New Russian Anti-LGBTQ Law

[PeterRS]

20 hours ago, Moses said:

Who are these people?

Internal business pressures turned deadly

https://www.vox.com/world/2022/10/14/23388516/russian-businessmen-oligarchs-putin-mysterious-deaths-windows

There you go again! You cherry pick from the much longer linked article. Yet you failed (again) to note that the first two possibilities were -

Suicide and Accident - Really

The long arm of the Kremlin 

I am surprised that you did not bother to quote the Suicide and Accident paragraphs, for they possibly could fit your theory. Mind you, that starts with these words -

According to the experts I spoke with, the sheer volume of accidental deaths and suicides so far is enough to mean that this is unlikely to be the true explanation in every case. It’s not impossible, however; sometimes a suicide is just a suicide and an accident is just an accident, no matter how odd . . . 

according to Peter Rutland, a Russia expert and professor of government at Wesleyan University, Russia’s system, and perhaps especially its business community, is under substantial pressure due to the war.

“These are incredibly stressful times, right?” Rutland said. “Business people have seen their chances to visit Europe frozen, their assets frozen, their yachts seized, the value of the shares in their companies.”

Those factors, Rutland told me, could conceivably provoke a spate of suicides.

“If businesspeople had loans that were collateralized with those assets, or which required some kind of business income, which has just disappeared because of the sanctions, you can only imagine that that would drive people to suicide,” he said.

But, the kicker. He then adds -

Of course, that doesn’t account perfectly for the murder-suicides, or the number of fatal accidents. But it’s not impossible that at least some of the deaths are no more than what they seem on the surface.

Some!

[Mavica]

[unicorn]

2 hours ago, PeterRS said:

... sometimes a suicide is just a suicide and an accident is just an accident, no matter how odd . . . 

Well, I haven't looked at all of the cases, but in these two defenestration cases, they were obviously not suicide--and it's been made very clear they weren't. No one checks into a hospital to commit suicide by jumping out of a window, for one, and the turning off of the security cameras was the other huge clue that the FSB was responsible. The other (journalist) case is even more clear-cut. Obviously, no one goes grocery shopping, then throws his groceries in the stairway, takes off his shoes, pulls up his sweater and jacket above his shoulders, then crashes through a window in his apartment. Any one of those factors rules out a suicide. The refusal of emergency services to intervene was the icing on the cake. The whole point is that Putin wants to make it as clear as possible that these are NOT suicides. He wants everyone to get the message: if you have the public's ear and you speak against me, I will kill you and laugh in your face about it. The goal is to make it quite obvious that these are not suicides, but will be labeled as such. I'm sure Putin gets a good chuckle after all of these deaths. 

[PeterRS]

There was a famous case which I have written about some years before involving the head of Hong Kong's most prestigious law firm. His company was involved in defending a major corporate client in what was to become Hong Kong's longest and ultimately most farcical court case. On the day he was due to provide evidence to the police, he did not appear. Those sent to his home in Hong Kong's wealthiest district found his body at the bottom of his swimming pool. So far, suicide might seem possible.

But, he was dressed in his immaculate three piece suit and tie, his black highly polished shoes placed side by side at the poolside and a metal chain was around his neck tied to the grille at the bottom of the pool. Suicide much less likely, one would think. Not so, said the coroner, who delivered a verdict of suicide!

So much of this case was like a detective novel. The defendant, a small Malaysian businessman named George Tan who had been declared bankrupt in Singapore in 1972, arrived in Hong Kong where he opened a small pest control business,. Soon he opened another business which he appropriately named the Carrian Group. Soon Carrian was on the lips of all investors after it paid a monstrous amount for a smallish skyscraper in Central Hong Kong, certainly vastly more than it was worth at the time, and then sold it months later for an even larger amount.

As Carrian expanded within little more than three years into property, insurance, shipping, hotels and restaurants on three continents, a major economic property bubble had started. But Carrian was built on sand, much of it illegal. A Malaysian banker from a bank which had lent Carrian US$600 million was sent to Hong Kong to find out what was happening. He was found strangled in a New Territories field with his luxury hotel bathrobe around his neck.

Long before Enron and Worldcom, Carrian had perpetrated the largest financial fraud of its time - the early 1980s. Apart from massive corruption and murder, Carrian was guilty of false accounting, illusory profits from a multitude of companies, use of offshore companies which shifted money around before regulators knew what they were up against etc. Carrian was found to owe 40 banks, some of the best-known in the business, US$1.5 billion. Eventually Tan and an associate were arrested and tried. The judge, Justice Barker, was relatively new to Hong Kong and it became clear as months and months of financial evidence was being presented before him and the jury, that he was losing the plot - quite literally! 

Somewhat ironically I had met the Justice. He was a friend of a UK friend of mine, a fellow circuit court judge. It was suggested I meet with him. Instead, I assumed, of a plush bar in the city's Mandarin Hotel, he suggested a pub by the name of The Bull and Bear. I throroughly enjoyed Denis Barker QC's company, but was concerned that being lunchtime he was drinking a considerable amount when I assumed he'd be presiding over some case or other thereafter.

The Carrian case dragged on for 18 months. By then Barker was away with the fairies. He announced to the jury that eveyrthing was far too complicated and the accused had nothing to answer for! It was a scandal of enormous proportions. A judicial review found Barker guilty and he had to retire from the bench.

Barker and his wife left Hong Kong soon after that. He retired in disgrace to Cyprus. Soon after, he wrapped his car around a tree. He left so many debts that his wife, whom he had married just before settling in Cyprus, sent his robes to the Chief Justice in Hong Kong hoping they could be sold and enough money raised to provide a headstone in Cyprus. Whether that headstone exists, I have no idea!

 

[TotallyOz]

What I still find fascinating is that people know who Putin is and what he does and what he stands for and they still stand by him. But, it is no different than those that know who Trump is, know what he does and still stands by him.

I seem to have lost a sense of logic in the world that I can't fathom how I'll ever get it back. Politics is politics the world over but facts are also facts and the way some believe believe lie after lie or forgive lie after lie, is truly unbelievable to me. I have to be missing something.

[PeterRS]

1 hour ago, TotallyOz said:

I seem to have lost a sense of logic in the world that I can't fathom how I'll ever get it back. 

I feel very much the same! I often thought in part it might be due to getting older and having more time to consider the state of the world. And then I thought about my parents and their generation. Their news was based on daily newspapers, radio news bulletins and later shortish television news bulletins. I remember them discussing a few national issues like the colossal mistake when France and Britain invaded Egypt in a vain attempt to re-take the Suez Canal afer Nasser nationalised it. It helped dethrone a UK Prime Minister and probably eventually a government, but that did not seem to matter so much to them. When relatives and their friends came round, I rarely remember national issues being discussed.

I suspect there are are primarily three reasons for the changes since those days. The advance of television and the influence of television news programmes (and the political views of the owners of the stations) on everyone's thinking is onviously one. I can remember the times when the BBC was trusted as almost saintly in the way it reported actual facts. Interviews with politicians were genteel affairs. And if they ever ruffled politicians' feathers, there was hell to pay.

One of the BBC's finest reporters and foreign correspondents was James Mossman. One evening he basically lost his BBC cool. There was a famous iive interview with Prime Minister Harold Wilson. He verbally attacked Wilson over his government's backing for President Johnson's stance on the Vietnam War when this appeared at odds with Wison's own philosophy. When Wilson, as was his habit waffled, Mossman would not let up. He kept on and on at Wilson in a manner we are more used to today. Wilson stormed out of the studio furious and made his anger known to the Director General the following day. Mossman was quickly relegated to hosting a new programme about the arts. 

Unhappy about his demotion and being away from the action of politics and foreign affairs, Mossman went into a depression. As a gay man he had fallen in love with a younger Canadian boyfriend. But he had died in his early 30s of an accidental overdose. Aged 44 Mossman then took his own life. If anyone is interested, there is a fascinating play about Mossman which was premiered at London's National Theatre 15 years ago. Titled The Reporter it was written by Nicholas Wright.

The second reason surely is the freedoms that people in power now have to assert their own views however outlandish, wacky, even untrue they may be. Television has mushroomed to include channels to cater for every taste. I'm not sure to what degree they actually influence the views of most, but they certainly reinforce existing views.

Thirdly social media has become an amazingly popular way to spread nonsense. Of course, much of its content is perfectly acceptable, but increasingly it seems to be what I call unsocial media. I actually fear for our futures when people like Musk, Trump and others increasingly control what they want us to believe.

[unicorn]

On 12/6/2023 at 5:00 AM, TotallyOz said:

... it is no different than those that know who Trump is, know what he does and still stands by him...

I agree completely. What I'll never understand is who would ever want to work for Trump. Everyone has got to know that all Trump will do is make the people who work for him try to cover up his mistakes, then get thrown under the bus when they get caught. Surely people have to know Trump will always be the sleaze who will turn on anyone who even helps him. I have no sympathy for the Michael Cohens of the world. MC knew he was dealing with a fraudster and a liar. No boo-hoos when he finds himself in prison, having been even stiffed for his legal bills. Anyone who associates with and assists someone as morally bereft as Trump obviously is should not be surprised when the inevitable happens to him. 

[TotallyOz]

36 minutes ago, unicorn said:

I agree completely. What I'll never understand is who would ever want to work for Trump. Everyone has got to know that all Trump will do is make the people who work for him try to cover up his mistakes, then get thrown under the bus when they get caught. Surely people have to know Trump will always be the sleaze who will turn on anyone who even helps him. I have no sympathy for the Michael Cohens of the world. MC knew he was dealing with a fraudster and a liar. No boo-hoos when he finds himself in prison, having been even stiffed for his legal bills. Anyone who associates with and assists someone as morally bereft as Trump obviously is should not be surprised when the inevitable happens to him. 

Being close to power is a big thing for many and it gives them the ability to get some things they want. There will always be someone willing to step into those roles to get more power. But, with Trump, they will get crazier each time and then, watch out, as we will be in for a wild ride.

[PeterRS]

4 hours ago, TotallyOz said:

Being close to power is a big thing for many and it gives them the ability to get some things they want. There will always be someone willing to step into those roles to get more power. But, with Trump, they will get crazier each time and then, watch out, as we will be in for a wild ride.

Let's not forget it's not only Trump. Politics in the UK has become a cess pit of lying, factions, mismanagement and backstabbing! France is fractionally less so . . . and so on. The idea of public service clearly went out of the window many decades ago. Now it's what's best for me, me, me and my family and friends. Greed has become the currency of politics in many countries.

My own belief is that there are five factors which have led to this situation. One is the extremely limited and often dreadful experience of many who aspire to high office. If Boards of Directors require that the CEOs of major corporations have extensive experience in the companies they will lead, we the public, as the Board of Directors of a country, seem perfectly happy to elect parties with hugely inexperienced leaders that recently in many cases have become jokes. Due diligence in considering those wishing to become parliamentary candidates hardly exists. The electorate increasingly votes for parties and not for individuals who are supposed to represent them.

Secondly, the politics of countries which have just two principal parties liable to gain power - like the USA and the UK - works to the massive advantage of the above. Our politics now is basically reduced to "I'm right" - "No, you're not, you're a lying bastard! I'm right" 

Thirdly, in the USA and UK millions of electors do not even bother to exercise their right to vote. When they do, they are not voting for the most popular choice. They vote for first past the post individuals and parties. Consequently, in the UK at least, the party with the most votes will not always be the party in power. In the 1951 election, the Labour partly won more votes than it had ever gained before. Yet the constituency system meant the Conservative party became the new ruling party. The same 'wrong' party won in 1974. In New Zealand, the elections of 1978 and 1981 returned the party with less total votes.

The first past the post congressional and parliamentary system does not work in favour of electors. Proportional representation is the only fair way of conducting elections, even though the mechanics of organising this may be extremely difficult. But that is no reason for not implenting it.

Finally, something has to be done to persuade more individuals to exercise their right to vote. After all, milions across the world died in movements to ensure all citizens in future have the right to vote. Some countries have introduced compulsory voting - Australia, Austria, Uruguay, Belgium and several others including Thailand mandate this. One argument against compulsory voting seems to be that it impacts on an individual's freedoms. What a load of  nonsense! Freedom comes with responsibility, and is there anything more irresponsible than in deliberately not voting for the individuals who will run your country?

[Keithambrose]

4 hours ago, PeterRS said:

Let's not forget it's not only Trump. Politics in the UK has become a cess pit of lying, factions, mismanagement and backstabbing! France is fractionally less so . . . and so on. The idea of public service clearly went out of the window many decades ago. Now it's what's best for me, me, me and my family and friends. Greed has become the currency of politics in many countries.

My own belief is that there are five factors which have led to this situation. One is the extremely limited and often dreadful experience of many who aspire to high office. If Boards of Directors require that the CEOs of major corporations have extensive experience in the companies they will lead, we the public, as the Board of Directors of a country, seem perfectly happy to elect parties with hugely inexperienced leaders that recently in many cases have become jokes. Due diligence in considering those wishing to become parliamentary candidates hardly exists. The electorate increasingly votes for parties and not for individuals who are supposed to represent them.

Secondly, the politics of countries which have just two principal parties liable to gain power - like the USA and the UK - works to the massive advantage of the above. Our politics now is basically reduced to "I'm right" - "No, you're not, you're a lying bastard! I'm right" 

Thirdly, in the USA and UK millions of electors do not even bother to exercise their right to vote. When they do, they are not voting for the most popular choice. They vote for first past the post individuals and parties. Consequently, in the UK at least, the party with the most votes will not always be the party in power. In the 1951 election, the Labour partly won more votes than it had ever gained before. Yet the constituency system meant the Conservative party became the new ruling party. The same 'wrong' party won in 1974. In New Zealand, the elections of 1978 and 1981 returned the party with less total votes.

The first past the post congressional and parliamentary system does not work in favour of electors. Proportional representation is the only fair way of conducting elections, even though the mechanics of organising this may be extremely difficult. But that is no reason for not implenting it.

Finally, something has to be done to persuade more individuals to exercise their right to vote. After all, milions across the world died in movements to ensure all citizens in future have the right to vote. Some countries have introduced compulsory voting - Australia, Austria, Uruguay, Belgium and several others including Thailand mandate this. One argument against compulsory voting seems to be that it impacts on an individual's freedoms. What a load of  nonsense! Freedom comes with responsibility, and is there anything more irresponsible than in deliberately not voting for the individuals who will run your country?

Very true. I believe that in the USA, on a number of occasions, the candidate with the most votes, eg Hilary Clinton, got the most votes, but lost, due to the outdated electoral college system. 

[PeterRS]

Like some parts of the US constitution, the electoral college no doubt seemed a worthy idea when it was adopted so that the large coastal states did not have a lock on the presidency. But it is now vastly outdated. As is having a more than 2-month period between the date of the election and the confirmation of its result. In the old days of horse and buggy, again it was probably a sensible and honest proposal to ensure that every vote counted. Now in the days of supercomputers and the like, there is absolutely no reason for the USA not to have something similar to that which operates in the UK. The UK's general election results are confirmed usually within a maximium of 30 hours (and that is only to allow those outer islands votes to be counted and relayed back), the outgoing Prime Minister is out of Downing Street that evening and the new Prime Minister is in the following day - more or less.

We saw the hanging chad nonsense in 2000. We have all witnessed the ghastly Trump continuing to do everything in his power to declare the 2000 election which threw him out invalid. It is almost unbelievable that, no matter that states control their own voting systems, in a Presidential election for the most powerful man in the world, there is not a separate uniform countrywide system of voting in all states whose taliies cannot be questioned. Recounts in the UK where ballots are hand counted freqently take place. But they do so on the spot in the vote counting halls so that the recount result comes only hours after the intial disputed tally.

[unicorn]

21 hours ago, PeterRS said:

Like some parts of the US constitution, the electoral college no doubt seemed a worthy idea when it was adopted so that the large coastal states did not have a lock on the presidency...

Well, not quite. Of the original 13 states, only one wasn't on the coast (Pennsylvania), and it was a larger one. In the 18th Century, the idea of electing a national leader by votes of the common citizen was novel, and that's why the founding fathers came up with the electoral college. Now, the system is easily recognized as horrible in many ways, but getting rid of it would require majorities of both parties, so such a Constitutional amendment is unlikely to pass--it gives less powerful parties the opportunity to game the system.

[PeterRS]

3 hours ago, unicorn said:

Well, not quite. Of the original 13 states, only one wasn't on the coast (Pennsylvania), and it was a larger one. In the 18th Century, the idea of electing a national leader by votes of the common citizen was novel, and that's why the founding fathers came up with the electoral college.

Thanks for correcting me. One thing has always nagged at me - and it affects other countries as well. Why just a 2-party system? In my lifetime I can only remember one third party candidate having any major effect in the USA - Ross Perot in 1992 when he gained nearly 19 milion votes. Was there ever a time when there was a credible third party?

I know at one time Britain did have a credible third party in first the Liberal Party and its later incarnation in the 1980s as the Liberal Democrats. After initial enthusiasm it basically died. The Liberal Party had been a major political player in the 19th and early 20th centuries but then became merely a rump of about a dozen parliamentarians. Its leader had been a man obviously very full of his own importance, Jeremy Thorpe, who had married the divorced wife of a cousin of the Queen despite being homosexual - and well known as such in parliamentary circles.

Thorpe had been in a longish relationship with a riding instructor and part time model named Norman Scott whom he had met when Scott was 20. For 14 years this on-again off-again relationship continued until Thorpe decided it had to end to ensure survival of his political career. He persuaded friends to murder Scott. It was a hugely bungled affair which led only to the killing of Scott's dog! The trial of Thorpe and his co-conspirators took place on 1979. The judge was very obviously totally biased, callng Scott "a fraud, a sponger, a whiner, a parasite," and another of Thorpe's accusers "a humbug!" To all that he reminded the jury to pay attention to Thorpe's distinguished record of public service. Thorpe was acquitted despite 99% of the public certain he was guilty. It was the end of Thorpe's career.

The affair was made into a rather good BBC series A Very English Scandal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OK-1hwEmA8&t=2s

[unicorn]

3 hours ago, PeterRS said:

...Was there ever a time when there was a credible third party?...

While there are a few unaffiliated members of Congress, a 3rd party candidate can only act as a spoiler in Presidential elections because of the electoral college system. This very famously happened in the 2000 election, in which the spoiled asshole Ralph Nader handed Bush, Jr. the presidency. Although Gore won more votes than Bush Jr. in the popular vote, in Florida Bush Jr. garnered 537 more votes than Gore, and that was enough to tip the electoral college vote. Since Nader received almost 100,000 votes in Florida, there is no question but that he handed the election to Bush, Jr., which has had serious repercussions for this country and the world in general. 

A 3rd party candidate could certainly be decisive in the upcoming election as well. Of course, much will depend on whether Trump can be criminally convicted before the election, but Trump's team is shotgunning so many objections/appeals, that he may well be able to delay such a conviction. Although I suspect a majority of Americans share my horror over Trump, who's an obvious professional shyster, Biden is a weak candidate, and a 3rd party candidacy could stop any chance he has to defeat Trump (such as Kennedy's planned run). Even a small number of votes in swing states (Florida, Ohio, Virginia, etc.) would doom Biden. Of course, a run by a Republican could spell big trouble for Trump, but the Republican candidates (other than Trump) have all pledged to support the eventual nominee. 

[PeterRS]

Thanks @unicorn for that detailed explanation. Whatever happens with Trump - and hopefully he will be behind bars unless the conservative sex pests (two of them) on the Supreme Court weigh in to ensure that he can return to office and stay out of jail long enough to pardon himself and all his clan and cronies - I totally fail to understand why Biden is running again, unless he has a monster ego. I have written before that if the average working man has to retire beween 65 and 70, politicians, judges and their ilk should likewise have to step down at roughy the same age. Some people will argue that this could stop someone with a brilliant brain like a Warren Buffet (albeit he works in a different field), from being elected. So what? Aren't there ageing Presidential advisers by the hundreds? For the free world to have a leader taking office at the age of 82 should he be re-elected and continuing into the second half of his 80s, is in my view ridiculous. The chance of anyone that age having to step down if not dying in office must be pretty high. And that leaves the Vice-President to take charge with the ultra right-wing leader of the House next in line. With Kamala Harris virtually a non-starter on the world stage, the leaders of Russia and China must be as thrilled as anyone. How could the Democratic Party leaders not have planned for Biden as a one-term President and then prepared itself and the country for a confirmed next in line? Does Biden have the right to make all the major decisions?

From what I have read, the anti-vaccination Robert Kennedy is a joke with all his conspiracy theories, whatever good he may have done in other areas. He's also been convicted of using heroin. From what you write about Ralph Nader in 2000, isn't that basically the problem with occasional individuals who decide it would be a nice idea to be President. Yet what would be wrong with a third and perhaps a fourth political party with different platforms, each fielding candidates iin most or many states? 

Yes, I know! It's money! The present system is so entrenched, the big money donors would never stand the establishment of other parties. And here again the Supreme Court weighed in to ensure that there was no stopping mega-donors. So is this not just one of many good reasons for having a Supreme Court that is not made up of political appointees? I wonder how many times Biden has regretted his railroading of Clarence Thomas on to the bench, especially when he refused to allow other witnesses to Thomas' sexual peccadilloes to testify.

I always slightly cringe when I hear America's leaders of virtually all persuasions talk about democracy and how the US is the most democratic country in the world. In terms of the number of positions from President down to County Sheriff that have to be regularly elected, that may be true. But as an example of true democracy where the country's eaders are elected freely and fairly, the US is hardly in any position to lecture others. Being fair, neither is Britain; or France; or Italy; or Japan; or Singapore . . . the list goes on and on. There have been threads on this forum calling for a greater and more transparent democracy in Thailand. Under the present constitution, Thailand's democracy is rigged. But isn't the US Presidential election also rigged, only in a different way? Is there in fact any free and fair democracy anywhere in the world?