What's in the News? 2.0

[Beorning]

This isnt “evil”. Many in Donbass, want being part of Russia, not Ukraine. This, its very complacated, for many years. “Evil Russia only wants invading west Ukraine” though isnt correct, even if US and Europe news likes for telling this story.

Whether people in Donbass want to be part of Russia is irrelevant. You can't just go invading other countries because you have a minority there. It's against a little thing called "international law"...

BTW. If you think that Russia is supporting the Donbas rebels because Putin believes in people's right to be part of a country of their choosing, then why do you think Putin crushed Chechnya's independence? Chechen people didn't want to be part of Russia, you'd think Putin would let them go, if he's in favour of self-determination...

BTW 2. Did you ever consider why Crimea and Donbas became such an issue out of a sudden... and immediately after the Maidan revolution?

The thing is... it's not about the wishes of people from Donbas and Crimea. This whole thing is about Putin hitting back against a neighbouring country that, suddenly, decided to stop being Russia's client state. This conflict is about Putin trying to push Ukraine back to submission, not about defending any Russian minority.

BTW 3. It's not like the Crimea / Donbas conflict is the only bad thing Putin's Russia has ever done. Russia has been on an imperialist, aggressive course for years. There's a good reason why other countries in Central / Eastern Europe have been wary of Russia for a long time.

[The Lovely Tsaritsa]

This isnt “evil”. Many in Donbass, want being part of Russia, not Ukraine. This, its very complacated, for many years. “Evil Russia only wants invading west Ukraine” though isnt correct, even if US and Europe news likes for telling this story.

I mean writing “east Ukraine”, not west, Im sorry.

[The Lovely Tsaritsa]

Never mind.

[Beorning]

Never mind.

*hugs*

I certainly don't want you to feel bad...

[PeterSaxon]

When talking about Donbas/Crimea it is also important to bring up the Soviet resettlements. A lot of the ethnic Russians that are in these areas today are descendants of Soviet citizens who were placed there by the Central Committee, so there isn't a historical ethnic Russian presence there.

That being said, I think it is important to point out that the borders of Western Europe have been solid since 1945, but that is the longest peace in European history. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, in 1991, the East has been in a state of comparative flux. Russia has every right to assert itself and its interests as the Western Europeans did prior to the war. Like magma cooling, the boarders in the East aren't as solid as ours in the West and foreign interference in armed negotiation may pave the way for greater problems, like they have in the past.

[Fox Lokison]

I have to second the bit about foreign interference - I can't speak for other Western nations, but the US hardly acts for altruistic reasons in these affairs. And looking at the history of US interventions, one hardly has to wonder why any nation wouldn't want us sticking our nose in. As much as I'm certainly not sympathetic to Putin, or Russian state actions, he's got a point about outsiders trying to take advantage of East European instability for their own ends. Not really any one party that comes out of this smelling like roses, tbh - every major power in play seems to have an agenda, and the people themselves aren't getting a voice.

[PeterSaxon]

Thank you, my friend. I'm Canadian, but having come of age since the "war on terror" I'm incredibly skeptical of foreign intervention. It can be hard to watch, but often these types of territorial conflicts need to play themselves out. The ideological war is more humanely fought through other means.

[Beorning]

Okay, no, seriously.

That being said, I think it is important to point out that the borders of Western Europe have been solid since 1945, but that is the longest peace in European history. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, in 1991, the East has been in a state of comparative flux.

No, it was not. There was no war between, say, Latvia and Lithuania. Or Poland and Lithuania (and heck, we do have a solid minority there). If there are conflicts in the area, they go back to Russia.

Russia has every right to assert itself and its interests as the Western Europeans did prior to the war.

No, it doesn't. Not when its "interests" amount to "subjugating countries that used to be part of USSR and the Soviet Bloc", as well as "dismantling European Union so that we can better influences other European countries".

Like magma cooling, the boarders in the East aren't as solid as ours in the West and foreign interference in armed negotiation may pave the way for greater problems, like they have in the past.

Again, the borders in Central / Eastern Europe *are* solid. As for not other countries not getting involved not to cause more problems... uhm, I invite you to read on how WW2 started.

I have to second the bit about foreign interference - I can't speak for other Western nations, but the US hardly acts for altruistic reasons in these affairs. And looking at the history of US interventions, one hardly has to wonder why any nation wouldn't want us sticking our nose in. As much as I'm certainly not sympathetic to Putin, or Russian state actions, he's got a point about outsiders trying to take advantage of East European instability for their own ends. Not really any one party that comes out of this smelling like roses, tbh - every major power in play seems to have an agenda, and the people themselves aren't getting a voice.

Come on, Fox, please stop with this false symmetry. Other Western countries have done their amount of crappy things (especially the States), but none of them is currently a nationalistic dictatorship engaged in deliberate and aggressive empire building (or re-building, in Russia's case)!

Thank you, my friend. I'm Canadian, but having come of age since the "war on terror" I'm incredibly skeptical of foreign intervention. It can be hard to watch, but often these types of territorial conflicts need to play themselves out. The ideological war is more humanely fought through other means.

Once again: Crimea / Donbas is *not* a territorial / ethnic conflict. It's an attempt by Russia to destabilize a country that dared to choose its own path. The whole "we have to defend our people there" is just an excuse - an excuse Russia (and Soviet Union) has used in the past. Just read on how Russia (USSR then) justified helping Hitler dismantle Poland in 1939... and heck, Russia is *still* insisting that this reason was valid and just!

[Haibane]

I think its more the 'clandestine' part that is bad. Mr Putin lies and says he is not helping the rebels, but then secretly sends them weapons and tanks and ammunition.

Absolutely. Its the denial and lying that's the problem, particularly with the sending of the anti-aircraft missile tank that shot down a civil airliner and was then flat out lied about. This is why the west does not trust Putin, because he is an evil liar, he's a far worse threat to the planet that Trump ever was.

Supporting rebels who have a legitimate cause against an oppressive regime is fine, we need fewer oppressive regimes. I don't agree that the Kiev regime is oppressive. Its just that the Donbass Ukrainians are fighting one regime to place themselves (perhaps blindly) under a worse one and Putin is using unacceptable tactics to simply gain more power and influence for himself. He doesn't care about the Donbass Ukrainians, he just wants more or everything.

Also, Novichok. And many state assassinations in Turkey against Chechen rebels in exile. And Crimea. A blatant destabilisation and invasion of an independent sovereign state.

It angers me almost as much that NATO and the UN do nothing about it. If the western powers were more resolute, Putin wouldn't be so successful. Its almost a repeat of the 1930s.

[Fox Lokison]

Come on, Fox, please stop with this false symmetry. Other Western countries have done their amount of crappy things (especially the States), but none of them is currently a nationalistic dictatorship engaged in deliberate and aggressive empire building (or re-building, in Russia's case)!

I didn't say they were, nor did I say the two things were equivalent. What I said was, I do honestly and openly believe my country's interests in Russia and East Europe are not altruistic, not for the benefit of the people there, and not the lofty ideas we tout them as. However, I will disagree on the empire building. America has been trying to build an empire across the world for a very long time, either via force and wars, diplomacy, pressure, or otherwise exerting our influence in the nations of others, so they do what we want. It's not the same kind of empire that Putin seems interested in, no, and that's why I didn't say it was.

My end point is simple. I do not trust my country's motives, and I dont blame Putin for not trusting them either. That said, neither Putin nor our leaders seem to give a whit about the people of East Europe, like I said. Russia seems determined to swallow their nations whole, and America would love to have them in our pocket.

None of that means I think they're the same, acting equivalent, nor that everyone else should sit back and let Russia do what she wants. It's an observation on America's history and policies when interfering in foreign affairs. The track record isn't great, and Putin pointed that out. Doesn't make him a better option.

[Haibane]

It's a cat fight again at No.10 as the disgraced Cummings is rumoured to be the source for Boris Johnson's leaked e-mails with Sir James Dyson.

Looks like Cummings didn't appreciate being kicked out during the winter.

Pathetic, isn't it? Grown men acting like they are still in the playground. If this is true then Cummings is a spiteful little shite.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56863547

[Mechelle]

It's a cat fight again at No.10 as the disgraced Cummings is rumoured to be the source for Boris Johnson's leaked e-mails with Sir James Dyson.

Looks like Cummings didn't appreciate being kicked out during the winter.

Pathetic, isn't it? Grown men acting like they are still in the playground. If this is true then Cummings is a spiteful little shite.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56863547

Yes, Cummings is a spiteful little shite, but so is Johnson who had personally phoned newspaper editors to say that it was Cummings who had leaked those emails. Cummings (who has spent time in Russia, let's not forget, and is not even a Conservative) had previously treated Parliament with utter contempt,  but is now all falling over himself to be helpful and is willing to testify to any Parliamentary committees.

It's hard to track down the cause of this very personal antipathy, but I think much of it is down to the dislike between Johnson's current lover, Carrie Symonds, and Cummings, which led to his sacking. I forget who first called her Carrie Antoinette, but it seems appropriate for this unelected woman who seems to run Downing Street.

The immediate beneficiaries are probably the likes of RIshi Sunak or Michael Gove, other Conservative ministers, who are probably considering redecorating the flat in Downing Street when they take over; the flat which was decorated recently by Johnson, at his own expense, after his possibly illegal attempts to get other people (Conservatiive donors) to pay for it.

This whole government is mired in sleaze and corruption. There are decent people in the Conservative Party, such as ex-Army officer Johnny Mercer, who was recently sacked from the government by text, but they are not in the government,

[Haibane]

US police and public officials donated to Kyle Rittenhouse, data breach reveals

Officers and officials also donated to fundraisers for far-right activists and fellow officers accused of shooting black Americans.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/16/us-police-officers-public-officials-crowdfunding-website-data-breach

[Beorning]

US police and public officials donated to Kyle Rittenhouse, data breach reveals

Officers and officials also donated to fundraisers for far-right activists and fellow officers accused of shooting black Americans.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/16/us-police-officers-public-officials-crowdfunding-website-data-breach

On a related note: I've seen a screenshot from something looking like Chicago PD's Twitter saying "We are all Derek Chauvin". Can anyone confirm that it's a real thing?

And speaking of sickening news:

Trigger warning for sexual abuse

I wish I had an English-language source for this, but I haven't... Still, I'll share, because it's infuriating.

Apparently, Polish state prosecution (currently directly controlled by the PiS government) refused to prosecute a priest who had a years-long relationship with a teen girl. With the relationship having started when the girl was 15. And the prosecution's official justification was that...

... the priest was genuinely in love. And this was a normal relationship between a man and a woman.

Now, the age of consent in Poland *is* 15, true - but the relationship had many other signs of being abusive and manipulative (with the priest being both the girl's confessor and teacher). Heck, it was the girl (now young woman) in question that reported it... And yet, the prosecution states it was all healthy and normal.

And the most sickening thing? In the official justification for closing the investigation the prosecutor included comments about child prostitution. And mentioned that the girl was actually more sexually experienced than the priest...

*goes away to puke*

[ShadowFox89]

It's fake, according to a large number of sources including snopes.

[Annaamarth]

It's fake, according to a large number of sources including snopes.

As seen here.  I just like it when links are there.

Regarding the situation in Poland - I hate that victim-blaming is an international sport.

[Haibane]

US police and public officials donated to Kyle Rittenhouse, data breach reveals

Officers and officials also donated to fundraisers for far-right activists and fellow officers accused of shooting black Americans.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/16/us-police-officers-public-officials-crowdfunding-website-data-breach

One Virginia police officer Lt. William Kelly who held a clerical post in the Norfolk Police Department and was identified as having donated $25 to Kyle Rittenhouse's bail fundraiser and adding right-wing comments to his e-mail has been fired:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/virginia-police-officer-fired-after-donating-kyle-rittenhouse-defense-fund-n1264783

Some good news at least, but its a very thin silver lining.

I find it amusing that people like this who hold public service jobs where such donations to criminal cases are very obviously political acts would do such a stupid thing. There's always a chance you'll be found out and lose your job or have your name made public with consequent problems. Are people idiots? Don't think ahead? Or just don't care? Whatever the reason its shines a light on their unsuitability for a public service post.

[ShadowFox89]

Honestly? Having known a few cops? They think it's their right to do so.

[Haibane]

All the more reason things must change then.

[Annaamarth]

Agreed.

I think a part of the problem is, honestly, a misunderstanding of freedom of speech and what it is - and that you sacrifice some of your freedom of speech when you become a public servant.

Well.  Theoretically, anyway. Spits distastefully

It's right up there with "Twitter censorship" (private platfom), mask requirements in stores (Safety issue and therefore not disability exempted), and the Second Amendment (which is grossly misrepresented most of the time).

Speaking of idiot politicians, did someone already note this?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alaska-airlines-bans-senator-lora-reinbold-mask-rules/

[Oniya]

Speaking of idiot politicians, did someone already note this?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alaska-airlines-bans-senator-lora-reinbold-mask-rules/

Not in this thread, but I posted it in the Coronavirus thread last night at stupid-o'clock.

[Haibane]

mask requirements in stores (Safety issue and therefore not disability exempted

We would have to disagree there. There are people who cannot cover their faces for medical reasons. They need to be legally exempt. The issue is some non-exempt people abuse this "loophole" (quote-unquote) while many people who need to have their faces exposed suffer needless accusation and harassment. Its an issue which is pretty much impossible to address fairly by everyone.

[Saria]

There are people who cannot cover their faces for medical reasons. They need to be legally exempt.

Not in Canada.

In Canada, the law requires reasonable accommodation… which is not the same as an exemption. (This is true for any special need stemming from a protected ground, which includes disability among other things.)

For example: Suppose the rule says everyone who enters a store must wear a mask, but someone has a legitimate medical reason why they can’t wear a mask (let’s ignore the anti-masker idiots for now, and assume the reason really is legit). In that situation, the store is required to accommodate the person somehow… but not necessarily by simply exempting them from the rule. Especially when the rule exists for a very good reason… like, say, preventing people from dying in a pandemic. The standard solution I’ve heard is that the store will not them enter, but they can tell an employee what they want, and the employee will go get it for them while they wait outside. That’s a reasonable accommodation, given the situation.

The reason this solution has become pretty standard is because anti-mask idiots have tried this ploy many, many times across Canada, so stores have had to get wise. They cannot demand that the person provide proof of their medical condition (some anti-mask idiots actually printed up fake “medical exemption” cards), because medical data is private; a store cannot simply ask someone to hand over their private medical data. So they have to assume the medical condition is legit (even when it’s plainly obvious the asshole is just lying). But they can’t simply let random people walk around the store unmasked—they’d be a danger to everybody: the employees, the other customers, and themselves. So… they came up with the “wait outside while I get your shit” protocol.

It hasn’t worked perfectly, because anti-mask idiots are, well, idiots. They can’t accept the reasonable accommodation, because:

• they didn’t need the accommodation in the first place; and
• they never had any intention of being reasonable.

They were already being douchebags about wearing a mask, so they’re not about to accept not being able to go into the store at all, not even if they’re getting someone to do all their shopping for them.

There have been several cases of scuffles in supermarket parking lots, where anti-maskers attacked store employees who were barring them entry (while saying they’d go in and get whatever the customer wanted), and a few prominent anti-maskers were actually arrested.

But anti-mask idiots aside, I think the reasonable accommodation system makes perfect sense. You can’t simply waive the mask rule—not even for people who legitimately can’t wear a mask for medical reasons—because it’s there for a damn good reason. So you have to find a compromise that balances the rights of the individual with the rights, and health, of literally everybody else. And like all compromises, it requires both sides—the store, and the individual with the medical situation—put a little effort into making things work. It’s not a perfect situation, but it’s as fair as you can get in an imperfect world.

(Note that “reasonable accommodation” only applies where the rule in question has a legitimately justified purpose, and simply ignoring it would be dangerous. It does not apply to any random “rule” or situation. For example, reasonable accommodation doesn’t apply if the store doesn’t have a wheelchair ramp; you can’t say the store and the customer have to compromise on access, and both have to put effort into making it work. No, in that situation, the customer doesn’t need to do anything; store needs to get a fucking wheelchair ramp (or provide some other means of access).)

[Iniquitous]

We would have to disagree there. There are people who cannot cover their faces for medical reasons. They need to be legally exempt. The issue is some non-exempt people abuse this "loophole" (quote-unquote) while many people who need to have their faces exposed suffer needless accusation and harassment. Its an issue which is pretty much impossible to address fairly by everyone.

Bold part done by me. I work in a correctional facility.  We do not make exemptions on face masks. Period.  There is no medical reason one cannot be worn per the doctor of the facility.  My mother has COPD - she wears a mask.  My aunt is severe asthmatic - she wears a mask.  If it is a psychological issue then the person needs to stay out of public places or figure out how to wear a mask.

I have little to no sympathy for people claiming they cannot wear a mask - especially since I got covid and in turn gave it to my elderly parents that I taje care of.

[Fox Lokison]

Not in Canada.

In Canada, the law requires reasonable accommodation… which is not the same as an exemption. (This is true for any special need stemming from a protected ground, which includes disability among other things.)

For example: Suppose the rule says everyone who enters a store must wear a mask, but someone has a legitimate medical reason why they can’t wear a mask (let’s ignore the anti-masker idiots for now, and assume the reason really is legit). In that situation, the store is required to accommodate the person somehow… but not necessarily by simply exempting them from the rule. Especially when the rule exists for a very good reason… like, say, preventing people from dying in a pandemic. The standard solution I’ve heard is that the store will not them enter, but they can tell an employee what they want, and the employee will go get it for them while they wait outside. That’s a reasonable accommodation, given the situation.

This is correct in America as well. Exemptions, especially those that endanger public safety, are not your right as a disabled person. Speaking as one. They can be offered, by choice, but that is entirely up to the establishment. As Saria said, they are required to provide me with accommodations. For example, if their building does not have wide enough stairs for me to use, or a proper handrail, a reasonable offer would to be allowed access to a staff elevator or such.

And look, not to be a royal asshole here, but I have no pity for these folks throwing tantrums that their little medical exemption ploy doesn't work. These are the same people who think welfare is a scam, that I'm stealing their taxes, who use handicap spots because they feel entitled, and who try to bend every single thing in their favor. Disabled people have had to fight our entire lives just to survive and exist within our countries. We have to go through long, agonizing processes just to get income and healthcare. Most of us don't succeed. Every little thing that we have earned - such as the ADA - has been fought for and even cost lives, and it's still not fully honored. We still have to battle businesses and facilities to provide us the accommodations we are entitled to under law, so we can engage in public life. There is constant harassment, and stigma, and honestly it's a really difficult life.

So no, I have no patience for a bunch of people who decided they didn't wanna follow the rules, and want to take advantage of our aid to do that. And I really don't like that more of them are being heard, than disabled people are. Because in case we all haven't noticed, these crybabies get on the news and part oceans so they don't have to do their civic duty and give a shit about the health of others. Meanwhile a disabled person who just wants a fucking ramp over a curb to get their groceries isn't getting the 5 o clock news, plastered everyone, painted as a crisis. They aren't treated as victims or political martyrs - we're treated as whiners.

We have long since established in many nations, that public safety cannot be threatened for the sake of a few. For the longest time, those few have often included disabled people on the chopping block. We have been one of those groups cast as "acceptable sacrifices". So pardon me if I don't feel for these professional victims - and let's be frank, the majority of these "medical exemption" whiners in America are that. Trying to twist the law in their favor so they can do what they want, and not give a fuck about others. If you can't wear a mask, you ask for an accommodation. And if you're not given one? I'm inclined to say "welcome to our life, stop trying to co-opt it" but I'll be generous and say the truth - disabled people are fighting for the rights of EVERYONE to have reasonable, accessible accommodations so they do not have to endanger their personal health to go about their daily life. We'll fight for those who genuinely cannot wear masks, because they too fall under the same group as us.

If you have a legitimate reason you cannot wear a mask - and those are VERY few and far between - then you are not entitled to walk into a busy store in the middle of a global pandemic without wearing one. And if the existing accommodations are not enough to help those people who DO need to go maskless? Then let's put that on the 5 o clock news, and not yet another grown adult throwing a tantrum over being "forced" by the government to be a decent human being.

It's just impossible to talk about legit medical exemptions when the people that are the face of 'medical exemption' are those people.