Insanity in Afghanistan

On 22 February several members of the U.S. armed forced stationed at the Bagram airfield in Afghanistan dropped some Islamic texts, including copies of the Koran, into an incinerator to be burned. Several Afghan garbage collectors at the base reported finding a number of charred books and quickly made this incident public.

The question of motivation (or sanity) of an American soldier who killed 16 civilians, including many women and children remains to be determined. The horrific story has important implications for the US-Afghanistan relation. It even affects the US presidential campaign.

Let's recall some basic facts. Bagram airbase is one of the largest American military bases in Afghanistan that was built by the Russians, who were despised by much of the local population, but were never on the receiving end of such protests.

Overcoming the language barrier. An Afghani protesting
outside besieged Bagram gives the Americans the finger.

The day after the incident Obama apologized to Karzai. Nevertheless, the unrest has resulted in at least 41 dead and 270 wounded in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Several American and French soldiers were killed by their Afghani counterparts. Nobody has apologizes to the U.S. for these deaths. When I googled "Karzai apologizes to Obama" the search engine suggested I had it backwards, giving me links to "Obama apologizes to Karzai". Apparently our Afghani allies consider copies of Koran to be more important than the  lives of servicemen of its US ally.

Let me suggest a possible diagnosis of the U.S. soldier who went on a murderous rampage in Afghanistan - his insanity lay in seeking revenge, and acting upon his frustrations. His actions also showcase the weakness and hypocrisy of the position of U.S. position -- which much be particularly hard to bear for a serviceman --  apologizing for unintentional burning of Korans, but not even attempting to defend the servicemen from murderous rage of the local barbarians.

In order to handle this political faux pas the U.S. is going to declare the serviceman who perpetrated this atrocity insane, regardless of the fact that he's on par with the rationality with many of the locals. The real insanity, as many are beginning to realize, lies in the very presence of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

Pussy Riot desecrates Putin in a church

How will the newly empowered Putin handle civil unrest? We're getting a taste of it after Putin's re-election on March 4th. Two members of an all-girl punk band Pussy Riot have been jailed and may face stiff prison sentences for a prank-like performance inside Moscow’s main Orthodox cathedral last month.

Five members of the group filmed themselves dancing in front of the cathedral altar, playing electric guitars and singing a hymn-like punk song, “Holy Mother, Blessed Virgin, drive Putin out!”

Pussy Riot band member dancing in front of the altar.

Rocking up the church.

"Negative," was how Mr Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov described Putin’s reaction to the scandal in an interview with Dozhd internet television channel. “Honestly speaking, as far as what happened in the cathedral, there's no other way than ‘disgusting’ to describe it, with all the consequences that implies,” he said.

Sign reads: "Freedom for
Tolokno"

While the girls managed to escape the cathedral of Christ the Saviour without being arrested, several members of the band were detained during the weekend, though all but two were released pending trial. The remaining two are possibly facing a stiff jail sentence. A number of bloggers have signed an internet petition asking for leniency for the two, other petitioners are bringing the issue to light by holding up signs in front of various government buildings.

The amusing thing is the reaction of the representative of the Russian Orthodox Church: "Even the Bolsheviks, in their time didn't allow themselves such sacrilege, which occurred during the punk-prayer," says Vladimir Legoyda. According to him the difference is that "the godless soviets at least ushered people from the church before attempting to destroy, or defile it", while the girls for Pussy Riot carried out their "protest" right in front of the congregation. What is really curious about this position, which implicitly sides with Putin in its harsh criticism of the protest is the language used by the relatively young (38-year old) Legoyda. The soviets did in fact remove people from the church before destroying it, quite literally.

Explosive demolition of Cathedral of Christ the Savior.
Moscow, 1931.

In 1931, almost a decade and a half after the November revolution, the Soviets decided to blow up the ancient church. The current church is a (cheap) reconstruction build in 1990's that already needs restoration to make up for the hasty construction of this replica. 

How short the memories are, even by people like Legoyda, who should know better and be more careful with their words. There is a saying: "The struggle of freedom against tyranny is the struggle of memory against forgetfulness." That also applies to Putin's nature. We already know what to expect from him - Putin is going to put an end to this Pussy Riot in Russia.

Muted opposition in Russia

In Russian elections, Vladimir Putin, the former KGB spy who has dominated Russian politics for the past dozen years  secure a comfortable victory in the first-round with almost 64per cent of the vote.

Putin's closest challenger, Communist leader Gennady Zyuganov, got slightly more than 17%, and the other three candidates -- including Mikhail Prokhorov, the owner of the New Jersey Nets basketball team -- were in the single digits.

The only surprise was Putin's tearful acceptance of the "people's trust". However, there were some irregularities, which the foreign and internal observers blasted denying Putin's resounding victory the cleanliness it needed to ensure stability.

Putin shed a tear during his victory celebration. 

As scheduled, on Monday after the elections the opposition held it's protest in the Pushkin square. About 20 thousand people attended the meeting, which commenced at 7pm; they came after work, to stand in the darkness and cold. The opposition leaders have vowed to continue protests alleging widespread irregularities in the voting, but there was a palpable resignation of the redundancy of their demands. The opposition already declared the Duma elections last fall to be illegitimate, and now they transition smoothly into disputing the latest election. They can even reuse their signs demanding fair elections. But, that also makes these signs and slogans seem trite. 

Opposition protest in the Pushkin square, March 5th.

"They robbed us. Putin is a thief," Navalny, a 35-year-old anti-corruption blogger.  "Who's the power?" "We are the power," he chanted with the crowd. Some of the special police brought in force into the capital muttered under their breath "we're the power here". And they proved it by detaining Navalny and 500 other protesters.

The show of democracy is over, challenges to the legitimacy of Vladimir Putin's victory in the presidential election will not be tolerated.

Sign reads: "Moscow doesn't believe in tears."

Meanwhile, the Russian protesters amused themselves, like this protester to the right who invoked a famous (and very good) movie "Moscow doesn't believe in tears" to express the feelings of the capital towards Putin. In Moscow only about 50% voted for Putin, and that figure includes the imported voters from the suburbs and the carousel voting and other fraud.

The truth is that Putin has outmaneuvered his Russian opposition. Despite the fraud, the fractured opposition has received a clear drubbing at the polls. In the national election liberal leaders are struggling to break double digits. The opposition's hopes that in a few months it could seriously challenge the Putin's machine was shown to be wishful thinking.

The cause of throwing Putin out of power seems lost. In the midst of general ennui and resignation there is no source of motivation required to wage a persistent battle against a strategist politician like Putin.

Election monitors in Russia

Kremlin is ready for the presidential election.

With almost 80% of precincts in Russia reporting Putin is on track to collect nearly 2/3 of the votes in the presidential election, easily winning in the first round over his hapless opposition. Although, according to the exit polls, in Moscow less than 50% voted for Putin.

So, in case the (rigged) voting is not sufficiently convincing Putin is ready to restore order by other means. Behold this assembly of military reinforcements outside of the Kremlin below. Similar reinforcements of army and regional police were brought to all major cities where there is a chance of protests by the opposition.

Obama's transformation of the U.S.

President Obama has been in full campaign mode for about nine months now. Foxnews noted the frequency of fundraisers:

The president has been engaged in somewhat of a fundraising frenzy lately, having held roughly 100 events this election cycle. That's twice as many held by former President George W. Bush at this point in his 2004 reelection battle, and more than three times former President Bill Clinton's total in the 1996 cycle.

In one of the latest fundraising events Obama invoked Mandela and Gandhi in appeal for second term. The surprise of Fox that "Obama compared himself to Gandhi, Mandela!" are anachronistic. Reporting that Obama arrogantly compares himself to great historical figures (Lincoln, FDR, Martin Luther King), is like a "dog bites man" headline - trite line, lacking in novelty.

There was something important beneath the surface of Obama's words:

Around the world, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela–what they did was hard. It takes time. It takes more than a single term.

In addition to the sweeping arrogance of this comparison in Obama's appeal at the fundraiser the is a reference to his promise to "fundamental transform" the U.S.A made in 2008. Obama used Reverend Wright's words "A white man's greed run a world in need" in one of his books. In an unguarded moment before the election Obama opined that "when you spread the money around, it's good for everyone." In other words Obama believes in government redistribution, and a managed economy.

There's a bigger point here. A nod to the progressive Illuminati who came to the fundraiser that Obama believes the current system of government of the U.S. is fundamentally unfair and comparable to the colonialism in India or the apartheid in the South Africa.

That is the question that everybody fears to touch - is Obama's redistribution policies have a well-hidden racial motivation. Mandela, Gandhi - they were transformational emancipators who fought against dominance of the whites against blacks and Indians. This country has emancipated blacks. Women have received suffrage almost a hundred years ago. Gay, lesbian, transgender any many other groups have protection so solid it borders on over-zealousness. Who is left to emancipate? If we're not emancipating anyone, what are we transforming?

If there was a logical way to explain the preference for black over white by the Obama administration, including the U.S. Justice department (see black panther case) it would have been made already. Placing whites from the head of the line to its back is what "social justice" is all about for Obama.

What "social justice" pretends to be

Obama's rhetoric lends support to the view that he finds that he prefers "social justice" to plain, universal justice through equality before the law. He seems to be playing to the favoritism of progressives in general - including other groups, such as women, gays, "workers"/unions, etc.

Intelligently, Obama has not attempted to put this issue high on his agenda. In his second term Obama's transformation make take 'affirmative action' (I hate that lying euphemism with a passion) and pushing it towards reparations for slavery. It's unlikely Obama would overtly institute reparations in his second term (if we're so unfortunate as to deserve one), but he could certainly "spread the money around" in other ways, where "social justice" with racial overtones will dominate.

What "social justice" really is

What Obama promised was a completion of his socio-economic ;transformation based on redistribution, such as public investment in Fannie and Freddie, banks, automakers, and last, but not least - healthcare.

If my concerns about racial overtones of Obama's redistributional policies are overblown, where's the "fundamental transformation" if not in centralized planning of the economy?

Having been born in Moscow, I am a U.S. citizen by choice, and although I see many flaws nowadays, the system as envisioned and preserved by the U.S. Constitution is better than any other. The fundamentals are great. Market economies consistently outperform planned economies. The problem is the malignant growth of human corruption on this solid foundation that hides behind euphemisms like "social justice" and is driving this great country towards a socio-economic suicide.

As another aside, I live close to Salem, where the famous witch trials took place. That is an example of "social justice" from the 17th century. It is arrogant to think that modern "social justice" will be more just, however. Sure, we don't burn people these days. Still, "social justice" to "justice" what "mob rule" is to "rule" - each combination is a contradiction in terms. Rule of the mob is just cruel anarchy of a pack before it the stability of dictatorial rule of the strongest. There's another connection between the two pairs of terms above -"social justice" is "mob rule" in that it is the dictatorship of the majority (or the strongest faction) who hypocritically claim privilege the deny to others, and is the weak-point of any democratic system.

Dems says: "Social Justice is not
socialism" 

Obama's choice of leaders to compare himself with clearly shows he sees himself fighting against a fundamental social injustice, which in the USA is primarily racial injustice. The Democrats like to pretend that "social justice is not socialism". In case of Obama that is true to a degree: his "social justice" is more about racism than socialism.

Unfortunately for Obama, the U.S. Constitution, based of the foundation of plain "justice", without regard to the social niceties is in the way of his transformation. This summer, the U.S. see the first engagement in this epic battle over the country's soul and future when the Constitutionality of Obamacare is considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.

If Obama does get re-elected for a second term despite his performance he will be emboldened. How much further will he then go to make "social" justice the dominant form of justice in the U.S. when he no longer is limited by concerns over re-election?

Show of democracy in Russia

The Russian presidential election is going to be held on March 4th. The victory of Victor (Putin) is a foregone conclusion. The only question is whether he's going to with in the first round by getting more than 50% or he will have to go through the run-off process. Considering Putin's popularity (and some inevitable ballot stuffing) remains over 50% chances are we will win in the first round. In fact, last Friday (February 24th) the head of Russia's leading independent pollster Levada Center, Lev Gudkov, told reporters that the runoff is unlikely because Putin is likely to receive 63 to 66 percent of the vote in the first round.

I don't have to go far to explain the nature of the problem. Both of my parents have Russian citizenship and will vote. For whom? Anyone but Putin. His nearest rival polling at around 15% is the Communist Party's candidate Gennady Zyuganov. So, even the distant second to Putin is completely unacceptable. By eliminating any real opposition in a field like this, democracy can be managed.

The Russians are familiar with the reality of Putin's inevitable reelection. So, why do demonstrations by the opposition continue to draw hundreds of thousands?

Because some Russians have had enough of Putin. Even Gorbachev has called for Putin not to run: "Three terms is enough" is a common rallying cry of the opposition. That includes Putin's two original 4-year terms and his interim term as a Prime Minister. That makes it 12 years (of Putin in power) down, and potentially 12 more to go (the new constitution has 6-year presidential terms).

Caption: United Russia
They are stealing your vote!

Still, one month before the elections, on February 4th, over a hundred thousands rallied in Moscow against Putin. The protest -- which drew 120,000 people, according to organizers -- was the third mass demonstration since Putin's party won a parliamentary election Dec. 4 with the help of what appeared to be widespread fraud.

In addition to being hopelessly fragmented, the opposition seems to be naive and amateurish in its approach. Putin has had over a decade to consolidate power. He has mastered the use of Roman strategy to "divide and conquer" as well as modern methods of demagoguery.

I envision Putin irked by the incessant call for democracy by the West. "You want to see democracy in Russia? I'll show you democracy," his actions seem to be saying.

The opposition has its demonstrations. Putin has his demonstrations. Granted, he had to pay civil workers to come to demonstrations in defense of the status quo and his re-election. (The irony is that there there were these rallies included a lot of students, who desperately needed the money, because they have not received their stipends for January yet). The opposition meetings drew tens of thousands, and pro-Putin demonstrations draw as many - at least according to the Moscow police, whose salaries Putin doubled in December. The police claimed as 138,000 people attended the rally exceeding the 15,000 approved by the city, so Putin paid $33 fine for having more people than scheduled at the rally.

There were anti-Putin demonstrations on wheels - cars decorated with anything white driving around the Moscow circumference road in January and early February. Then Putin's camp organized a pro-Putin demonstration-on-wheels on February 19th.

Saint Petersburg, where only 34% (including any potential fraud) voted for United Russia in elections last November, had a rally in support of it's native son, Putin.

Opposition has blogger activists, like Alexei Novalny. "United Russia" has blogger activists. It pays them, too. The Pro-Kremlin youth organisation "Nashi" (meaning "Ours" in Russian) pays hundreds of thousands of dollars to network of internet users to help their political cause as reported by the Guardian. Navalny told the Guardian: "These strategies, what they do on the internet and how they gather protests, are very similar. [Nashi's] main problem is that they don't have real people who are ready to say something in support of them. They don't have one person who supports them for free. So they pay."

The flag reads "Young Russia". The group is scheduled
to rally in  front of a notorious Lubyanka prison.

The opposition has scheduled a demonstration on March 5th. So, has a pro-Putin group "Young Russia". The pro-Putin group got a permission to demonstrate in the center of Moscow, in front of Lubyanka. This site is very ironic, because it has been the center of Soviet secret police activity for years. It was a notorious prison where confessions were beaten out of political dissidents. The Russian FSB - the successor to KGB, still uses the building. It seems ironic that these young people are demonstrating in front of this symbol of a police state. Did the organizers not realize that the location makes "We support the police state" the message of this demonstration, or do they simply not care?

Meanwhile, Putin warned against post-election violence from the disgruntled opposition. According to Putin, the opposition is bought and paid for by the West. This Monday Putin has penned a newspaper article blaming the State Department for protests that have erupted on the streets of Moscow, and accused Washington of “political engineering” or interference in Russian elections. In other words, the opposition is illegitimate, and its potential cries about lack of fairness is a provocation for unrest.

As some writers have aptly described it, two Russias will collide in Sunday’s Presidential election. It's a contest not unlike the competition between the paid professionals, such as NFL Superbowl Champions and your neighborhood football league. If such a gave was broadcast, you'd turn off the tube, because the result is so predictable, and quietly hope the amateurish underdogs don't get hurt.

The U.S. 'debt doomsday' opportunity

Whenever I hear about economic policies in the West, be it the draw-out Greek rescue, or the US policies (of the socialist-lite Obama administration): "... eventually, you run out of other peoples money". That, of course, is the problem with socialism, according to Margaret Thatcher. A very steep price in lives has been paid to observe the historical veracity of this phase. The juxtaposition of the moral and fiscal hazards is not merely cynical, it's insightful. For example, USSR ran out of moral justification for the one-party rune long before it's financial collapse.

I see the same fate befalling countries in the West, as the slide off towards greater 'collectivization', such as the increasing EU control over the Greek economy as a price for the second bailout. U.S. has also been sliding in the socialist direction. U.S. has recently surpassed 100% debt-to-GDP ratio.

The U.S. debt may exceed $16.4 trillion debt ceiling before the 2012 presidential election. Politico.com characterized this scenario in an article "Debt doomsday may come sooner than expected". However, with various accounting tricks, the U.S. Treasury could delay the absolute deadline until February 2013. Charles Krauthammer recently called Obama the lawless president, and the Obama administration will undoubtedly do everything legal and semi-legal to try to avoid face the reality of its unsustainable largess. Meanwhile, the U.S. external per capita debt exceeds that of Greece, for example, and is the highest in the West.

The debt ceiling debate is a crucial opportunity to check the growth of government, because it exposes the fiscal bankruptcy of the socialist malaise brought about by the Obama administration. This fiscal failure is readily apparent and can easier to attack than the ethical bankruptcy of socialist policies for weak-need politicians. However, the socialist nature is egregious and should be denounced in its own right - it pits the majority against minorities, for example different generations against each other. Obama's use of short-term borrowing for political gains, which benefits the old, comes at the expense of financial future of the youth, saddled by vast debts.

Regrettably, the U.S. is at a point, where a painful debate about the ethics and finances of government largess before the 2012 elections is the best medicine we can hope for.