Putin's Power Play in Crimea Exposes a Long-Held Russian Hypocrisy

by Nomad

Russia's decision to annex Ukraine's Crimean region has sent a shudder throughout the international community. Vladimir Putin's decision was part and parcel of Russian policy, one that has been shaped by both its tsarist past as well as its Soviet years under Stalin. How does this controversial decision reveal an underlying hypocrisy of Russian policy?

Empire Rebuilding?

Monday saw Russian President Vladimir Putin annexing the Crimean peninsula for the Motherland, in the name of protecting the Russian ethnic minority in Ukraine. While the Russian-speaking minority forms about 17 percent of the Ukrainian population, they do make up the majority in Crimea. A majority of region but a minority of the nation.
This act, which the international community has soundly condemned as treaty-breaking and in breach of international laws of state sovereignty, has many of Russia's neighbors- with similar minorities- extremely worried. Their greatest fear can be summed up with two questions: Is Putin actually attempting to revive the Soviet Empire? If not, where will he draw the line?

As The Washington Post found Putin's speech  was riddled with false statements about the events. One interesting misleading statement:

“Crimeans say that in 1991, they were handed over like a sack of potatoes, and I can’t help but agree with it. And what about the Russian state? What about Russia? It humbly accepted the situation. This country was going through such hard times then that realistically it was incapable of protecting its interests.”

Putin's re-writing of history supplies the Kremlin with all the justification it needed for what some have called "a land grab." In fact, the 1991 decision to join Ukraine was a democratic one, with a vote of 54% in favor. Buried in the quote, Putin makes the suggestion that now Russia is prepared to use force to protect its interests.
Even if that means defying the West.

Confidence Trick: What Flim-Flamming Con Artists and Fox News Have in Common

by Nomad

Con artists target the elderly as "marks" for a number of reasons. While the motives differ slightly, Fox News targets the same demographic for exactly the same reasons.

According to Webster's Dictionary:

PROPAGANDA:

..." the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person; also - ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause"...

Over the years many critics of Fox News have called it a conservative propaganda machine, whose goal seems to be to divide the nation. But maybe that's missing the point.

The Fox News- Con Artist Connections

The average Fox News viewer, studies have found, is over 65 (and keep in mind that's the average). It's no coincidence that the number one target of confidence tricksters just also happens to be the elderly. Instead making off with their life savings, the Fox News con artists have been used to foment division and affect elections through near constant disinformation. (Indirectly, savings are being drained from senior bank accounts in support for groups like the Tea Party.)

Nothing is accidental when it comes to Roger Ailes, president of Fox News. A wit could say Ailes put the "con" in conservative politics. As a diligent flim-flammer, he has chosen his victims well and has learned how to exploit characteristics of the human psyche such as prejudice, loneliness, naivety, and ignorance.

The Importance of Impeachment: How the Tea Party is Abusing Constitutional Procedure

by Nomad

Since the first presidential impeachment in 1868,  the procedure has proved to be a terribly imperfect tool. However, even when not applied, its existence is essential for the Republic. 

David Stewart's book, Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln's Legacy is a fascinating study of a constitutional crisis. The book is set against the period immediately after the war of rebellion when the nation was attempting somehow to put the country back together. Just to show you how easily things can go terribly wrong, Lincoln's best intentions turned out to be a colossal misjudgment.

Not many historians have pointed out that Lincoln was, in fact, neither Republican nor Democrat in this second term. He was the candidate for the National Unity Party and he chose as his vice-president, Andrew Johnson, was a Southern Democrat. (Imagine that? A single ticket made of both parties?) 

Had Lincoln not been murdered, the constitutional crisis of presidential impeachment would have been avoided. However, the new president's suspected loyalty to the defeated South, his position that states had the right to their sovereignty- even after what most saw as outright sedition- were too much for some in Congress to bear. When faced with an unyielding Republican minority (every bit as querulous and uncompromising as today's Tea Party) determined to unseat the president by hook or crook, the 17th President's arrogance and stubbornness made impeachment unavoidable. 

It's a good read. And the story of how and why the Radical Republicans attempted to use the process of impeachment to remove President Johnson gives a lot of insight into the ways elected representative under partisan stress can lose track of their primary mission.

Huckabee: Connecting End-of-Life Issues with Abortion Reveals Republican Weakness

by Nomad

Mike Huckabee in an attempt to garner attention, has managed to connect the abortion debate and end-of-life matters. Although Huckabee appears unaware of it, that connection actually highlights the problem with the Republican stand on abortion. On top of that, both subjects are toxic to winning the 2016 election.

The other day, while making a speech at the Susan B. Anthony List, a 501 (c)4 anti-abortion organization, former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee attempted to play the "Scare the oldies" card. (It's been Fox News' bread and butter since its inception.)

As reported by Politico,

The former Arkansas governor and one-time presidential candidate said women typically cite hardship or inconvenience as their reason for getting an abortion — the same reasons that he said could be used to justify ending the lives of the elderly.

The same technique of scaring the senior voters was used by Sarah Palin in her death panel nonsense. Huckabee told the audience:

“If we teach the generation coming after us that it’s okay to terminate a human life because it represents a financial hardship or social disruption, what are we telling them?”

Huckabee is the kind of politician that doesn't fear to tread the paths where other GOP angels tend to slither away from.    

In this speech, Huckabee chided his compatriots for shying away from the subject of abortion which he sees as a sure-fire election-winning issue. (Somebody should have told him that according to a 2013 poll, seven in ten Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade)

Huckabee ironically is attempting to connect a pair of unpopular positions and is expecting some kind of political gain.

Lebanon Suddenly Became More Gay-Friendly than 14 US states

by Nomad

Despite its myriad problems, (such as marketplace suicide bombings, factional divisions and refugees), the Middle-Eastern nation of Lebanon appears to be more progressive when it comes to equality rights for its gay minority than, say, Texas or Oklahoma.

According to Victoria Kim writing for PolicyMic:

LGBT rights activists in Lebanon are celebrating a historic ruling that reversed the criminalization of gay sex in Lebanon.

The recent case was highlighted a quarterly magazine called Legal Agenda, published by an NGO of the same name.

Judge Naji El Dahdah, of Jdeide Court, Beirut, threw out the case, in which the Lebanese state accused a transgender woman of having a same-sex relationship with a man, on January 28. The verdict relied on a December 2009 ruling by Judge Mounir Suleiman that consensual homosexual relations were not "against nature" and could therefore not be prosecuted under article 534 of Lebanon's penal code, which prohibits sexual relations that are "contradicting the laws of nature," and makes them punishable by up to a year in prison. "Man is part of nature and is one of its elements, so it cannot be said that any one of his practices or any one of his behaviors goes against nature, even if it is criminal behavior, because it is nature's ruling," Suleiman said.

This latest development comes after what some saw as last years' crackdown of a very discreet underground gay scene.

Compare that to the states in the US that  still have anti-sodomy laws on their books. Despite a 2003 Supreme Court decision  to invalidate an earlier ruling in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, fourteen states have yet to abolish the laws. The Supreme Court ruled that this private sexual conduct is protected by the liberty rights implicit in the due process clause of the United States Constitution. 

And yet, Alabama,  Florida, Idaho,  Kansas,  Louisiana,  Michigan,  Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia all have retained the unconstitutional laws. While these states have no way to enforce the laws, they have also not been repealed at a state level. Although obsolete, the laws have been used have been used to stop gay Americans from adopting and fostering children and gaining custody of their own kids.