AMA (YYW)

Relevant: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/boris-nemtsov-march-moscow-putin-russia-death-anniversary-a8794826.html

When will Russia be ready for democracy?

How do you get people to ask you questions?

>When will Russia be ready for democracy?

Before we talk about the timeframe, we've got to establish whether or not it's even possible that Russia would be a democracy.  That's not an easy question to answer.  

For most Russians, all they know of 'democracy' is what they remember of the 1990s.  The 1990s were essentially a period of time where the collectivized wealth of the Soviet Union was transferred from government control to private control.  Yet, the capital flow's structure remained largely the same: those in power retained the right to all wealth that could have been produced from ownership of capital.  What changed, however, was that the material conditions for those at the top not only improved, but created an entirely new modality of existence (conspicuous consumption) that had not existed in Russia since before the Russian revolution in 1917.  Though now, the scale was greater than ever before.

Nevertheless, Boris Yeltsin was "elected" in something approximating a vaguely democratic fashion.  So was Putin, the first time.  Putin's popularity was primarily due to the fact that he managed to bring an end to a previously ongoing conflict in Chechnya in a fashion that was pleasing to most Russians.  He "wasted [the Chechen terrorists] in the shithouse", to quote Putin, which is not inaccurate.  (Sadly, the terrorists were merely replaced with Islamic terrorist war lords, who you may know as the Kadyrov's, but that's another conversation for another day.)  This cultivated genuine appeal to Putin, and where and to the extent -- however limited -- that Putin found in Bush a person with whom business could be done in the way of destroying Islamic terrorism, Putin gained international standing that had not been enjoyed in Russia since the early 1980s.  

While Putin was making Russia great again, or so it seemed, oil prices tended to rise.  There were some serious economic problems early on which created numerous setbacks, but overall, even as late as 2004 Putin was not obviously presenting a threat to world peace.  Of course, America had bigger problems on its hands as well.  This enabled Putin to cultivate relationships with Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea while America was preoccupied trying to nation build in Iraq.  But, in years to come things would sour.

Eventually, Putin came to lock up journalists, or worse.  He harassed, intimidated, or killed journalists, critics, dissidents, and enemies while at the same time walking side by side with members of the G8 -- pretending to be a legitimate president.  The list of people Putin has murdered includes, but surely is not limited to, Aleksander Litvenenko, Ana Politkovskya, Stanislav Markelov,  Anastasia Baburova, Boris Berezovsky, Sergei Yushenkov, Paul Klebnikov, and the list goes on.  The most recent, notable cases include Sergei Magnitski, and Boris Nemstov.  Every one of these people had a story, but that story is for another time.  Navalny will probably be next.  That is to say nothing of the people he has jailed, exiled, etc.  Mikhail Khordkovsky is the most famous case of that. 

The day will come when the oligarchs' economic interests necessitate Putin's days come to an end.  When that day comes, Putin will be gone, and democracy may be possible.  It may not be.  It will depend on who takes control.  The stooge Dimity Medvedev showed some early capability for thought independent of Putin, in relation to his (albeit woefully misguided) support for Obama's injudicious plan to remove Gaddaffi, over the predictably obvious objections of Putin (who I imagine had Medvedev bend over his desk for a school-boy type paddling for that).  So, if Medvedev were to take over, it is not obvious what direction Russia would take.  It is just as likely that Medvedev would liberalize Russia as it is that he would do the same things that Putin has been doing because changing the now extant institutional norms would be too complicated.  It's difficult to say.

The only obvious condition precedent to Russian democracy is Putin's death.  Once that happens, the situation would have to be re-evaluated.  But, that's not a timeline.  There's too much uncertainty as to what would happen post-Putin's death to predict with anything more than broad-side shooting's accuracy.  In some respects, this may be why no attempt on Putin's life has been successful yet. 

>How do you get people to ask you questions?

I think people know I'll give them a genuine, interesting answer... which is why they keep coming back.  Also, I like them coming back.  Maybe that plays a role too.

YYW is a Tiger Shark, and we are but wee Remoras.

What broke your heart wurst and rye?  Sorry,  I meant worst and why.

Tbh I don't know.  I've never had my heart broken.

There have been several events in my life which perhaps should have, but none have come close. 

I am a brick wall behind a concrete fence behind a shred-wire perimeter in the middle of a desert with armed guards in each and every watchtower. 

No.

Right, ok.... What do you think about when you think about Israel?

Are you asking about my opinion on Israel, generally, or are you asking what comes to mind when I think about Israel?

Well, I suppose I hoped to detect political opinion but I phrased it that way so you could pursue personal interests.  If you think of cous-cous or whatever, that's fine but probably less interesting.

I may add to this later.  Israel is a lovely country.  Tel Aviv is a great vacation spot, very socially progressive, in many respects it is an oasis in what is otherwise an abyss of radicalism.  Other than Oman, Israel is the only place I could ever see myself being comfortable in the Middle East.  It also happens that I like the food, and have a few friends there.  

Politically, I see Israel as an American military subcontractor that, on occasion, gets wild ideas of its own.  The way the relationship works is basically this: America gives Israel defense subsidies (or handouts) for the purpose of arming the Israeli military in its ongoing efforts to identify, contain, and dispose of Palestinian terrorists.  This creates jobs for Americans in the defense industry, and gets something approximating relative peace in the Middle East in general at a lower aggregate human cost (across civilians, soldiers, and other people who matter) among lives worth preserving, and a greater kill-rate among lives that ought to be ended (terrorists, would-be terrorists).  

The basic question is this: how many American lives and how much American tax money would it take to prevent Palestinian terrorists in the US and Europe, equivalent to the same results Israel has now?  North of 100 billion over every five years.  Doing so would over-extend the military, and bankrupt the economy.  This is an unacceptably high cost.  Nevertheless, the predictable harm can be avoided by enabling Israel to act on behalf of the United States and Western world in general.  They do this for fractions of pennies on the dollar of what it would cost for America to do the same.  That's a deal I'll make 10/10 times.  Damn good deal. 

As to the social issues, the settlements do not offend me, and I see no reason to stop their continued development.  Most of the "human rights" complaints are false, and those that are not false are pretextual and therefore disingenuous.  There is some legitimate debate over water rights and electricity, but that's about the extent of it.  At the end of the day, Palestine is solely to blame for the conditions it presently endures... which is a great tragedy, but wholly predictable when the country's government harbors terrorists in its midst.  Every Palestinian life is, likewise, worth preserving to the extent that they are not terrorists; but sadly, because Palestinian terrorists place themselves in the crossfire between themselves and Israel, those deaths cannot always be prevented.  This is horrible, but fairly beyond Israel's control given that Israel does not chose the PLO or other terrorist group's field of operation.

As to the domestic political issues, I largely don't care.  Netanyahu is basically a more sophisticated and more socially liberal Bush, which is something I am very comfortable with in another country.  He keeps his word, although the extent of his fondness for certain politicians in Eastern Europe I dislike.  Even still, Netanyahu is someone I could easily work with.  To the degree that domestic political issues overlap into international diplomatic issues, such as is the case with the US Embassy in Jerusalem, I fully supported moving the embassy to its present location.  I am wholly indifferent to Palestinian, or greater Muslim objections.

The majority of conflict in the region I lay at the feet of a bastardized and politicized iteration of radical Islam that represents a radical departure from what was otherwise recognizable as an Abrahamic faith, rather than a cult of death and absolutism, such as exists presently among the Wahabists in Saudi Arabia and the ISIS those Wahabists created.  I blame Saudi Arabia for fomenting most of the chaos in the region now, and think that the US should have hung the Saudis out to dry in the 1970s; as should have the French.  

My main issue with Israel, now, is Iran.  The greatest tragedy in recent memory was the 1979 Islamic "Revolution" -- which was little more than an instance when terrorists besieged an otherwise just and lawful government and converted it into a barbaric theocracy.  Iran was once a reliable ally, lost because of Jimmy Carter's incompetence.  Even still, post 1979 the Ayatollah should have been disposed of by the CIA.  But, that failure of imagination lies with Reagan's administration.  Despite the fact that before that terrorist onslaught in 1979, Iran was a valuable ally to the west; not unlike Jordan, or other countries.  

Now, Israel continually stokes the fire with Iran, which irritates me.  It is in Netanyahu's interest to do so, but not in ours.  There is a future for Iran without the Ayatollah, and without the "revolutionary guard" or any other manifestation of theocratic totalitarian oppression in that terrorist-sponsoring state.  When Iran is a democracy once more (or at least a reliable secular dictatorship, which I would settle for) the stupidity of Israel's issue with Iran (and most of Israel's problems with the PLO) will end.  At that time, if the fucking Saudis don't stop bankrolling the Palestinian terrorists, the time will come for Mossad to do what Mossad does best against them too.  Green energy can't come fast enough.  The world will be a better place when Saudi Arabia is populated by nothing more than a random spattering of bedouin camel herders. 

When a democrat talks good about Bush Jr., you know they're full of shit. Bush is a member of one of the most clandestine cult-families of pure bullshit illuminati untouchable-status corrupt to the core bastard types in history. Never ever talk good about that scumbag and his family and call yourself a left-winger.

You comparing him to Netanyahu is accurate, and I'd agree on who is worse between the two. Bush Jr. is pure scum, Netanyahu is medium scum.

I agree with you RM

Whats the chance Venezuela ends up in a war?

>When a democrat talks good about Bush Jr., you know they're full of shit. Bush is a member of one of the most clandestine cult-families of pure bullshit illuminati untouchable-status corrupt to the core bastard types in history. Never ever talk good about that scumbag and his family and call yourself a left-winger. You comparing him to Netanyahu is accurate, and I'd agree on who is worse between the two. Bush Jr. is pure scum, Netanyahu is medium scum.

To the extent that your post claims that when a democrat (which I barely am; I have serious issues with the DNC, which my posts should fairly obviate) speaks well of W, that you know "they're full of shit", I obviously disagree with that claim for reasons that are important to discuss.  Bush had his faults and those faults with respect to domestic and foreign policy were not insignificant, but like most things a unidimensional rejection of him inadequately represents the true complexity that Bush's presidency involved.  

Bush deserves a lot of credit for Medicare Part D, and other expansions of the medicare program under his watch.  He also deserves credit for a majority of the work that led to Obama being able to deploy special forces into Pakistan to capture and kill Bin Laden.  That said, Bush made a plethora of mistakes, which most prominently include the Iraq War's initiation and management, and his repeated failures to meaningfully respond to Russian aggression in Georgia in the last years of his presidency. 

Of course, Bush also gets a lot of untoward blame for policies which he had nothing to do with, which principally were Clinton-era policies that facilitated the securitization of future streams of income based on adjustable rate mortgages, and the second, third, and fourth-order implication of the 90s-era Wall Street deregulation more generally.  Two prime offenders come to mind: repealing Glass-Stegall, in 1992; and the Community Reinvestment Act's expansion in 1995.  Given the date, W obviously had nothing to do with any of that stupidity.  Republicans in Congress did, because it was their idea which Clinton appropriated; Clinton did, because he stole the idea from congressional republicans; but W was the Governor of Texas.  He didn't even sponsor the bills, or vote on them. 

Being a fair-minded person requires considering a person in all of their complexity, whether they're the president or whether they're an average person just like anyone else.  That means that a fair-minded person can't just unidimensionally write someone off, as you have suggested we do with Bush.  Now, an argument may be made that the harms which resulted from W's time in office profoundly outweigh the benefits, and that would be a plausible case to make... but the point remains the same.  I don't even do that with Trump or Jimmy Carter, who are indisputably the worst presidents this country has ever had. 

>Whats the chance Venezuela ends up in a war?

That depends on what you mean by "war".  If you mean a civil war, then we've got to figure out what that means; but if you mean war with other country, then most likely no.  

As to a civil war, anything is possible. There are too many moving parts to be able to definitively say one way or the other and as I see it there are about five plausible outcomes; three of which are equally probable, the latter two of which are unlikely.

Scenario 1: Maduro remains in leadership and initiates an Assad-style persecution of Venezuelans, where any viable opposition leader mysteriously dies or is imprisoned.  The conflict escalates on a sporadic, periodic basis; but it never fully develops into an outright civil war.  This is probable. 

Scenario 2: Maduro remains in leadership and faces viable opposition which is not murdered; mass civil unrest results without any clear timeline for resolution, leadership post-Maduro remains similarly contested.  Political leadership does not change, and the conflict does not get hotter.  This is probable.

Scenario 3: Maduro is forced out of leadership, either by some unexplained natural cause (i.e., a heart attack was arranged) or some unnatural unexplained cause (someone kills him; the world remains unsure as to who), or an unnatural explainable cause (e.g., military coup, or something like that) and he is replaced by either (a) someone amenable to the West, or (b) someone not amenable to the West, both of whom would face considerable internal resistance from the internal political forces.  Venezuela approaches failed-state status as a result.  This is probable. 

Scenario 4: Maduro leaves office voluntarily and a democratically elected leader takes his place without resistance.  This is improbable.

Scenario 5: Maduro leaves office voluntarily and is replaced by someone of similar temperament without significant further disruption, and Venezuela improves.  This is improbable.      

>Thoughts on unpaid internships?

I'm going to say some more about this.  I think unpaid internships are a means by which structural inequality is reinforced among the classes.  Only those people who can afford to work for free are the people who can take unpaid internships, and the only people who can afford to do so are people who have independent means of supporting themselves... that means they have parent money.  The practical effect of this is to deny the opportunity to build a resume to someone who may be at once more driven and more competent simply because they can't afford to not earn money. 

This is beyond forgiveness. It is worse among the government than anywhere else. Example: DOJ internship is unpaid; who gets it?  Is it the kid who got a full ride to law school because he worked hard despite financial hardship?  Or, is it the kid whose parents can give him 8k per month or more to go live in Washington while he works for free?  The latter, obviously.  This offends me on a deep, visceral level.  Structurally reinforced inequality of opportunity is the opposite of meritocracy, or competence-based hierarchy.  

The UN is worse.  So you ask yourself... who gets a job at the UN?  Is it the kid whose parents saved all their lives only to be able to afford a fraction of their son or daughter's tuition with almost nothing left over; who didn't take vacations, and who saved every extra penny they had so that the university couldn't pick the future pocket of their kid by and through student loans, or is it the kid whose father is the CEO of a multinational company.  Well, take a look at the UN interns... they're the children of the landed elite from around the world; the people who can afford to pay for the cost of their kid doing something like that, and not everyone else. 

The result is that kids from families of means come out ahead of those who never got their foot in the door because their parents couldn't afford to bear the economic costs of such an internship.  Is this fair?  Is this just?  No.  It is deeply, deeply, unconscionably offensive. 

By the way, more questions are encouraged.  If you ask economics questions, you'll see just how far to the left I go. 

Recommended topics:

Foreign policy

Identity politics 

Domestic affairs

Contemporary moral/social issues

FSB/GRU Disinformation Campaigns on Social Media 

What role do charitable foundations play in tax evasion schemes?

Being fair to Bush is beating him to a fucking pulp and letting all Middle East and America's working class have at him.

I obviously, and strongly, disagree. 

>What role do charitable foundations play in tax evasion schemes?

Charitable organizations should play no role in schemes for tax evasion. 

I mean, well, obviously they "shouldn't".

But say, for example, some billionaire guy, a couple of weeks before he filed his tax returns, made a several billion dollar donation to some private foundation. He reported as much on his tax returns. That income, I presume, wouldn't be taxed at all, and they'd get a tax deduction for everything else.

A couple weeks later, after they've gotten word back from the government that their returns have been received and processed, the foundation gives them a full refund, claiming that there was some kind of filing error on their part. Poof. Tax evasion.

Should I take your response above as to say that things like this do not happen as a general rule?

Try having your family striked by drones (oh yeah, he loved using them not just Obama) and be the only remaining member of a Pakistani farmer's family that happened to have some remote connection to some Terrorist Leader.

You don't know what the fuck you are defending or all that he did with his bullshit 'war on terror' let alone Guantanamo Bay and the atrocities that happened there.

The real answer to me asking you 'how do you get people to actively ask in your AMA but totally ignore mine?' is that you spew bullshit popular opinion, I spit raw, brutal facts.

Child-killer scumbag member of Clandestine psychopath-family. Psychopathy is an inherited mental trait, no doubt.