Mediaboss Marketing

Published on Friday, 28 April 2017 11:34 Category: Articles and Commentary Written by Valerii Pekar

Ukraine: The European frontier- a blog curated by Valerii Pekar.

Ukraine is currently considered one of the most corrupt countries in Europe. Some argue that this is just a perception, as Ukraine is also one of the most transparent countries in Europe, ever since it established an unprecedented openness of public data and private data of public servants (known as e-declarations). Countries with less data transparency could be very corrupt as well, but this is not a permanent focus of internal and international public opinion. Furthermore, corruption in Ukraine has been brought into focus since the Revolution of Dignity (EuroMaidan), which had a clearly pronounced anti-corruption orientation.

Nevertheless, corruption in Ukraine remains high both subjectively and objectively; therefore discussions on how to overcome it are much more productive than discussions about whether it is as high as may be perceived.

There are two principal approaches to the issue.

The first one, known in Ukraine as anti-corruption reform, is to ensure the inevitability of punishment for corruption. Traditionally in Ukraine corrupt bureaucrats, tax and custom inspectors, militiamen (an old name for police officers), prosecutors and judges are members of the same close-knit clans, so a corrupt state servant would never be punished, except in the rare occasions of aggravated clan wars. This is why a number of new independent institutions have been created. The National Anti-corruption Bureau (NABU) and Specialised Anti-corruption Prosecutors Office were introduced to investigate cases of high-level corruption, while the National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption (NAPC) analyses the integrity of public servants and politicians.

By the beginning of 2017, NABU had initiated some 264 criminal cases and the NAPC had gathered 107,000 e-declarations of MPs, top government officials, judges, prosecutors, etc. Nevertheless, public activists are concerned about severe problems, and even rollbacks, in this sphere.

There are several major issues that have emerged as a result. The first major is that an independent and new anti-corruption court has not been established, as was demanded by the law. NABU cases, hence, go to the traditional corrupt courts and stop dead there. Second, the NAPC has not yet started a full-scale examination of the e-declarations, and the online register of e-declarations has many bugs and often does not work as it should. Third, some politicians have tried to undermine the independence of NABU by blocking the assignment of independent and trustworthy auditors. Fourth, until now NABU has had no legal right to wiretap communications and, in order to initiate wiretaps, it has to go to the traditional corrupt institutions which often immediately inform the suspects. Fifth, the law demands that investigation functions be transferred from the Prosecutor Generals Office to the newly established State Bureau of Investigations, but its head has not yet been assigned. Sixth, the mandates of the members of the Central Election Committee, one of the most corrupt institutions, expired long ago and new members have not been elected. Seventh, civil society organisations, the business community and international financial organisations have all demanded the dismissal of the extremely corrupt tax militia (a part of the fiscal service) and the establishment of an analytical demilitarised Financial Investigations Service under the auspices of the Ministry of Finance. Last, but not least, there are rumours that the examination of candidates to the reconstructed Supreme Court of Ukraine is not honest, and civil activists are demanding the publication of the tests of the applicants together with the grades, and to organise an online live stream of the interviews and to make public and transparent the attempts of the High Qualifying Commission of Judges to tackle the veto by the Public Integrity Council. All of these issues mentioned above, and some additional demands, were included to the Anti-corruption Declaration, signed on April 10 by dozens of authoritative NGOs and political parties.

Perhaps, the most important point is that the NAPC does not show any desire to organise the examination of e-declarations of state servants and MPs, while the parliament has adopted a law which forces the representatives of anti-corruption civil society groups to submit the same kind of e-declarations. Many NGOs consider this last fact as a declaration of war by corrupt politicians on the civil society.

While anti-corruption reform is slowing down and in some areas have even been rolled back, we have to consider another way to fight corruption, which is as important as the first method. This one is about undermining the sources of corruption, rather than catching individual corrupt officials.

The freer the economy is; the less space is available for corruption. Ukraines economy remains extremely "un-free" (166th rank in the Heritage Foundations Economic Freedom Index), and even the very efficient NABU, NAPC and Anti-corruption courts are not able to eliminate corruption in this turbid water.

State-owned enterprises are the greatest source of corruption. There are still approximately 3,500 of such enterprises in Ukraine; ten times more than the average European country. Their privatisation has been postponed for years by political clans which extract money from them. In addition, opening the agricultural market has been blocked again and again. Deregulation, an area where many achievements have been reached in previous years, has now slowed. Ministries and other state agencies still have a lot of obsolete and redundant functions, often concentrating powers like rules setting, inspection, administrative services, policy development and state property management. Verification of social subsidies has failed, because there are many ways to extract corrupt money from them. Tax systems remain complicated and non-transparent (at present the Ministry of Finance is fighting for automatic VAT refund to exporters, whereas the traditional manual refund is a major source of corruption). Education and public health remain very corrupt spheres due to their post-communist models of financing.

From this point of view, every reform in Ukraine is an anti-corruption one. Indeed, there have been some important breakthroughs. Gas market reform eliminated corruption in this sphere. The new patrol police, created from scratch, enjoy much greater public trust than the former militia due to its new practices. The National Bank has cleansed the financial system of many money-laundering banks. Deregulation has deprived corrupt bureaucrats from many important sources of income. Public procurements have been completely remade with the new online platform, the award-winning ProZorro. But comparing the successes of the three years since the EuroMaidan with the long to-do list, tasks set by civil society organisations, the EU and IMF, we see that the pace of change is unsatisfactory.

This is why we need to unite the efforts of the civil society and Ukraine's international partners to overcome this rollback and to increase the pace of reforms dramatically. Only joint pressure will work effectively.

Valerii Pekaris a co-founder of the Nova Kraina Civic Platform, a lecturer at the Kyiv-Mohyla Business School and a former member of the National Reform Council. He curates a blog titledUkraine: The European frontier.

The rest is here:
How to overcome corruption in Ukraine - New Eastern Europe

Ukraine is pinning its hopes on O. Torvald but will they be able to bring it home?

UKRAINE has chosen O. Torvald to represent them at this years Eurovision Song Contest.

But what is their background, how were they selected and what is O. Torvald singing?

Alamy

O. Torvald is a Ukrainian rock band formed in 2005.

The group recorded their first album named O.Torvald in 2008 after being signed by Moon Records.

The current line up of the metal group includes:Yevhen Halych, Denys Myzyuk, Oleksandr Solokha, Mykyta Vasylyev and Mykola Rayda.

In order to be selected as Ukraines contestants for EurovisionO. Torvald had to take part in a number of rounds of the national competition.

They were second in both the judges vote and the public vote during the semi-final on February 18, enough to see them through into the final.

During the final, they once again came second in both the judges votes and the televote awarding them enough points to claim victory, after a tense tiebreak.

As the current winners Ukraines entry will go straight into the final and will not need to compete in the semi-finals.

EPA

O. Torvald will perform theirtrack Time.

The song is written in and will be performed in English.

Sunbets Eurovision odds currently list Ukraine winning at 22/1.

Slow down Give me some time Turn down The volume of your cry Let's take time to find A place without violence Lets listen and hear The true meaning of silence

Getty Images

Ukraine have competed in the competition a total of 13 times since their 2003 debut.

They've taken the top spot twice in that time, impressive considering they only recently joined the competition.

Ukraine's first victory came in 2004 in their second year when singer Ruslana was victorious with Wild Dances.

They also won last year's contest with singer Jamala taking first place with the song 1944.

They are the first Eastern European country to win the competition twice.

The Eurovisionfinal is due to take place on Saturday May 13, with semi-finals held on May 11 and 13.

The event will be broadcast live from the International Exhibition Centre in the countrys capital Kiev.

The reigning champion Jamala will be in attendance on the night to hand over the honour to this years winner performers.

Visit link:
Who is Ukraine's Eurovision Song Contest 2017 entry? O. Torvald set to perform Time - The Sun

Speaking with CNN's Suzanne Malveaux, Sanders labeled the transaction "not a good idea" and said he was "sorry President Obama made that choice."

"I just think it does not look good," Sanders said. "I just think it is distasteful -- not a good idea that he did that."

"Look, Barack Obama is a friend of mine, and I think he and his family represented us for eight years with dignity and intelligence," Sanders said. "But I think at a time when we have so much income and wealth inequality ... I think it just does not look good."

"It's not a good idea, and I'm sorry President Obama made that choice," he added.

Despite the objections, an Obama spokesperson dismissed the idea that the large speaking fee compromised the former President's convictions.

"As we announced months ago, President Obama will deliver speeches from time to time," Eric Schultz, a senior adviser to Obama, said in a statement Wednesday. "Some of those speeches will be paid, some will be unpaid, and regardless of venue or sponsor, President Obama will be true to his values, his vision, and his record."

"With regard to this or any speech involving Wall Street sponsors, I'd just point out that in 2008, Barack Obama raised more money from Wall Street than any candidate in history -- and still went on to successfully pass and implement the toughest reforms on Wall Street since FDR," he added.

Schultz added that Obama will continue to focus most of his post-presidency on writing a book, giving speeches and "training and elevating a new generation of political leaders in America."

View post:
Sanders: Obama's paid Wall Street speech 'distasteful' - CNN

Georges Gorbet/Pool/Getty Images

One hundred days ago, a Harvard-educated, self-made constitutional scholar handed over the White House keys to a stubby-fingered, cheddar-colored colostomy bag in a cheap toupee. To celebrate the fact that Donald Trump has yet to reduce the country to a pile of rubble smoldering under the dark cloud of nuclear winter while roving gangs of neo-Nazis ride around on state-sanctioned pussy-grabbing tours, we thought wed compare the first 100 days of the last two presidents.

We split them into categories and chronicled the good (yes, Trump did some good things; did I mention how he hasnt started a thermonuclear war yet?), the bad (no, we cant list them all; the internet isnt big enough) and the ugly (well, that part is kinda obvious). We present to you a scientific, peer-reviewed comparison of Barack Obamas vs. Donald Trumps first 100 days in office.

They say a picture says 1,000 words, but sometimes it says only one: Damn.

Obamas first swearing-in was watched by 37.8 million, while Trump had an American Idol-finale-like viewership of 30.6 million. Twenty-five million people livestreamed Obamas inauguration on CNN, while 16.9 million watched Trump.

Obama: He opened with Bruce Springsteen, then had a line of star speakers and performers including Mary J. Blige, Aretha Franklin, Denzel Washington, Tom Hanks, Steve Carell, Tiger Woods, U2 and an unknown, upstart little singerI think her name was Beyonc.

Trump: Toby Keith, Three Doors Down, some white people whose names I wont list because you wouldnt know them anyway, Jon Voight, some more white people, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, the Piano Guys (no, Im not being snarky; thats the actual name, not to be confused with Some Muhfuckas Playing the Keyboards) and ... umm ... thats about it. Oh, dont forget that Chrisette Michele built some bridges or something at one of his inaugural balls.

Obama: Obamas Cabinet featured Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, banker Timothy Geithner as treasury secretary, Superior Court Judge Eric Holder as attorney general, CEO of Chicago Public Schools Arnie Duncan as secretary of education and physicist Steven Chu as secretary of energy. By the end of March, only one Obama Cabinet member (Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of health and human services) had not been confirmed by the Senate.

Trump: Trump nominated Betsy DeVos, a lady with no experience or training in education, as secretary of education. He put Steve Mnuchin, a banker who made a fortune foreclosing on people and who ran a bank into the ground, in charge of the Treasury Department. He put a brain surgeon with no background in housing or urban development in charge of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and a politician who promised to close the Department of Energy in charge of the Department of Energy.

Obama: Zero.

Trump: Russian election collusion, white supremacist chief of staff, the Russian-prostitute pee report, the income tax thing, the nepotism debate, the business-blind-trust thing, the anti-Semitism, the tweets, accusing a former president of a felony, the Angela Merkel handshake, the golf, the Mar-a-Lago trips, the Senate investigation, the House investigation, Jeff Sessions and the Russians, Carter Page and the Russians, Jared Kushner and the Russians, Michael Flynn and the Russians, Rex Tillerson and the Russians ...

Obama: His first piece of legislation was the Lilly Ledbetter Act, requiring equal pay regardless of age, race or gender. During his first month in office, he signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Actthe stimulus package credited with saving the economy of the entire world. The act also increased education funding by $100 billion, lowered taxes for the middle class, created programs for low-income workers, reined in Wall Street and provided $105 billion for infrastructure. He signed legislation to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Trump: He tried to repeal and replace Obamacare, but that failed miserably. He allowed internet companies to sell your personal information. He signed a law that made it easier for mentally ill people to buy guns. He cut Planned Parenthood funding.

Obama signed 19 orders, including these:

Trump has signed 28 executive orders, including these:

Obama: Obama made it legal for researchers to use stem cells and moved toward climate change protections in his first month. He also began a weekly address to the country to update Americans about the government and started a campaign for a nuclear-free world. During his first few weeks in office, he pledged energy independence and signed legislation that moved the auto industry toward higher fuel-efficiency standards. He signed a childrens health care act. He forced GMs CEO to resign amid scandal.

Trump: Trump made Mike Pence have sex with Mike Pence, named the offspring Neil Gorsuch, nominated the baby for the Supreme Court and got the Senate to confirm the first clone to the Supreme Court. He also banned sanctuary cities and saved a few dozen jobs at a factory in Detroit. A few days before his 100-day mark, like a teenager cramming for a final exam, he jotted down some ideas that basically said he was going to cut everyones taxes and force IRS agents to go door-to-door and wash everyones dishes. He put that on a sheet of college-ruled notebook paper, had someone type it up, sent it to the press and called it a tax plan.

Obama: Reached out to the Muslim world and assured them that we were not anti-Islam, and promised to end two wars. He eased tensions with Cuba and with Venezuelas Hugo Chvez, making the Latin world happy. He attended the G-20 summit, and Germanys Angela Merkel became his bestie, while Englands Queen Elizabeth had to reprimand Italys prime minister for shouting to get Obamas attention. Americas president was basically the cool kid in class.

Trump: Reached out to the Muslim world, slapped them and assured them that we were anti-Islam while threatening to start two wars. He insulted the president of Mexico and prime minister of Australia over the phone in his first week. He kissed up to Russias Vladimir Putin, embraced Chinas Communist leader and made calls to a human rights violator who storm-trooped his way through a Turkish election. After warning Obama to stay out of Syria, he bombed Syria (which hampered its air force for a full three or four minutes). After saying that America doesnt need NATO, hes now begging NATO to help him deal with North Korea. Americas president is basically the kid in class who the teacher patiently exhorts to sound it out when he has trouble reading aloud, as he drags his paste-eating fingers across the page, attending school only for recess so that he can bully the brown kids in the playground.

Obama: Obama found time to visit Sasha at school and played basketball with friends on a White House court. He visited Camp David to relax and went for a Valentines Day dinner in Chicago with Michelle. He was criticized for appearing on talk shows and having too much fun in the White House. He played golf one time at Andrews Air Force Base.

Trump: More than a quarter of the time he has served as president has been spent at Mar-a-Lago eating chocolate cake, golfing and doing white-people things. (I only refer to it as white-people things because I dont know what goes on at golf resorts, or what white people do on the weekend besides clean out their garages, roam Wal-Mart or go skiing.) Trump does not live with his wife, because ... I actually dont know, except that I assume her gag reflex isnt strong enough to handle the possibility of seeing his light-bulb-shaped body in the nude.

News reports say that Trump spends all of his spare time watching cable TV news and tweeting. He also installed a button in the Oval Office that orders a Coke. Congratulations, America; you elected a teenage princess as president.

Obama: 65 percent

Trump: 41 percent

There you have ita full breakdown of Trumps vs. Obamas first 100 days. After a comparison of the two, there is only one question that needs asking:

Dont you just feel great again?

Read the original:
The Complete Breakdown of Obama's vs. Trump's 1st 100 Days - The Root

Barack Obama at the University of Chicago on April 24.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

The news that Barack Obama will be paid $400,000 to deliver a speech at a September health care conference sponsored by the Cantor Fitzgerald investment bank has provoked wildly different reactions among self-identified progressives. To generalize, one group thinks it's a big mistake for someone who aspires to remain prominent in progressive activism to participate in an event that perpetuates the "revolving door" influence of corporate special interests. The other group can't believe the first group thinks that it's not fair to tell Obama he can't make money for himself by doing one measly ol' speech that won't have any effect on public policy anyway.

Here's another perspectivea third way, if you will: Barack Obama is not selling out his ideals or taking a paycheck that's unrelated to them. He's doing this because he thinks big-money special interests have a valid place in American politics.

Let's review some of what happened during Obama's presidency.

Obama says he's against this kind of thing. On April 24, in fact, one of the topline messages of his first post-presidency public appearance was that special-interest lobbyingand the influence of money on politics more broadlyis one of the primary obstacles to making progress on problems such as economic inequality, climate change, and crime:

One thing that's nice about Obama is that his words usually match his deeds. But the words and deeds just don't match up in this case, and they haven't sincehe campaigned in 2008 on a platform of representing grass roots Americans against big-money corporate lobbyists and then went and did all the things I listed above.

There is a good argument to be made, given how strong of a backlash Obama's relatively moderate health care and financial-regulation legislation triggered, that he had no choice but to deal with lobbyists if he wanted to pass meaningful laws. His moves to expand health insurance coverage and revive a depressed economy ultimately did accomplish progressive goals. But that doesn't explain why he chooses to personally associate himself with corporate lobbying and finance executives or why, if he thinks it's a problem that big-money special interests "dominate the debate," he chooses to take money to make himself available to those interests.

Obama is obviously a careful thinker, and even on subjects like foreign policy and race relations on which he's taken significant criticism, it's hard to argue that he hasn't fully thought through the issues involvedsee for example his extensive interviews with the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg about the "Obama Doctrine" and with Ta-Nehisi Coates about race.Butas far as I knowhe has never publicly resolved the seeming tension between his articulate criticism of lobbying's warping influence on American politics and his personal comfort with lobbyists themselves. For now, though, the evidence suggests that his true feeling about big money in politics is that it's fine.

Go here to see the original:
Maybe Obama Is Doing Paid Speeches Because He Thinks Big-Money Special Interests Are Fine - Slate Magazine (blog)