bleeding heart

Yes, there is lots of propaganda going around...like, for example, those who claim that a quick scan of "the Party's Platform" can give you a sober assessment. Like I said, ASIP, EVERY source I looked at--including Wikipedia--sheds some disturbing light on Svoboda. But I am perfectly willing (happy, in fact) to be proven wrong. Do you have any good sources (the Party's own claims carry zero information, as with all self-interested parties....so that one's a non-starter) that counter the charges of fascism, and the charges of anti-Semitism?

Good posts, Dre.

Argus, Argus, you keep talking about a speculative vision of what might have occurred...and pretend that it's precisely equal to what has occurred. Hundreds of thousands dead, all so that the new leader can continue with the sectarian violence (the leader, Argus, not just foreign jihadists or whatnot), and send the torture regime back up and running, and have death penalty numbers higher than Saddam did. All that death is a tragedy....and not just the "American deaths," which for reasons of your own seems to be more of an issue to you. I have no idea why. And no, the coalition didn't keep a lid on the violence, they precipitated it (not to mention some outright perpetrative war crimes....up to and including the very invasion itself). What "could have" happened? We're talking about what did happen. A catastrophe.

I agree with August; things aren't nearly so simple as bad Ukrainian President, bad Russians, good Ukrainian opposition. First of all, yes, I agree Putin is a thug. Second, I agree that Yanukovych was extremely corrupt. That is, I accept the near-unanimous consensus on that score. And yes, I also agree that there is a legitimate and decent opposition. However, there are darker forces within this opposition. And while that's true of any such complex scenario, any uprising, revolution, or even mass protest....it's not always that the darkest elements manage to immediately wend their way into power. Rue: surely you're not too sanguine about the fact that a big part of the opposition (a minority, yes, but an important minority) are neo-fascists? Anti-Semitic fascists...and they're now part of the new power elite in Ukraine. I can't believe this doesn't bother you on some level.

The very fact that Obama received some accolades (undeserved, but never mind) for declaring reforms to the spying program suggests that Snowdon has done some good. Obama wouldn't have made the reforms (whether they're only cosmetic, or more profound) if it weren't for Snowdon's revelations.

Ellsberg is of the opinion that Snowdon was right to flee the country. "It's a different America now. He made the right call."

An introductory statement, followed by a Q&A. And it's quite enlightening. Many of the criticisms against Snowdon are dealt with here...and the more inflammatory ones are quite nicely exploded. For example (to paraphrase some of the criticisms) 1. "Snowdon should have tried to go through more official, "legal" channels, before releasing this information." He did try. He took his concerns and complaints to "more than ten distinct officials, none of whom took any action to address them." 2. "The spying program has, according to President Obama, directly thwarted at least 54 very serious terrorist threats." Incorrect. An outright lie, actually. "Two independent White House reviews with access to the classified evidence on which this claim was founded concluded it was untrue, as did a Federal Court." 3. "The alleged illegality is disputed by officials." So is evolution. However, an investigation "performed by the White House's Civil Liberties Oversight Board determined....that [the issues under debate] ha[ve] no basis in law." 4. "It has had no far-reaching constitutional or legal effects that anyone need be overly concerned about." Hilarious! "Each of these countries [Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, New Zealand, and others] received instruction from the NSA, sometimes under the guise of the US Department of Defense and other bodies, on how to degrade the legal protections of their countries' communications. 5. "No countries' leaders or officials have been strongarmed of as a result of any of this." "US Government officials....used NATO to ground the Presidential plane of Evo Morales--leader of Bolivia--on hearing that I might attempt to seek asylum in Latin America." 6. The spying is only used to protect citizens from terrorism. It is used to monitor citizens not under any suspicion, to monitor political dissent and perceived political dissent, up to and including simple disagreements with certain policies; and it is used for economic and financial espionage, sometimes in collusion with unaccountable private entities. "Australia's Prime Minister was recently "caught red-handed engaging in the most blatant kind of economic espionage, [and] sought to argue that the price of Indonesian shrimp and clove cigarettes was a 'security matter.'" https://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/03/07-4

Incidentally, I'm (naively?) a little surprised at the response this young woman has received. Pretty ugly.

Argus, the invasion precipitated the violence. That violence may have occurred without my instigations does not absolve me...a universal moral stance that everyone (except supporters of the Iraq War) grasps without problem. And the principle (in terms of the effects of international aggression) was laid out clearly in the Nuremberg principles--by the Americans, in fact--to universal applause. I too applaud this sober American addendum, and recognize that it is not conveniently restricted to the Nazis. (And in fact, they were perfectly explicit that it was not so restricted.) And I'm not laying all the blame on Westerners; I clearly, deliberately have called it a "shared responsibility." I used that phrase advisedly and consciously. You're the only one who is trying to downplay the agency and guilt of any of the offending entities.

Replace "neighbor" with "country" and we've got your radical support for the Iraq War. "Interesting reading" indeed.

Black Dog, I certainly take your point about the presumed "hilarity" of prison rape jokes. Or, often beyond jokes, as I've heard people (and seen it in a discussion here on MLW, once, incidentally) that it's a form of "rough justice" and that convicts "deserve" it. I suppose such moral luminaries are unaware that they are siding with predators against the weak....predators who do not rape other inmates for reasons of "justice," obviously, but rather because the perpetrators are, well, rapists.

I can't speak to the specifics of this case, but as it was reported on CBC, the men were having discussions about "sexually punishing" the woman in question. But, as Argus points out, "boys will be boys," and when they make jokes about committing rape, the woman in question is "very vocal" and is "howling" about it.

ASIP, you openly concede that your "opinion" of their political leanings is gleaned solely from their own assertions. But every other source (every other source) seems to tell a different story. We do know, for example, that the Party formed in the early nineties with an name explicitly associated with the Nazis; that their party symbol used to look astonishingly similar to the swastika; that they "prefer ethnic Ukrainians" to be members of their party; that they are openly anti-Semitic; and that skinheads and football hooligans seem to love them the most. Now, you're correct that they aren't the most extreme right-wing party in the region; but that merely speaks poorly for the region, not well for Svoboda.

Just so. We cannot automatically include "withdraws the complaint" as a "false allegation." And police and prosecutors themselves would make the same point.

I don't think too many people, feminists or otherwise, think "men's culture" (whatever that means) is equivalent to "rape culture." As far as they exist, it is about like worrying about the influence of the Canadian Communist Party. That is (and I'll include a small mea culpa here for being part of this discussion), this thread is entirely trivial. I'm surprised people are so aggrieved by the student groups' words. I'll just add that, if "rape culture" is a silly notion, it pales in comparison beside Ms. Wente's "war on men"--a phrase which underscores her thesis, her very reason for writing the article, and so by extrapolation this entire thread. If there's a "war on men," it's the first "war" in which most of the casualties are feelings of pique over a virtual non-issue.

For some people, those are the ultimate fighting words.

Well, some of them would, and doubtless are for it as we speak. There's that "progressive super-rich" cadre. But when it came down to it, I doubt it would take hold.

Yes, I'm a little dubious about the ability to maintain the level, and yet still do something new. I really hope they can pull off at least one or two more excellent miniseries like this one.

Boges makes a good point; the health and obesity problems we are facing is not solely due to refined sugar. There is a complex array of factors, and no doubt a lessening of physical activity is a key one. It's one of the few cases in which the "when we were kids" argument is actually true, I believe.

Well, I think we've established that I don't rate the first point at all, and that I agree with the second.

Nice catch, thanks.

Humouring me...but without anything to flag this in any way. you see, tim old chap, some of us are trying to have honest, civil debates....while others are accusing other posters of "not taking rape seriously," and changing their opinions on a dime, only to backtrack again and claim they didn't mean it..... If you're not interested in honest debate, you should go back your men's group drum-circle and complain about how feminists are ruining civilization.

No, that's insufficient; he'd also have to prove that these folks enacting longer sentences for dog-abusers than child-abusers are "liberals."

You said they were clear about their intentions. Your backtracking is noted, and, frankly, mildly appreciated. As for your remark about "activists"...I take it you're not a fan of the ruling Conservative Party, which simply could not exist in its present form without the hard work (and, one might even hesitantly presume, sincere principles) of conservative activists.

It's simply not going to work. There would be outcry, there would be tremendous political pressure, and that would be that. You can't go after the people who effectively own the society. Hell, even our criminal justice system is explicitly, intentionally skewed towards preferment of the moneyed classes.