dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja

Saturday, March 8, 2014

this is a really irresponsible article. not because it's wrong, exactly, but because it's completely speculative - and not in an academic sense. it's just "well, maybe white people come from asia". maybe they come from uranus.

or maybe it's completely ridiculous to think that a single dna sample describes the entirety of genetic diversity in western europe 7,000 years ago. maybe there was a gradient.

maybe it's actually even totally obvious that there was a gradient.

europe has never been entirely white in the historical era. most spaniards, italians and greeks are of a tanned complexion. this is a combination of genetic drift from the south and plasticity, rather than any kind of selection. to understand the plasticity look at a californian of scandinavian ancestry. pasty white? hardly. why think europe would or even could have been of a homogenous skin tone 10,000 years ago? there's an implicit purity myth underlying that. and, that's not a myth that required further debunking.

so, there was a gradient. they found somebody on one end of it. they'll find people on the other end of it as time goes on. and the understanding will be a continuity of high variation deep into the past, not implications about some kind of fantastical past that had these ideal types living in some abstracted racial purity.

in actuality, there's no such thing as white people - and no such thing as black people. there's a lot of people that exist in a spectrum. that is all.

it's interesting that he cites sforza, though, because his data really isn't consistent. what sforza demonstrates is what remains - to my knowledge - the dominant theory of the origin of caucasian peoples in general, namely that they developed in isolated packets on the other side of the ice sheets and moved south when the sheets started melting (not just into europe, but also into central and eastern asia. that creates a common light-skinned ancestor between europeans and both west and east asians dating to about 15000 years ago). he sees three general migrations. that first migration was starting around 10,000 years ago - enough time that it would have penetrated spain, but not eliminated all variation with skin type. but it was about superior hunting technology,not skin colour. as far as we know, spain has never been homogenous in regards to skin tone. ever. and it's always seen substantial migration coming from the south. the second migration came with agriculture, which moved near eastern peoples into europe. what colour these people were is an interesting question, but i think it's almost certain that they weren't white in the scandinavian sense. the third migration brought indo-european languages in through the dominance of horse domestication. we can isolate the indo-european homeland quite well to the area north of ukraine, which makes it seem as though they were probably white. there's some debate over whether that means pasty white or more of a turkish white.

so let's carefully understand what i just said. that's a movement of white people south, and then the replacement of those white people by "swarmy" people moving north from the middle east, followed by another movement of white peoples. that is to say that the dominant understanding of the migration of european peoples is not related to racial dominance or skin colour evolving to an environment (the vitamin d thing is bollocks), but to technological innovation. if skin colour had anything at all to do with it, it was merely coincidental.

but it moved back and forth. that's what i'm getting at: brown, white, tanned, white. and, again, that would have created a spectrum full of diversity, not something homogenous.

another place to see this variation is iran. skin colour has a wide spectrum in iran, because it's been invaded by many different peoples. but you'll note that there's no pattern regarding one colour being more dominant than the other. lighter skinned iranians defeated darker skinned elamites, then darker skinned arabs defeated the iranians, and lighter skinned turks and mongols defeated the arabs. today, they're all there in iran, all mixed up. so, there's a great amount of diversity.

where you see the homogeneity develop is only in areas with very small amounts of gene flow. that would include scandinavia, as well as central africa - but not eastern africa, where a gradient also exists.

so, we can drop the silliness. this discovery neither backs up the silly and blatantly racist idea that vitamin d absorption provides an evolutionary advantage (one would expect the inuit and eastern native americans to be pasty white, and yet they are not), nor does it demonstrate much of anything at all about the diversity of the population in spain 7000 years ago.

it's just one sample.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/02/07/where-did-white-people-come-from/

the way to abolish the perceived racial hierarchy isn't to wave it away with a lot of shoddy science.

it's simply to point out that the idea that white people have been dominant throughout history is nothing more than a myth in the first place.

similarly with the eyes...

finding a dark skinned person with blue eyes 7000 years ago doesn't say anything about where the mutation developed. it's just as plausible that it developed in central europe and drifted south as it did that it developed in africa and drifted north.

but, that offends american sensibilities regarding "inter-racial" offspring. there's an assumption that white and black could not have interbred. it's implicit, unstated - because it's perceived of as obvious.

but it's not obvious at all. and, yes, it's completely fucking racist.

yes. spectacularly.

http://fpif.org/nonviolence-fail-egypt/

the article doesn't get the point, though, that if they want any long term success then the masses of people should be focusing on building new economic relationships, seizing productive capacities for the people, etc rather than recreating the perpetual disappointment and failure that is parliamentary democracy.

the better conclusion is that movements must be spontaneous, focused on changing living conditions outside of government structures and constantly vigilant against co-option from political forces. there was a critical mass assembled in egypt. had they stormed the factories and the fields instead of the parliament, they might have actually accomplished something.

hrmmn.

or maybe keynesian war spending might do wonders for russia.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/condoleezza-rice-will-america-heed-the-wake-up-call-of-ukraine/2014/03/07/cf087f74-a630-11e3-84d4-e59b1709222c_story.html

Kiev must have no participation in any anti-Moscow alliance, writes Zbigniew Brzezinski

As chaos explodes in Ukraine and the threat of Russian intervention persists, the responsibility of the west to help attain a constructive outcome becomes more self-evident.

Viktor Yanukovich has shown himself to be a mendacious schemer, a coward and a thief. His palatial personal residence in an impoverished country speaks for itself. Russia’s President Vladimir Putin would be making a fatal mistake by backing him.

But Russia can still plunge Ukraine into a destructive and internationally dangerous civil war. It can prompt and then support the secession of Crimea and some of the industrial eastern portions of the country.

Mr Putin may choose to ignore the fact that such aggression would guarantee the enduring hatred of Russia by the majority of Ukrainians, irrespective of the short-run outcome of any civil war abetted by Moscow.

That in turn would also mean his nostalgic dream of heading a Russian “Eurasian Union” would be exposed as an enterprise based on intimidation and coercion – not exactly an attractive vision for any of the recently sovereign components of the former Soviet Union.

It is probable Ukrainian national self-assertion is already fortifying the post-Soviet republics of central Asia, notably Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, to stiffen resistance to Moscow’s continuing effort to deprive them of sovereignty. The newly assertive and increasingly nationalistic political and business elites of these states have no desire again to become part of a Russian empire named by Mr Putin the “Eurasian Union”.

The west, however, needs to play a constructive role in forestalling the potential explosion of regional violence in Ukraine abetted from Russia. That will take concerted action by the US and the EU.

The US could and should convey clearly to Mr Putin that it is prepared to use its influence to make certain a truly independent and territorially undivided Ukraine will pursue policies towards Russia similar to those so effectively practised by Finland: mutually respectful neighbours with wide-ranging economic relations with Russia and the EU; no participation in any military alliance viewed by Moscow as directed at itself but expanding its European connectivity.

In brief, the Finnish model is ideal for Ukraine, the EU and Russia in any larger east-west strategic accommodation.

But to be credible to the Kremlin, the US needs also to spell out privately that attempts to destabilise the emerging democracy in Kiev or detach parts of Ukraine – not to mention even overt or covert Russian participation in its neighbour’s domestic conflicts – would compel Washington to use its influence internationally to prompt steps that would be economically costly to Moscow.

Options to that effect can range from unilateral individual and state-to-state financial sanctions to a review of Russia’s status in the World Trade Organisation, the World Bank and the Group of Eight leading industrial nations.

Obviously, the EU would need to be a solid partner in any such effort, since it is a significant trader with Russia. Contemporary Russia is not economically invulnerable to the consequences.

But even more urgent is the need for the EU to formulate a significant financial emergency package for Ukraine. Otherwise, the country will plunge into destructive financial chaos.

The lead in Europe should be taken by Germany and the UK. The latter’s role as a haven for Russian and Ukrainian financial oligarchs gives London special leverage. But every EU country should make some sacrifice in an effort to avert a potentially catastrophic Ukrainian economic collapse.

The Europeans and especially the UK might be more inclined to undertake such a collective effort if the top 10 Ukrainian oligarchs ¬– principal beneficiaries of the country’s stunningly widespread corruption – were all “persuaded” to donate $1bn each to their country’s financial rehabilitation.

Mr Yanukovich’s fabulously wealthy dentist son should be able to match the resulting $10bn. The Ukrainian public would certainly welcome such a collective contribution.

Obviously the US and the EU, hopefully with Russia’s constructive co-operation, should continue to press the dominant democratic forces in Kiev to adopt a stance not of revenge and retribution but of national unification and political moderation. That is achievable given the crucial leaders who emerged in Maidan Square are moderates.

Irrespective of what happens in the near future, I continue to believe that sooner rather than later Ukraine will be truly a part of democratic Europe. Later rather than sooner, Russia will follow unless it isolates itself and becomes a semi-stagnant imperialistic relic.

The writer was national security adviser to US president Jimmy Carter and wrote ‘Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power’

that cia deal bezos whipped up has got his paper pulling in all the decision makers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/zbigniew-brzezinski-after-putins-aggression-in-ukraine-the-west-must-be-ready-to-respond/2014/03/03/25b3f928-a2f5-11e3-84d4-e59b1709222c_story.html

free media my ass...

so, the sun is finally coming up at an almost reasonable time and you want us to push it forward another hour? 8:00 sunrises in march? fuck that.

i've been on cst for the last few weeks, and absolutely sticking to it.

israeli colonization of the region has made this the only option. there isn't a palestine left to form a state with....

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/03/02/america_plan_israel_two_state

Friday, March 7, 2014

deathtokoalas
so, let me get this straight. this "protestor" (who looks a little too old to be a grad student) is reporting from university college in london in order to repeat what is essentially exactly the state department's precise thinking on the matter. convenient. can he prove he was even in ukraine at all? 'cause i have to say i'm skeptical.

interesting that this is a "roundtable". how far is that from all souls, anyways?

c'mon, guys. you're usually better than this.

Daniel Jones
He pricesly said "I wouldnt exactly read too much in the call". Which is the CNN position and of course Obama's and Cameron's - by default of not even acknowledging the existence of the call.

Sobakus
Even if we suppose you're right, this guy still represents a particular point of view, which is what this programme is about.

deathtokoalas
but, does he represent anybody on the ground, like he claims to?

the media has been presenting the debate as between opposition and government forces (as they were a few weeks ago), as though the then opposition assembled the protestors and consequently represents their interests. however, the then opposition really represents a faction of the ukrainian ruling elite that took advantage of the protest movement to seize power and is now pushing through unpopular reform packages from nato, the eu and the imf. it's looking more and more like a classic "shock doctrine" approach to taking advantage of a manufactured crisis. the people did not assemble to have imf austerity packages rammed through a rump parliament! they were concerned about the kind of corruption endemic to both mainstream parties.

could you imagine the media presenting occupy protestors as representing the interests of the democratic party?

there's been almost total media silence as to who the protestors actually are and what they actually want. this guy reporting from london and stating state department demands isn't helping clarify that distinction between the protestors and the elite, but muddying it.

uploading footage of an occupy fundraiser from last year to youtube

shredding a little at an occupy ottawa fundraiser, in the summer of 2012. this is the most stripped down version possible of the second and third movements of symphony #9. which is an "industrial grunge opera".

recorded first movement of the piece:
http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/proverbs

full version of fundraiser:
https://vimeo.com/45641874

the most important things i learned from occupy are:

1) people that share a dissatisfaction with the world as it is do not necessarily form a shared vision of how they'd like to see the world.
2) capitalist indoctrination is far deeper than many anti-capitalists consciously realize.
3) a tendency to throw temper tantrums is not necessarily something people grow out of.
4) at the end of the day, the revolution can only ever be in the mode of production.
5) hippies don't like challenging music

but, despite the substantial challenges ahead of all of us, it's important that we continue to take the time to speak out against fucking bullshit.

i know the russian mindset towards strong leaders is different. but this article is both the reason i read fp and a good example of flat out propaganda.

putin is a least evil in russia. i keep trying to explain this to people. if a better option appeared in russia, there's little doubt that the masses would swing to it. but, that's not the reality in the country.

the scariest thing about russia in a geopolitical context is it's political spectrum. with all the talk of extremists in ukraine, it's important to realize that russia is under perpetual threat of being taken over by lunatics. still, in 2014, the largest opposition party remains the communist party. leap frogging the third place social democrats (which are the only really moderate party in the country), the fourth place party is a collection of hard-right nationalists that call themselves various type of liberals. what that means is that russia is torn between extreme opposition movements on the far left and the far right, both of which are large enough to form a serious threat should the ruling coalition of liberals and conservatives fracture.

that makes putin a centrist in russia, and that is the basis of his continuing political support. in western terms, he's an old timey conservative in the mold of somebody like churchill, which means he supports a kind of state capitalism in conjunction with a welfare state and a type of social conservatism that is globally fairly normal, if somewhat fringe in europe and north america. that's not a formula for what most westerners would consider enlightened governance in 2014. and , yeah, corruption is endemic. but it's a far cry from the soviets and quasi-fascists that form the only other viable political parties in the country.

and he's not in a vacuum, either. he does have political concerns to be worried about.

something struck me when watching the news conference the other day. in speaking of the divide in wealth in ukraine, he skipped the communists. he talked about the leaders of modern ukraine, then jumped right to the czar. i haven't seen a western analysis of this yet, but it's telling. he needs to be careful not to provoke a conflict with the communist opposition, because he knows that's an argument that could cause some problems.

the ngos that the americans fund in russia aren't helping to remove putin, either, but solidifying his base of support. they're funding the same kind of hard-right opposition movements, which just plays into putin's narrative of not letting the country fall into the hands of extremists on the left or right. it's scary to think that something similar could happen in moscow, but if it could it would have the same effect of a broad rejection by the russian populace. it is obvious that, if elections are fair, the existing government in ukraine is going to be drastically redrawn in upcoming elections. at this point, removing putin by force would probably get the communists elected.

so, is there unease in russia about the kleptocracy? as far as i can see, there is, and it's substantial. but the article doesn't answer the question of who putin is afraid of replacing him - because there isn't anybody that currently could. so long as the americans back the far right, and the soviets remain a strong opposition, the masses of russian people have no option but to continue to vote for putin's centrist coalition.

so, rumours of his demise are greatly exaggerated.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/03/06/the_frontlines_on_russia_homefront_putin_ukraine

that being said, i agree his hands were tied. but it's about strategic positioning, not local politics.

i mean....

if the ghost of churchill were to run for prime minister tomorrow, he'd probably be written off as a fascist.

he might even join the bnp.

well, they said they weren't going to annex it. weird, though.

al jazeera's often not the best source for getting the whole picture. there's no doubt something missing. let's see what the russians say.

nothing as of yet, it seems. just a lot of talk of russia possibly accepting a crimean vote to join the russian federation.

technically, allowing crimea into the russian federation is not invading it. but the force in which the kremlin's spokespeople were rejecting any attempt to sway crimea into russia is not consistent with that kind of policy.

they were very clear on upholding ukrainian sovereignty over the region, while supporting more autonomy.

so, this is either a shift in policy or the collapse of a story that was constructed for western consumption.

it's probably a bit of both.

either way, they lost some credibility with me.

i mean, it's not entirely surprising, but there's a difference between creating propaganda about *why* they're doing something and lying about what they're doing. i've been operating under the perception that while their justifications are usually fabricated, they've been mostly up front about what they're actually doing.

meaning that "we're protecting russians" is obvious bullshit, but "we're not annexing the region" isn't. that may seem subtle, but it's a big difference. it's what v why.

i think it's mostly an extrapolation of how i deal with american propaganda. when the americans indicate they're going after a region - be it iraq or syria or iran - they almost never bluff. you can figure out *what* they're doing pretty easily, by taking their statements at face value. it's the *why* that's usually nonsense and requires a lot of deconstruction.

i don't know how the russians expect anybody to take them seriously when they stand up and say they're doing a thing, and then do the exact opposite. even the americans know not to kill their own credibility like that.

i'm not very forgiving when it comes to this kind of thing. there's still time for a more subtle russian explanation. but, as of right now, they just lost credibility in my mind.

stuck in the middle of an alley closing in on all sides (vst mix) (original upload)

written in early 2001. initially rendered mar 6, 2014. corrected on mar 7, 2014.

http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/vst-mix

Thursday, March 6, 2014

watching all this rt, i really have to say that you simply don't see smart, articulate, informed women able to aggressively argue their points of view anywhere else in the media.

i mean, i've been watching amy goodman for years, but she doesn't grab a hold of the conversation like that. not to mention the plastic models/anchorwomen that dominate most of the news media.

for all it's faults, it seems like that's something communism got right.

pretty weak.

saving face.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/giant-virus-resurrected-from-30000-year-old-ice/
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/03/05/ford-m05.html
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/03/04/welcome_to_cold_war_ii
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Knr6VrREZbk
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/03/06/ukra-m06.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZJVi4pFwfE

again: i'm sure those imf policies are going to be popular.

things are going to be different after the election, which is between german and russian backed factions. this faction the americans are backing is dead in the water.

unless they rig and/or refuse to acknowledge the results of the election. but, the protesters aren't likely to roll over and allow that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxUSb3Hd2oQ

moronic cpc policy designed to appeal to the 905.

it might work.

rip ndp.

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2014/03/05/wynne_rejects_ndps_100_rebate_scheme.html

ok, there's still a vote planned, they just moved it up.

rt is noncommittal on the topic as of yet.

yeah. this seems like it is actually an annoyance from the russian perspective. the russians have sent their guys on tv shows all over the world saying that crimea is a part of ukraine. they would lose all credibility if they reversed their position. and as she mentioned it opens a can of worms regarding a number of other regions.

a parliamentary vote isn't a plebiscite, either.

i can't see them accepting it....

did you know that jamaica has repeatedly voted to join canada?

this has been building up for a while. the saudis are pissed at the qataris for taking a softer line on various things.

”outside world.”

interesting.

the security council wasn't created to facilitate armed intervention, it was created to alleviate tensions that could lead to violence.

unfortunately, the result is that that means that things happen in secret.

but do i think it's a good idea to make it easier for the united nations to act with force? absofuckinglutely not!

it's remarkable. they're beginning with the assumption that the un is meant to be a global governing body and is failing because it lacks that kind of power.

that's not remotely what the un was for or should be.

when russia vetoes an american strike on syria, that's the security council succeeding in it's intended purpose of preventing the escalation of existing conflicts.

yeah, the europeans can't and won't sustain this.

this must be an error. tories can't want people with stronger numeracy. they might read one of their budgets...

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2014/03/05/give_math_teachers_incentive_pay_ontario_conservatives_say.html

in all seriousness, it makes no sense at all to think that you can increase test scores by providing incentives to teachers.

see, teachers don't write tests.

students write tests.

increasing test scores consequently has nothing to do with teachers and everything to do with students.

it follows that if you want to provide incentives to anybody and have it work, there should be incentives for students.

but incentive systems don't work anyways, so it doesn't matter.

i mean, honestly, though - there somehow exist these people that think that the "quality" of teachers somehow affects tests scores. you know what's behind this? it's that stupid michelle pfeiffer movie.

the one where the rich white woman goes to the slums and magically makes the brown kids care more.

see, and that's the absurdity - the idea that students are lazy and simply need to be managed better.

...rather than the truth, which is that students are stupid because their parents raised them on television and junk food....

...and the reality that nothing's going to change them except themselves.

better idea? fire the teachers, hire babysitters and make the kids figure it out on their own.

uploading a tentative vst version of stuck in the middle of an alley closing in on all sides

i'll probably revisit this, but i'm uploading it as is for now.

in addition to being the core of what will be the finished track, it's interesting to point out just how good computer music can sound nowadays. excluding the introduction, i didn't play a single note in this song. the guitars are all played through midi-based vst instruments and put into digital amp models and digital effects emulators. it's really rather remarkable how far the technology has come....

written in early 2001. initially rendered mar 6, 2014.

http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/vst-mix

i don't mind walking to the post office the twice a year that i get mail i care about.

but there's five people in my building and ten in the one beside me. it seems kind of stupid to put a box halfway between when the mail person is there anyways. wasteful, even.

i don't think they're going far enough. if this is their half-baked plan? i suspect urban delivery will continue.

https://www.thestar.com/business/2014/03/04/canada_post_unveils_new_community_mailbox_design.html

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

"We're not going to let anyone get away with interfering with our fatherland, you despicable lackey, president of Panama,” said Maduro.

that's right. panama.

remember when the leader of venezuela waved around chomsky and deconstructed american foreign policy in lengthy state addresses?

no more of that nonsense. the new leader of venezuela has taught us who the real threat to global stability is: panama.

despicable, indeed.

(in other news, my ass is informing me that maduro has entered into an agreement with the state department that sees him maintain power as an american-backed fascist dictator in return for promising not to wave around chomsky and deconstruct american foreign policy.)

that's just how the world works, kids.

also, word has it that david lee roth is now indefinitely banned from venezuela for his anti-revolutionary art.

^ that is the only possible excuse for ever, ever, ever posting van halen anywhere.

"Panama only hopes that this brother nation finds peace and strengthens its democracy," - the "astonished" president of panama

unless....

venezuela couldn't possibly be thinking of invading panama could it?

that would wreak some havoc.

a man, a plan...one of those funny hats?

-------------

geez, he could have at least blamed the california girls.

that's a step down in quality of nemesis, nicolas. hugo got to fight the americans. you're getting picked on by panama? what did you get in return for toning down on the anti-americanism?

next week, it'll be cuba.

ps: i always knew david lee roth was a mason.

http://rt.com/news/venezuela-breaks-relations-panama-026/

maduro had sell out on his forehead from day one.

unfortunately, this could get ugly.

uglier than this, even.

i know, that's an unwholesome thought. but i kind of assumed that when maduro became dictator it would be isolationist. dictators that play nice with the americans are always bad news.

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2008/10/22/russia_might_invade_ukraine_if_obama_wins_palin_warns

well, what did you want them to do?

invite the us marines into the crimean base?

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140305/188114816/Russia-Spent-11Bln-on-Propping-Ruble-Amid-Conflict-Fears.html

ok, chill out.

world war three didn't start a few weeks ago. world war three started some time in the 90s. it's just easier if you don't know about it.

vladimir putin is a known known, and the truth is that he's a pansy. maybe that's what the macho bullshit exterior is about.

or, at least that's what the americans are counting on, in their attempt to distract him. the goal is syria, and then iran. putin's become an annoyance. maybe he wouldn't be so annoying if he had some problems in his own backyard to worry about.

chechens are notoriously untrustworthy. you gotta bribe 'em over and over. and, in the end, they don't actually give a fuck. but, missile bases in ukraine is enough to get putin to shit in his pants.

you can hear bits of this policy of asserting hegemony with a pair of iron balls in the western media. kerry called russia weak. that's hyperbolic, but he's right. the americans wouldn't be as aggressive, otherwise.

...and they wouldn't be as aggressive if russia was governed by somebody who isn't a pansy.

so, stop worrying about a war. it's not going to happen. putin will give the west what it wants, because he doesn't have the stomach to give the orders.

that's the sick, twisted truth. the americans will squeeze every last drop out. slowly. c'mon, now vlad - they've got you pinned. say uncle.

checkmate in five.

well, he's right, and of course i agree with him

i've been following rt with the ukrainian issue due to their proximity, but i've previously preferred ria novosti when i've followed russian media at all. the difference is actually substantial. i mean, if i want to know russia's response to nato expansion or developments about the missile shield, i read russian media. that makes sense. it follows that russian media is important in getting a full picture.

so, i do suggest reading russian media. but i don't read - and don't suggest reading - rt uncritically. as i don't suggest reading cnn or al jazeera uncritically. there's huge biases in all these sources. reading them should come with that caveat.

obviously.

with the issue in ukraine? i find their narrative more plausible. it's not perfect. there's a lot of propaganda to break through. i don't think any existing or future russian action is going to be to "protect russian citizens". that's the propaganda. they have strategic aims they will follow. but reading it helps understand what those aims are. and they're relevant in getting what's happening.

but the situation there is outlandish, and the russians are right to freak out about it. it's hard to talk about russia obeying agreements when they're dealing with the armed gunmen storming parliaments. they have a strategic base to protect, and if they're just going to show up with goons and hang out then i have a hard time criticizing them for it. they start killing people, that's a different story.

further, the russians have claimed they have no intent of annexing crimea. i don't see any reason not to believe them. we'll have to see how credible they are in the long run. for now, it seems like a reasonable policy - regardless of the international law that no country in the world pays more than lip service to.

i'm an anarchist...

independent media is useful for analysis, but in the end it's a secondary source. state media - whatever it's flaws - is a primary source. that's a very key difference to observe. so, it's an important tool in the arsenal.

that's all quite secondary to what he's saying here, which is that shit is complex and i again agree is largely correct.

something that's forgotten is that ukrainian media is also state-owned. so, there's not really any good sources here.

if you think the people that just took over in kiev are into free and fair media, you've had some wool pulled over your eyes...

you have to understand that if russia were to lose it's crimean port that would be a shattering shift in global power. that has been the prime russian objective for centuries. it's a huge naval facility. like, if you had the russian military sit down and list the five most strategic areas in the world for them, the crimea would be near the top of the list.

and it's not like the americans don't know that.

so, i'm willing to bend a little. that's something they can't lose. i feel that suggesting otherwise would be very much cheerleading for a pro-nato position.

despite the mostly empty rhetoric about rights and laws.

i'm going to rant a little in a new post...

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2008/10/22/russia_might_invade_ukraine_if_obama_wins_palin_warns
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiKF8JN1qmk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkC4Z67QuC0

it actually seems to me as though the west is best on escalating the situation at any cost.

regardless, here's kerry's meaningless words.

yup. it's spring.

*groan*

march, smarch.

lousy smarch weather.

i saw the sun hit at that special spring angle this morning, though! looks like it's at least going to be habitable starting tomorrow.

which means i should expect that gnawing stomach ache in the next few days.

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

i think chomsky makes some good points here, but a student-run university is something i wouldn't go a mile near. i'm imagining credits for basketball tryouts, and televised nerd stonings. there's this sort of naive optimism that underlies so much of leftist thinking that only makes sense after the society has already changed. maybe things seemed better in the 60s - i can't say - but this kind of thing, nowadays, would be horrifically oppressive and lead to a rapid deterioration of education.

i'm also far more of an individualist than the average leftist. i find anarchism is often an intellectual position that syndicalist style socialists take, out of various historical reasons. people that actually feel and live and breathe anarchism are far rarer.

i'd rather do away with professors altogether by expelling them purely to research. i don't know where this idea that research and teaching ought to be connected comes from, but i think it really ought to be separated. why do we have our brightest minds teaching simple ideas to teenagers? why not just literally give them lobotomies and lock them up in cages?

the problems i had going through school were primarily related to my inability to work well in groups, and my anxiety in social situations. about the only worthwhile thing i learned in high school was that i understand things better reading them out of a book by myself in my bedroom than i do by wasting my time sitting in a classroom. i was told that i would be better suited for the university system because of that greater emphasis on independent learning and critical thought. what i found was the exact opposite, for a few reasons.

the first was profs that would grade you based on attendance. there's two levels to this. the first are the ones that actually make it a part of the grading scheme. so, you get 10 or 15% for just showing up. i'd argue that's preposterous on it's face. but what i found was that i couldn't show up for various reasons that the school wouldn't recognize as valid, and if i did i'd start yelling at people. so, i'd instantly forfeit a tenth or more of the grade. sometimes, i could ace the rest of the course material and get a decent mark. other times, an A became a B or a C because of it, or a B became as low as a D.

and they say it's to inflate the grade? it didn't inflate mine. rather, the insistence on participation marks is the primary reason i'm not teaching right now. rather, it's to enforce discipline in scheduling. i didn't fully get that at the time, but i do now. and in the sense that i'm a bad worker/slave, i suppose i got the marks i deserved.

why didn't i want to participate? because the students were terrible elitists. i didn't have fancy clothes or expensive shoes, and didn't really care to drop out for a year to save up to buy them. worse, they were culturally dead. i never thought for a minute, growing up, that i'd walk into a university classroom and learn that the most pressing topic of discussion amongst the students in the room was the tv show 'friends'. so, we're talking about people that follow cultural norms and are slaves to fashion trends. free thinkers? far from it. i remember trying to start a discussion about rachmaninov with somebody that identified themselves as liking music and just getting stared right through, as though i was talking some other language. this person wanted to talk about some awful, boring "indie rock" music and was just confused by my absolute disinterest. it was incredibly disillusioning. i simply didn't have anything in common with anybody to the point where i found it difficult to even be in the same room with them.

so, i didn't go to class, and i don't regret that. what i regret is maintaining the delusion that i had a future in the school system. i wish i would have given up sooner and not wasted so much time with it.

this was part of the reason i switched into math. i thought if there was anywhere to avoid pop culture, that would be it. but it wasn't any better. about the only person i was able to get along with was a mildly autistic kid from russia that could barely speak english. he just didn't know anything about american culture. i found that refreshing.

i can't honestly think the hippies would have been much better, despite what noam is saying. so, is there any hope of building democratic institutions, with the culture the way it is? i don't see it...

the second problem was profs that would give you bullshit grades for not showing up. we like to think of the system as relatively objective, but that kind of garbage is still fairly common. i'd say i lost close to a full grade point to participation marks, and more than that from profs entering in fraudulent marks. but i didn't start challenging (and winning) those kinds of cases for far too long....

the second was that the issue cycles itself around. depression from not fitting in or being able to relate works it's way into other aspects of your life. not going to class to avoid the social part of it becomes not caring enough to bother doing homework. then, there's the profs that teach things that aren't in the text in order to catch the students that don't show up, out of some kind of sadistic pleasure.

what i would have wanted, myself, would be to take the professor right out of the situation. no gods, no masters. i'd rather see standardized curricula that are basically just course notes. the way i'd conceive of the process working is that the notes and assignments are handed out to the students at the beginning of the semester and it's the students' responsibility to do it on their own, and then be tested at the end. no need for classes. *no need to pay the prof*. some people do like the socialization for whatever reason; an internet forum combined with voluntary discussion groups could give them what they want without excluding those that despise that sort of thing for whatever reason they despise it.

that's actually an anarchist perspective, rather than a syndicalist one.

another thing i found was that the average teaching assistant is quite literally an absolute moron. something that bugged the hell out of me was when they'd "correct" various grammatical "errors", which were almost always entirely arbitrary because they didn't like your argument and were looking for an excuse to mark it down. you'd get all kinds of grade biases. that was more when i was studying law. when i was studying math, and later comp sci, the tas were often unable to follow any argument that wasn't in the solution sheet. i'd continually have to take it to the prof to get it marked right...

the conclusion i've come to is that the schools are being forced to hire unqualified students because there are too many positions. but the diploma mill nature of most modern universities ensures there's a surplus of labour.

it's a catastrophe, really.

there was actually one comp sci course where the ta's solution sheet was so bad that i felt the need to rewrite it and post the corrections on my website. worse, the ta taught the course. and it was, like, $1200...for that sum, we couldn't even get a valid solution sheet or a prof that knew what he was talking about...

(link apparently lost)

Monday, March 3, 2014

Peaks OH
wow all white men

deathtokoalas
....because race & gender are relevant in discussing agriculture. clearly, if we had more race & gender diversity, we would understand the ecology much better. absolutely pertinent observation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GUYl_RYvfw
http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140303/188056671/Russia-Enlists-Chinese-Support-on-Ukraine-Position.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5Y_wjT-530
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDA52gwWVhk&feature=youtube_gdata
http://on.rt.com/o9tuz2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptqyVyqrNwk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyrxsZC4IIY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfB8fmhC8XI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nK9FEBxghw

the difference in venezuela is that chavez controlled the military. that can't be said for the other social democrats being discussed.

if chavez didn't control the military, he would have been dead in a matter of weeks.

the spin the russians are taking on this is that patriotic ukrainian military personnel are refusing to take orders from the illegal coup, not that soviet-thinking soldiers are aligning with the motherland.

the truth is probably somewhere in between. it's something to think about, though. if a flow of white trash stormed the white house, it would be hard to deduce that the us military would ignore the president. if it happened in canada, there would be lingering allegiances to nato.

no, tim, but if the russians orchestrated a coup in canada, you can bet that the americans would protect norad and various other bases they have in the country.

the language and protection stuff is the actual propaganda. that's not what's driving them.

also, cia mcgovern misspoke 'cause he's old. but suggesting that russia should be interpreted differently than the soviet union is one of those naive academic traps that i've fallen into in the past and others shouldn't.

the cold war didn't start in 1945 or 1917. it goes back to a string of conflicts originating around the french revolution that was about the british empire containing the growing russian empire and included conflict both in the crimea area and central asia (the great game), over control of india.

it's historically wrong to siphon off russia's communist phase. it's convenient from an american imperial perspective that wants to compartmentalize everything in order to deny a larger strategic conflict, but it's wrong.

rather, there's a deep continuity going back centuries. it's not wrong to look at the situation today and say "gee, it looks just like it did in the mid nineteenth century". in fact, that's the perspective that really gets it.

in that sense, you can almost leap frog the soviet union.

taking it back to kievan rus is a bit too far, granted. you could get really abstract about eastern and western roman empires but it's largely incoherent.

understanding it in a general london v moscow conflict that is older than any of us is, however, far more correct than setting up a year zero in 1991.

this is really legitimately still british shipping interests containing czarist ambitions.

and they're *still* fighting over russian deepwater ports.

it's funny, though. the one thing that the russians and british have always agreed on is that those goddamned franks and germans can't get out of hand. it'll be interesting to see if that reasserts itself.

Sunday, March 2, 2014

deathtokoalas
this is a balanced interview worth watching.

Martti Mandel
Adding Goebbels to discussion about nazi-germany agression doesn't balance it.

deathtokoalas
well, the interviewer seemed to have a pro-western agenda. she was not balanced. the rest of it was fairly refreshing, including

1) hearing a pro-ukrainian talking head acknowledge that the forces that stormed parliament cannot win an election because they do not represent the people, as well as acknowledging the threat of nationalism in the country.

2) hearing a russian diplomat clarify that ukraine is not under threat of invasion.

personally? i'm pretty knowledgeable about the general topic. i can read between the lines. but it's always nice to hear it first hand.

and i think a lot of victims of the more sensationalist coverage could benefit from watching this.

what i have to say about the situation doesn't matter. what you have to say about the situation doesn't matter. what the people in the video have to say about the situation matters.

so, stop pretending you have any idea what you're talking about, shut the fuck up and try and learn something.

===

Jopdan
If Russians are really being treated poorly, where's the evidence? Where are the russians getting beaten in the streets?

何孝倫
Well where were the evidence of Americans being beaten in the streets and treated poorly before they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan?

Jopdan
We're not talking about the US here. we're talking about Russia. Stop changing the subject. There is NO evidence that anything Russia is saying is true.

Tonttu Takeover
Neo-nazis in the nationalist side of Ukraine is a threat to russian people of Crimea? Why does that sentence sound awful lot of bulls*it to me? I think because its a presumption which lead to (way too early) actions. There truly isnt enough evidence to support this claim right now. Russians have same kind of threat inside they're own borders if we were to evaluate the situation like that, based on same kind of assumptions of armed minority groups. Assumptions amongst people lead to anger and feed the crisis even more. I think, even if the present (temporary?) government of Ukraine is improper one, it shouldnt have lead Russia to these actions, and is very poor act of foreign policy from Russia. Even just because Russia is securing they're own interests in Crimea, this kind of action will show across the globe in a negative manner towards Russia, and they will lose more than gain, in terms of foreign policy.

deathtokoalas
russia is neither claiming this is happening nor threatening to invade. rather, they are stating that they might choose to protect russian citizens should this hypothetical situation materialize.

most large states need to come up with moral justifications for their actions. what the russians are saying is that they will not allow the ukrainian state to move in the direction of the kind of extreme militarism that defined the nazi state. what putin is saying is that he will not be the neville chamberlain of the 21st century; he will act decisively to stamp out the threat before it is one.

but it's a very hypothetical situation. as mentioned in the interview, ukraine is not currently under threat of invasion.

two coats of epoxy. one to bond, one to fill cracks. seems to have been successful. but i'm letting it sit a few more days because i basically give up if it doesn't hold.

hugely messy, too. going to need to sand it....

what happened was a little piece of plastic broke off the headband on my phones. they're modular. meaning the ear muff parts hook into an adjustable roller type idea. it's the roller that snapped a piece off.

the phones work and everything. really, if my head wasn't absurdly small..

...but, as i have the cranial circumference of an eight year old, i have to adjust it to it's tightest setting, which means the phones are continually falling off.

i'll test it in the morning. when it's back together, i'm going to spend a good month solely on the sound.

http://rt.com/news/ukrainian-warships-leave-sevastopol-476/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26410431#TWEET1059881
http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140302/188027471/Crimean-Authorities-Confirm-Takeover-of-Military-Units.html
http://rt.com/news/navy-chief-ukraine-crimea-485/
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/putins-imperial-pursuit-of-a-subordinate-ukraine/495466.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndT1YOYWXyo

this is from december but i haven't seen much recent polling i can trust (the kyiv post is state owned). what i want to get across is a ukrainian displeasure with the far right and how it may affect elections.

- In a contest between Yanukovych and Klitschko, 36 percent would choose Klitschko, 20 percent Yanukovych, 13 percent don’t know, 18 percent against all and 12 percent would not vote.

- In a contest between Yanukovych and Yatsenyuk, 26 percent would choose Yatsenyuk, 22 percent Yanukovych, 23 percent against all, 14 percent don’t know, and 12 percent would not vote.

-In a contest between Yanukovych and Tyahnybok, 24 percent would choose Yanukovych, 18 percent Tyahnybok, 27 percent against all, 16 percent don’t know, and 13 percent would not vote.

ok. so, yatsenyuk and yanukovych represent the mainstream left and right. klitschko is the "new party" which gets the novelty vote. tyahnybok is the fascist.

so, ukrainians are saying that:

new party > establishment > fascists.

that would be true most places in most circumstances, turmoil or not.

now, what happens when you put yatsenyuk in coalition with tyahnybok as is currently the case? first, you're going to get some discomfort, because svoboda is too right-wing. as unpopular as yanukovych may have been, he'd still win a plurality against the far right. because they want to outlaw abortion and pass restrictive language laws and build weapons programs.....stuff that's not popular anywhere....

the questions that need to be answered are:

1) the coalition is clearly going to be a factor, how much of a factor is this? does it reduce the center-right vote by more than 5%? 'cause, if so, that might swing the election to yanukovych.
2) do these people move back to yanukovych as the known establishment candidate or take a chance on klitschko as the new party?

see, establishment voters are establishment. they pick the devil they know.

what i'm getting at is that i don't think that the center-right coalition has a chance. that is to say that the only thing that is certain about the may election is that the party that just seized power will lose it. it's consequently very difficult to talk about the new parliament as being representative of anybody except victoria nuland.

so, that makes it a two-way race between yanukovich' party and the german-backed kiltschko, which might seem like a clear choice between europe and russia...

...except it might not be. it might have more to do with local social policies. there's still a left-right component to this, and that might be the more important concern.

what that means is that if you're the russians you wait until the shit clears itself out. there might be no need to remove the government by force. they might simply be voted out.

on the other hand, the elections might not be fair, in which case we can expect another uprising - this time against the existing government.

so at the very least, we can expect the russians to wait until may. the situation on the ground will then provide a new set of challenges to react to.

i'm all for tearing down propaganda - really, it's what i do here - but the reaction against the russian refugee claims is bordering on illiterate. the response is to show an empty border crossing. did they read the article?

1) the 675000 figure refers to the number of people russia has claimed have crossed the border over the last two months. that's about 11K/day. if we assume ten border crossings and a steady flow, that's about 50 cars at any given border crossing at any time - not an amount that would be conspicuous. further, many people no doubt left via train or plane. if you're looking for a stream of huddled masses marching with knapsacks, you're greatly underestimating the wealth in the area. rather, you want to look for a slow stream of people buying plane tickets.

2) the 143K number refers to the number of people who have requested refugee status. there's no evidence of these people moving because they haven't moved. they've just filled out a form.

i have no way of knowing if the numbers are correct, but can we try and actually read what we're claiming to debunk before we go full retard?

the not reading the article part is probably the problem.

it was bad enough when people just read the headlines at the grocery store. twitter has turned this into a daily habit for millions, and even dignified it as 'efficient'.

full retard is consequently just about the perfect description...

let me state this more concisely:

twitter's grand accomplishment of reducing the content of media to an eye-catching headline is precisely american consciousness reaching it's final state of full retard.

it is the absolute perfect encapsulation of our idiocracy on the point of collapse.

http://rt.com/news/ukrainians-leave-russia-border-452/

the analysis here is not bad, even if it's coming from a different ideological space. it's a lot of the same things i've been saying.

i think putin's primary concern is the naval base, not pan-slavism. that's actually probably lucky for the west. there are plenty of pan-slavics in russia, and he may in the end be replaced by one. but he himself seems to be intellectually above that.

it's more the line being crossed that i'm drawing attention to. i've referred to a "poland moment" in the past, where russia would have to reverse it's policy of appeasing the americans. this might be it. and the americans don't seem to have expected it.

....because the obama administration is not composed of particularly intelligent people. that much is now very clear. as a judge of character, obama has been remarkably bad. which is a flaw that seems to resonate in his own character. a comedy of errors.

the russians will need to be directly provoked to expand the operation beyond the military base. and you have to keep in mind that this isn't an annexation. it's just a protective process. i've yet to see any reason to think the russians are proposing to pull the region out of the ukraine. i've just seen a lot of concern that they need to protect their existing control over the region.

so, will putin "seize" donetsk and kharkiv next? not likely, as of now. but if american belligerence stomps the wrong toes, or the new ukrainian parliament passes the wrong bill, then it becomes a feasible turn of events.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/next-putin-will-seize-donetsk-and-kharkiv/495463.html

right, so why austerity, then?

because the people making decisions think that if you cut social welfare off and keep interest rates low then people on welfare will borrow money and start successful businesses. they understand the economy can't create more jobs. their solution is to convert the unemployed into the self-employed through entrepreneurship.

well, you need to take a step back: they expected this to happen in the first place by liberalizing markets. but, it hasn't. because most people don't know how to run a business and wouldn't want to if they did. i keep coming back to this. it's the reason markets will never work. people just don't want to live like that.

but, rather than accept that people have made that decision, they've blamed it on welfare, gone back on the voluntary aspect and tried to force people into it through incentivizing it.

but they never explain this anywhere. do people on welfare know when they get a food stamp cut that they're supposed to go to the bank, get a loan and start a business? no. i mean, this isn't going to work. it's just going to create more failed businesses and more debt. but to get it to fail and get the political class to move on, the idea has to be explained much better than it is.

but, what about the bear patrol?

idiots.

"The Ukrainian Defense Ministry immediately denied the report, which was also circulated by other Russian media, calling it “a provocation.”"

well, yeah, they'd do that, wouldn't they? this is the best russian strategy. i wouldn't be surprised to find out it's true.

who knows, though?

http://rt.com/news/ukraine-military-russia-resign-437/
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140302/188021252/Ukrainian-Troops-in-Crimea-Side-with-Pro-Russia-Forces.html

Saturday, March 1, 2014

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-transition-government-neo-nazis-in-control-of-armed-forces-national-security-economy-justice-and-education/5371539

yeah. i guess it gives 'em a good line to run with. and it's not entirely unwarranted, even if it is exaggerated. but you just stormed parliament with bats and shovels and installed a fascist as deputy prime minister, yulia. maybe it's time to have an out-of-body experience and realize how that appears to the rest of the world, and put it into some context.

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/politics/tymoshenkoukraine-and-the-world-must-act-immediately-to-stop-russian-aggression-338081.html

i actually don't expect that sort of thing to fly. she's not a serious candidate on either side of the country. whatever the merits of her concern, i'd expect pretty much everybody on both sides to see through it.

in the end, we can't have patience for fascists. if the russians come down hard on these people, that's a war they're on the right side of.

i mean, if we want to talk history, russia has a pretty brutal history with fighting fascism. 20 million is a lot of dead people. that's something else we don't really realize in the west. well, i think we do know this, but it's not our mythology. wwII was primarily a conflict between germany and russia. russia was near obliterated in the process.

as much as ripping out the mongols was a part of the russian ethnogenesis, defeating the fascists formed a core of soviet identity. it's too early to have lost that.

so, the flip side is that that's a heavily emotional concern on the russian side.

it doesn't really matter where it pops up, to me. fascism is to be fought against everywhere, using all means possible.

that's not to put too much trust in the russians...

...but i can't do anything but support anything that takes these people out of power. it doesn't matter how they got there. uprising. coup. election. fascists cannot be passively allowed to govern.

under any circumstance.

'cause you know what they say about fascists: they're only good when they're dead.

korea's a stalemate, this is just bluffing. but it goes back to what i was saying.

http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/721379

any movement at all by the south is going to lead to a chinese occupation. that's how this mess started in the first place. that's a strategic and historical boundary. any attack on north korea is an attack on china.

so, the americans won't do that.

conversely, any attack from the north is an attack on japan, which will activate a flurry of defense alliances.

nothing can move on the issue without sparking a war between the united states and china.

so, nothing will move on the issue.

what north korea actually is is a buffer state.

they know they can squeeze some concessions out by being naughty...

...but, despite the rhetoric, the truth is that the situation is very stable and in no threat of changing any time soon.

and if some drunk general in north korea gets an ego trip or something? chinese occupation before the americans can blink. they won't have to take him out. the chinese will do that themselves.

that's spheres of influence again.

http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/721385
http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/721602

ok, let's just be clear that the rhetoric coming out of moscow and crimea and eastern ukraine is that putin is pledging support should the local governments request aid in putting down supremacist movements. they're talking about sending "peacekeeping troops", not invading and annexing the region.

yes, "peacekeeping" means "protecting strategic interests". regardless, this is all centered around the invitation. that's an extremely important point that the western media is completely misreporting in it's "putin to invade ukraine" headlines.

that doesn't negate anything i said. it was meant in that context, because "peacekeeping" means "occupying". but it's imperative that it's specified properly.

this is another interesting twist: might the russians have more leverage over the military than the parliament?

i'm sure there's still a soviet-era culture within it. and i'm sure they understand what's really happening.

http://rt.com/news/ukraine-navy-flaghsip-protest-389/

if the russians can orchestrate a military coup, that would eliminate the need to invade directly. it's of course not ideal, but what just happened puts those sorts of options on the table.

the negative side of it is that russia does support some brutal dictatorships in the former ssrs. belarus. kazakhstan. i don't think anybody wants to wish that fate on ukraine.

but the russians may see it as a pragmatic solution to restore order.

"The participants of the rally were demanding to hold a referendum on the future of the region, and particularly, on the status of Russian language. "

let's not lose sight of what the reaction is about: language rights, not successionism.

http://rt.com/news/donetsk-kharkov-ukraine-protest-365/

again, this is a big step forward in russia's recently more assertive behaviour. again, i have to point out that the russians have been patient to the point of being naive. it was a matter of time, if the americans continued their aggressive policies.

i'm starting to come to the conclusion that the box has now opened: that the donkey has startled the elephant in the room into stomping too hard and it has awoken the bear from hibernation.

if russia starts invading former ssrs, i don't think it will be limited to ukraine. i think it will be indicative of a larger shift in strategy that will include more assertive roles in the caucasus, central asia, eastern europe, iran and the arab world.

i'm not using the pandora's box analogy lightly. they've been trying very hard to prevent this. but when they make the decision to use force, they're going to be liberal about it.

http://en.ria.ru/world/20140302/188009718/Putin-Tells-Obama-Russia-Will-Act-In-Case-of-Ukraine-Violence.html

there's just a really big historical line here. it's about respecting spheres of influence. the historical boundary is somewhere through poland and across through to moldova. the baltic countries are historically on the other side of it, but they're also different, culturally, and so the russians could grit their teeth and deal with it.

but ukraine is the russian sphere, by any understanding of history. crossing that line throws a lot of stated and unstated understandings out the window. if the americans think they can meddle in ukraine, why wouldn't the russians think they can meddle in poland or latvia? or mexico? or cuba?

opening this box means discarding a desire for peace, however naive it may have been, and going back to cold war type geopolitics.

something else to keep an eye out for is how this connects with china's increasing concern about american containment policies. that's the basis for a strengthening alliance.

mercosur?

there's a lot of ways the russians can cause some havoc, if they want to. but they haven't wanted to. they've wanted peace.

that might be in the process of changing.

btw, how would the turks like to deal with an emboldened and better funded kurdish resistance movement?

if the americans wanted a world war, it looks like they've got it.

see, this is why these people will not win an election.

this puts putin's call into some more context, and provides some evidence that kiev is planning a larger invasion.

http://rt.com/news/russia-crimea-sieze-gunmen-344/

that being said, this is a baby step towards a more assertive russia and that's a cause for alarm if you're concerned about global peace.

i mean, the americans have been pushing the russians around for decades, now. just poking them with stick after stick. again, it's in the pnac. and they've refused to react. it's astounding that the russians have kept up good faith for so long, with the expansion of nato and the construction of missile shields and the containment policies. we've managed to dodge large scale war in yugoslavia (a few times), afghanistan, iraq, libya, syria....

....except the russians have said libya was too far, and they've pushed back in syria. but there hasn't been any troop deployment. until now, in ukraine. which is very close to home.

i'm from canada. i know what "peacekeepers" are. but it's not yet an invasion. it is, however, a suspension of the considerable russian naivete that has prevented a world war up to now. that's cause for concern...

ideally, the americans back off. i couldn't imagine somebody thinking they actually will.

http://rt.com/news/russia-ukraine-approve-miltary-371/

"There have been widespread reports of significant Russian military activity, including the movement of tanks, troops and helicopters, across the Crimea in recent days. But Russia has insisted that all the movements are allowed within the framework of a 1997 agreement with Ukraine about the use of naval bases."

ok, so that's the first thing. it's not an invasion because the area is already occupied by a substantial russian military presence. the ukrainians are saying they don't like this movement, but the russians are pointing out that it's permitted under the law. the western media seems to have taken this and run with it, not fully aware of the facts.

the second question is who the gunmen are, and the answer is apparently "self-defense squads", which americans should understand as militia groups. this is what is supposed to happen in america under the conditions of a foreign-backed coup.

the third question is what this authorization is about. crimea isn't really a province. it's an autonomous region. that means it has some sovereignty. i don't know what the exact legality of inviting russian troops into the region is, but if the idea of sovereignty means anything it means not having to ask kiev for permission. the legalities aside (they're not that important), moving troops in upon request is not an invasion in the sense it's usually used. and, yes, this guy was elected.

nor does it imply the imminent break up of the area.

so, these are three separate things:

(1) legally allowed movements
(2) militia groups protecting the people from foreign invasion, as they're theoretically supposed to.
(3) russian "peacekeepers" coming in upon request to occupy the region to protect their interests and "maintain order".

a possible (4) is a referendum, but i remain skeptical it will pass.

http://en.ria.ru/world/20140301/187992857/Crimean-Leader-Appeals-to-Putin-for-Help.html

Friday, February 28, 2014

http://en.ria.ru/world/20140227/187950307/Ukraines-New-Language-Bill-Will-Be-Balanced--Acting-Leader.html
http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_02_28/Simferopol-international-airport-staff-deny-reports-about-its-capture-0600/
http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_02_28/Gunmen-take-over-airport-in-Crimea-capital-Simferopol-6442/
http://rt.com/news/crimea-airport-terminal-capture-095/
http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/david-marples/ukraine-view-from-west

"The history of the new Russian state shows that the new Russian lead has no desire to re-establish the Soviet Union or invade other countries. What they want is normal busines with the EU and the US, making Russia a part of the western world. Territorial expansion is certainly not on their list of priorities."

this is correct, but it comes with a caveat - once the breaking point is reached, there's not much chance of closing the box. but, you have to understand that the pnac is pushing this. they want russia to react with force, so they can piss away the wealth they're building up. it's a part of the destabilization process.

http://voiceofrussia.com/uk/news/2014_02_28/Ukraine-Territorial-expansion-is-not-on-Russias-list-of-priorities-8804/

this is interesting.

again: you have to understand that the dynamics of the world in 2014 are not what they were in 1952. the russians are obsessed with international agreements and the rule of law. nato operates on a master morality that has no interest in the concept of law at all. so, the russians need referendums and parliamentary resolutions, whereas nato is ok with launching revolutions by pitchfork.

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140228/187971656/Russia-Lawmakers-Push-to-Simplify-Annexing-New-Territories.html

"a just russia", fwiw, is the third party in russia - behind putin's centrist liberal-conservative coalition and the communist party, which is still the official opposition. it's a social democratic party, roughly similar to something like canada's ndp.

the last rap news (22) was especially awesome

the copernicus section is something else.

second heliocentric revolution, indeed.

too many fools, though.

the same thing they did to ghadaffi...

...and what sovereignty do they claim over the finances of a citizen of a foreign country? the idea is entirely outlandish.

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_02_28/Switzerland-Lichtenstein-Austria-lead-moves-to-block-Ukrainian-politicians-assets-0753/

regards of the geopolitics, and my preference for russia as a lesser evil than america, i find it hard to deny the idea of local self-governance.

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_02_28/Crimea-cannot-be-denied-right-to-hold-self-determination-referendum-Pushkov-9214/

"All of the social research indicates that folks that come from stable families tend to do better in terms of their economic prospects," Kenney said.

technically, that could very well be true. the causality is likely a bit more complex than implied. i'm more concerned about the logic, here. in kenney's style of social darwinist thinking, that means they should be rewarded through various policy initiatives, like targeted tax breaks.

further, the data that indicates that people from other types of families are less economically prosperous means they should be punished by less preferential tax breaks.

if i was a free market economist, i'd say something about picking winners and losers. i'm not. i'm more concerned about the fascism inherent within it. it's a style of thinking that openly favours creating greater disadvantages and systemic inequality, based on a cut throat and entirely wrong concept of natural selection.

they seem to openly view government as a tool to stamp out the weak. but, i don't think most of their supporters would adhere to that kind of thinking.

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/jason-kenney-says-income-splitting-is-for-stable-family-units

one of the core ideals of "liberal democracy" is that those who are struggling ought to have some resources reallocated to them to give them better opportunities, not that those that have greater opportunities ought to be rewarded for taking advantage of them.

there's a long history of evangelical, right-wing and pseudo-fascist eugenics movements in the western provinces, going back through social credit and united farmers. this has it's own history in the western united states.