Mediaboss Marketing

Norton Lovolds recent letter to the editor should be eye-opening to those of you that agree with him. He shows how brainwashed he, himself, is by the extremist leftwing news media which includes CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR government broadcasting. And others

He believes FOX is a brainwashing arm of the right. Does any of the leftist media amount to brainwashing or propaganda? Where is the truth to be found?

In my experience (at least as experienced as Lovold due to his timeframe references), I have found that most fear and distrust is based on the left. Climate change crisis has been so for over 50 years of my life, and Earth-ending dates by these leftist extremists keep moving outward as to where we will all be dead long before the Earth has been destroyed by us. But we have to follow them today or perish. There's no real science involved, only predictions based on non-science proven conditions. How else do these predictions never, ever come close to reality?

Government education should not be based on right or left propaganda but on real things, like being able to read, write and know some mathematics. Real history the good, the bad and the ugly - should be taught, not propaganda written by people who have a grudge to grind or a narrative to perpetuate.

Slavery has been a worldwide condition primarily driven by totalitarian governments Socialist, Communist, Islamist.

Steve Johnson is a resident of Fargo.

This letter does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Forum's editorial board nor Forum ownership.

Link:
Letter: It's the liberals who've been brainwashed - INFORUM

The reigning sentiment in this moment of the coronation is the absurdity of Australians being invited to chant and pledge allegiance to the King and his heirs and successors. The British do pomp and ceremony very well and long may that continue for Australians to enjoy, ignore or have distant interest in as they wish but the time for this country to have its own head of state cannot come soon enough.

That view is not widely shared within our political opposition, which has become embedded in an anachronistic world, such that the phrase modern Liberal Party is an oxymoron. Not just with respect to the partys stance on women, inclusion and diversity, and climate change action but in its relationship with the business world. Their claim to being the party for business has become less and less credible, as their political process has skewed further from democratic to a coronational approach.

When Georgina Downer lost the Mayo byelection in 2018, her father and former Liberal leader Alexander Downer declared, in an embarrassing spectacle, Our family have been nation-builders nation-building is in our blood. He expressed confidence that she would win in the 2019 election, as if this proclamation, dynastic in tone, would garner votes and support. Georgina Downer lost not just once but twice to the indefatigable Rebekha Sharkie, who was also once, like me, a Liberal.

And like the Downers, Liberals who lost to the teal independents behaved in the lead-up to and throughout the election campaign as if they would be re-elected by divine right. During and after the campaign, Alexander Downer had much to say and in one opinion piece which read more like a pronouncement from on high complained that these so-called independent candidates could rob the incumbents of their opportunity to become truly great men.

But since were talking about nation-building Danny Gilbert, who is co-chair of the Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition, director of the Business Council of Australia and managing partner of the law firm Gilbert + Tobin, recently and correctly said: This is a nation-building moment. Corporates are corporate citizens, and they are part of the social economic and political infrastructure of this country. They employ a lot of people and have an interest in building astrong, healthy, inclusive democracy.

Gilbert of course was talking about the Voice a proposal that business leaders from the NAB, ANZ, Commonwealth Bank, along with BHP, Rio Tinto, Wesfarmers, Woolworths and Coles support, as prominent corporate advocates of the Yes campaign for the referendum. So are many of Australias largest law firms, including Allens, Baker McKenzie, Ashurst, Herbert Smith Freehills and King & Wood Mallesons, to name a few.

Most of them are no doubt frustrated by the Coalitions No approach to everything, from their refusal to negotiate on the safeguard mechanism to the Voice.

Just as the Liberals self-description as a broad church is now patently wrong, given the dominance of the regressive right wing, so is its self-description as the party for business. Since the coup against former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull a highly successful businessman outside politics the partys move to the right has coincided with a stark downward slide in its relationship with the business community, not least because the bulk of the remaining Liberal members of parliament, staffers and ministers are political clones of Turnbulls successors in the Liberal leadership. The careers of both Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton have been enmeshed in politics outside the real world for most of their adult lives. One of the standout demonstrations of their disdain and disrespect for business leaders was when Morrison bellowed on the floor of parliament, with reference to the highly respected former Australia Post chief executive Christine Holgate, She. Can. Go.

Both Liberal leaders, and most of their cabinet ministers, have trotted out talking points that are now meaningless variations of we understand business. They say this in practised tones that land like clichs to help them meet their goal for political donations. They are not seeking to understand, learn and grow with the business community with a view to establishing good policy for a strong economy.

When I had a seat in the Liberal party room, Id regularly feign tolerance over the ignorance of some of the so-called political leaders of Dutton and Morrisons ilk. Whether the debate was about climate change, marriage equality or business and the economy, I would often reflect that many of them wouldnt survive two weeks in a good corporation.

Too often when the corporate sector has tried to point the way to a more successful future for business and for the Liberal Party itself it has been condescended to by Dutton in the most cringeworthy way.

In 2017 there was a massive, unified push in favour of marriage equality from corporate bosses across industries and major sporting bodies. Senior executives from the likes of Apple, AGL, Commonwealth Bank, ANZ, Westpac, Qantas, Telstra and Wesfarmers were all supporters. Peter Dutton, then a government minister, admonished and patronised them, saying those in the CEO world who are on big dollars need to concentrate on their business and frankly on the improvement in the economy. As for social issues, they were to leave that up to the politicians, to the leaders, to talkback hosts like yourself, to normal people who can have those discussions without the millions of dollars being thrown behind campaigns, he told a Radio 2GB presenter.

Yes, he actually included the talkback hosts. Unsurprisingly, business leaders from corporations, law firms and other organisations around the country responded that marriage equality was not only good for their employees and customers but also for Australias global reputation. These experienced, successful business leaders know that companies that embrace diversity perform better than those that dont.

It was eminently predictable that disunity and division within the Liberal Party would get worse upon Dutton declaring support for the No campaign on the Voice. Though the lead-up was frustrating enough, with the constant demands for more detail which already existed on the internet and insistence on seeing the legal advice. The solicitor-generals advice could not have been clearer: the Voice enhances the system of government, is advisory only, has no power of veto, doesnt impede executive government, would not clog up the courts and would not slow down government processes. In a predictably tiresome response, Duttons ministers called for the earlier legal advice to cabinet, ignorant or unaware of the cabinet in confidence protocol.

Since then, Dutton, his deputy Sussan Ley and Treasury spokesman Angus Taylor have embarked on a listening tour around the country. This could have been described as their magical mystery tour, because Dutton and his ministers seem mystified by what theyre hearing from the business community and no doubt the feeling is mutual. After their travels, the best they could come up with was to declare business leaders were being played for fools and to reprimand them for advocating publicly on social causes. Dutton offensively rationalised that corporations are signing up for social causes to satisfy some craving popularity on social media.

Moreover, in relation to energy policy, Dutton said business leaders should be staring down the extremes of ESG, or environmental, social and governance. What does that even mean? Perhaps Dutton and Co need to have it explained to them that stances among corporations on issues such as climate change, corporate governance, integrity and social issues are not only critical in many contexts they are mandatory, as part of a companys risk management and duty to shareholders.

The Liberal Partys blinkered vision and ability to dismiss the strategic and business experience of leaders around the country let alone the legal advice from the solicitor-general is appalling. Their inability to say or do anything meaningful within the body politic is based on their striving for power and control, for the sake of power and control. The Liberal Party has no grasp of how good leaders make their decisions and it cannot read the boardrooms across Australia. This is not about the body politic against the body corporate its just what the Liberal Party has become.

As for nation-building, the Voice wouldnt be the first such opportunity Dutton has missed. He sought to justify his appalling walkout on then prime minister Kevin Rudds apology to the Stolen Generations from his perspective as a young policeman in Queensland seeking practical solutions for Indigenous people. I failed to grasp the symbolic significance, he said.

Yes to the Voice referendum will be more than symbolic it will be a foundational moment for our country, as will the Yes, in a referendum further in the future, to Australia becoming a republic. The right-wing conservatives of the Liberal Party are typically staunch monarchists and theyll be celebrating the coronation chanting and proclaiming at related events. But the Liberal Party has demonstrated its members and MPs are not nation-builders. The party is not modern, not inclusive and certainly no longer the party for business. The party is over.

This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper onMay 6, 2023 as "No business in the party".

For almost a decade, The Saturday Paper has published Australias leading writers and thinkers.We have pursued stories that are ignored elsewhere, covering them with sensitivity and depth.We have done this on refugee policy, on government integrity, on robo-debt, on aged care,on climate change, on the pandemic.

All our journalism is fiercely independent. It relies on the support of readers.By subscribing to The Saturday Paper, you are ensuring that we can continue to produce essential,issue-defining coverage, to dig out stories that take time, to doggedly hold to accountpoliticians and the political class.

There are very few titles that have the freedom and the space to produce journalism like this.In a country with a concentration of media ownership unlike anything else in the world,it is vitally important. Your subscription helps make it possible.

Read the original post:
The Liberal Party is failing business - The Saturday Paper

A horrific recent trend of mass shootings has severely polarized Americans on the topic of firearms. At the center of this heated controversy lies the policy question of gun control: Should the government impose restrictions on firearms and other dangerous weapons to protect the public?

Conservatives turn to the Second Amendment to argue that the Constitution's right to bear arms is sacred; liberals will argue that conservatives are misinterpreting the Second Amendment and that gun control policies have been proven to save lives. The conservative rejoinder to gun control, of course, is that good people with guns can protect the public from bad people with guns.

Yet several recent studies have revealed the exact opposite: In regions dominated by pro-gun politicians, the number of gun deaths is far higher than in areas controlled by pro-gun control politicians.

The pattern of blue regions being safer than red regions held even when analyzing the two most common specific types of gun-related deaths, suicides and homicides.

Foremost among these studies is one produced by the Nationhood Lab at Salve Regina University's Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy, and first reported on inPolitico. After analyzing gun violence statistics from America's different cultural regions from 2010 to 2020, the authors found that the areas with the highest rates of gun deaths were consistently those run by Republican politicians. Compared to a national rate of 11.4 gun deaths per 100,000 people, the Deep South had 15.6, Greater Appalachia had 13.5, New France (including the heavily French areas of Louisiana) had 19.8 and the Spanish Caribbean (the heavily Latino areas of Florida) had 11.6. Similarly the First Nation (referring to the heavily indigenous areas of Alaska) had 27.6 (by far the largest of any region studied) and the Far West had 12.2.

This is a stark contrast to those regions in the predominantly Democratic Northeastern, Mid-Atlantic and Midwestern states: Yankeedom, consisting of New England, upstate New York and the northern parts of the Midwest, has a rate of 8.6 gun deaths per 100,000 people; the "New Netherlands," which consists of New York City and its metropolitan area, has a rate of 3.8; the Left Coast has 9; Greater Polynesia, or Hawaii, has 3.5; El Norte, or the American Southwest, has 10; and both the Midlands and Tidewater regions, which include the Delaware River valley and Chesapeake Bay areas as well as parts of Virginia, then stretching through the Ohio River Valley and other parts of the Midwest, have rates of 10.9. (It is important to note that some of these regions are much more highly populated than others.) All of those gun death rates are lower than the national average of11.4 gun deaths per 100,000 people.

"The Deep South is the most deadly of the large regions at 15.6 per 100,000 residents followed by Greater Appalachia at 13.5," explained Colin Woodard, director of the Nationhood Lab, in his Politico article breaking down the significance of the results."That's triple and quadruple the rate of New Netherland the most densely populated part of the continent which has a rate of 3.8, which is comparable to that of Switzerland. Yankeedom is the next safest at 8.6, which is about half that of Deep South, and Left Coast follows closely behind at 9."

Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe toSalon's weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.

"Studying these laws are difficult compared to, say, studying the impact of a single law related to child booster seats, or bicycle helmets, or seat belt laws."

The author also noted that the pattern of blue regions being safer than red regions held even when analyzing the two most common specific types of gun-related deaths, suicides and homicides. For gun-related suicides, the New Netherlands was the safest of the highly populated regions (1.4) while Greater Appalachia and the Far West were the deadliest (9.2 and 8.8, respectively); for gun-related homicides, the New Netherlands was the safest highly populated region (2.3) while the Deep South was the least safe highly populated region (6.8).

This is not the first study to suggest a correlation between political leadership that regulates guns and fewer gun-related deaths. In a study published by the journal JAMA Surgery, researchers analyzed two decades worth of gun-related deaths by county by dividing the counties they studied based on how rural or urban they were. They found that during the first decade of the 21st century, "the two most rural county types had statistically more firearm deaths per capita than any other county type, and by the 2010s, the most urban countiescitieswere the safest in terms of intentional firearm death risk."

It is important to note that these statistics often refer to suicides and not homicides. Indeed, the JAMA Surgery study revealed that between 2001 and 2010, America's most rural counties had 25 percent more overall firearm deaths than America's most urban counties and a 54 percent higher rate of gun suicides, but a 50 percent lower rate of gun homicide deaths. They also pointed out that during the 1990s, researchers had not noticed any difference in total intentional firearm deaths between America's most urban and rural counties. This divide only became apparent in the 21st century and appears to be increasing, "with rural counties bearing a great deal more of the burden."

Over the last few decades there have been a number of gun control studies, and over time they have fleshed out a statistical consensus on the efficacy of gun control laws. Studies have established a correlation between loweredviolent crime rates and laws like prohibiting firearms to those associated with domestic violence, mandatory waiting periods, forcing those banned from owning firearms to surrender them andimposing child-access prevention laws. Similarly, studies have repeatedly linked drops in suicide rates to child-access prevention laws, minimum age requirements and mandatory waiting periods. Increases in violent crime, tragically, were linked to concealed-carry laws and stand-your-ground laws.

The challenge in analyzing all of this data is that establishing correlation (that two variables are consistently connected to each other in statistics) is very different from establishing causation (that one variable's results caused the other variable's results).

"Studying these laws are difficult compared to say studying the impact of a single law related to child booster seats, or bicycle helmets, or seat belt laws," Dr. Eric Fleegler, who has extensively written about firearms legislation and teaches pediatrics and emergency medicine at Harvard Medical School, told Salon in January. "They're using, 'Hey, we had a change in something, a law, and we look to see if there's a change in something, some outcome fatalities, and we say, 'Yes, these things correlate with each other.' The causation is a much more challenging thing."

Read more

about gun control

Here is the original post:
Conservative America has far more gun deaths than liberal America, study finds - Salon

(Photo by Jabin Botsford Pool/Getty Images)

To be very clear, the Supreme Court is a cesspool of ethical scandals right now and theyre overwhelmingly about conservative misconduct. Clarence Thomas is taking $500K in vacations and getting his mom rent-free housing off of right-wing donors with business before the Court. Meanwhile, his wife is an ethical quagmire all by herself. Neil Gorsuch is collecting cushy trips from law schools trying to shoot up the rankings and forgetting to disclose that law firm leaders are buying his property. Sam Alito owns tons of oil and gas stock and maybe will recuse himself in cases that directly impact those shares? Maybe.

Amid all of these very real scandals, social media spent the weekend tittering that the wife of Chief Justice John Roberts made a little over $10 million over the course of eight years doing legal recruiting something we already knew and already didnt care about. Yet, liberals diverted a ton of emotional energy from the actual scandals at the Supreme Court to decry all the major corporate law firms paying Jane Roberts to get in good graces with John Roberts and other entirely nonsensical gibberish.

Getting big checks from major law firms might seem like an ethical dilemma, but all the outrage about it betrays a lack of understanding about how the legal industry works. Lets break down some key issues:

1. Are Biglaw firms paying Jane Roberts?

Yes, though not generally because theyve hired Roberts or anything like that. Generally speaking, Roberts will present a prospective lateral partner to a number of law firms. The partner and the firms will go through the standard Biglaw mating dance and whatever firm ends up winning that lawyers services will compensate Roberts for the introduction and management of the process.

2. This still seems like a lot of money, no?

No, not really. As an industry, recruiters are generally compensated based on a percentage of the salary a lateral prospect will earn. As you might imagine, in a world where partners are routinely making seven-figure salaries, that can add up fast. While Roberts made a bit over a million a year, if shes placing partners, that could be the result of a handful of laterals.

3. But isnt she beholden to these firms for the money she gets?

Not in the least. She likely couldnt care less if her candidate chooses to join Simpson or Skadden because she gets the same check either way. And while she may deliver a book of business to a specific firm one day, in a matter of months shell be pulling a book of business away from that same firm to head for greener pastures.

4. Shouldnt Roberts at least disclose which firms paid which amounts?

Perhaps though that arguably risks misleading the public through overinclusion. Even though her client is ultimately the firm, the bulk of the services she provides will be to the individual lawyer evaluating multiple offers and its that lawyer who makes the decision that ends up getting her paid. The indirect nature of this all that the individual partner ultimately controls who pays Roberts and who doesnt undermines all the quid pro quo claims. It also means that disclosing a payment from, say, Baker Botts makes them look like they were trying to give Roberts money on the sly when in reality they just happened to win the sweepstakes for a book of business that just as easily couldve gone anywhere else without Roberts having any influence on the ultimate decision.

4. Wouldnt the firms tilt the scale toward hiring her prospects to curry favor with John Roberts?

Your argument is that, a Biglaw firm might tie up years of multimillion-dollar compensation on a revenue sink of a partner so they could write a one-time $300K check to Jane Roberts? Thats not how these firms got to the top of the heap. Do you know how little of a damn these firms care about winning a Supreme Court case?

5. Isnt winning Supreme Court cases the most important thing in all of law?

Oh, my sweet summer child. Go ask Paul Clement who won a landmark Supreme Court decision last year and Kirkland immediately told him to pound sand. Because law firms care a lot more about their ability to advise on the next mega-merger than parachute into an oral argument.

6. Are you sure about all this? You dont have one of those blue checkmarks anymore.

Yes. But you dont even have to take my word for it.Gabe Roth, of Fix the Court, whose entire job is laser-focused on improving ethical standards at the Supreme Court had this to say:

The recent story about the commissions that Chief Justice Roberts wife Jane has received for her legal recruiting work is largely much ado about nothing. Would we be in a better place if the legal profession were more diffuse with, say, 200 or 500 or 1,000 law firms bringing cases to SCOTUS? Sure. But were not, so Jane should not be criticized too harshly for earning a living with the help of some of the firms that happen to be frequent filers at One First Street.

Look, if the Democrats believe in the electoral value of the out-of-control Supreme Court narrative and see this as one more drop of fuel for the already raging fire, so be it. But its a disingenuous claim that frankly undermines the more serious ethical lapses here by comparison. It makes it easier to shrug off the whole body of ethical complaints as mere nitpicking when its anything but.

And not for nothing, but we dont need more disingenuous arguments out there. John Roberts is out here making all the bad faith ethics arguments we could ever need.

Earlier: Yes, A Supreme Court Justices Spouse Makes A Ton From Biglaw Firms. No, This Is Not Actually A Big Deal.Paul Clement Laments Kirklands Cancel Culture Or Capitalism As The Case May Be

Joe Patriceis a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free toemail any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him onTwitterif youre interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Original post:
Raging About John Roberts's Wife 'Scandal' Really Making Liberals Look Stupid - Above the Law

Recently, the so-called national-patriotic elite in Russia have intensified their attacks on the governments financial and economic bloc. On April 21, well-known Russian propagandist and economist Mikhail Khazin revealed, Liberals remaining at their posts in the Central Bank and Ministry of Finance significantly contribute to the worsening of the economic situation in the country. As such, the propagandist proposed a large-scale purge to put an end to the damage (Deita.ru, April 21).

Some of Khazins colleagues go even further, repeatedly calling for the repression of systemic liberals on the main propaganda show in Russia, Evening With Vladimir Solovyov. In their words, the current management of the Russian Central Bank sabotages the orders of President Vladimir Putin and takes money out of the country, as, according to these officials, what is happening in Ukraine is not their war and they want it to end (YouTube, April 18).

In the past, open attacks on the leadership of Russias economic and financial bloc had continued until Moscows full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. In 2014, one of the best-known ideologues in modern Russia, Aleksandr Dugin, characterized this group as a sixth columnthat is, traitors in power close to Putin (Vzglyad, April 29, 2014). Since then, representatives of the radical patriotic movement and the Russian security services have regularly referred to the members of this bloc as vermin (Km.ru, December 23, 2021).

The idea that the Russian Central Bank is acting against the countrys interests on behalf of the West has become one of the components that, today, dominates the myth of the neo-colonialist yoke from which Russia can free itself only thanks to the war in Ukraine (see EDM, February 22, 2022). Independent journalists have correctly pointed out that the guise of ideological confrontation conceals a banal struggle for power and access to budgetary resources (1line.info, March 28, 2019). This is logical considering that the ambitions and influence of the security forces in Russia are growing steadily; nevertheless, they still cannot determine the countrys economic policies.

Since the beginning of Russias all-out aggression against Ukraine, attacks of the radical patriots on the so-called systemic liberals have increased. Not only propagandists but even State Duma deputies have accused the Ministry of Finance of funding the enemies of Russia (Rodina.ru, May 23, 2022). Putin himself has added more fuel to the fire with his constant repetition of the idea that war against the neo-colonial West was unavoidable (Kremlin.ru, October 27, 2022) and his calls to ensure the economic sovereignty of Russia (Regnum, March 29).

For their part, independent experts emphasize that the shortcomings in the Russian Central Banks policies have nothing to do with foreign influence. According to Russian economist Vladislav Inozemtsev, Central Bank management is sometimes too cautious in increasing the money supply domestically. On the eve of Russias re-invasion of Ukraine, he pointed out that the economic sovereignty of Russia was not threatened by the United States, but rather by China (see EDM, February 22, 2022).

For nearly a year after the beginning of the war, Inozemtsev stated that the Russian Central Bank actually saved the domestic economy after the imposition of Western sanctions. Additionally, according to the Russian economist, without the limitations on the movement of capital and orders for the mandatory sale of foreign exchange earnings of exporters, an economic catastrophe would have been inevitable (Newizv.ru, December 18, 2022). Russian economic observer Sergey Shelin also suggests that the Russian economy is much more effective than the former Soviet system. He says that saving it will allow the Kremlin to wage a long war in Ukraine and weather the current wave of massive military expenditures (Svoboda, February 1).

As an alternative to the current leaders of the financial bloc, Russian security services have considered Putins former advisor and current Minister for Integration and Macroeconomics of the Eurasian Economic Commission Sergei Glazyev, who has the reputation as a fiery statesman and anti-Westernist. At the same time, Glazyev is one of a few who openly admitted that it is the number of victims among the Ukrainian population that consolidates public consciousness on the basis of hatred for Russia, and the prolongation of the war leads to the actual de-Russification of Ukraine. However, for all these problems, including losses on the frontlines and the mass departure of technology specialists from Russia, Glazyev lays total blame on the Russian Central Bank (Tsargrad.tv, October 17, 2022).

The former presidential advisor suggests only administratively fixing the ruble exchange rate and buying goods from China that are inaccessible to Russian business (Lenta.ru, August 24, 2022). He also recommends the introduction of elements of the Soviet planned mobilization economy with extensive market tools (Vedomosti, August 24, 2022). At the same time, independent experts note that it is precisely the restoration of a Soviet resource-squeezing scheme that will crush the domestic economy (Svoboda, February 1), and a further increase in the role of the security forces in government will deplete the Putin regimes resources and lead to its ultimate demise (Novayagazeta.eu, March 27).

The Kremlin also understands this aspect. Despite his anti-colonial rhetoric, Putin clearly has no intention of abandoning the systemic liberals who seemingly keep his regime alive. However, the radical patriots will continue to demand genuine sovereignty and fight against vermin. Even against the backdrop of demonstrably cruel sentences against dissidents, it is becoming clear that the machinery of repression is also beginning to affect Russian officials themselves as well as the security forces (Zona.media, April 17).

For example, on April 20, the Moscow City Court arrested former Deputy Prime Minister of Culture Olga Yarilova. Media reports say that she has been charged with embezzling 125 million rubles ($1.5 million) (Gazeta.ru, April 20). Around the same time, the Russian Federal Security Service began investigating almost all the police detachments in the center of Moscow, searching for leaks of important information to Ukraine (RBC, April 19). The recent ratification by the State Duma of life sentences for treason also demonstrates that the search for enemies of the people will continue (Svoboda, April 18).

It seems that, for the time being, Putin will be able to contain the attacks of the Russian security services on the governments economic and financial bloc by paying them off through stealing funds from other officials and dissidents. However, judging by current trends, the growth of the Russian security services collective power within the government will continue, and their ambitions will grow larger. This means that, eventually, those who today preserve the Putin regime may soon find themselves on the chopping block.

See more here:
Will Moscow Turn Its Back on 'Systemic Liberals'? - Jamestown - The Jamestown Foundation