Motley Moose – Archive

Despite not being constitutionally eligible to seek the office of President of the United States, Alexander Arefyev, the coach of the Russian men’s ski jumping team, staked out a position that would certainly give him a claim on the nomination.  Explaining his opposition to women’s ski jumping, an event being added to the Olympic program for the first time this year, Arefyev said:

“I admit, I do not advocate women’s ski jumping,” he said in Russian. “It is quite heavy and traumatic sport. If a man were seriously injured, it is not fatal, but for all women may end up far worse. If I had a daughter, never would give in jumping – it’s too hard work. Women have a different purpose – to have children, do housework, to create a family home. (emphasis my own)“

I guess that means women should be off to pop out the babies, cook dinner, wash the dishes and clean the floor?  Given the high level of social conservatism in Russia, is it any surprise that he would feel so free to make this statement about women’s “different purpose,” by which it’s really meant that women shouldn’t stray from their “proper place?”

I don’t know about what other people might think, but that sounds a lot like what many Republicans would like given the degree to which they want to regulate women’s bodies.  The only difference is that very few of them are that explicit about it.  And if a Republican candidate was explicit about it, I sadly have no doubt that he would immediately shoot to the top of the polls for saying what so many were already thinking.

They’re all wrong about the fact that a woman’s place is in the house.  Nope, a woman’s place is in the House (and, hopefully come 2016, the White House too).

A number of attempts have been made to discern and describe a ‘Putin doctrine’ during the years of his influence on Russian and world affairs, including some recently as a consequence of his reaction to the Syria chemical weapons crisis. Most suggest a doctrine of ‘reasserting Russia’s power‘ or ‘building Russia up by tearing the US down,’ an aspiration and strategy which, while arguably correct, seem to miss Putin’s underlying and unmistakeable political philosophy.

Here we propose an argument for a ‘Putin doctrine’ as follows:

No nation, group of nations or international organisation has the right to interfere or intervene without consent in the internal affairs of any sovereign state under any circumstances short of the proven violation of existing conventions governing the use of weapons of mass destruction.

In other words a sovereign state has the right to deal with dissent, insurgency and secession by whatever means it otherwise sees fit. That this might include conventional warfare against civilians, mass arrests and detentions, summary executions, massacres, genocide and authoritarian terrorism is left to the discretion of the state’s leadership. And if the state is an ally, Russia will actively disable the Security Council from taking action against it on behalf of any majority of the larger international community whom might find such activity objectionable. As Russian ‘hard power’ inevitably increases we need to think this through carefully.

Well, now we’ve seen it all. Vladimir Putin has an op-ed in the 11 September edition of the New York Times imploring Americans to undermine their own security by doubting the motives, credibility and policies of the US government:

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders.

A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Vladimir Putin – A Plea for Caution From Russia NYT 11 September 13

There you have it. It’s Obama versus the world and the Pope. With Vladimir Vladimirovich as the humble arbiter of peace and voice of sweet reason. Oh, brother! Pity “those still finding their way to democracy” if they wander into his neighbourhood.

Ironically, the powerful effect of this agitation and propaganda on the weak-minded comes at a time when many in the United States, especially among certain factions of the Left and the Right, are as vulnerable as mice; since domestic spying revelations have undermined the faith of Americans in their own government. You know, that Snowden guy who sought asylum recently in… uh, Russia… Hey, hang on a minute. Vladimir, it seems you are a very naughty boy.

By: inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

Russia has recently had a number of protests against President  Vladimir Putin. The protests constitute a challenge of urban Russians  against Putin’s rule.

If you’ve ever seen pictures of these protests, one interesting thing  stands out. This is the fact that the protestors don’t wave Russia’s  national flag. Instead, they always wave different flags:

What are these flags? What do they represent? I’ve done a bit of digging to get at these answers.

More below.

By: inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

Sometimes the least noticed things show something quite revealing.

Such is the case with a recent Times story. This story, titled “Russian Official Suggests Weapon Caused Exploration Spacecraft’s Failure,” was one of those stories which people read and then forget in a few days. It didn’t deal with an important event, it wasn’t followed up by any other stories, and it didn’t involve an issue that tugs at people’s emotions.

More below.

(Note: BRIC refers to Brazil, Russia, India, and China. Created by a Goldman Sachs economist, the BRIC countries supposedly are rapidly growing developing countries.)

China is a place with massive regional inequality. A recent feature by The Economist magazine, titled Comparing Chinese Provinces With Countries, found a stark divide between the rich coast and the poor hinderland. Some of my previous obervations about that feature can be found here. In Shanghai and Beijing GDP per person is over $20,000 (as of 2010) – roughly equivalent to a high middle-income country.

In rural Guizhou GDP per person is almost seven times lower. Guizhou is the poorest province in China. It is the part of China the media does not visit and that China tries its best to hide. There are no skyscrapers in the rural parts of Guizhou, just decrepit stone houses dating back to the Maoist era (or earlier).

But there is something else very interesting about Guizhou: as of 2010 its GDP per person was almost exactly equal to GDP per person in India. That is, a person living in the poorest part of China is about as well off as the typical Indian.

More below.

In the first significant incident of injury and damage involving a major meteor, six cities in the Ural region of Russia were hit this morning by the concussion and fragments from a large strike.

Al Jazeera has this:

This incident will no doubt cause international attention to the issue of Near Earth Objects (NEOs. While there is no more immediate concern than there ever has been in human history, the threat is one which we can not take idly.

David Frum is compiling videos of the event on the Daily Beast.

That’s the way the world – or at least this presidency – ends, not with a bang but a whimper.

The Bush Administration’s incompetency in foreign affairs has reached its apogee with the debacle in Georgia.

Whatever the delicate rights and wrongs of the problematic borders there, and Georgia’s applicatio to join Nato, Bush and Rice’s foreign policy initiatives have been a model of inconsistency. First they encouraged Georgia to be ridiculously adventurous, then they failed to stop them when they overreached, and now all they can do is utter hollow threats at Moscow without any means to back it up..

Theodore Roosevelt’s dictum of talking quietly and carrying a big stick has been reversed:

Shout loudly and carry a wet fish