You'll love Woods' Edge at Salt Creek Golf Retreat, Brown County, Indiana.
Vladimir Putin is Rather Confused
According to this Time.com story, Mr. Putin is a bit confused about how the free press works.
George Bush knew Vladimir Putin would be defensive when Bush brought up the pace of democratic reform in Russia in their private meeting at the end of Bush’s four-day, three-city tour of Europe. But when Bush talked about the Kremlin’s crackdown on the media and explained that democracies require a free press, the Russian leader gave a rebuttal that left the President nonplussed. If the press was so free in the U.S., Putin asked, then why had those reporters at CBS lost their jobs? Bush was openmouthed. “Putin thought we’d fired Dan Rather,” says a senior Administration official. “It was like something out of 1984.”
And from MSNBC:
When Bush confronted his Russian counterpart about the freedom of the press in Russia, Putin shot back with an attack of his own: “We didn’t criticize you when you fired those reporters at CBS.”
Others have had a few comments.
Kevin Dayaratna has a brief open letter to Mr. Putin (btw, Kevin, what’s up with that squirrel?)
Young Pundit says:
And pass this message to Putin: Our press is free, but isn’t free to slander.
Lori Byrd at PoliPundit has this to say:
the fact that Putin, who has access to CNN and the NYT and every other American and international media outlet, would believe such a thing says a lot about the state of the international media.
Keith Devens is justifiably disturbed.
How could a world leader like Putin be so clueless about how a country he has to deal with works? And not just any country, but the US? What else is Putin wildly misguided on? Very disturbing.
Matt J. Duffy is astounded.
Crazy. That the president of Russia could be that far off base is almost incomprehendable.
UPDATE: The OxBlog has some thoughts on the more substantial portions of Bush’s time with Putin.
Yet whereas Third World dictators have a long history of insisting that their dictatorship is actually a new form of democracy, Putin has abandoned this pledge and acknowledged that democracy has a universal essence. What matters isn’t whether Putin really believes this. What matters is that he told it to the President of the United States, who will be very angry if Putin goes back on his word.
For the reasons given above, I think Bush did a superb job at Bratislava. Now comes the hard part. For the first time, however, I am confident that Bush really understands what is at stake in Moscow.
UPDATE 2: Hey, cool! Andy at SiberianLight threw a compliment my way. Sort of. He includes me in his list of “bloggers who should know better.” And although he’s trying to say I’ve been duped by Time, or that scheming Rove, or somebody, the fact that I “should know better” feels like a compliment … at least looking at life with the glass half full. (Or, as I often think, maybe the glass is simply bigger than it needs to be). Back to the point, check out Andy’s post, where he’s skeptical about this Time story and thinks Putin may in fact be smart enough to know Bush didn’t fire Rather.
http://myopiczeal.blogsome.com/2005/02/28/vladimir-putin-is-rather-confused/trackback/
Some more thoughts on the Bush-Putin summit
Although very few people in the world really know what Presidents George W Bush and Vladimir Putin talked about in their summit, leaks are beginning to trickle out. I found this one from Time Magazine particularly amusing, largely because of
Trackback by SiberianLight — February 28, 2005 @ 11:50 am
Your Ring Looks Good on My Finger!
Talk about a cultural misstep (if that’s what it was). Vladimir Putin apparently pocketed New England Patriot’s owner Robert Kraft’s 2005 Super Bowl ring after he allowed the Russian president to try it on. I spent a month in Russia…
Trackback by Stones Cry Out — June 29, 2005 @ 3:13 pm
www.vanhemmat.net kertoo miten isien ja lasten elämä suomessa raiskataan….
Poliisit / sosiaaliväki / ym. viranomiaset, heidän mielivalta raiskata ero lasten ja isien elämä…
edes PRESIDENTTIMME TARJA HALONEN ei ole kiinnostunut koko asiasta. häntä kiinnostaa kaiken mailman kissan ristiäiset. julkisuudessa kehuu olevansa ihmisläheinen ym..piru naiseksi niinkuin monet muutkin nais päättäjämme….
olen kirjoittanut TARJA HALOSELLE muutamia kirjeitä, mutta hän ei ylpeyttään vaivaudu vastailemaan….
OMA PRESIDENTTIMME sallii sen että SUOMESSA ero lasten ja ero isien elämän saa raiskata…
MUA HÄVETTÄÄ OLLA SUOMALAINEN, meillä on mielivaltaiset päättäjät
jotka valehtelee kansalle. Meillä ei ihmisoikeudet ole kunniassa….
ei meidän oikeuslaitoksissa saa oikeudenmukaista OIKEUTTA ?
PERESIDENTTIMME on vain tyhjäntoimittaja joka pätee itseänsä kaiken mailman kissanristiäisissä, hän ei välitä todellisista ongelmista. ongelmista jotka kalvaa ja jäytää yhteiskuntaamme sisältä käsin, suomessa on 10.000 tuhansia katkeria lapsia ja isä päättäjiämme kohtaan…….
T:Ari www.vanhemmat.net / www.vanhemmat.com
Comment by Ari Savolainen — July 28, 2005 @ 8:06 am
testcomment712
Comment by testanchor745 — October 15, 2005 @ 7:13 pm
testcomment266
Comment by testanchor726 — November 8, 2005 @ 5:30 pm
( Finland Tarja Halonen ei välitä ! )
Kenen etua lastensuojelu ja oikeusjärjestelmä ajavat?
Nykyinen lastenhuollon toiminta ja oikeudellinen järjestelmä rakentuu ajatukselle, että avioeron jälkeen lapset tarvitsevat vain toista vanhempaa eli yli yli 90% tapauksissa äitiä.
Mikäli äiti osaa käyttää taitavasti nykyistä lastensuojelua ja oikeusjärjestelmää, isä saa olla onnellinen edes tavatessaan lapsiaan. Tähän näytöksi riittävät äidin vihjailut väkivaltaisuudesta tai sen uhasta. Äidin totuus näyttää olevan viranomaisille riittävä todiste perheen tilanteesta. Puheilla väkivallasta äiti saa ”uhrin” aseman ja isä leimataan loppuelämäksi väkivaltaiseksi. Lapsille lastensuojelun toimet ovat vahva viesti siitä, että isä on paha ja äiti on hyvä. Lapsia ei edes kuulla, jos he ovat alle 12-vuotiaita.
Mikäli asiat etenevät ilman lastensuojelun puuttumista niin lasten tilanne ei ole kovin paljoa parempi. Lainsäädännön ja järjestelmän selkeä viesti lapsille on, että isää ei eron jälkeen tarvita arjessa. Isän tehtävä on maksaa elatusmaksut ja jos hyvin käydä tapaamisissa isän luona joka toinen viikonloppu. Lapsille annetaan näin selkeä viesti siitä, että isä ei ole osallinen lasten arjessa. Samaa ajatusta näyttää tukevan myös koulu, sillä yhteishuollosta huolimatta isää ei yleensä edes kutsuta lasten arviointikeskusteluihin.
Avioerolasten tilanne näyttääkin olevan täysin äidin hyvän- tai pahantahtoisuuden varassa. Lainsäädäntö ja viranomaisten toiminta eivät ainakaan lasten oikeuksia takaa. ( Marjo Naapi Espoon käräjäoikeus )
T: www.vanhemmat.com
Comment by Ari Savolainen — December 29, 2005 @ 10:24 am
Finland does not acknowledge the relation between the father and the child
The State of Finland has denied the right to family life of both fathers and their children in those cases they live separately after the family split-up. The public authorities and decision-makers violate the human rights of the citizens every day, all this hidden from the international attention. Also the legal system is corrupted, not even do the police function to guarantee the justice to be done, but instead it serves for the feminist organisations and woman movements in accomplishing male-hostile policies. The ultimate meaning of all of this is to build the country merely for the women and their children. The president of our country, Tarja Halonen, with her decisions blesses the projects of the feminists.
These www.vanhemmat.com pages tell of these breaches against the human rights.
Comment by Ari Savolainen — August 4, 2006 @ 12:28 pm
Финляндия не признает отношения отцов и детей в разведенных семьях
Финнское государство отобрало у детей и отцов из разведенных семей в нашей стране право на семейную жизнь. Власти и властепридержащие ежедневно нарушают права человека перед лицом международной общественности. Также и юстиция нашей страны подвержена коррупции, даже полиция ничего не предпринимает для гарантии защиты прав граждан. Напротив, она помогает реализовать предвзятую политику в вопросах мужей/ отцов, проводящуюся феминистскими организациями и движениями женщин, чье основное значение заключается в том, чтобы сделать наше государство Финляндией для женщин и детей. Тарья Халонен, президент нашей страны, благославляет своими решениями намерения движения наших женщин.
На страницах www.vanhemmat.com Вы можете получить информацию о нарушениях прав человека.
Comment by Ari Savolainen — August 4, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
Finnland erkennt das Vater-Kind Verhältnis einer Scheidungsfamilie nicht an
Der Finnische Staat hat den Kindern und Vätern unseres Landes, die aus Scheidungsfamilien stammen, das Recht auf ein Familienleben entrissen. Die Behörden und Entscheidungsträger brechen tagtäglich versteckt vor der internationalen Öffentlichkeit die Menschenrechte der Staatsbürger. Auch die Justiz unseres Landes ist korrumpiert worden, selbst die Polizei agiert nicht zur Gewährleistung des Rechtsschutzes der Staatsbürger, wohl aber zur Realisierung der voreingenommenen Mann/Vater Politik der Feministinnenorganisationen und Frauenbewegungen, deren substanzielle Bedeutung darin liegt, unseren Staat als Finnland für Frauen und Kinder zu gestalten.Tarja Halonen, die Präsidentin unseres Landes, segnet mit ihren Entscheidungen die Absichten unserer Frauenbewegungen ab.
Auf den Seiten von www.vanhemmat.com wird über diese Menschenrechtsverletzungen berichtet.
Comment by Ari Savolainen — August 4, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
La Finlande ne reconnaît pas le rapport père-enfant en cas de divorce
L’état finlandais a spolié les enfants et les pères de notre pays du droit à une vie de famille après un divorce. Les autorités et les responsables violent chaque jour de manière non avouée aux yeux de l’opinion internationale les droits de l’homme reconnus aux citoyens. La justice de notre pays a été elle aussi corrompue, même la police ne fait rien pour garantir la protection des droits des citoyens mais contribue plutôt à concrétiser la politique de préjugés qui vise l’homme/père, politique défendue par les organisations de féministes et les mouvements féminins dont l’objectif essentiel consiste à faire de notre état une Finlande pour femmes et enfants. Avec ses décisions, la présidente de notre pays, Tarja Halonen, cautionne les intentions de nos mouvements féminins.
Sur le site www.vanhemmat.com vous trouverez un compte rendu sur ces violations des droits de l’homme.
Comment by Ari Savolainen — August 4, 2006 @ 12:31 pm
Elected Judge Under False Pretences
Falsified Information in Application of Newly Appointed Human Rights Judge
State Prosecutor Päivi Hirvelä was elected in June to represent Finland on the bench of the European Court of Human Rights. Already at the nomination stage, experts were astonished due to the fact that her career has never appertained to issues of Human Rights.
In her application, Hirvelä claims to having had nine-years experience as a judge. This is not so. According to her curriculum vitae, Hirvelä has worked as a judge in thirty-two short periods which amount to two years two months and three weeks - only slightly more than the requisite of one year sitting as a judge in order to qualify for title Master of Law.
Hirvelä’s longest working relationship (1990-1996) has been as a public prosecutor for the City of Lahti. From February 1999 Hirvelä worked as State Prosecutor, two years of which she has taken a leave of absence. In the 1980s she was employed as a referendary for Koivula Court of Appeal and worked for various stints for a period of slightly less than eight years.
Hirvelä’s 1997 -published dissertation on the child in the criminal process is her greatest merit. This, her only publication,should have become a docotoral thesis but thus far is incomplete.
Finland presented three candidates from which the Council of Europe chose one. Hirvelä received 78 votes, Supreme Court Judge Gustaf Möller 55 and Åbo Akademi University’s Martin Scheinin 11 votes.
Of those put forward, the candidate with the most extensive experience as a judge was Möller who is our most nationally renowned lawyer????? Professor Scheinin is Finland’s most qualified human rights lawyer i.e. his competence is precisely in the field of the European Court of Human Rights. Compared to Hirvelä, Möller and Scheinin were undoubtably far superior candidates.
In all, 8 lawyers applied for the post of judge at the European Court of Human Rights.
A list of the three proposed candidates was put forward by Irma Ertman – Director General of the Legal Department for the Foreign Ministry, Kirsti Rissanen the Chief of Staff for the Ministry of Justice, Paavo Nikula Chancellor of Justice of the Council of State, Pekka Hallberg the President of the Supreme Administrative Court and Pauliine Koskelo the President of the KKO. The matter was decided by Erkki Tuomioja the Foreign Minister.
There do not seem to be grounds for choosing the above candidates. Folke Sundman, the special advisor to Minister Tuomioja suggested asking Irma Ertman who has not returned my calls.
Mikko Niskasaari
————————————————–
Lisää: http://vanhemmat.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1411
T:Ari www.vanhemmat.com
Comment by Ari Savolainen — December 14, 2006 @ 12:50 pm