This is going to become a larger and larger issue, and discredits the new Ukrainian coalition government. A leaked phone call between and Estonian diplomat returning from Ukraine and an EU diplomat (purportedly intercepted by pro-Yanukovich former security officials, but I think it was the Russians) confirms that these shootings are the subject of controversy and suspicion in Ukraine, and might be worldwide soon. However the U.S. is the last place you will hear it come to prominence. The video is followed by a news report about the leaked phone call.
WARNING: The first video is graphic and disturbing. This is a video of people being shot by snipers in cold blood.
These people were shot by gunmen shooting from behind them, from their own “side” of the battle lines. Their supposed martyrdom coincided with the opposition taking over and within 24 hours the elected president was driven from the country.
The Estonian foreign ministry confirmed the leaked conversation was accurate. It said: “Foreign minister Paet was giving an overview of what he had heard in Kiev and expressed concern over the situation on the ground. We reject the claim that Paet was giving an assessment of the opposition’s involvement in the violence.” Ashton’s office said it did not comment on leaks.
During the conversation, Paet quoted a woman named Olga – who the Russian media identified her as Olga Bogomolets, a doctor – blaming snipers from the opposition shooting the protesters.
“What was quite disturbing, this same Olga told that, well, all the evidence shows that people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides,” Paet said.
“So she also showed me some photos, she said that as medical doctor, she can say it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it’s really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened.”
“So there is a stronger and stronger understanding that behind snipers it was not Yanukovych, it was somebody from the new coalition,” Paet says.
Ashton replies: “I think we do want to investigate. I didn’t pick that up, that’s interesting. Gosh,” Ashton says.
Darrell Issa is a car thief and a disgrace to the Congress, and if Elijah Cummings is supposedly “flipping out” here, then I want to see more members of Congress flip out, every day.
It’s so difficult to set up an experiment to “prove” this, but guess what they found one.
Another soon-to-be-published study may provide the most compelling evidence to date that looser gun laws lead to more bloodshed. Researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health were able to conduct a natural experiment in Missouri after the state repealed a law requiring handgun purchasers to get a license and pass a background check in 2007. According to the study’s authors, repealing the law “contributed to a sixteen percent increase in Missouri’s murder rate.”
That translated into 55 to 63 more murders per year in Missouri between 2008 and 2012, despite the fact that during the same period, “none of the states bordering Missouri experienced significant increases in murder rates and the U.S. murder rate actually declined by over five percent.” The increase in murders began in the first full year after the state’s licensing requirement was repealed, and the researchers “controlled for changes in policing, incarceration, burglaries, unemployment, poverty, and other state laws adopted during the study period that could affect violent crime.”
More handguns means more murders. People kill people, with guns.
He says you can’t do it, so here it is. He was arrested for possession of Valium.
Oklahoma City’s multimillion dollar taxpayer funded shopping area a great place to get shot with your family, or shot and killed if you prefer.
Good job. If you are going to break the rules to make your point, this is one admirably civil way to do it. Arguably this was a “publicity stunt,” but so are most of the daily speeches by politicians running for office, and they’re often quite hateful and destructive these days, unlike this protester.
I’ll let others speak here, first there is this, and also then there is that. Both statements are both reading.
I would like to add something, though, that I think has been under-emphasized in these last two weeks. There is a legal distinction about discrimination when it comes to public accommodations. If you put up a sign, or hang out your shingle in a way, and open your store or sell your services to the public, you cannot discriminate. Obviously, over the years the list of what categories of customers you must serve, versus who you can throw out, has been shifting. At one time, women were barred from many “public” establishments. For decades after that ended for the most part, racial minorities had to come to the back door of restaurants, or were barred completely, or had to enter movie theaters through a separate entrance and head to the balcony. What happened in Arizona (and is still happening in other states) is a last-ditch attempt to legalize treating anyone you don’t like for “religious” reasons (but let’s face it, it really means “people that I think are gay”) the same way. But we’re talking about public accommodation, and the issue is settled. You can’t do it.
Now, how long ago was it that the issue was settled? I will put it this way, when you watch this scene, who do you think is in the right here and who is wrong? What would the sponsors of the Arizona bill say? We know what Rand Paul would think.
If you used Yahoo video chat between 2008 and 2010, they still have your pictured stored in spy agency headquarters apparently. They were capturing/snapping images every 5 minutes during Yahoo chats.
Was this “peeping tom” data shared with the United States?
This should become a regular feature, it could become a trademark.
This is what it’s really like in Putin’s Russia. Systematic kidnapping, assault against, and intimidation, loss of employment, done against anyone perceived to be “gay.” The word “bullying” is completely insufficient to describe what’s going on here. The Putin government is fully aware of these activities and even sometimes directly involved in encouraging it, because the reason for the “anti gay propaganda” laws is not just to cynically build support for the government in a fairly homophobic country, but to recruit and increase the number of pro-government thugs like these people, who are completely comparable to the gangs who attacked students who did sit-ins in the late 1950s and early 60s.