The Moscow Show Trials (Khamovniki District Court) - another attempt.

HOWEVER BELATEDLY.

Open Letter to the Moscow Khamovniki District Court:

There must be some discussion on the outcome of the Yukos chief executives’ trial in Moscow that is soon to be decided, especially since it affects so many of the Khodorkovsky family and friends everywhere, and people like me do not want in the least to override the judicial powers of the Russian state, nor the invisible hand – type commerce that Yukos apparently afforded to its employees and their families, and efforts of that business to change the status quo in the hydrocarbons markets in view of O.P.E.C., and so forth.  What is apparent from reading about these matters, currently being decided in a contest at Khamovnichesky (sp?) / Khamovniki District Court, is that it is clear in a way that the Prosecutor’s office represents one side of the Yeltsin legacy, and the defendant’s apparently another.  People like me know the significance of the Yeltsin years is extremely powerful in its symbolism and subordinates that of the October revolution of 1917 and its aftermath in many ways, though the actual observable truth of this is subject to interpretation, and one is not at present in a place to definitively opine on these items.  With respect to this and the hope and uplifting denouement of the Yeltsin years, I refer you to, for example, the autobiographical portrait of George Shultz; or the co – written tome by Bush and Scowcroft in its portrayal of same, or any similar text on the era.  Yeltsin does deserve great credit, and enshrinement, for his economic reforms and this will become apparent more and more as the years pass.  Also, one can not question, in any way whatsoever the Kremlin’s power to adjudicate, without competitive dramatics, matters such as those being decided in the Yukos executives’ case.

It is possible that if Mikhail Khodorkovsky can be accused of anything, it is for not remembering his upbringing under the Yeltsin regime.  Most Russians can be said to be embittered, or at least not so invigorated by the memory of this time in their history, though there are cogent and complex reasons why Boris Yeltsin as head of state made choices and promoted economic and commercial policies that were intended to benefit everyone; every Russian person.  This should not be forgotten in these court proceedings, neither by the prosecutor, nor by the defendants and their attorney(s.)  People like me who understand a little about business know the Yukos business affairs were conducted by executives, well meaning, and very well – advised, and they performed their duties to stakeholders in excellent fashion, probably even with respect to taxation compliance and other regulatory measures – though that might not be the determination of the courts.  

In my reading about this case, it is important to understand the successes of many businesses are a mystery to most people, and that of Yukos was no exception to this axiom.  The success and overall assurances provided by government regulators and how they facilitate a healthy commercial environment is also something few people understand, either.  With this in mind, and as the judicial opinions are expressed in the outcome of the statutory charges currently being tried, and where the laws are clear and well – defined, and where this adjudication does have application to Russian society as a whole, including the ‘perspective of the world’ to paraphrase the great sociologist Fernand Braudel, the direction Russian commerce will take for the future, and the status of the defendants in this case as prophets (who will be regarded as real or false, depending on who’s whom, and what’s what) and the power of the legacy of previous times in the history of your country and its meaning at present and obvious present legal and other conditioning, and popular acclaim of these juridical matters in your capitol; the responsibilities of the parties to this trial are significant and quite serious.  These and other legal and economic processes and principles will be changed and otherwise affected by this judicial turning point.  It is important that you know outsiders to Russia understand this.  

While Mr. Khodorkovsky can be accused of forgetting his upbringing, the parties represented by the prosecution against him can in parallel be admonished for bringing a halt to a very large and constructive business concern in Russia, as illustrated in press reports and other open sources, that provided and promised a decent living and hope for a bright future for many Yukos employees, their families and considerable value, monetary and organisational, bestowed upon Russian society as the result of the innovations and initiatives of the defendants.  It is entirely possible, and given my own impression of the way in which market economics is interpreted and practiced in Russia, the country’s chief administrators, at the time Yukos activities were suspended or abrogated, did not themselves understand precisely the value of what good Yukos meant to many people, and the mysteries of its successes.  It is perhaps in the remnants of dialectic reasoning that remain in the consciousness of many people in your country that did call for an investigation of the way things happened or were “done,” and then further dicing up of what was found that makes one possible outcome of these proceedings to be so unpalatable.  What has apparently happened is the focus of the trial has not been on the business for lack of understanding of those operations, but on the defendants only.  In my studies at university I have often encountered insoluble problems, of ethics, for example, and could not revert to a solution which muddied the waters further as there are even natural rules and guidelines against this.  The prosecution in this case has apparently chosen to delve into and question matters of private business, the methods of which were in exegesis at the time of Yukos, and that have been rendered incomprehensible to observers and jurists alike with the efforts to dissect them at trial.  Both the jurists and attorneys need to comprehend what the legacy of Boris Yeltsin represents to those outside your country, and what great values and integrity he instituted in his time, in effort and in deed; at least in what concerns his own administrative efforts.  That is what really is being contested here, and this is an interpretation, and it is a political / administrative view.  No one during the time of the 1990’s to today, a great time of business innovation and invention everywhere, and especially so in Russia, can be blamed for being ambitious and, again, inventive as the Yukos executives had been.  Any decision of the courts that finally decides this case should account or compensate for this, and that Russian society has run through a crucible of economic events need not be on the heads of those Yukos people who apparently and sincerely wished for the better of the Russian economy and country.  Good day.

Sincerely,

THS

Another, belated review of "America and the World," by ...

…  Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft:

This political book, written with David Ignatius examines current affairs and gives a new detailed synopsis of the role of the U.S. in the world, primarily from the time of the Marshall Plan through the Cold War and related nuclear threats, up to the fall of the former soviet union and then through 9 / 11 and beyond.  The text presents the idea that modern life, especially that in western society is in a new form of complexity not even seen since the fully bureaucratic days of Byzantium, for example.  The book begins with its proposals about historical events and their significance to us at this point (now 2008,) and then moves on to examine various questions, such as the Israelis and Palestinians and their state of affairs vis – a – vis the prosecution of the Iraq war.  With respect to Israel, there are great influences calling for a resolution of the conflict with the Palestinians, even at great sacrifice to the Jews, and this is in part what here is interpreted more and more as a ‘status quo’ to begin resolving this and other Middle East issues.  In fact, to abandon the ideals of an Israeli homeland at this point in time would be to equally abandon important U.S. state policies and roles in associations like the G – 20, N.A.T.O., our positions on nuclear non – proliferation and Eastern Europe, in favour of the polity of states like Iran who essentially exploit anti – Israeli groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.  Some of the text is dedicated to illustrating the last part of the Bush Administration and efforts to resolve the conflicts of Hamas, Beirut, and the role of Syria against the Jews, though this effort was shown as, and in fact was not overridingly successful.

The Taliban are perceived in the theme of this examination of historical events through Brzezinski and Scowcroft as a significant threat to U.S. national security, and as the memorable opponents of the soviets in Afghanistan as well.  One is also reminded the Pakistanis and the Taliban were trained by western military people, again against the soviets and the situation as it is today with the Taliban is extremely rancorous with respect to western governments.  

With respect to economics, though mostly politics in the Far East, the authors illustrate principally the rising power, economic and political, financial and so on, of the P.R.C. in terms of the enlightened self – interest not only of its Asian neighbors, but of western officialdom as well.  The rivalry between the P.R.C. and its Asian contemporaries with the west is nonetheless portrayed as ruthless in economic terms.  The issues of Tibet and T’ai wan, and South Korea are easily interpreted as very tense situations with P.R.C., a communist – party based government still dealing with the legacy of T’ian An Men and Deng Xiao Ping; and the recognitions of the legitimacy of smaller Asian associations such as A.S.E.A.N.  Special mention is made of North Korea and the need for its own adherence to nuclear anti – proliferation rules and other regional security issues including the naval incidents of late.  

Special mention is also made in large part of Russia and its current leadership after the very significant Gorbachev and Yeltsin years:  Apart from the conundrum surrounding the mutual political and administrative status of Dmitri Medvedev and Vladimir Putin, there seem to be four major issues with Russia, and all are unsolvable:  Nuclear non – proliferation, N.A.T.O. and the former soviet and COMECON (and Warsaw Pact) states, the vagaries of the petrol business, and relations with P.R.C.  With respect to Eastern Europe, still, Western Europe is illustrated as at times a fitful ally and then again as a close political and administrative partner that is attempting on the state level to rise above issues of nationalism in its institutions.  It is here where the authors bring in their partitioned time – lines on American politics and the world, dating back to the age of John Quincy Adams, then forward to the Wilson presidency, and then post – 9 / 11 events.  Brzezinski notes at this point the older European community was much more cohesive on a regional level given the two devastating world wars and the Cold War during the 20^th century, and needs at present better political coordination.  With respect to World Wars I and II, N.A.T.O. is still an issue unto itself that affects the sovereignty of most Europeans, regardless of nationality or where they reside in the region.

To begin the conclusion of the text, the authors enter into a discussion about the importance of human dignity and human rights, and its influence on their ideas about doctrinaire enlightened or “guileful” realism in affairs.  There is also some discussion of a new world order in which cultural identities have primacy, hearkening to the world of 20^th century Wilsonian political ideas.  The new administration in Washington, D.C., while it promised a number of important things, especially about changes in government, is seen currently as bogged down in its own efforts, and with respect to foreign policy there has been progress and reform in the integration of departments and agencies as far as communications and functioning are concerned.  

From the 1987 New York Times ...

Also from The Cato Institute.

Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty - Litvinenko intrigues...

http://www.rferl.org/

New evidence about the Litvinenko [sic] intrigues in the U.K. have to do with state sanctioning of his apparent poisoning.  The state official who gave an evidential response to questions about Mr. Litvinenko's fate indicated the documentary evidence tracing the material that poisoned him was a fabrication.  That any such evidence has appeared in public is a provocation to anyone who is a party to this set of events, including the general public that must make up its mind as to the authenticity of representations and counter - allegations.  Mr. Litvinenko needs to have lived a long time, and he and people like him pre - deceased their lifespan due to nefarious and unthinkable events.  This is the true provocation and crime in this matter, regardless of the origin of circumstances and events leading to his death.  The security services' reputation in Russia is being called to task by journalists and other public personalities, and needs to become more forceful and proactive in its participation in related investigative affairs.

FW: Yahoo! News Story - Tim Kawakami: Troy Smith has earned QB role with 49ers - Yahoo! News

Tim Kawakami: Troy Smith has earned QB role with 49ers - Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_localsfo/20101115/ts_yblog_localsfo/49ers-game
-changer-troy-smith-does-what-alex-smith-never-did
============================================================
Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/

Either, or.

Tyranny and “anti –“ tyranny.

In the story of the Michael Khodorkovsky trial, and that of Platon Lebedev, it is important given Mr. Khodorkovsky’s talk at Khamovnichesky Court, Moscow; on November 2, 2010, that ‘in Russia’ the goals of the new generation of business people who have built up the country again are not necessarily congruent with those of the centrist and now dominant officials in the realm.  The business people who ran Yukos and its related businesses, and they made a tidy sum at it, worked privately to promote economic activities and the development of that society, especially in the Far East.  The disagreement between the judiciary and Mr. Khodorkovsky with Mr. Lebedev is the state considered much of what Mr. Khodorkovsky was doing to be its business, including the spending of petro – currency it intended to use in the treasury, but that was going to build up one or another region in the country.  

Mr. Khodorkovsky is apparently accused of manipulating people, money and the system, all of which were in flux in Russia during the time of Yukos, and developing his own economic and political fiefdom.  That some good came of the economic and oil booms in Russia is inarguable, and one cannot argue as to the benefits of the ends.  Mr. Khodorkovsky is dealing singly with issues that befall developing sectors in developing economies everywhere:  Growth can be unmanageable, and while Mr. Khodorkovsky was an excellent boss in view of this, the Russian government is arguing he clearly was not.  The trial itself has been, from what I have followed, instance after instance of finger – pointing and name calling, and no one has been able to speak freely about what the operations of the business in this ‘anti – trust’ case were really like, or other pertinent issues.  The court sessions become a profile and precedent of poor interpretation of facts on the one hand and legalistic and oppressive regulation on the other, both parties suffering this and other difficulties in a problem circumstance for everyone. 

In his speech in this court case on November 2, the defendant used the past imperfect tense many times.  It is important to understand this as an appeal to the court to apply the same standard of justice to the operations of the state in this process, in its inventories, checklists, and internal debates, etc., that it has applied to statutes applied against Mr. Khodorkovsky and Mr. Lebedev in penalty or penalties against them and any other accused.  The Russian system of justice, probably with its tendency to “nod” to the prosecuting attorney and the judge in fierce enforcement of many statutes, might entirely not have heard this plaintive appeal.  That this is the tradition is highly unfortunate, and one this case challenges the system to begin to reverse.  This is perhaps why the defendants have attempted to highlight the historical context of the trial.  It is unfortunate this tradition dates to the Okrana (sp?) and the courts of pre – revolutionary times, up through Beria and so forth, and why many Russians in this case themselves have cause, especially in view of a prosecutorial decision in this case, to again view their patrimony as unfortunate, and a gain for the state at the expense of, again, common people or those who represented them or stood in their shoes to help their cause.  

In Retrospect, by Robert S. McNamara - a belated review.

By proxy:  Occasionally, books get another surge or popularity apart from the first printing and go to a second edition.  This is a book that easily deserves a second printing, if indeed it has not had one yet:  The reasons are clear, and one obvious one is the U.S. government, when McNamara was secretary of defense leading up to the escalated military expeditions to southeast Asia, did rely on a kind of war of words and of numbers against the Viet Cong and what remained of the Viet Minh from colonial times.  The world of computerized strategy had been introduced from business into the way government worked and the wars we fought.  Everyone, including the French, probably, was using some sort of computer to study and determine everything from interpersonal to regional and global conflicts.  That is not a mystery today.

 

What does remain a mystery for most Americans concerned by developments in South and southeast Asia during the 1950’s through the end of the Viet conflict in the early 1970’s is how could we have devastated the communist and socialist enemy so thoroughly and then been declared “losers,” and resoundingly.  Some of this in one way or another has to do with the fact that many and much of the fighting in the Viet war was South of a demilitarized zone (17^th parallel above Hue City) where Viet Cong incursions made more and more headway as time went on.  Bombing Hanoi might have been effective, but it was ignored by an American public focusing on the pitched armed struggle in the South that was portrayed in everyone’s living room at night.  There were also the American press, various popular socialist revolutionaries and their student followers everywhere, who gave in psychologically to flourishing, but probably fairly isolated, if not very misinterpreted and overstated, aspects of the Viet conflict.  The flip side of giving into the image of the Viet Cong and its chief general Vo Nguyen Giap (which is what the well – known flower power movement did and the press appears to have done) as a superior fighting force was the belief that southeast Asia was in a series of “domino” states that would cascade into communism should Saigon City fall to the North.  There is also the serious criticism of the U.S. that Westmoreland, Taylor, and McNamara were at cross – purposes; a hint of this might also have made for poor morale in the field and thus the war unwinnable.  

 

Not only has the “domino” theory been disputed and disproven but the flower power movement has also been declared to have been counterproductive, and even disavowed by some or declared just to have been a mistake of hubris and plain ignorance.  It was morally wrong to try to persuade people that things like the scent of flowers would draw the enemy to a more peaceful demeanor (trees might have been better, but trees take longer to grow and require more husbandry than flowers.)  That the domino effect would draw the world into a communist abyss has been equally disparaged in later years.  The domino effect was the domestic solution to the flower children and its cautionary advocates have survived the Viet and Cold War and other conflicts whereas most ‘flower children’ everywhere are at most tepid on either front.  With respect to the current military conflicts and the overall effects of the conflicts in southeast Asia, one can draw actually glean very few similarities in how they are / were resolved:  The Viet conflict, and its ancillary actions were resolved in a political environment designed to disparage a popularly elected president, and were resolved in reaction to an official call for drafting more people into the military when an elite and volunteer armed forces were on the immediate administrative horizon.  None of those circumstances prevails today, for the most part, and history itself will really judge for better or worse the U.S. reaction to global terrorist threats, as recognised first by the war on terror under Clinton and then under Bush and Obama.

 

 

Another "personality" to learn about and follow (at your own risk.)

 Yesterday, I heard a very interesting interview that originally took place in 2009 in a theatre in New York with John Stewart (The Daily Show:)  This person, who espouses every liberal view and who sees the humour in that, has an excellent television show that is worth watching if you are the same type of person he is – Mr. Stewart is probably a really nice guy to have a beer with, and it shows in his humour, in his style of speech, and everyone should try to catch his show more often before tuning into Leno or Letterman.  He has from what I can see very funny and interesting guests, and his “reporting” television style with Colbert and the other members of the team is nice to watch.  Steven Colbert is actually serious about what he does, and this is what makes the show so off the wall sometimes.  That’s the way it seems, any way.  The entire crew on this show is a bunch of nice guys from New York, and probably in several other cities at one time or another, and they’re nice to watch.  This is not a review as I have not watched televsion consistently since I was a child, and do not even know media trends, and do know in any event that if you enjoy slapstick for young people, this is what it is.  Everyone knows you take your chances with comedy shows, and for some people John Stewart’s and Steven Colbert’s might be a good match for you.  Happy television – watching, and don’t forget the radio, too.

How to agree with 'liberal' economy and its proponents.

Robert Reich this week (Work of Nations, et seq.) and just within the last couple of days has mentioned a thing or two in response to an effort to increase the retirement age in France and the suggestion by some the same thing needs to happen in the U.S.  In a classic example of an economist who thinks of everything, he recommended the income ceiling on the FICA and OASDI should be raised.  Instead of the cynical view that government coffers are never full and always need more revenues to support an increasingly aging population, especially that taking advantage of social security benefits, and thereby calling for the hike in the official Social Security retirement age; Mr. Reich proposes another revenue raiser that would further stratify income by, again, taxing the rich – just make the system more progressive and continue taxing the income and wealth made through wages, for example.

Raising the Social Security tax ceiling is a nice idea, but in fact will raise so little revenue due to the greater and greater minority of highly – compensated (HCI) wage earners having less and less contribution to the tax base and thereby, again, to the overall revenues to the Treasury.  A better analysis and recommendation might be, and people like me do not have all the details, to do what policymakers did for a while in Ireland:  lower the overall business tax baseline and by this stratify the tax revenues of the country.  In Ireland, at least for a while, this resulted in greater tax revenue collections and state and industry and commerce remained happy with the results.  The situation in France is difficult because the electorate is very opinionated against the bureaucracy and subject to ownership of its position as victim thereof:  People like me understand the increase in the retirement age in France as a sign the economy is getting better, at least somewhat lately, and that fortunately people are living longer.  This given even the long and lazy work days sometimes the French have, not to mention the partying and wine – drinking that souses everyone when there’s a good harvest or good holidays, of which there are quite a few.

More Taliban Influences. "Just what could it be this time?"

Country of Afghanistan (2010)  L.A. Times article.