Tr Lý
Based on my knowledge, Cossack is from Russia right? So tell me that it's a "People" Army or a Mercenary Army? Drew DEI
Actually and historically Cossacks are from Ukraine - they basically founded Ukrainan statehood in Middle Ages. But later some of them (Don's cossacks) appeared to be on the territory of Russia. Modern russian "cossacks" are mostly role-players poisoned by imperial russian "rising-from-the-knees" propaganda
deathtokoalas
insofar as cossack is an ethnic tern, and it mostly isn't, it refers to a turkish people we now call "kazakhs". they were a type of pirate through the middle ages that survived primarily by raiding and plundering, but that was aligned with the russians as a mercenary force over time. this had a "civilizing effect" on them, and they assimilated into the countryside.
it follows that what you call "cossack" today has virtually nothing to do with what was called "cossack" centuries ago. i'm still trying to make sense of the way the media is using this, but it seems to me something people are self-identifying as and what makes the most sense to me is consequently that the term must translate more or less to "mercenary" - it must be a military rather than an ethnic term.
Thor Jørgensen
There are no real Cossacks left anymore, just like how there are no real knights, hussars or vikings.
But any real Cossacks would have been in Ukraine 14th to mid 18th century including Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Cossack Hetmanate.
Drew DEI
Yeah, and regarding the initial question - In "people" "army" by my information there are like 80% of mercenaries, and only about 20% - local people. and there are no some monolith structure actually but some groups and gangs consisting of local criminals, but as I see, some normal people also support this. it is sad.
Vladimir Semiglazov
what information???? the one you just made up???
Илья Аленин
there are Ukranian (Zaporozhye) and Russian (Don, Cuban etc) cossacks: ZaporozhyeCossacks fighted against Poland and united with Russia, russian cossacks were peasants which flinged off landlords
deathtokoalas
the ukrainians initially had to bring in mercenaries because the soldiers didn't want to shoot at their own people. we're talking about cossacks and varangians, here. similar mindset. oldest tactic in the book. however, they seem to have been replaced at least partially by ukrainian nationalists from the maidan protests, who seem to be less discerning. unfortunately.
whether cossack means mercenary or not, it's clear there are russian agents operating. so, it's not one or the other. it's both.
Drew DEI
what mercenaries? our country cannot even buy bulletproof vests for the amry, we are doing it by ourselves. Do you at list imagine what money are necessary to hire professional mercenary army? Official wage of Ukraine military soldier is about $200.
deathtokoalas
i can't answer that, but i'd remind you that ukraine is notorious for shady financing and money laundering. the reports were coming out of germany. i don't think they speculated on financing.
just a correction: mulcair was not leader of the ndp in the last election, jack layton was. there was a complicated mix of sympathy for a dying layton (who everybody agreed blew away duceppe in the debate), a desperate attempt to stop a conservative majority (and maybe allow an ndp-liberal coalition, which itself is a complicated mess), revulsion at ignatieff, generational change and a feeling that the bloc wasn't accomplishing anything, partially on harper's repeated suggestion. quebec has a history of this sort of thing, moving in giant leaps and bounds from one party to the next, in some kind of weird mass consciousness. it's kind of eery, actually. and the west does the same thing under repeated upheavals of "prairie populism".
but, i agree with the general point being expressed here. and, the frustrating thing is that, if the goal is solely to take power, it isn't bad politics for the ndp to do what they're doing....they got a boost of a few percentage points this time...for some reason or other (i suspect age), the deciding factor seems to have been that turnout, and specifically tory turnout, was very low in the gta.
anyways, the ndp has four years to think about it, now. one way or the other, they're going to emerge as a very different beast next time around. it didn't translate into seats this time around, but the ndp seem to have broken through to some different types of voters. for better or worse. it's actually the tories that walk out of this in crises.
i think we saw the beginning of the core of their voting demographic withdrawing from public involvement due to the various factors associated with aging: lower mobility, lower interest, etc. but i'd like to see some numbers verify that or prove it wrong. if they don't find a way to mobilize young people, and these abstract financial scandals pushed through the sun franchises really aren't it, the tories could be devastated the next time through.
----
LeGioNoFZioN
the Progressive Conservative party of Ontario is not a "tea party" like conservative government, it isn't even hard right. people who use that are scare mongering and intellectually dishonest. The Liberal and PC party's are nearly indistinguishable to anyone being truthful. their rhetorically different, but historically so similar MPP's jump from one party to the other relatively frequently. with Horwath the new head of the provincial NDP, it seems they are drawing more to the centre, and are gaining support for their centrist move in Toronto.
(lengthy but typical discussion about climate denial is removed as i am not a party to it and it does not include worthwhile arguments) deathtokoalas
the canadian spectrum is rather difficult, because the provincial parties are independent of the federal ones. some of the most right-wing parties in canada in recent memory have been from the ndp, and some of the most left have been from the liberals.
so, you have to look at the status quo. hudak's proposals are not centrist or middle of the road relative to the status quo, he's very far to the right of bill davis and even to the right of the alberta pcs. he would be the most right-wing premier in the country. that doesn't make him mussolini, but it does take him out of the mainstream.
well, maybe he's not more right-wing than brad wall. second most, then. point stands.
a4d3
How was he part of the new ice scare in the 70s? He was studying Venus before he realized what a dramatic effect GHGs have on climate. Also, I recommended him because he is one of the most respected scientists. Not everyone agrees with all his points but he breaks down what is agreed upon very clearly.
but the point is he was advocating for global climate change in 1971 based on a computer model he created, which turned out to not be correct in any way. And he has been on the receiving end of some serious cash for his research post 1990's. My point is he has a vesting interest, and financial gain to be made out of his advocacy.
a4d3
This comes up all the time but it's really pretty weak if you think about the way the world works, in my opinion. The first question is, what serious cash? Where does it come from? How does it compete with the profits of energy companies almost entirely invested in fossil fuels? (for fun, google the largest corporations in the world when you have a chance). The second question, noting however that the article mentions the ice age was not something he predicted but a colleague of his did, wouldn't it have been easier to have stuck with the cooling hypothesis of his colleague if he was after money? Why work so hard to reverse it? And then, if you consider how many scientists around the world studying different fields support the theory based on their own research, how plausible is this dark money hypothesis? It's also worth noting that despite some scientists predicting cooling in the 70's, metastudies of research during that time period show that even then cooling was predicted by a small minority of scientists. So as far as I can tell, (although you didn't imply this) all the talk about how scientists change their minds like the wind changes direction is really misinformed.
I stand by the recommendation but, as I mentioned, feel free to look at any other respected scientist.
deathtokoalas
these arguments are terrible. none of you have the slightest idea of what you're talking about on a scientific level, so you try to discredit each other with red herrings about finances or argue around the red herrings with aloof rationalizations. one can attempt to explain the motives underlying bad science by looking at the source of funding, but one cannot reasonably draw inferences about the nature of any research by looking solely at the funding. i know it might seem like environmentalists do the latter, but they in fact do the former. is it subtle? to me, it's glaring, but maybe it's not so obvious to others.
jonathan swift died a really long time ago, and the fact is that he didn't really understand what he was tearing down well, anyways - he was really just drawing a giant strawman. but, for whatever reason, he remains this kind of hero amongst a certain type of luddite, who continue to perpetuate the same strawman fallacy hundreds of years later. it's kind of distressing.
even if he did have a convoluted point in attacking the easy target of astrologists and pythagoreans and then calling that a satire of science, there were hardly things such as confidence intervals or correlative statistics at that point in history.
so, let's try and keep up a bit better.
does anybody have any substantive criticism or support for any papers this guy has published?
---
LeGioNoFZioN
what these two fail to note is the non stop string of corruption and scandal and waste from the liberal party since they came into power. the literally make the Mike Harris days seem like a cakewalk in comparison. Only the hard left and extreme left folks are vexed with Horwath. The middle of the road folks who used to vote liberal and are vexed with the Liberals for their incompetence and blatant corruption ... the average unionized labour worker ... they are going to vote for Horwath. I'm a libertarian enthusiast, unlike most of my friends and the one thing I hear in most of my circles is anyone but Wynne (the Liberal leader). I've never voted NDP before but if it helps prevent Wynne from holding power, I'm all for it. I'd vote any party that stops the liberals from capitalizing on their fear mongering campaign to retain power in the face of corruption and scandal.
deathtokoalas
but the tories have corruption built into their governing philosophy. their prime goal is to sell off public resources to their buddies. this idea that they could possibly be less corrupt is just laughable.
i don't want to get too abstract, but you should flip through plato's take on democracy in the republic. the basic conclusion is that democracy is an inherently corrupt form of government, but that accepting a little bit of corruption is a valid trade-off if you want representative government. it's a very grounded, realistic analysis.
the blunt truth is that expecting a democratic government to be free of corruption is utopian type thinking. but, if you're a free market enthusiast, you're used to that.
LeGioNoFZioN
I disagree with the idea that selling off public assets is corrupt. I think it can be either bad or good depending on the asset and what it's use is. so I would argue applying reason to each case would determine whether selling any given asset is positive or negative and blanket statements are too general to ever be accurate.
I recognize some degree of corruption is unavoidable, man is an imperfect creature.
Free market enthusiasts don't expect democratic governing to be free from corruption, to the contrary we expect it, and we expect it in larger amounts the more power a given government can exercise
deathtokoalas
right, but they don't just sell them off, they sell them off to their donors. they're total scam artists.
what i meant about markets being utopian is the idea that they can work without being regulated....
LeGioNoFZioN
I would agree selling assets off to donors as a pay off is a BS move, but that isn't the case in all public asset sales in Ontario in the last 20 years, whether PC Liberal or NDP.
Markets can work without being regulated, but once you start, it is nearly impossible to stop, and regulation impedes development, growth and advancement. regulations are often well intended but often produce results other than the intention of the regulator. I recognize some areas and some sectors should be regulated for everyone's well being, but those areas are few and far between.
deathtokoalas
do you have an example of anything that's been privatized in ontario over the last twenty years that hasn't led to a profitable industry for the politicians' buddies and higher prices for consumers? privatizing the electricity system was a catastrophe. it's a surreal comedy that the tories are trying to pin the disaster on the liberals. how about building roads at public expense, then selling them off to private investors? but, do you have a counter-example...?
i actually agree that market regulation tends to put the oligopolies in charge, telecommunications are a good example, but i follow the economic logic that thinks of markets as an unstable system that seeks equilibrium in collusion. it follows that a free market is only possible if an outside force exists to constantly prevent firms from colluding with each other, either by breaking them up by force or by providing incentives for them to continue competing. unfortunately, when we take (1) into account, we're left in an impossible situation. our actual option is between state ownership and private oligopolies. so, i'd argue we should nationalize the lines rather than regulate them....
----
a4d3
Merge those goddamned parties !
deathtokoalas
despite the problems with the ndp recently, if you merge the ndp and liberals you eliminate any leftward pull on the liberal party and create the kind of dynamic that exists in the united states, where the two parties are constantly competing for the right, because there's nobody to vote for on the left anyways. that is to say that the democrats have no fear of moving too far right because they know nobody an inch left of centre is ever going to vote republican.
there was supposed to be a level of dialectical thinking in the two-party system, but they fucked it up. the idea is if you have two competing ideas, they'll combine to form one. but it doesn't happen. the spectrum just pushes one way or the other. it's not necessarily going to have to push right (it was pushing left for a while in the 30s) but it's always movement in one direction, because it's a process of competition rather than one of synthesis.
the way to get the right kind of dialectic going, and it's what we should want if we're thinking clearly instead of ideologically, is to create thesis and antithesis on the left and right and let the synthesis form in the middle. that creates a natural governing party. and, it's fine so long as corruption is kept in check one way or another.