There was a screamingly hilarious opinion piece in NRA today, the jist of which is that the last people of Lalalulubogwoggistan remaining in residence are so fed up with cleaning up after the annual gay pride parades that they are nowadays gaging the issue of whether of not queers have civil rights as far more important than whether or not the Iron Lady should be allowed to sacrifice national territory in order to do biznes as usual with the Rooskie regime…
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Viedoklis: Homoseksuālisms lielāks pat par Abreni
Māris Krautmanis,  NRA 01/30/07

blablabla Taču tā vien izskatās, ka nākamajās vēlēšanu cīņās būs viens lielāks trumpis, kam blakus pat Abrene izskatīsies maziņa. Tas ir homoseksuālisms, kam agrāk lielākā daļa sabiedrības uzmanību nepievērsa, toties tagad var droši teikt, ka Latvijas Pirmajai partijai turpmākajās politiskajās cīņās, izmantojot antigeju karogu, ir cerības uz bagātīgu balsu ražu.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Yours Truly, Tarmo the Nordic {sic} a.k.a. Gelge W. Twigg {sic} a.k.a. El Subcommandante {sic} a.k.a. You Heathen Rabbi {sic}, let’s all chill with due respect to all our participants {sic}

>There was a screamingly hilarious
>opinion piece in NRA today, the jist of
>which is that the last people of
>Lalalulubogwoggistan remaining in
>residence are so fed up with cleaning up
>after the annual gay pride parades that
>they are nowadays gaging the issue of
>whether of not queers have civil rights
>as far more important than whether or
>not the Iron Lady should be allowed to
>sacrifice national territory in order to
>do biznes as usual with the Rooskie
>regime…
>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>_ _ _
>Viedoklis: Homoseksuālisms lielāks pat
>par Abreni
>Māris Krautmanis,  NRA 01/30/07
>
>blablabla Taču tā vien izskatās, ka
>nākamajās vēlēšanu cīņās būs
>viens lielāks trumpis, kam blakus pat
>Abrene izskatīsies maziņa. Tas ir
>homoseksuālisms, kam agrāk lielākā
>daļa sabiedrības uzmanību
>nepievērsa, toties tagad var droši
>teikt, ka Latvijas Pirmajai partijai
>turpmākajās politiskajās cīņās,
>izmantojot antigeju karogu, ir cerības
>uz bagātīgu balsu ražu.
>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>_ _ _

Here’s your chance, Juri… the country cries out for a worthy cause.  Go and share your wisdom, hie thee to the front of the parade (not THAT parade), and lead on those who are also working towards a better Latvia by belittling all who cross their path.

Anita de la Alma offered me a chance:

>Here’s your chance, Juri… the country
>cries out for a worthy cause.  Go and
>share your wisdom, hie thee to the front
>of the parade (not THAT parade), and
>lead on those who are also working
>towards a better Latvia by belittling
>all who cross their path.

Well, one never ought to belittle what is little to start with. Do I gather your jist?

Yours Truly, Tarmo the Nordic {sic} a.k.a. Gelge W. Twigg {sic} a.k.a. El Subcommandante {sic} a.k.a. You Heathen Rabbi {sic}, let’s all chill with due respect to all our participants {sic}

PS What do you mean, “THAT parade”?

Sveiki!

“Thank you for clearing up the fine points of our Satversme.

Here’s another opinion:/…/”

Pete, I can’t find anything in this interview of Čepāne that contradicts the vague generalities that she spoke about on that same Domburs’ program that Kalvītis appeared on 13 days ago.  That’s the reason that I didn’t cite Čepāne in my summary post, but instead mentioned Kalniete’s text from the Jaunais Laiks web pages, which at least points in the direction of the conflict.

To her credit, on the Domburs’ program (during minute 48) Čepāne did explicitly state, “Of course, we cannot hold a referendum about the border treaty.” (“Protams, par robežlīgumu mes nevaram referendumu taisīt.”)  As I already mentioned, this would violate the 73rd clause of our constitution.

Čepāne in this interview is of the opinion that the border treaty must reflect the will of Latvia’s people and that they should be allowed to decide this question.  She believes that this can be ensured legally.  (“Viņasprāt, lēmums par robežlīguma noslēgšanu ir jāpieņem atbilstoši Latvijas tautas gribai, un Latvijas tautai ir jāļauj lemt par šo jautājumu.  Juridiski šādu risinājumu ir iespējams nodrošināt, pauda Čepāne.”)  But, unfortunately,  what thus far no one – not Čepāne, nor Jaunais Laiks, nor TB/LNNK –  has been willing to do is offer a concrete alternative to the current proposed border treaty nor explain how their opinions and beliefs could be realized through the legal mechanisms that we have.

A referendum, as defined by the Satversme, is not just a public opinion poll where people get to express how strongly or weakly they feel on a scale 1 through 5 about an issue.  Instead, a concrete law or change to the Satversme is offered to the electorate, which votes either to adopt it or not.  A constructive – as opposed to populistic – parliamentary opposition should be offering the electorate an *alternative* to Kalvītis’ proposed border treaty.  Here’s hoping that on Thursday that’s what we’ll hear from the floor of the Saeima.  After all, they’ve had two years to develop one.

Visu labu,

Elizabete

Elizabete downs a stiff one:

>A constructive – as opposed to populistic –
>parliamentary opposition should be offering
>the electorate an *alternative* to Kalvītis’
>proposed border treaty. Here’s hoping that
>on Thursday that’s what we’ll hear from
>the floor of the Saeima.  After all,
>they’ve had two years to develop one.

Hope is a noble sentiment. But family values will trump hope. Sorry.

Yours Truly, Tarmo the Nordic {sic} a.k.a. Gelge W. Twigg {sic} a.k.a. El Subcommandante {sic} a.k.a. You Heathen Rabbi {sic}, let’s all chill with due respect to all our participants {sic}

There is no need for the opposition
parties to present an alternative
solution to the border bardak.
We have a border. Have had it since
August of year 1920.

pete

If anyone has a chance to see this,
let us know what Pelkaus had to say.

Šī lapa izdrukāta no DELFI portāla
Adrese http://www.delfi.lv/archive/index.php?id=16745683

Šovakar ‘Kas notiek Latvijā?’ - par Latvijas un Krievijas robežlīgumu

http://www.DELFI.lv
31. janvāris 2007 14:38
 

Sagaidot rīt Saeimā paredzamās debates par likumprojektu par pilnvarojumu valdībai parakstīt Latvijas un Krievijas robežlīgumu, šovakar “Kas notiek Latvijā?” LTV studijā tiešraidē notiks īpaši plašas, gandrīz divas stundas garas debates par šo tēmu, portālu “Delfi” informēja raidījuma vadītājs Jānis Domburs.
Diskusijas mērķis ir pirms Saeimas lēmuma veikt publisku izvērtējumu šim Latvijai aktuālajam jautājumam no visiem iespējamajiem un būtiskajiem - politiskajiem, tiesiskajiem, vēsturiskajiem, racionālajiem un idejiskajiem aspektiem, aplūkojot iespējamos turpmākos situācijas attīstības scenārijus.

Raidījumā piedalīsies politiķi, juristi, vēsturnieki, uzņēmēji, politologi un citi ar šo tematu saistītie un par to argumentus izteikušie: Aigars Kalvītis (TP), Indulis Emsis (ZZS), Andris Bērziņš (LPP/LC), Dzintars Rasnačs (TB/LNNK), Sandra Kalniete (JL), Nils Ušakovs (SC), Miroslavs Mitrofanovs (PCTVL), Valsts prezidents 1993.-1999.gadā Guntis Ulmanis, Stratēģiskās analīzes komisijas vadītāja Žaneta Ozoliņa, bijušais ārlietu ministrs Jānis Jurkāns, bijušais vēstnieks ASV un NATO Aivis Ronis, “Visu Latvijai” vadītājs Raivis Dzintars, Saeimas juridiskā biroja vadītājs Gunārs Kusiņš, starptautisko tiesību profesors Juris Bojārs, Liepnas pagasta un Alūksnes rajona padomes priekšsēdētājs Laimonis Sīpols, vēsturnieki Inesis Feldmanis un Elmārs Pelkaus, asociācijas “Latvijas auto” prezidents Valdis Trēziņš, SIA “Eirooldings” prezidents Vasilijs Meļniks.

Raidījums sāksies tradicionālajā laikā – plkst.21.20, bet tā ilgums šoreiz izņēmuma kārtā – līdz pat 23.15, LTV 1.kanālā.

E-pasts skatītāju jautājumiem: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

http://www.DELFI.lv

pete

No deal is the best deal…...
or we are will need a recipe
for using dead donkey ears…....

pete

A bit after the fact, by now, water under the bridge, with all the other latest happenings and now this new format here on LOL to get used to.  But Kas Notiek Latvija?, was indeed a very looong program.  I found it interesting, however, to watch all these different people (politicans, historians, juristi, ‘biznesmeni’) espouse their views, though, I read, somewhere, that there was some criticism about spending too much emphasis, time on the regaining back of Abrene, which many feel is a moot point.

I’ll just touch briefly upon a few of my own impressions, interpretations, hoping, welcoming those who are better versed in Latvian, more knowledgeable to jump right in.  Please do!!  It’s too bad there’s not a written transcript of the show, for those who don’t have access to TV.lv, but I suppose that would be extremely time consuming and lengthy.

The discussion was divided into segments; the first dealing with the questions about the treaty—whether or not it should be signed right away or not (can we take out time) and/or is the solution somewhere in the middle of the two main opposing arguments.

Kalvitis, of course, was all for signing the treaty, straight away, like yesterday.  He said that according to EU agreements, upon Latvia’s first entering the EU, there were no claims about any territories, disputes, period.  Thus Abrene, being out of the picture, any claims or hopes about rergaining it, nil.  Yet, Andris Berzins, who also was in favor of signing this treaty along with Kalvitis, kept alluding to, ‘well, maybe somewhere down the line, we can leave it open, etc.etc.  Domburs caught him in this contradiction, dichotomy, but it never seemed to be explained, at least, not to my satisfaction.  Sandra Kalniete opposed the treaty as it was written and I believe wanted the constitutional court involved and/or a referendum.  And, of course, the Tevzemiesi, Raivis Dzintars were categorically opposed, while PCTVL, Saskanas Partija and the ‘biznesmeni’ were all in favor.  I have to say, that I was impressed with Guntis Ulmanis, who came across very dignified, calm, composed, without looking pretentious.  He thought the tauta had little understanding of what was happening with Abrene, the border treaty and that we needed more discussion, debate, clarification. That there should be no great hurry rushing into anything and denied that there was any pressure on Latvia from the EU.  There were a few rerferences Finland’s border treaty with Russia, which quickly seemed to be thrown out as being irrelevant.  Estonia was mentioned briefly, by Inesis Feldmanis, which I, personally wish would have been discussed more (unless I missed something)—the country known for its backbone, perhaps something we Letts could learn from, aspire to?  After this first segment, Domburs concluded that 2/3 of the people thought there was no rush to sign the treaty.

Next, was the question dealing with ‘tiesibas uz Abreni’. Vai Latvijai pretenzias uz Abreni.  And since you asked, Pete, about Pelkaus, I’ll try and translate a little of what I think he said.  An interesting fellow, with a keen mind, sharp wit—maybe a cryptic sense of humor??  I’m sure I missed many of his nuances.  He started the conversation by referring to Karlis Ulmanis in referrence to his being criticized for not doing enough to stop the Soviet invasion—that at the time those people said, ‘aaah, if only we had a parliament, democracy—‘tad mes gan butu pretojusi, butu brasi.’—so he (Pelkaus) hoped it would all go well the next day in our parliament, democracy.  In regard to the treaty, he said that if it were signed, Abrene would be gone forever.  There was more explanation about that, but I didn’t catch it—the conversation went very very fast.  He spoke about Argentina, the British takeover of the Falkands, Malvina and despite all those years that passed, how Argentina never gave up the fight.  How Cypress’ borders with Turkey were still unclear, the former an EU country and that that didn’t seem to affect its status.  Berzins, however, pointed out that Cypress, unlike Latvia, upon entering the EU did make certain territorial claims.  Pelhaus’ final statement, was that the most important matter was the continuity of Latvia. 

The last segment of the program was, ‘Ko Darit’?  What to do?  And I won’t belabor what every person said.  There were some people, whom I had a difficult time understanding and unfortunately, one was Ineta Ziemele who was on a skype phone; however, I think, she basically supported Kalvitis.  According to Domburs, the general opinion was that most people wanted a referendum.

Irena

Looks like it was a good show, Irena.
Pelkaus was a smart student when we
were in Ogres Pirmaa videnee.
I didn’t think that he was anti Ulmanista.
Perhaps, he was pulling Guntis leg.
You know, we don’t have a democracy
now. Maakonjteevs valda.

pete

Somehow, I didn’t get the impression that Pelkaus was anti-Ulmanis; that his comments were more tongue in cheek.  Now, Inesis Feldmanis, on the other hand, who was also for not rushing into anything re: the treaty did make some unfavorable remarks about K. Ulmanis.  Not to make a mistake, the ‘kluda’ that Ulmanis made with his so-called ‘draudzigais kara speks’.

Well, just when I thought my mind was made up, I have to say that Vaira gave a very fine speech, which I am posting here:

http://www.delfi.lv/archive/print.php?id=16763940

You’re as old as Pelkaus, Pete? How old is that? {grin}

Great summary, Irēna—though I have to say I found the all-star Domburs ultra-special mega-show way too short. I would have subtracted Raivītis and added at least ten minutes to every other contestant’s time. Five oskari to all for high political theater (and a few more to the Saeeeeeeeeiiiima, as Pelkaus pronounced it, for the day after—esp. to Uldis Grava for his comment about Kalyuzhny…).

And my fave was Ineta Ziemele, even via Skype.

In the meantime, RIA-Novosti reports, and I repeat, for educational purposes only:

TALLINN, February 6 (RIA Novosti) - Estonia’s prime minister said Tuesday that his country does not need any border agreements with Russia.

Talks on border agreements between the countries have been deadlocked since Russia refused to ratify the document signed in 2005, citing new provisions inserted by Tallinn.

“Of course, we would like relations between our countries to be more accurate and clear, which is why I advocate border treaties. But they have to be ratified by the Russian side. However, the absence of similar treaties is not a problem with the European Union, NATO or Schengen [countries],” Andrus Ansip said live on Radio 4.

The two countries signed border agreements on May 18, 2005, and the Estonian parliament ratified the documents on June 20, but with additional demands linked to the 1920 peace treaty between Soviet Russia and Estonia.

On September 6, Russia notified Estonia that it was revoking its signature from the treaties because the 1920 document was no longer valid.

Moscow said the new provisions in the ratification law could be seen as legally entitling Estonia to make some territorial claims on Russia.

Moscow proposed including a provision “that all the previously signed agreements and treaties in bilateral history outlining the border are invalid” in mid-2006, but Estonia replied that it had no intention of resuming negotiations.

Ansip said cooperation between the two countries’ border guards was one of the best examples of interaction, despite the absence of border agreements. He added that many countries lived in peace and harmony without such documents being signed.

Until recently, border talks were also stalled with Estonia’s neighbor, Latvia. A Latvian-Russian border treaty dating back to 1997 remains unsigned and un-ratified because Latvian politicians sought to link the border settlement to a declaration from Russia admitting Soviet aggression during World War II, as well as concessions on other issues.

Latvia included a unilateral explanatory declaration to the draft border treaty, which allows it to claim Russian territory - the Pytalovo District in the Pskov Region - that was part of Latvia before World War II and was annexed by Russia in 1944.

But Latvian Prime Minister Aigars Kalvitis said in January that his country would not attach any extra declarations to the treaty.

Inesis Feldmanis was the only person on Domburs’ show to ask what happened to our vaunted Baltic unity… another serious question that begs a straight answer.

Estonians—far more pragmatic than we are, quite a bit richer than we are, and rather, er, cooler… just don’t seem to need this sort of crap.

Vysu lobu,
/P

Pelkaus was being tongue-in-cheek, yes, but I took what he said this way—people whine about how Ulmanis handed over Latvia without even a proper peep when the Vadonis was at the helm, and one could blame the Vadonis, as many do, democracy having been dissolved. Here we are in peacetime, when this is not a question of life or death in any way—and yet we have this lovely parliament rushing this through, with the legitimate President’s blessing. 

Vysu lobu,
/P

Sixtynine deputies voted in favor
of giving away our land and god knows what else….

Saeima ceturtdien otrajā galīgajā lasījumā nolēma pilnvarot valdību parakstīt 1997.gadā parafēto līguma projektu par Latvijas un Krievijas valsts robežu.

Par lēmumu balsoja deputāti 69, pret balsoja – 26 deputāti. Par likumprojektu balsoja koalīcijas partiju – Tautas partijas, Latvijas pirmās partijas/“Latvijas ceļa” un Zaļo un Zemnieku savienības – deputāti, kā arī kreiso spēku apvienības “Par cilvēka tiesībām vienotā Latvijā” un “Saskaņas centra” pārstāvji.

Pret lēmumu balsoja koalīcijā esošās apvienības “Tēvzemei un brīvībai”/LNNK deputāti, opozīcijā esošās partijas “Jaunais laiks” deputāti, kā arī ZZS deputāti Visvaldis Lācis un Leopolds Ozoliņš.

pete, almost as old as Pelkaus

Kaluzhny’s still at it, but just in case we haven’t heard
enough from this guy here’s another pearl of wisdumb…....

Šī lapa izdrukāta no DELFI portāla
Adrese http://www.delfi.lv/archive/index.php?id=16833493

Kaļužnijs joprojām neatzīst Latvijas okupāciju

http://www.DELFI.lv
9. februāris 2007 11:10
 

Krievijas vēstnieks Latvijā uzskata, ka nav notikusi Latvijas okupācija un Krievijai nevajadzētu atkārtoti atvainoties par Padomju Savienības īstenotajām represijām, jo nosodošs vērtējums tam dots jau 1956.gada PSRS Komunistiskās partijas 20.kongresā.
Vēstnieks intervijā žurnālam “Republika” norāda, ka “starptautiskās tiesības neparedz terminu— vainas pārmantojamība. “

Vēstnieks arī norāda, ka PSRS laiks bijis sarežģīts periods visām tautībām un tolaik cietuši seši miljoni cilvēki, tostarp 230 000 latviešu. “Jā, tas ir smagi, šā fakta nosodošais novērtējums notika 1956. gadā PSRS Komunistiskās partijas 20. kongresā, kurā piedalījās arī toreizējās Latvijas PSR Komunistiskās partijas pārstāvji ar latviešiem priekšgalā. Savukārt Ribentropa-Molotova pakts tika nosodīts 1989. gadā PSRS tautas deputātu kongresā, kurā piedalījās deputāti no Latvijas un balsoja par nosodījumu. Tāpēc, kad tiek runāts, ka vajag nosodīt vēlreiz, rodas jautājums— kāpēc, ja reiz tas jau izdarīts?” norāda vēstnieks.

Kaļužnijs arī intervijā skaidro savu izpratni par terminu “okupācija”. “Ir taču jāzina, kas ir okupācija. Tas ir periods, kurā tiek absolūti apspiestas cilvēka tiesības. Bet kas te bija laikā no 1945. līdz 1991. gadam? Tiesību apspiešana? Tika atjaunots viss, kas bija kara laikā iznīcināts,— pilsētas, rūpnīcas, tilti, ceļi. Viss bija. Cukurfabrikas noteikti neslēdza. Attīstījās zinātne, kultūra, pieauga un attīstījās inteliģence. Un pēkšņi tagad saka: tas ir okupācijas periods….kur 50 gadu periodā Latvijā bija koncentrācijas nometnes, dzeloņdrātis?” sacīja vēstnieks, skaidrojot situāciju pēc Otrā pasaules kara.

Savukārt par 1940.gadā notikušo Latvijas okupāciju vēstniekam ir sava versija: “Mūsu pozīcija ir šāda— patīk jums tas vai nepatīk, bet 1940. gadā Kārlis Ulmanis un toreizējā Saeima akceptēja krievu karaspēka ienākšanu šeit. Tas bija Saeimas lēmums. Tas bija dokuments, bet mums saka— jūs ko, viņus piespieda! Es nezinu, kuru piespieda. Tas ir tas pats, kad tika dots zvērests fīreram (nacistiskās Vācijas vadītājam Ādolfam Hitleram), un tad saka— mani piespieda! Rodas jautājums— kāpēc latvieši un igauņi neizturēja šo spiedienu, bet lietuvieši izturēja? Kāpēc Lietuvā nebija SS vienību ar vietējiem iedzīvotājiem tajās? “

Kaļužnijs aicina pievērst uzmanību faktiem. ‘Krievija aicina runāt, pamatojoties uz faktiem. Ja nepatīk, ir iespējams vērsties tiesā, bet ar emocijām uz tiesu neiesi. Ja jau bijis okupācijas fakts, kāpēc Latvija nevēršas starptautiskā tiesā? Kāpēc Latvija nevēršas ar pretenzijām pret citām antihitleriskās koalīcijas dalībniecēm par periodu, ko jūs saucat par okupāciju? Vai tad PSRS patstāvīgi pieņēma šādu lēmumu? Šo lēmumu apstiprināja antihitleriskā koalīcija. Kāpēc netiek izvirzītas pretenzijas Lielbritānijai, ASV, bet tikai Krievijai? Bijība vai jautājuma nostādnes nenopietnība? Es domāju, ka otrais variants, ” sacīja vēstnieks.

Intervijā vēstnieks arī atklāj, ka esot par vēstnieku Latvijā jau divus gadus, taču joprojām neesot ticis skaidrībā, cik ilgi Latvija pastāv, kā arī pauž viedokli, ka 1920.gadā starp Latviju un Krieviju noslēgtais Miera līgums neesot bijis leģitīms.

“Ja runājam likumu ietvaros, 1920. gadā tika noslēgts līgums ar tobrīd neeksistējošu valsti ar nosaukumu Krievija, kas karoja, un to neatzina ne Lielbritānija, ne ASV, ne Francija. Un pēkšņi Ļeņins ne no šā, ne no tā noslēdza līgumu ar Latviju. Tajā laikā nebija ne Latvijas, ne Krievijas, un pēkšņi apsēdās un noslēdza līgumu. Noslēdza— un paldies Dievam! Bet, ja runāsim tādā valodā kā tagad,— toreizējais līgums faktiski nebija leģitīms, ” sacīja Kaļužnijs, norādot, ka “neviens tolaik neatzina Krieviju”.

“ASV Krieviju atzina 1933. gadā! Bet līdz tam bija karš, un neviens vispār neatzina ne Ļeņinu, ne Staļinu! Un pēkšņi jūs pieņēmāt kā faktu to, kas jums patīk. Un tagad pasaulē uzsverat, ka šis ir Latvijas izveidošanas brīdis. Taču tad rodas jautājums par dubultiem standartiem. Vienā gadījumā 1920. gada līgums jums patīk un jūs tam sakāt — jā, bet Saeimas lēmums Ulmaņa valdīšanas laikā jums nepatīk un jūs tam sakāt — nē. Kāpēc? ” pauž vēstnieks.

Jau vēstīts, ka Saeima ceturtdien galīgajā lasījumā pieņēma likumprojektu, kas pilnvaro Ministru kabinetu parakstīt Latvijas un Krievijas robežlīgumu. Līdz ar šo pilnvarojumu plānots atcelt 2005.gadā valdības pieņemto deklarāciju, kas iepriekš tika pievienota robežlīgumam un kurā bija atsauce uz 1920.gada Miera līgumu ar Krieviju. Šajā līgumā tika aprakstīta toreizējā Latvijas valsts teritorija, kurā ietilpa arī Abrene.

http://www.DELFI.lv