Putin Profits as U.S. Ally Saakashvili Loses in Georgia Election - Bloomberg [getdailynow.blogspot.com]
A New Climate State: Arctic Sea Ice 2012A new video produced by independent videographer Peter Sinclair for The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media explains what expert scientists now find to be the lowest extent of Arctic sea ice in recorded history.
Russian President Vladimir Putin will probably benefit from the election defeat of U.S.-backed Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, who led his nation to war with Russia in 2008, said researchers from London to Moscow.
Putin, who threatened four years ago to hang Saakashvili “by the balls†and refused any contact with the 44-year-old U.S.-educated lawyer, will now have the option to deal with billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili, poised to form the next government. Ivanishvili, who made his fortune in Russia, promised to mend ties between Georgia and its powerful neighbor.
The U.S. and European Union, which backed Saakashvili’s Rose Revolution in 2003 as well as the Orange Revolution a year later in Ukraine, have seen the pro-Western leaders that came to power suffer electoral reversals, boosting Russian influence in its former Soviet empire. Georgia, home to energy links between Europe and the Caspian that bypass Russia, angered Putin by seeking NATO entry.
“Saakashvili was very much disliked in Moscow, to put it mildly,†said Fyodor Lukyanov, an analyst at the Moscow-based Council on Foreign and Defense Policy. “While relations won’t change dramatically, the overall atmosphere will improve.â€
The Georgian president, who has one year left of his mandate, yesterday conceded defeat in the election and said his party was going into opposition after garnering 40 percent of the vote to 55 percent for Ivanishvili’s Georgian Dream coalition with 89 percent of the ballots counted.
Most of the powers of the presidency will pass to the prime minister after Saakashvili’s term ends because of legislative changes two years ago.
‘More Constructive’
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev yesterday said the opposition’s victory showed a desire for change and offered a chance for dialog with Georgia.
“We can only welcome this as it likely means that there will be more constructive and responsible forces in parliament,†Medvedev told reporters yesterday in Makhachkala, the capital of Dagestan, the Russian region neighboring Georgia.
Ivanishvili, 56, said yesterday that he would end Saakashvili’s policy of “waving a red flag†in front of Russia, while still seeking membership of the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
“We will have to sort out our relations with Russia,†he told reporters in Tbilisi. “It will be hard, but not impossible.â€
Georgia, the birthplace of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, was incorporated into the Russian empire in the late 18th century, and enjoyed only three years of independence, from 1918-1921, until the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. It withdrew from the post-Soviet Commonwealth of Independent States after losing a five-day war with Russia over a breakaway region in 2008.
Tense Relations
Russian-Georgian relations were tense even before the 2008 war, which was sparked by Saakashvili’s attempt to regain control of North Ossetia. Putin cut transport and postal links and blocked money transfers in October 2006 in a dispute over Georgia’s arrest of Russian servicemen it accused of espionage.
Russia had earlier banned imports of Georgian wine and mineral water, hurting the agricultural sector. Flights resumed in March 2008 before being halted again by the conflict, restarting in 2010.
Saakashvili, in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly, said last week that Russia was plotting to influence the outcome of the election, and called on “friends and allies†to support Georgia’s independence.
‘No Stooge’
There’s no reason to believe that Ivanishvili is a “Kremlin stooge,†said Gemma Ferst, a London-based analyst with Eurasia Group.
“He’s pro-Russian insomuch as he wants to improve relations with Russia,†which is in line with what the majority of Georgians want according to public-opinion polls, she said by phone yesterday.
While Saakashvili’s party held a lead of more than 20 percentage points last month, the Sept. 18 release of footage showing prison guards beating and raping male inmates with a broom handle and truncheon sparked mass protests in the country ruled for the past nine years by Saakashvili.
“The Georgian public apparently voted decisively for Georgian Dream not only because of disillusionment with Saakashvili and his government, and not only because of the extremely damaging visual evidence of prison abuse, but because of Georgian Dream’s promise that immediate economic and social problems will be addressed,†Neil MacFarlane, who researches the South Caucasus at Oxford University, said by e-mail.
‘Not Gone’
Saakashvili was seen as a ``loose cannon’’ by some western powers and his departure may ease strains with Russia, their biggest strategic relationship in the region, said MacFarlane.
Matthew Bryza, a former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, said that Saakashvili may still manage to retain influence in the country.
“Is President Putin happy to see Saakashvili go? Well Saakashvili isn’t gone,†he said by phone from Istanbul. “Saakashvili is still president for another year and if the opposition wins a narrow victory in parliament, then there is still political jockeying that is going to take place over selecting the prime minister and the presidential elections.â€
If the Georgian leader does lose power, he will have laid the foundations of a a democratic system to his country, Bryza said.
Ivanishvili doesn’t accept that good relations with Europe and Russia are mutually exclusive, James Nixey, Russian and Eurasia Program Manager at Chatham House in London, which advises European governments, wrote in a research note.
There is no proof that Ivanishvili “is in any way beholden or even amenable to the Kremlin’s unconcealed desire for influence,†Nixey wrote “But he is likely to take a less antagonistic policy than Saakashvili.â€
To contact the reporter on this story: Henry Meyer in Moscow at hmeyer4@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Balazs Penz at bpenz@bloomberg.net
More Putin Profits as U.S. Ally Saakashvili Loses in Georgia Election - Bloomberg Articles Question by Roy T: Why is the myth that "separation of church and state" is a constitutional concept so widely accepted? Why do so many people accept without question the myth that "separation of church and state" is a constitutional concept? The phrase "building a wall of separation between church and state" was included in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson as a metaphor for the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" phrase in the first amendment. When "separation of church and state" is taken from that letter and used out of context it can be misinterpreted as actually requiring actions that directly contradict the first amendment. Question what you hear and go back to the original source. The constitution is actually very clearly written with almost no room for interpretation, and it is as applicable today as it was on December 15, 1791 when the Bill of Rights was ratified. (unfortunately it is often ignored by our current government) The phrase "building a wall of separation between church and state" was included in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson as a metaphor for the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" phrase in the first amendment. When "separation of church and state" is taken from that letter and used out of context it can be misinterpreted as actually requiring actions that directly contradict the first amendment. The constitution is actually very clearly written with almost no room for interpretation, and it is as applicable today as it was on December 15, 1791 when the Bill of Rights was ratified. (unfortunately it is often ignored by our current government). This question and comments were meant to elicit thoughtful discussion, and it worked. I did get off on a tangent with regard to interpretation of the constitution that deserves its own question, but when I read the constitution I do not find much room for interpre tation. This question and comments were meant to elicit thoughtful discussion, and it worked. I did get off on a tangent with regard to interpretation of the constitution that deserves its own question, but when I read the constitution I do not find much room for interpretation. Changing interpretations by supreme court justices over the years do not demonstrate that the constitution was unclear and open to interpretation, but rather that justices allow themselves to be swayed in their judgments by current prejudice and popular opinion. Best answer for Why is the myth that "separation of church and state" is a constitutional concept so widely accepted?:
Answer by FozzieBear
Because it works well for the liberal agenda, and the libs run the media. Once you misinterpret the law, it gives you a lot of room to claim to be doing things because they are what the law states when it's really the exact opposite. It's like the laws stating that you have to have so many minorities employed in your business. That is nothing but racism. What if the minorities are not the best people for that job? You're stealing a job from a white/male in order to give it to someone else based on their skin color. .
Answer by NeoLibs are Pathogens
Because the liberal mind is an intellectually lazy mind.
Answer by pissedoffbastard13
The so-called "separation of church and state" was meant to prohibit the establishment of a state sponsored church, like the Church of England. It was never intended to banish all mention of God and religion from public discourse or display.
Answer by horseshoes
"congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion"... This was intended to keep the government out of church, not the church out of the government. Unfortunately this is the part of the constitution that the anti-Christians choose to liberally interpret to make sure all things Christian are considered taboo, while the ACLU fights to have foot baths installed at state universities for Muslims.
Answer by F C
People are conditioned by the media, and the media is far removed from the original constitutional principles. Liberals especially don't have a clue. People get conditioned to accept concepts and words without doing any real research. e.g., they say "nukular" when it's "nuclear" They think that the framers set up government to be free from religion, when in reality it was set up to prevent the government from forcing religion on the people. Even George Washington said during his oath "so help me God."
Answer by michelob86
There is no myth, unless you consider Supreme Court decisions on the subject as myth. They ruled that common inerpretation you dismiss.
Answer by rickinnocal
Because most people are poorly educated as to the law, and just assume that what they 'heard at the water cooler' is the truth. A perfect example is a case that the ACLU filed on behalf of a bible club in Kentfield, WA. The school allowed student clubs - the chess club, drama club, FFA etc - to use school premises after school hours. When the Bible Club sought to do the same, the school principal refused to allow them, saying that the "separation of Church and State" prohibited the school from allowing a bible club to meet on school premises. The Bible Club contacted the ACLU, who got in touch with the school and explained to them that the law (as established in a famous case called "Lambs Chapel") is that a school must treat religious clubs exactly the same as secular ones. The school still wouldn't believe that, even when the ACLUI showed them the law, and the case had to go to court. This is a subject which "pendulums" back and forth. If you look at ACLU cases alone as a good guide, you will see that 20 years ago most cases the ACLU filed that had to do with religious freedom were cases where a government body was illegally *imposing religion* on individuals. Now, however, the pendulum has swung the other way, and most religious freedom cases the ACLU files are where a government body (mostly schools) is *restricting* a students religious freedom. Richard
Answer by Songbyrd JPA ✡ Jewish Lawyer
The issue time and time again is what is establishment? Is it favoritism? Is it a nativity scene, but no Menorah? The founder of the USA did not want what existed in England where there is a state religion. Jefferson was the taylor of the first amendment and gives an intent of what they wanted. Oddly, you never ask a question, it is more of a rant.
Answer by jasonsluck13
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." - Thomas Jefferson you are exactly right. he intended the phrase simply as a metaphor to explain his thoughts on the Federal government trampling on the 1st amendment right of freedom of religion.. it's one of those things man.. it's like when someone tells a story and over years and years and years, the story has lost it's true original meaning and concept.. it's just been driven in our heads "separation of church and state" for so long, that we've accepted it as a complete truth to fit whatever agenda.. it's sad really. micholob - that's the problem.. too many people including the Supreme Court, trying to "interpret" the constitution.. there's no need to interpret anything. just read it.
Answer by kifre_2000
It's an easier phrase to remember and broadly covers the concept behind the constitutional provision. Namely, that government oughtent to be be mucking about with the religious practices of the people. Unfortunately, it's used as a fire brand to imply that religion ought to play no role in the legislative process. How is any lawmaker to completely divorce themselves from religion, when often it is that which informs their moral compass? Not to say that any one religion is more correct than the other, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that everyone can completely "leave it at the door." By the way, don't really agree that there's "almost no room for interpretation in the constitution." The last two hundred or so years of constitutional law suggests to me otherwise.
Answer by truth_unadulterated
It is a Constitutional Concept. In fact it is so inherent, that Madison felt that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the Federal government should not be involved in matters of religion or any other freedom mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Of course, people will point to prayers at invocations of Congress and what not, but this is a red herring. Just because some of the implementation of government included some rituals, that does not negate the overall principle. Religion should be a private matter not dictated by a government. The Founders were acutely aware that chattel slavery was completely antithetical to The Declaration, but they compromised because as it is said, it's the economy stupid. The Southern colonies were needed, so principle was compromised. But we shrugged off slavery. The same thing holds for separation of church and state. We have advanced in our understanding in the area of church and state. Government has no place in promoting religion through law or through ritual. That is a principle we should stand behind. We cannot on the one hand condemn the Muslim world for their hand in glove approach to church and state (believe me they've heard of separation of church and state) then pretend that we can implement some system where we do not separate church and state. I submit that those who complain about some misinterpretation in regard to the separation of church and state should quit whining. God does not need your protection. And if you need the state to be on your team when it comes to religion, then I would surmise you don't have the faith in God you would claim. Oh, and by the way, people don't seem to realize that the 1st Amendment did not apply to the states at the time. It was only applied to the states through the 14th Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine. Keep the Federal Government out of religion. They can't do anything else right, but people think they will get religion right? Grow up.
Answer by Miss Rachel
Because in the First Amendment, it is said that we all have the freedom to practice any religion, be it popular or not. Not separating the church from the government allows room for a few elites to press their religions and their beliefs on everyone else. That's like me saying that I follow the teachings of the devil, and I'm going to press those on you, whether you like it or not. Also, historically, you are correct. (I researched this a week ago.) However, James Madison also said that there is a distinction between a nation being founded on Christians and a nation founded on Christian ways of life.
GLEE - Full Performance of "New York State of Mind"Don't miss an all-new episode of GLEE on THUR at 9/8c, on FOX! bit.ly ('Like' on Facebook) bit.ly (Follow on Twitter) bit.ly (+1 on Google+)
0 comments:
Post a Comment