After all, you were democratically elected and an affront against you is an affront against all the millions of devoted and thankful Moscovites that had voted for you. This can not stand, but you are a democratically elected authoritarian and you can not just send OMON after the offenders and have them beaten and arrested, can you? Especially when one of the offenders happens to be a member of the Parliament. Dang!

But the world is not as bleak for Mr. Luzhkov as it might seem to your uninitiated glance. If you take the letter of a law and bang it over and over and over you will eventually subvert and defeat the meaning of the law. Sue their sorry derrières. Sue often and early. Sue when you are in office and sue when you are out for a couple of sets. Sue and persevere and the pesky freedom of speech will eventually collapse entangled in Laocoönic web of roots, vipers and sweat. No need for a GULAG.

Echo Moskvy reports today via RIA Novosti (translation is mine, since I could not find an English text of the same news piece)

Basmanny District Court of Moscow will hear a lawsuit filed on behalf of Moscow Mayor Yuri Luizhkov and the City Government to defend honor, dignity and business reputation. RIA Novisti learned that Alexander Lebedev, a Duma Member and Komsomolskaya Provda Newspaper were named as defendants. The law suit followed Lebedev's interview with Komsomolskaya Pravda and his remarks made at a Duma press conference last December. In particular, the Parliamentarian stated that "(Moscow City Government) policies threaten the capital's security," "multi annual haphazard city development caused negative ecological processes," "hundreds of historical monuments were destroyed in Moscow under pretense of city redevelopment". The city leader demands retraction and asks the court to call the data invalid" (SIC!)

I kid you not. Our democratically elected authoritarian wants the court to call somebody's expressed opinion invalid. Do you see the huge potential in this approach? It will take the court months if not years to count destroyed monuments and assess pretenses for their demolitions.

When I was in Russia earlier this month, I had a chat with my family there. We talked about defamation law suits and I told them that anyone in the US can call George W. Bush whatever nasty words they could think of and accuse him of every existing sin.

"We are just as good as America," replied my brother in law. We can call Bush whatever we want too.

Bookmarks:
Add to Technorati FavoritesAdd to Google Reader or HomepageSubscribe in NewsGator OnlineSubscribe in BloglinesAdd to My AOL
BlogCFC was created by Raymond Camden. This blog is running version 5.5.1.