Ukraine-Russia Treaty (1997)

You may find it here:http://www.jstor.org/stable/41036701?seq=11 Since the US State Department is calling out Russia in part based on the said treaty, let's understand what part of the treaty has Russia concerned.

Each of the Parties shall abstain from in,or High Contracting participation support of,any actions whatsoever directed against the other High Contracting and itself not to enter into with third countries Party, obligates any agreements directed the other Neither of the Parties will its to against Party. permit territory be used to the detriment of the other Party's security

With some of the "new government" parties cooperation with NATO and NATO aligned countries which have been, since it's inception, directed at one of the "High Contracting Parties" (guess which) the alignment with the US particularly with the taped evidence of one Victoria Nuland puts the current Ukraine government in direct violation of Article 6 of said agreement.

In the event that a situation should arise which,in the opinion of one of the High Contracting Parties,creates a threat to peace,violates the peace,or affects the interests of its national and territorial security,sovereignty integrity, it may appeal to the other High Contracting Party proposing immediately consultations. The Parties shall exchange information appropriate information and,where necessary ,take agreed-upon or joint measures in order to resolve such a situation.

The coup in Ukraine was a definitive "situation" that "creates a threat to peace, violates the peace," and "affects the interests of it's national and territorial sovereignty." The US being caught on tape admitting to spending it's time and money in creating an uprising to overthrow the democratically elected leader of the Ukraine with talk of who it wanted in power in a state that borders Russia pretty much defines, threat to national and territorial sovereignty.

Since Russia considers (considered) Yanukovych to be the lawfull leader of Ukraine (as do I) Yanukovych was the "High Contracting Party" legitimately able to confer with Russia. The US is free to dispute that assertion, as it has, but that does not make Russia's claim false. Furthermore claiming that Yanukovych was declared by Russia as politically dead does not make him non-legitimate (under the Ukraine constitution). It does mean that he would not have won a legal and fair democratic election.

The Parties shall use the necessary means, including ratification of appropriate acts,on their territories for the prevention and termination actions that constitute instigation of violence, or violence against individuals or groups of citizens that is based on national, racial, ethnic,or religious intolerance.

Two words: Right Party. The US State Department says that there is no evidence of violence against Russians (or other groups). Given how quickly Russia put it's boots on the ground to prevent such actions I'd say "duh".

In the end the facts of what is happening on the ground are really not in dispute for those interested in them. What we are seeing is politics. Personally I cannot understand how a country 5000+ miles away can claim interest in and penalize a country that borders a place that just had a coup for taking actions to protect it's interests. But saying Russia to an American is like waving meat in front of a hungry dog. Never fails in getting them to act a fool.

Threat To Who?

n a message to Congress, which is working on separate sanctions legislation that would give the president further sanctioning powers, Obama said: “I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order (the ‘order’) declaring a national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by the situation in Ukraine.

Do you know where the Ukraine is? Do you know where the United States is? How exactly is what is going on 5,687 miles away from the United States a "threat to the national security" of the United States?

And, if what is going on is a "threat to the national security" of the United States then how much more of a security threat is the situation in Ukraine to Moscow which is 500 miles away from Kiev? Who exactly has more at stake, national security wise, from the goings on in Ukraine?

Are you an idiot?

And what "foreign policy" is threatened? Oh, the overthrow of governments the US does not like? Say, is it now the fact that international law is whatever the US decides it to be?

Are you an idiot?

At a press conference in Sevastopol, Rustam Temirgaliev, the Crimean vice-premier, said the referendum was being held purely to ratify the decision of the Crimean parliament to join the Russian Federation, and the parliament had appealed to Russia to assist with this.

He said Crimea was Russian with immediate effect: “From today, as Crimea is part of the Russian Federation, the only legal forces here are troops of the Russian Federation, and any troops of the third country will be considered to be armed groups with all the associated consequences.”

The referendum was immediately denounced as illegitimate by the new government in Kiev.

Since this isn't Russia Times and therefore "unbiased" (hearty laugh) then lets take it for truth shall we. This is a game changer. Remember Kosovo? They up and decided to declare themselves an independent state with the US' blessing. How now can the US make any complaints about this declaration having already approved of the same action done by others?

Oh right, it's the whole "governments we approve of" thing. Silly me.

And how ironic is it that the "new government" in Kiev, itself a result of a unilateral decision to unconstitutionally oust it's prime minister and breech an agreement brokered with the EU, to up and declare what other parts of Ukraine is or is not legitimate.

Report: Hillary Clinton compares Russia to Nazi Germany

I see. And so the Neo Nazi's walking around Kiev are what then? Hillary Clinton is proving that she is qualified to be president of the US by showing that she too thinks you're an idiot.

Gun Barrel What?

U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry, during a visit Tuesday to the Ukrainian capital, accused Russia of gun-barrel diplomacy and brutish behavior more befitting the war-racked 19th century. Moscow, he said, has chosen aggression rather than one of the "countless outlets that an organized, structured, decent world has struggled to put together to resolve these differences so we don't see a nation unilaterally invade another nation.

"It is not appropriate to invade a country and at the end of a barrel of a gun dictate what you are trying to achieve," Kerry [my emphasis]

Really?

Really?

Kerry truly believes we're all idiots.

The Guardian UK Thinks You're an Idiot. Are You?

So to round out our analysis of Western "free press" we have the Guardian UK with: Five fibs from Vladimir: how Putin distorted the facts about Ukraine Fib? We're talking about a possible civil war going on in Ukraine and The Guardian uses the term "fib"?

1. The unidentified armed men who took control of Crimea were local self-defence units Although the uniforms did not have insignia, they were easily identified as Russian army issue. The men also seemed suspiciously well trained. Putin argued that anyone could have bought Russian uniforms: "The post-Soviet space is full of such uniforms." Yet the military-grade weapons that the troops were carrying, from Kalashnikovs to Dragunov sniper rifles to bazookas, are not as easy to explain away. Also, Guardian reporters have seen unidentified troops taking over Crimean airbases driving in military vehicles with Russian plates, which the foreign ministry has admitted are moving around the peninsula.

I suppose Alec Luhn does not know that: a) Russia has and been had their own soldiers in Crimea. b) That even with Russian troops there that does not mean that self-defense forces made up of locals and defectors are not also engaged. And given the friendly terms between Crimea and Russia, why wouldn't local groups not have access to Russian goods?

2. Western-backed forces carried out the coup Putin said that the downfall of former president Viktor Yanukovych's government had been backed by western countries and incited by people "sitting in America doing experiments, like on rats", adding: "I think that this was all well prepared. Of course there are military units and they are there to this day, they are well-prepared and in this the western instructors did well." While western donors have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to groups campaigning against Yanukovych's regime, there is no evidence that either the US or UK have trained opposition forces militarily. The so-called "self-defence units" which took part in the pro-European protests did not appear to have any military training, displaying instead some poor discipline and relying on improvised equipment such as motorcycle helmets and table legs.

Two words: Victoria Nuland. And the amount SHE said was $5 billion. Next!

3. Protesters in Ukraine were killed by former opposition snipers The president said that the dozens of anti-Russian protesters killed by sniper bullets were victims of their own leaders. "There is the opinion that [snipers shot] on the orders of one of the opposition parties," he said, despite eyewitness accounts of police snipers shooting protesters. While Putin cited "freely available information" to back his claim, there is also video footage of snipers in police uniforms shooting at people.

I have read similar rumors that there were plants in the protestors (or state agencies) that also did sniping. I actually don't even understand the point of this one. The state is supposed to have a monopoly on violence so if they have been authorized to shoot then they have been. But in regards to the "fog of war" I point the reader to the following:

As it turns out, political analyst, F. William Engdahl has done a bit of research on the group and gives a rundown in a recent article titled “The Rape of Ukraine; Phase Two Begins”. Here’s what he says: “The question unanswered until now is who deployed the snipers? (who shot into the crowd in Maidan Square) According to veteran US intelligence sources, the snipers came from an ultra-right-wing military organization known as Ukrainian National Assembly – Ukrainian People’s Self-Defense (UNA-UNSO).

And I'll leave you to judge for yourself.

4. Pro-Europe demonstrators shot and burned former ruling party employees Putin claimed that protesters had shot one employee of the former ruling party and set another on fire. In reality, protestors threw stones and Molotov cocktails at a Party of Regions office on 18 February, after which a fire broke out. Emergency services rescued several people but were not able to save one office worker who died in the blaze. There were no credible reports that anyone had been shot

So Putin was lying, but this guy then runs down the scenario but tries to discredit it by saying the reports were "not credible". Essentially this guy is saying that because he chooses to not believe the reports therefore Putin is a liar. No. For Putin to be lying (in this instance) he would have to know that the report was false and still present it as truth.

5. Yanukovych is the legitimate president of Ukraine When it came to the ousted Yanukovych government, Putin seemed to want to have his cake and eat it . On the one hand, the Russian president said he agreed with protesters that Ukraine's previous regimes were all "crooks" and admitted Yanukovych had no power and no political future. On the other, he still insisted Yanukovych remained the legitimate president.

Does this guy know what a coup d' etat is?

So yup. The Guardian UK thinks you're an idiot. Are you? [Update 3-5 9:26AM] Apparently someone at the Guardian decided to "fix" the headline to make it more professional. They dropped the "fibs" and replaced it with "untruths" (as is in the original html link). That does not change the fact that the information [sic] that was presented is any better with the new title.

Time Inc. Thinks You're an Idiot. Are You?

Time Magazine has posted an article on the situation in Ukraine 4 Reasons Putin Is Already Losing in Ukraine. First thing: A publication with the longevity and reputation such as Time ought NEVER, EVER post an "X things why" article. That shit belongs in tabloids and other pop culture, IQ lowering publications. Anyway lets looks at the list:

At home, this intervention looks to be one of the most unpopular decisions Putin has ever made. The Kremlin’s own pollster released a survey on Monday that showed 73% of Russians reject it. In phrasing its question posed in early February to 1,600 respondents across the country, the state-funded sociologists at WCIOM were clearly trying to get as much support for the intervention as possible: “Should Russia react to the overthrow of the legally elected authorities in Ukraine?” they asked. Only 15% said yes — hardly a national consensus.

What is this? What. Is. This?

Of course the citizens of Russia reject the notion of overthrowing the legally elected authorities in Ukraine. Of course since what we just witnessed in Ukraine was a coup, the current "authorities" in that country are not the "legal authorities". Small and minor detail I'm sure. I'm sure they learned the meaning of the word coup from the same school that the NY times did.

That seems astounding in light of all the brainwashing Russians have faced on the issue of Ukraine. For weeks, the Kremlin’s effective monopoly on television news has been sounding the alarm over Ukraine. Its revolution, they claimed, is the result of an American alliance with Nazis intended to weaken Russia.

This is brainwashing? Time REALLY thinks you're an idiot. If the Kremlin has been sounding alarms about an impending coup in Ukraine and it happens. How is that "brainwashing"? Seriously, explain that to me. Since we have Victoria Nuland ON VIDEO claiming how the US has spent $5 billion or so on "opposition parties" which include [neo] nazis; how is that "brainwashing"?

The real question here is WHO is trying to brainwash who? Are you an idiot?

The blatant misinformation and demagoguery on Russian television coverage of Ukraine seems to have pushed Russians to go online for their information.

Seriously? Someone at Time Inc. thought that this was actually acceptable journalism? I have a whole slew of posts that shows that John Kerry, Obama, the NY Times and now Time Magazine are in fact the purveyors of actual misinformation and demagoguery.

Again. Time thinks you are an idiot. Are you an idiot?

The economic impact on Russia is already staggering. When markets opened on Monday morning, investors got their first chance to react to the Russian intervention in Ukraine over the weekend, and as a result, the key Russian stock indexes tanked by more than 10%.

This is called economic warfare. Look it up. Prepare to see more of it. Ukraine is in such dire straights and as far as I know has no businesses that would have a significant impact on any fortune 100, 500 or 100 company. Ukraine could disappear as a country tomorrow and very, very few people outside the country would see any change in their ability to make a lot of money.

Are you an idiot?

Even Russia’s closest allies want no part of this. The oil-rich state of Kazakhstan, the most important member of every regional alliance Russia has going in the former Soviet space, put out a damning statement on Monday, marking the first time its leaders have ever turned against Russia on such a major strategic issue: “Kazakhstan expresses deep concern over the developments in Ukraine,” the Foreign Ministry said. “Kazakhstan calls on all sides to stop the use of force in the resolution of this situation.”

What the Kazakhstan Foreign Ministry said is dead on and the desire of any sane observer of this situation. That includes Russia who I must remind the idiots at Time, removed themselves from Ossetia when the threat there was over.*ahem*

Are you an idiot?

As I've said before, the US based media has shown itself to be totally inept during the events in Ukraine. I have yet to read a single factual and unbiased article on the subject from any large mainstream publication or video news [sic] outlet. It makes it a joke when these so called news [sic] outlets talk about "state controlled media" of other countries when these same news [sic] organizations engage in the same misinformation they claim to be free of.

Shame on Time Inc. for posting that bullshit. They need to get the uneducated, misinformed tabloid writers off their staff and pay some real journalists and scholars to write for them.

Now For The IMF

The loans will be part of a larger international aid package coordinated by the U.S. and European allies, and distributed largely through the International Monetary Fund. The money is needed to close a gaping budget hole left when the Ukraine opposition deposed President Viktor Yanukovich and rejected a loan package from Moscow. Experts say the new government needs roughly $20 billion to fill the gap in the current fiscal year. In a statement released Tuesday, Lew said the U.S. and its partners will work to “provide as much support as Ukraine needs to restore financial stability and return to economic growth, if the new government implements the necessary reforms.” Obama on Monday said a speedy approval of the deal would send a strong message to Russia, which the U.S. has accused of breaching international law by seizing control of Ukraine's Crimean peninsula in the wake of the coup.[My Emphasis]

In comes the International Money Fuckers with their "necessary reforms".

The NYT Thinks You're An Idiot. Are You?

Yesterday I posted the definition of a coup d'etat known commonly as a coup:

coup d'état noun \ˌkü-(ˌ)dā-ˈtä, ˈkü-(ˌ)dā-ˌ, -də-\ : a sudden attempt by a small group of people to take over the government usually through violence.

Ukraine had a democratically elected president and representatives in parliament. It had/has a constitution with specific rules on how and when elections are held. It has rules for removing a president or any other member of parliament. Ukraine had elections scheduled in 12 months. All those democratic means for removing the president were bypassed by a crowd of protestors with grievances (valid or not) that were latched upon by the US to bypass the democratic processes of removing the president. The crowd brought arms in Maidan (and were bringing much more) in order to force the government to capitulate.

Now go back and read that coup d' etat definition.

What we saw was a definitive coup. No If, ands, buts or maybes.

So why is it that the NY Times put "coup" in quotes as if that was not in fact what happened?

Let's be clear, the NY Times (as well as much of the mainstream media) thinks that the American people (among others) are complete idiots. Just yesterday they posted a piece in which Angela Merkel of Germany said that Putin was detached from reality. Who exactly is detached from reality? When a clear coup is described as anything but a coup then those actually detached from reality are Obama, Kerry, Merkel and the rest of the people in the so called "west" who wish to manipulate an uniformed public into backing their own political, military and economic aims.

What we are witnessing today is a fully naked view of the real US media-state apparatus being used to shape public opinion. Whereas the press is supposed to play the role of truth teller. Where journalists investigate all sides of a story, what we see now in plain view is the US press as the arm of the state.

What good is a "free press" if the "free press" can't even call a definitive coup a coup?

The NY Times thinks you are a total idiot. Obama thinks you are a total idiot. John "swift boat" Kerry thinks you're an idiot. Are you one?

Coup d' etat

coup d'état noun \ˌkü-(ˌ)dā-ˈtä, ˈkü-(ˌ)dā-ˌ, -də-\ : a sudden attempt by a small group of people to take over the government usually through violence.

Since it's clear that a lot of people have no clue what a coup d' etat is.

Stating The Obvious About Ukraine

Third, and perhaps most important, is the fact that the putsch government in Kiev is absolutely illegal under international law. Yanukovich, whatever negative things could be said about him and his government (and there are many), was never defeated in a democratic election. Rather, he was chased out of the country by a violent mob that has now been consecrated by the much touted “international community” (read US-EU-NATO) as the recognized government. This is a blatant violation of Ukraine’s Constitution, not to mention international law and the accepted principles of modern democracy. With Yanukovich having taken refuge in Russia, and still being the legal President of Ukraine, isn’t it fair to say that Russia is acting as the guarantor of international law, rather than its enemy?… Of course, the fundamental question with regard to all these conflicts is the question of US interests. Were there Americans directly under threat by the Gaddafi government? Certainly not. Was the US Navy in danger of being seized by hostile forces in Somalia or Nicaragua? Of course not. Were the American people under threat from Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic? Undeniably no. And yet, somehow these “interventions” were deemed acceptable, but Russia’s attempt to protect its own people and military installations in the face of a clear and present danger is a crime and breach of international law?

A point not even in the discussion in so called "free" and "independent" "western" mainstream media. How is it that such a "free", "independent" media in the US is incapable of stating these obvious facts to the citizenry? We expect the governments of the EU, Russia and the US to state whatever their political positions are. We expect those bodies to put forth whatever propaganda best suits their wants. What we should NOT expect is for so called "free" and "independent" "news" bodies to parrot those propaganda pieces as fact.

It's pretty sad that I have to read no less than 4 different news outlets in order to get actual information and I get the least information from so called "free" and "independent" news media. You'd think it would be the other way around.

Kerry On Proper Pretexts for "asserting interests"

“You just don’t invade another country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests,” John Kerry said during an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press. “This is an act of aggression that is completely trumped up in terms of its pretext. It’s really 19th century behaviour in the 21st century.”

I saw Kerry make the same statement on ABC's This Week. He wasn't referring to Saddam's weapons of mass destruction either.

I do believe that speech and the war that followed occurred in the 21st century. Please do feel free to correct me on that.

As Africans Surge to Europe’s Door, Spain Locks Down

Ten years ago Spain spent more than 30 million euros building up the barriers around Melilla and Ceuta, its two enclaves surrounded by Morocco on the northern coast of Africa, which offer the only land borders between the promise of Europe and the despair of Africa. And for a while the investment seemed to work.[my emphasis]

Harsh quote ain' it?

But few had any idea of going home. “I have spent two years traveling by land from Cameroon to here, and almost two years more hiding here in the woods,” said Musa Bankura, 36. “My family has spent all their savings. I can’t go back home now with nothing.”

Question: Is there anything else that this 36 year old and all the others in "despair" Africa could have done in the 4 years this fellow was trying to get to Europe?

Question: What does it say about how we run things that it is preferable to be on the move for 2 years and to camp out at an embassy for another 2 than it is to create an environment where you come from that negates any such desire for such a trip?

Question: Who is to blame if our countries are in such a state that people would rather effectively waste 4 years of their lives trying to get to another country?

Question: Exactly what are the families who were left behind doing in "desperate" Africa?

Optic Nerve: millions of Yahoo webcam images intercepted by GCHQ

Britain's surveillance agency GCHQ, with aid from the US National Security Agency, intercepted and stored the webcam images of millions of internet users not suspected of wrongdoing, secret documents reveal.

GCHQ files dating between 2008 and 2010 explicitly state that a surveillance program codenamed Optic Nerve collected still images of Yahoo webcam chats in bulk and saved them to agency databases, regardless of whether individual users were an intelligence target or not.

In one six-month period in 2008 alone, the agency collected webcam imagery – including substantial quantities of sexually explicit communications – from more than 1.8 million Yahoo user accounts globally.

Years ago I told folks we in the US were seeing the development of a police state. I wrote then:

As I said on Twitter; I think a lot of people have an idea about what a police state is based on movies and from dictators in the middle east, etc. They fail to realize to recognize the purpose of a police state is population control. Particularly the control of dissident voices and actions within the population. it is the ability to track citizens against their wishes, and it usually accompanied by claims of security and safety. A soft police state is still a police state.

Yes, I said that in 2011.

A "soft" police state is still a police state. [Update] In regard to the following:

GCHQ does not have the technical means to make sure no images of UK or US citizens are collected and stored by the system, and there are no restrictions under UK law to prevent Americans' images being accessed by British analysts without an individual warrant.

It has long been known in certain circles that the US and Britain use each other to circumvent the rights and laws of the other country. If the NSA is barred from listening to communications it will get the Brits to do it and vice-versa. Old news to those of use who have been paying attention all these years.

Unintended Consequences in Uganda

So if you've watched any TV or read anything in a "news"paper (online or actual print) you know that Uganda just passed a law which makes for stiff penalties for being gay (or being caught in "gay acts"). Now like I said in regards to Arizona's recent brush with legal stupid, one does not (and in this case should not) pass laws for things that can be best handled by individuals with their own personal behavior. However; Uganda in it's apparent fascination with homosexuality has gone and made the situation in that country worse.

In a free country one has free association or not association. You don't like homosexuals then you are free to not deal with them in your private life. Don't befriend none. Don't invite them to your home. etc. Nobody is or should be forced to be around or deal with people they simply do not like, no matter how sane or insane the reasoning. They are free people. But when you decide to pass a law with stiff penalties for free people living their lives you open the door to abuse.

The English-language tabloid Red Pepper published a list this morning of the country's alleged 200 top gay individuals under the headline "Exposed!" just a day after Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni signed a sweeping anti-gay bill into law.

"Publishing information about these people certainly puts them at risk in their local communities," said Maria Burnett, Senior Africa Researcher at Human Rights Watch. "Whether or not we're going to see violence, it's a possible byproduct of this bill and the rhetoric politicians have been churning out."

"We haven't seen the large-scale vigilante mob attacks that have marked the last couple of months in Nigeria, but we are certainly concerned that could be the case," Burnett said…

The well-known Ugandans accused in the report included a Catholic priest, a hip-hop star, and an activist.

You see, now a person or organization that has it out for a person simply has to accuse that person of being gay and the legal system is put on them and they risk having mobs of people come after them. So in addition to targeting the stated object of the law it has put the entire citizenry under threat. I'm sure that the legislators who came up with this dumb law never considered that they or anyone else could be blackmailed by anyone who would claim that they have "evidence" that so and so is gay (photoshop is a powerful tool and GIMP is free). And how exactly does one defend oneself against such an accusation?

Silly law created by silly people. I'm sure Uganda has far more important things to deal with.

Occupy Had It All Wrong

Rather than sit down in the financial district, Occupy should have done like this fellow in Ukraine:

It's pretty clear that the US is all for people demanding change with shotguns and bombs. Next time I think those citizens unhappy about things like illegal immigration, bank bailouts, gay marriage or whatever moves them ought to go to the local state houses with guns and knives and let 'em know what you want or else. I'm just saying. If it's good for Ukraine it must be good for America.

A Kalashnikov appears to be the best argument in a debate for Aleksandr Muzychko, an activist of the nationalist "Pravy Sektor" (Right Sector) movement and one of the Maidan's most prominent and controversial leaders.

On Tuesday he came to the Rovno regional parliament, where he threatened the regional MPs with a machine-gun and a number of other weapons as he demanded a decision on granting apartments to the families of protesters who were killed during last week’s violent clashes in central Kiev.

“Who wants to take away my machine-gun? Who wants to take away my gun? Who wants to take away my knives? I dare you!” Muzychko said.

Veto The Arizona Bill and Then....

Let's be clear. It would be a legal fiasco for th Jan Brewer to sign the new legislation allowing private businesses to refuse service to persons based on religious ideology. Just veto it.

There is no need for such a provision because the Constitution and 1964 Civil Rights Act already covers such actions. I know, you the reader are like "huh". Hear me out. First a quick story:

I used to have a web design business. One day I was offered a client, a church. I read the material they wished for me to use to design their site. In it was a rather inflamatory statement about Mohammed being Satan or a demon or something to that effect. While I have my issues with Islam, Comparisons to Satan, I felt, would put me in the middle of religious conflict to which I did not wish to be a part. I declined the work.

See, I declined to do work. The church got someone else to do the work and I decided to not do work for any religious organization. Here's why it was perfectly legal:

No one can make a business produce a work.

Read that again.

Now lets go back at the source of the legislation. I cake maker was asked by a gay couple for a wedding cake. They wanted a cake that was reflective of their "lifestyle" and would therefore have two men (or two women) where a bride and groom would be put. The owner of the business refused to sell them a cake to that specification and therefore declined to do any business with them. That's where he went wrong and where "no one can make a business produce a work" comes in.

The owner of the business could have simply stated that he only produces wedding cakes with brides and grooms on them. If they were interested in such a cake he would gladly sell them one. If that was not satisfactory then he knows of other cake businesses who may have the designs they are looking for.

In other words the cake store owner did not have to decline to serve the potential customer.

Think of it this way: You cannot go to a Ford dealership and demand to be sold a BMW (lets assume they don't also sell BMW's of any kind). Either you buy exactly what they are selling or you go somewhere else. Now there are those who would say "what if he decided that he didn't want to sell a wedding cake to a black couple?"

Same thing applies. He'd have to say with a straight face that he doesn't produce any cakes whatsoever that black people could want. Good luck with that. He might say, he doesn't have "black bride and groom" (or whatever other combination) to put on a cake, which is actually a plausible explanation.

But that is how wedding cake man could have handled the situation and others will have to in the future. Don't refuse service, simply define your business within certain parameters.

Then there is the issue of "private clubs".

By the 1964 Civil Rights Acts, private clubs are allowed to discriminate in any way they please. If a business is so concerned about not serving a certain part of the public, then it can become like BJ's and Costco and become a members only organization. No sales can be done unless you are a member. Membership applications may be open to the public, but membership does not have to be, and no court can do anything about it.

Because these two methods of restricting who one does business with is available to all business owners there is no need for such "written in stone" legislation on the state level.

A Coup By Any Other Name

By openly supporting insurrection by a militant faction in order to subject the Ukranian government to a level of stress that it, and particularly its apparently incapable pres, Yanukovich, were incapable of handling, I think the US crossed something of a Rubicon. It openly and enthusiastically backed a violent putsch against a democratically-elected government it didn’t happen to like. Neo-liberal enthusiasts, it should be noted, splashed across this boundary without even getting their feet wet…except from the dull-witted drooling of Western correspondents apparently besotted by the contrived tire-burning, Molotov-cocktail tossing freedom-fighter narrative layered over the political struggle.[My emphasis]

And be sure, Venezuela is on the hook for the same treatment right now.

The Obama administration’s new-found affection for street riots to overthrow unfriendly elected government will get its next road test in Venezuela. Caracas is starting to look like Kiev. The conservative youth of the private universities are already on the street looking for trouble and the excuse to exercise righteous violence like their ultranationalist brothers in Ukraine.

As they tried before with Hugo Chavez under G.W. Bush.

I wanna see how all those "radical" black folks who had all manner of commentary about Bush, when he was fucking with Chavez, are going to explain themselves now. With their mouths firmly clamped on the Obama phallus I doubt they will object with anything more than the "well if the people want.." commentary that occurred during the Libya coup.

"Us as New York City students deserve respect"[sic]

From the NY Post

These are high school students?

Asking The Wrong Quesion In California

People tell you what they are obsessed about. You just have to let them talk long enough and know how to listen for key statements. You know, things you were supposed to learn in grade school. California would like to bring down the number of deaths by homicide. No problem there. The problem is how they go about it. Which brings us to the point of this post:

What's the best way to minimize the number of guns on California's streets? That's the question confronting gun control supporters after this month's ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals striking down San Diego's restrictions on carrying handguns in public. That case was brought by gun owners who applied for but were denied permits to carry concealed weapons.[My Emphasis]

See. The question really isn't "the best way to minimize the number of guns on California's streets". No it is not.

To rephrase the Merovingian of Matrix fame, to ask about guns on California streets is to ask to means to what? Why? What is the why? Guns do not kill people. Guns are inanimate objects. What is the why? The why is the statement made in the opening paragraph. The wish to bring down homicides.

Next question: Do criminals care one bit about open or conceal carry laws? Do they care about magazine limits? Do they care about assault weapons bans? No. No they do not. Therefore the entire question about open carry is irrelevant isn't it? Law abiding citizens, the vast majority of people in California, whether they conceal a weapon or not have not and will not contribute to homicide by gun rates.

The thing is that there are a lot of people who are quite scared at the sight of a firearm. There are programs for that.

As to the actual problem that California is trying to address, how about they deal with conflict resolution skills starting from young ages? Police reports on gun violence that I have seen have pointed out that most of the conflicts come from anger issues and beefs. So really California has a mental health issue not a gun issue.

Except It's Not "Racial Profiling"

Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights that represented the plaintiffs along with attorneys from the civil rights group Muslim Advocates, said that the ruling was dangerous. He equated it with the now widely discredited US supreme court ruling in 1944, Korematsu v United States, that declared constitutional the blanket internment of Japanese Americans during the second world war.

“The dangerous part is that Martini’s ruling sets no limits on racial profiling of Muslims. You don’t have to deeply unpack this to see that it is wrong,” Azmy said.

Aside from the obviously erroneous comparison since not a single Muslim in the Mosques in question were interred, apprehended, detained or otherwise forcibly manipulated by the NYPD, the fact of the matter is that "Muslim" is not a race.

Whoops.