Publius Pundit

Unwanted

Filed under: Russia

angelina_jolie_4_tyAVf_16149

Beating down the audience is what the crudest entertainments try to do, and in this respect, and in every other, “Wanted” is nothing new.

Those are the words of New York Times film critic A. O. Scott, reviewing the new major motion picture Wanted starring Angelina Jolie and directed by Timur Bekmambetov, whom Scott describes as "a Russian filmmaker who has earned a cult following with his razzly-dazzly thrillers Day Watch and Night Watch.

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

Barack Obama: Natural Born Liar

Filed under: US Elections

ph2007080101279_PXjrU_16149

Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer had a devastating piece last week exposing the torrent of lies issuing recently from the mouth of Barack Obama:

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

The eXile Goes Down

Filed under: Russia

My latest installment on the Pajamas Media mother blog reviews Vladimir Putin's liquidation of the infamous puerile tabloid The eXile and finds it has unsettling implications for an actual source of information in Russia, the Moscow Times, also published by foreigners. Did Putin shut down The eXile in order to set the precedent by which he could strike the MT as well? Will the MT see the writing on the wall and shift its coverage tone to save itself? I'm afraid it may already be happening.

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

Annals of Rabid Russian Xenophobia

Filed under: Russia

800px-valley_of_the_geysers_A2Or7_16149.jpg

The Russian people, via Internet voting, have chosen the "seven wonders of Russia."

Well, "Russian people" is an overstatement, since the vast majority of Russians have no regular access to the Internet (and how could they, when the average salary is $4/hour while the cost of Internet access is similar to that in the West).

And wonders is a relative term, too. Most outside of Russia would never have heard of more than one or two items on the Russian list, if any, much less visited them (or even thought of doing so). Indeed, as even state-owned propaganda outfit Russia Today admits, the whole point of having the "seven wonders" voting was to convince Russians themselves, who otherwise ignore their ho-hum national treasures, to pay them more attention.

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

Menage a Trois in Putin's Russia

Filed under: Russia

tony_blair_is_a_wanker.jpg

You can judge a country by the company it keeps.

When you think of Russia's company, you think of Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah. You think of George Bush, apparently one of the world's most hated figures, looking into Vladimir "Pooty-Poot" Putin's eyes, glimpsing his soul and finding him "trustworthy." When you think of the United States you think of NATO, Germany, France, Britain and Japan.

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

The Devil and Mr. Obama: A Tragicomedy in Three Parts

Filed under: US Elections

art.chicago.obama.ap.jpg

PART I - Mr. Obama Goes Back to Church

So, Barack Obama makes his first visit to a church over the weekend after throwing his old church (of two decades) under the bus when it became politically inconvenient. One must wonder, of course, what else he'll be prepared to throw under the bus when it suits him -- our country, for instance? Does he, in fact, actually believe anything at all, other than that (just like Bill Clinton) he really wants to be president?

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

More Lame Pseudo Journalism from the New York Times

Filed under: Russia

15russia-span-600.jpg

Sometimes I really wonder whether any actual editor reads the pablum generated by New York Times "reporters" before it gets into print.

Take, for instance, a recent story about Russia headlined "Unshackled and Flush, Russians Venture Abroad" and bearing the above photograph. It seems that virtually every word, starting with the headline, is coming straight from the Kremlin's propaganda machine.

The article claims that "wide swaths of the citizenry are being exposed to life in far-off lands" but its own data (which apparently no editor deigned to actually read and think about) shows that less than 5% of Russians leave Russia each year, and nearly one-third of those who do only get as far as Turkey, just across the Black Sea and hardly a bastion of liberal Western values (the Wall Street Journal recently called the country's ruler "Turkey's Putin"). Moreover, I believe the 5% is likely a significant overstatement, since it almost certainly includes multiple visits abroad by the same wealthy individuals. How is it possible that the nation's so-called "paper of record" could print a statement that is so ludicrous on its face, in its own context? One grew accustomed to this type of thing from Soviet propagandists.

Flush? The average Russian citizen only earns a wage of $4/hour, so the $800 cost of a trip to Turkey the article cites represents more than a full month's wages to the average Russian. With general inflation raging in double digits, and inflation on basic items roaring even higher, it's not an expense the average Russian person can even consider. As for experiencing "different" cultures, the paper's own photograph shows Russians flocking to a resort in Turkey made to look just like Red Square, hardly much change at all.

Now put all these basic facts aside and answer me this: If Russians are so interested in widening their perspectives, how is it that they elected and reelected a proud KGB spy to be their leader, then allowed him to appoint a hand-picked successor and remain prime minster, in essence ruling for life? If their minds are so open to change, why did they allow that spy to abolish local government, independent media and opposition politics? Anyone casually aware of these facts understands the true extent to which Russians are willing to consider other options.

It really does seem that it's time to put the Old Gray Lady out to pasture. This is just getting plain embarrassing. I know enough about Russia to spot red herrings like this immediately, but I'm not an expert in any other region. Who knows how many bogus statements about other countries I've swallowed whole, unknowingly?

Sheesh. Give me a break!

NOTE: If this post had been written about and linked to a story in the Washington Post, then a sidebar item in that paper's web page would have shown the link, allowing readers to find this post and see its criticism. That's because WaPo proudly stands by its content. The same is not true of the Gray Lady, which cowers in the shadows. I've written a letter to the editor raising the concerns set forth in this post, but odds are the NYT won't have the guts to run it.

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

They Want to Destroy us, so They Love Obama

Filed under: US Elections

260-4.gifThis chart shows the results of a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center.

On page 26 of the report, it states that of the nearly two dozen countries surveyed only Russia, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordon, Egypt, China and Pakistan had a larger group of respondents say the U.S. was an enemy rather than a partner. Of those, in only Turkey and Pakistan was the larger group a majority.

70% of the people in Turkey see the U.S. as an enemy. In the chart, they prefer Obama to become president by a margin of 4-1. 60% of Pakistanis say the U.S. is an enemy, and they prefer Obama nearly 2-1. 39% of Egyptians view America as a foe, and they preferred Obama by a 3-2 margin. 34% of Russians and Chinese respondents said the U.S. was an enemy, and Russians preferred Obama 39-22 while Chinese liked him slightly less well, 36-31. Obama has also been endorsed by the America-loathing terrorists of Hamas and the U.S.-despising Fidel Castro of Cuba.

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

Watch Out! Everyone's an American, Now

Filed under: US Elections

kennedy_cgeuP_16149

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed down its decision in the Boumediene case. With a 5-4 vote, just one unelected Supreme Court judge, the moderate Anthony Kennedy (shown above, he wrote the decision), who sided with the court's four left-wing liberals, suddenly discovered, after more than 200 years of the U.S. Constitution's existence, that it applies to people who are neither (a) American citizens nor (b) even located on American soil. The court's four conservative judges harshly rejected the decision.

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

The Dumbocrats vs. the Filibuster: Let the Battle Begin!

Filed under: US Elections

filibuster_oc8yE_16149

If you want to understand national governmental power in the United States, one word is far more important to know than any other. That word is "filibuster."

The president of the U.S. can do nothing unless a law is passed authorizing him to take executive action.

A law cannot be passed by Congress unless both of its constituent bodies, the House and the Senate, agree.

And the Senate cannot agree unless it can vote. As long as there are 41 votes against voting, the Senate can be stopped from voting (and hence agreeing) even if there are 59 votes in favor of the substantive topic, because any individual senator is permitted to speak on any topic as long as he likes -- meaning he can decide to speak forever and stop all business unless a specific proposal is rejected. That's called a filibuster.

What this means is simple. No matter what happens in the presidential election this fall, no aspect of any Democratic Party agenda will be enacted unless the Democrats can muster 60 votes in the Senate. If the Republicans can muster 41 votes, then they can use the "filibuster" to block any legislative action and bring the legislative process to a halt.

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

Curt Weldon -- Russian Agent?

Filed under: Russia

My latest installment on Pajamas Media details the malignant misadventures of Republican congressman Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, who in the best-case scenario was suckered by the Kremlin and in the worst case scenario was serving the interests of Russia against those of the United States. The party of Reagan has some deep soul searching to do on Russia! Thank goodness we have the clear-eyed John McCain at the top of the ticket!

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

Barack Obama: Failure from the World "Go"

Filed under: US Elections

barackobamaisnotsuperman_VncC5_16149.jpg

Even judged by his own insanely low standards, presumptive Democratic Party nominee Barack Obama, who admits that he has no executive experience of any kind, and hence lacks a fundamental qualification to be president, is a total failure from the word "go."

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

The Collaborators Among Us

Filed under: Russia

Last Friday's edition of the Moscow Times contained an op-ed essay by Russian pundit Georgy Bovt. In it, Bovt highlighted the total lack of morality that pervades Russian government today, and ridicules that Dimitri Medvedev is qualified, much less inclined, to do anything about it. As for Vladimir Putin, he's a proud KGB spy.

The column was buried by the MT editors under its shockingly boring new format, and might easily have been missed by many readers. It stood in stark contrast to the column the MT editors chose to highlight, from one Bruce Bean (pictured, left), identified as a lawyer who lived in Moscow from 1995 to 2003 and now teaches at Michigan State University Law School.

It looks for all the world as if the Moscow Times is slowly selling out to Kremlin pressure.

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

Mr. Bric Smashes a Russian Window

Filed under: Russia

At a ridiculous charade called the "St. Petersburg Economic Forum" over the weekend Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Chief Economist Jim "Mr. Bric" O'Neill stunned the host nation by laying Russia low.

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

Wow. Is America cool, or what? Just. Wow.

Filed under: United Nations


You say America is in decline? I say: Think again!

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

U.S. History for Dumbocrats

Filed under: United Nations

In 1976, because of a two-term Republican president (Richard Nixon) who had become extremely unpopular -- much more so than the current Republican president George Bush, as seen in the fact that Nixon was forced to resign from office in 1974 (the only such incident in all of American history) -- the Dumbocrats won a huge electoral victory.

The Republicans were ousted from office and Jimmy Carter, hailed as a "new kind of leader," was ushered into the Oval Office with a majority of the popular vote. The Democrats held 67.1% of the House of Representatives and 62% of the Senate -- overwhelming dominance in Congress, and the presidency. They spoke of "realignment," the end of the Republican Party, conservatism, etc., yadda, yadda.

What happened next?

Well, four years later Carter lost his bid for reelection to Ronald Reagan by 8 million votes, taking only 41% of those cast. Republicans had a net gain of 12 seats in the Senate, gaining control of the body. Reagan was reelected in a landslide in 1984, then, after serving two complete terms, his vice president was elected to succeed him -- something that hadn't happened since Martin Van Buren succeeded Andrew Jackson in 1837.

Carter was so emphatically rejected because it turned out that his total lack of experience (he was a peanut farmer) made him far too soft on America's enemies, especially Russia, and totally unable to carry out foreign policy. Reagan was elected with a mandate to get tough on the USSR, and his escalation of the arms race bankrupted it and drove it into the dustbin of history. Soon thereafter, Republicans recaptured control of the House of Representatives.

Those who are celebrating the possibility that Barack Obama will win the White House this year, backed up by a Democratic Congress, would do well to remember a little history. They might also consider the fact that they've been claiming the country is about to plunge headlong into a horrible recession; if it does, Democrats will get the blame, just as they did for the nation's economic woes under Carter (which he famously referred to as "malaise").

It's striking how many unsettling similarities there are between Carter and Obama, except that of course Carter didn't have an incendiary religious background tied to racism and extremism the way Obama does with Jeremiah Wright, something that only adds more fuel to his potential funeral pyre.

But the left doesn't seem to care, and is settling into an orgy of arrogance and hatred over the prospect of an Obama victory. I'm always amazed at the way liberals can attack Republicans for being unwilling to speak reasonably to and think reasonably about America's foes, seeking rather instant, hostile and arrogant confrontation, and yet adopt exactly the same attitude towards those on the right when they deal with them. Rather hypocritical, isn't it?

Perhaps this general obliviousness to history is why the Dumbocrats haven't reelected a president with a majority of the popular vote since World War II. It's true that Republicans have less to talk about than Dumbocrats these days -- but that's because the vast majority of their agenda has already been enacted, often by Dumocrats themselves (like Bill Clinton balancing the budget, abolishing welfare and enacting free trade). If this is defeat, we'll have more of the same every day of the week!

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

Moonbats, Unhinged

Filed under: US Elections

You know how those on the left scoff at religion, as if anyone who believes it isn't a fully evolved human? Suddenly, it seems, they're changing their minds, and deciding that Barack Obama is a "lightworker." He became so studying racism at the feet of Jeremiah Wright, I guess.

Here are a few choice bits of their analysis:

JFK wasn't assassinated for any typical reason you can name. It's because he was just this kind of high-vibration being, a peacemaker, at odds with the war machine, the CIA, the dark side.

Umm, OK. But didn't JFK launch the Bay of Pigs and the Vietnam war.

I've heard from far too many enormously smart, wise, spiritually attuned people who've been intuitively blown away by Obama's presence - not speeches, not policies, but sheer presence - to say it's just a clever marketing ploy.

Err, maybe. But when conservatives said that about Reagan, liberals called him the "Teflon president" who was elevating form over substance, and they said they despised that. Moreover, apparently, none of these people were in California, Texas or New York, the nation's three largest electoral powerhouses. Obama lost them all.

Even Bill Clinton, with all his effortless, winking charm, didn't have what Obama has, which is a sort of powerful luminosity, a unique high-vibration integrity.

That's for sure. The integrity of Obama's racism runs deep indeed. And, um, just for the record, when Bill Clinton "won" the presidency in 1992, 57% of the country voted against him. And, unlike Obama, Clinton won California, Texas and New York -- then went on to "win" the presidency with just 43% of the popular vote, one of the narrowest shares in U.S. electoral history, and then got impeached.

Liberals say the country is headed for a massive recession, yet they are rejoicing about the idea of being in power when it happens. They say they favor "democracy" and yet they are rejoicing about the end of the Republican Party.

Kinda scary, isn't it?

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

Annals of Neo-Soviet Hypocrisy

Filed under: Russia

"What galls is how together with America we defeated Hitler, and how we sympathized when Bin Laden hit them. But they go ahead and scare kids with Communists. These people have no shame."

Those are the words of Russian Communist Party member Victor Petrov, quoted in a story reported last week about the Russian reaction to the new Indiana Jones movie. It seems Mr. Petrov is miffed because the movie depicts Russians as being the evil enemies of freedom and democracy during the Cold War. Apparently,