Russian Lawmaker Puts Foot Down on High Heels, Ballet Shoes and Loafers

by Nomad

Just when you thought the American Congress couldn't get any more silly or intrusive into the lives of women, the Russians step in with the draft laws against footwear.

A Paris-based international news agency, AFP, is reporting this story.

Russian women may soon undergo a dramatic makeover if a Kremlin-friendly legislator has his way and pushes through a ban on a fashion item they perhaps cherish the most: high heels.

Oleg Mikheyev, a legislator with pro-Kremlin A Just Russia party, says vertiginous heels as well as trainers, ballet flats and men’s loafers are bad for people’s health and it’s time to do something about it.

The article goes on:

Mikheyev has sent a proposal to the Customs Union which also includes ex-Soviet Belarus and Kazakhstan, suggesting that the Moscow-led group introduce official standards stipulating the height of heels. “Footwear should have heels that are two to four centimetres high, five centimetres high at the most,” said the proposal. “The harmful effects of wearing extremely high heels and flat shoes have now been recognised by experts of the entire world,” said the five-page proposal. “It’s necessary to change this trend.” Mikheyev said he was simply looking to raise awareness rather than ban heels outright.

In fact, Mikheyev is no stranger to [insert adjective of choice] legislation.  

Cheney's Editorial: A Total Detachment from Responsibility and Reality

by Nomad

Minds were boggled this week as ex-vice president Dick Cheney managed to flip history on its head in order to escape his record in advocating the invasion of Iraq. 

In yet another example of Republican delusional thinking, former vice-president Dick Cheney penned an op-ed for the (Rupert Murdoch-owned) The Wall Street Journal this week, blasting President Obama on  foreign policy. 

Specifically he accused the president of "'fantasy' policies that weaken the US armed forces, embolden terror networks like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and reduce Washington's ability to influence global events."

It was a startling piece of writing, given the source. For a full appreciation of the text, an experienced mental health expert is perhaps required. Psychological projection is evident throughout and frankly, it's a little frightening to see how detached from reality the man has become.
(If Liz Cheney truly loved her father, she would keep as far  from access to the media as she could. Even Nancy Reagan had the common decency to do that for her husband.)

Hypocrites on Parade: Pat Robertson Slams George Bush for Lying about Iraq

by Nomad

Recent remarks by the evangelist Pat Robertson about George Bush and the pretext for the Iraqi invasion were interesting.
Yet, before you shake Robertson's hand, it's important to hear the whole story.

America's Bill of Goods

Yesterday Raw Story delivered this interesting news:

Televangelist Pat Robertson on Monday blasted former President George W. Bush for selling Americans a “bill of goods” before the Iraq invasion, which led to the violence that is currently sweeping across the country.

Robertson, a former ardent Bush supporter, is the founder and chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network and the Christian Coalition. Broadcasts of his 700 club reportedly reach a daily audience of one million viewers, both on cable and through syndication.  

Arming ISIS: The Danger of Listening to Warhawks

by Nomad

Two years ago, as the Syrian Civil War dragged on, Republican war hawks had the answers about what President ought to do in Syria. Sending weapons to the freedom fighting rebels was the only answer. 

Today we can see the folly of McCain's foreign policy solutions.

Back in February 2012, Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham were indulging in their favorite hobby, telling President Obama what he ought to be doing in the seemingly insolvable Syrian Civil War.
Their answer was to send American weapons to the anti-Assad rebels.

McCain's Folly

“I believe there are ways to get weapons to the opposition without direct United States involvement,” McCain told reporters at a news conference during a visit to the Afghan capital, Kabul, “The Iranians and the Russians are providing Bashar Assad with weapons. People that are being massacred deserve to have the ability to defend themselves.”

“So I am not only not opposed, but I am in favor of weapons being obtained by the opposition.”

In other words, the best policy was to return to the proxy wars of the Cold War.

(Nobody on the Republican side bothered to inform the senators that arming rebels in any country is a violation of international law. The International Court of Justice has in the past ruled that such shipments violated the UN charter. The last time this matter came up was curiously enough in the Reagan era with the covert arming of the Nicaraguan contras.)

According to a Wall Street Journal article (behind a firewall), legal advisers to President Obama repeatedly warned that aiding the Syrian rebels probably "violated international law and risked a direct conflict with the Assad regime."

Furthermore, it could easily lead into a larger conflict involving Turkey, Iran, Russia, Israel and other regional neighbors. The President had every reason to proceed with extreme caution. It's the kind of thing a president- as Commander in Chief- is paid to consider.

It was clear that the Obama Administration was never fully committed to the idea of sending weapons. In any event, it made no sense to openly discuss that option. What is the benefit of publicizing such a policy? 

The then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was also a little less hawkish about the idea. However according to one source, (her own recently-published memoirs) suggests that early in the country's civil war, she thought the proposal was one option.
Importantly, she adds, that view was overruled by the president.

"The risks of both action and inaction were high, [but] the president [Obama]'s inclination was to stay the present course and not take the significant further step of arming rebels," she added.

"No one likes to lose a debate, including me. But this was the president's call and I respected his deliberations and decision," she wrote, according to CBS News.

As we shall see,  Hilary's version of events was not exactly the final chapter in the whole story. Ultimately, everybody in Washington and in Europe agreed that the Syrian President Assad had to go but nobody could decide how it should be done.
For the war hawk Republicans, the most expedient way seemed to be shipping weapons into the country covertly. It had worked in other cases. After all, it worked for Reagan and the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan...hadn't it?