The problem is that politicians have a habit of passing laws that create criminal business opportunities .Drug laws and copyright are the most obvious current ones - although the stand out example from the past was of course prohibition.
The reason that crime has fallen in the UK is that many criminal business opportunites that used to exist have been made unprofitable by technology. When every middle class home had a video recorder that cost about a month's (average) wages and was easily portable then industrial scale house burglary was worthwhile. (The only tiome I have been burgled was at the peak of that era).
Nowadays the most expensive portable piece of tech in the average home costs less than 2 weeks minimum wage so the business model has failed.
The vast majority of crime is (at root) economic - so crime reduction needs to be based economics rather than "morality". You are unlikely to stop people from sinning by moral exhortation - but removing the economic incentives might just work.
Andy Archibald, who somehow is the deputy director of the National Cyber Crime Unit at the National Crime Agency, is going around spouting nonsense about how file sharing is some sort of "gateway" into more crimes for young people today :
Andy Archibald, who as the deputy director of the National Cyber Crime Unit at the National Crime Agency is busy trying to puff his own unit's importance in the regular round of trying to get more funding.
In other news it was recently revealed that the Pope is (apparently) a Roman Catholic....
but hey, if you think it is constitution to take guns away from criminals that have served their time then you don't have a right to complain if the rest of your rights are removed either.
Best proof ever that the 2nd amendment was a mistake. Basically - because it is unsustainable* - it opens the door to the removal of all the other rights.
* and it IS unsustainable. When it was written the types of arms that were available were far less lethal than what we have now.
Thus there is an inevitable restriction on the 2nd amendment. No one in their right mind would suggest that private individuals should be allowed to have tactical nuclear weapons - yet the 2nd amendment - taken at face value - would allow that and there are plenty of wealthy people who could afford it. Thus the second amendment has not been taken at face value of many years and consequently the door is open to trashing all the other constitutional rights as well.
It is hard for westerners subject to multiple competing ideological frameworks while at the same time protected by rule if law in a high trust culture where people largely tell the truth, to imagine how primitive,superstitious,pseudoscientific, paranoid, conspiratorial, the Russian mind is.
Hmm when I talk to some of my Russian friends - University lecturers in Mathematics and Physics I don't recognise your stereotype.
If you said that about the Jews you'd be rightly called anti-semitic. If you siad it about people of African origin you'd e called a racist.
What makes you think it is OK to say it about Russians?
So precisely what is the point in declaring that "hey guys, the U.S. also does really awful things and lies a lot"
Because US behaviour creates the environment in which other countries such as Russia operate. Also, possibly because many believe that the US has been much more successful than Russia in getting its lies to stick.
You made the point very well that the Russian government has made a huge effort - but done it so badly that few believe what they say - even when it is true!
The US propaganda is in many ways more interesting because it has been subtler and hence vastly more effective.
It follows that those of us "in the middle" who distrust both are more concerned to correct the US lies because no-one believes the Russian ones anyway!
The US doing bad things has no bearing on Russia doing bad things.
Not quite true in this field. If the US is spreading disinformation about Russia and Russia simply sits back and takes it then there will be an asymmetry.
Tu quoque only fully applies when the parties in question are not in direct conflict with each other. When that is the case then it is necessary to delve back into the history of how the conflict began and developed before one can come to any judgement.
I note that this first post has been trashed by subsequent commenters and hidden - however the statement "Our president and his cabinet lie directly to the American people... as does our congress and judges." would probably have been marked insightful had it appeared as a comment on a post on almost any other subject.
Look at the following stories - very quyickly found by Googling "President Lied Techdirt":
Take a country whose economy is in shambles, people feel persecuted by their former enemies, military is still strong, and a strong, unapologetic leader trying desperately to restore the nation's pride and dominance and what do you get? Nazi Germany, that's what.
The economy is not such a shambles as you suggest. I visited 2 years ago and have friends who go back and forth on a regualr basis and I can tell you that that part of your preamble is not true. It was true in the 1990s - under Yeltsin (the first time I visited) - and Putin's reversal of the economic fortunes is the main reason for his popularity. There has been a bit of a reverse since the fall in the oil price - but it has a long way to go to fall back to the dark days of the mid 90s.
The rest of what you presume is more or less right - but Russia is not Germany and so the result will not be what you say. The nearest thing to Nazism in the region is the Ukrainian government that the US supports.
Are you really saying that stopping "trying to continually humiliate Russia and/or trying to force it to be like us ". is not an option?
It is precisely because we fail to do this that we are risking returning to the cold war.
I repeat - we have got so used to the idea of Russia as the enemy that we couldn't let go of it and after 20 years or so Russia has shrugged its shoulders and set - "well if you really want it that way then we can go back to that as well."
A few months ago the descendants of the "first emigration", Russians who left in the 1920s after the revolution and have lived in the west ever since wrote the following
“The aggressive hostility that Russia faces now lacks any rationality and the double standard policy simply exceeds all limits. They accuse Russia of all sorts of crimes, they pronounce it guilty a priori and without any evidence, whilst they show other countries surprising leniency, in particular, where human rights are concerned. We can’t put up with daily slander targeting modern Russia, its leaders and its President, who are slapped with sanctions and smeared with dirt, in contradiction to basic reason”
These people are not in any sense part of Putin's propaganda army. They fled for their lives and lost most of their property as a result of the revolution. They acknowledge that Russia has changed since soviet times - its a pitty that we don't seem to be able to.
Putin is the result of the west's attitude to Russia over the last 25 or so years. We have not been able to give up on he idea of having Russia as an enemy.
We were still trying to detach neighbouring countries from Russia during the later Yeltsin and early Putin years.
Since 1991 (possibly slightly before) there has been no ideological reason to oppose Russia - but we have continued to do so because we recruited nationalists from the non-Russian parts of the Soviet Union to our cause during the cold war and continued to listen to them after communism fell. These people (eg Brezinski) hate Russia simply for being Russia and for no other reason. Under these circumstances it is not a surprise that Russia reacts in the way that it does.
Remember that Putin is way more popular in Russia than any western politician is in his own country so it is the Russian people we are opposing these days - not just the leadership.
Until we give up on trying to continually humiliate Russia and/or trying to force it to be like us we can expect it to continue to behave in this way - and subtlety is not a part of the way they operate.
I think a better approach is to not buy meat that you don't understand.
That was really what I meant- I assumed that meat could still be labelled voluntarily and the good quality local producers would want to label theirs. However if they don't then it may be possible to get the required information by other means.