Russian Anti-gay laws and violence, and the Olympic (Winter) Games.

[Sarmatian]

Presumably the athletes will be asked to be discreet about it. And if a gay athlete kisses his partner in front of the cameras I expect that it would be censored, but that would probably be the end of it.

Two Russian girls actually kissed on the mouth during the world championship in athletics in Moscow after they received their medals. They were both cute and it was hot :). I don't know what was the reaction to it. I'll google it.

EDIT: I was too far away. Only the right one is kinda cute, and I'm not sure it was full on the mouth but close enough.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...rs_podium.html

EDIT 2: This was the photo I've seen originally. Here they both look cute and kiss full on the mouth. Now, if they were only to put on nurse uniforms... :)

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/natio...220105411.html

Problem is, under that line of thought the pool of countries where you can olympic games becomes rather limited, while the whole premise of the event is that it's for all nations and all people. Some people argue that countries like Russia and China use these events as propaganda tools. But unless I missed something, the IOC is not a missionary organisation that aims to promote democracy and other good stuff, even though a lot of people expect it to be.

Give the man a cigar!!!

But, only Russia and China? Don't you think that placing a WTC flag along national flags of participant nations during Salt Lake City Olympic games was using the event as a propaganda tool???

[Montmorency]

Just to oblige with a rag on the former Russian Empire, I'd like to drop a story:

A guy I know bought an apartment in Ukraine for cheap after its owner died.

Problem is, the former owner-man had taken out a mortgage off the books, which no one knew about until after the property was sold to New Guy, so now the bank who 'owns' the mortgage is suing New Guy.

Apparently, in the Ukraine mortgages are attached not to the borrower, but to the property itself*; thus, the bank can demand that New Guy pay up on this mature loan - which the previous owner had deferred or skipped out on somehow.

Again, let me emphasize that the original loan was off the books and that Ukrainian mortgages are linked not to the borrower but to the property. Also, the interest rate is like 15% or something.

...

I hope the poor fellow can settle out of court or else find some kind of loophole.

*

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And this isn't how it works in the US, right? I haven't yet taken out a mortgage, and I only know a few basic generalities, but surely in the US the estate of the deceased borrower would be expected to honor the loan, or else whoever manages the property or appropriates it (and why not the bank itself, there...) - right? I can't recall who exactly New Guy bought the property from, but whoever sold it ought to be repaying any outstanding loans, right? That makes a little more sense, right?

How the hell can it make sense to transfer the mortgage to the buyer?! What a back-asswards system. In fact, I wonder if this is really even how it works in the Ukraine and whether the New Guy, as a foreigner, is getting scammed by this bank...

[Sarmatian]

Just to oblige with a rag on the former Russian Empire, I'd like to drop a story:

A guy I know bought an apartment in Ukraine for cheap after its owner died.

Problem is, the former owner-man had taken out a mortgage off the books, which no one knew about until after the property was sold to New Guy, so now the bank who 'owns' the mortgage is suing New Guy.

Apparently, in the Ukraine mortgages are attached not to the borrower, but to the property itself*; thus, the bank can demand that New Guy pay up on this mature loan - which the previous owner had deferred or skipped out on somehow.

Again, let me emphasize that the original loan was off the books and that Ukrainian mortgages are linked not to the borrower but to the property. Also, the interest rate is like 15% or something.

...

I hope the poor fellow can settle out of court or else find some kind of loophole.

*

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And this isn't how it works in the US, right? I haven't yet taken out a mortgage, and I only know a few basic generalities, but surely in the US the estate of the deceased borrower would be expected to honor the loan, or else whoever manages the property or appropriates it (and why not the bank itself, there...) - right? I can't recall who exactly New Guy bought the property from, but whoever sold it ought to be repaying any outstanding loans, right? That makes a little more sense, right?

How the hell can it make sense to transfer the mortgage to the buyer?! What a back-asswards system. In fact, I wonder if this is really even how it works in the Ukraine and whether the New Guy, as a foreigner, is getting scammed by this bank...

Mortgages are always tied to the property. That's why they're called mortgages and not credits. The deal is that you shouldn't be able to transfer ownership unless the bank okays it.

[rvg]

Mortgages are always tied to the property. That's why they're called mortgages and not credits. The deal is that you shouldn't be able to transfer ownership unless the bank okays it.

Note to self: do not by any real estate in Eastern Europe.

[Montmorency]

To clarify, this is how I meant "tied":

1.a. Mortgages are tied to properties in that properties are used as collateral while they are being paid for.

1.b. Mortgages are tied to the owner in that the owner has legal-contractual responsibility for paying off the loan to the lender. If the lender sells his property while the mortgage is still outstanding, the bank collects from the proceeds however much is necessary to satisfy the mortgage. If the borrower dies, then his estate or whoever the property passes on to is henceforth responsible for the mortgage, unless there is a foreclosure following the death. See also: Due-on-sale clauses.

This is what is familiar/expected by me.

2.a. Mortgages are tied to properties in that properties are used as collateral while they are being paid for.

2.b. Mortgages are tied to the property in that if the borrower sells the property, the borrower is no longer responsible for the mortgage; the responsibility is passed on to the new owners of the property. Whoever owns a property at a given time is responsible for paying off the mortgage attached to the property.

This is what had me confused.

The deal is that you shouldn't be able to transfer ownership unless the bank okays it.

Well, the bank for putting up an off-the-books mortgage that no one knew about until the lawyers came barging in.

[Montmorency]

Encumbrance of the immovable property by mortgage shall be subject to state registration per

the legally established procedure. In case this condition is not observed, the mortgage agreement

shall be valid, but the mortgagee’s claim shall not acquire priority against the registered rights or

claims of the other persons in the immovable property transferred on mortgage.

Yeesh.

In the event of foreclosure on the subject of mortgage by the overlying mortgagee, the

underlying mortgagee shall be also entitled to foreclose, even if the main obligation to the

underlying mortgagee has not yet matured. If the underlying mortgagee did not use this right, the

underlying mortgage shall be valid until full satisfaction of the claim of underlying mortgagee

under the main obligation, the ownership right in the subject of mortgage shall pass to the new

owner along with the encumbrance of this property with the underlying mortgage.

Could this be what's screwing my fellow?

Article 17 Grounds for Mortgage Termination

Mortgage shall be terminated in the following cases:

- termination of the main obligation;

- sale of the subject of mortgage according to this Law;

Wait a -

In the event the ownership right (the right of full economic management) in the subject of

mortgage passes from the mortgagor to another person, including heritage or legal succession,

the mortgage shall remain effective for the acquirer of relevant immovable property even in the

event he/she was not notified of the property encumbrances with the mortgage.

Oh.

Welp, that's enough for now. if anyone wants to dig through the legislation, here's the link.

Though why would you, you weirdo.

[Papewaio]

Olympic Games have been boycotted in the past.

The encloypedia example of propaganda would come with a picture of the Olympic flag.

My personal opinion is we should allow any country that is improving its human rights record to hold it. Those in retrograde we should consider boycotting.

I for one can happily give up my bread and circuses for improving human rights.