1581

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The NBA should be shut down

« on: May 03, 2014, 07:54:07 PM »

If you can't figure out the difference between race discrimination and talent discrimination, then you're an idiot.  Korean and Chinese citizens are welcome to play basketball in the NBA if they are talented enough to do it.  That there are few Korean and Chinese citizens with the requisite talent [...] and desire

Whoa, whoa, slow down. Are you saying there generally are physical differences between races?

Um, no.  You just lopped off the end of my sentence to make it seem that way.  It's yet another demonstration of your complete inability to fairly characterize others' arguments.

Few Chinese or Korean athletes with the requisite talent to compete in NBA basketball are interested in doing so.  There are fewer opportunities for young Chinese and Korean athletes to learn and play basketball since it isn't as popular in those cultures.  It's probably also just easier, cheaper, and more popular to recruit and scout American athletes over foreign ones.  There are undoubtedly fewer opportunities for a foreign athlete to prove to an American franchise that he has the requisite skills to compete for a spot on a NBA roster.

And, yes, I think that submitting to racists and behaving as they command you to behave is probably going to cause you to do some racist things.

Be specific. In Tom's scenario, would pulling your daughter out of the school make you a racist?

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: No, it doesn't cause you to suddenly be a person who believes in racial superiority.  Yes, telling your daughter not to associate with Indian people is a racist thing to do (a much more accurate analogy to what really happened; Sterling didn't pull his girlfriend out of the NBA...he told her not to associate with black people).  Yes, pulling your daughter out of her school simply because Indian students attend it is a racist thing to do.  People who do not believe in racial superiority are still capable of doing racist things and behaving in a racist manner.

Not that I don't love argument by analogy, but let's at least use a relatively accurate one.  Sterling's girlfriend is an adult, he didn't pull her out of the NBA, and he wasn't "continually abused" (Tom is literally just making that up).  Let's stop pretending that Sterling was some random, sweet, loving old dude somehow duped into saying something racist when he doesn't really mean any of it.  He has a documented history of saying some pretty fucked up shit about racial minorities.

More accurately, if I was a NBA franchise owner and I received regular phone calls from my BoG telling me to make my girlfriend stop associating with black people, I think it would be racist of me to tell my girlfriend to stop associating with black people.  That would be a racist thing to do.  The fact that a bunch of people called me and told me to behave in a racist way wouldn't absolve me of behaving like a racist.

And it's all irrelevant anyway.  It doesn't mater if he's a racist or not.  The NBA's labor pool believe he's racist.  The NBA's customers believe he's racist.  The NBA is in the business of making cash hand-over-fist, and they need customers and a labor pool to do that.  He's got to go.

1582

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The NBA should be shut down

« on: May 03, 2014, 05:58:22 PM »

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/transcript-silver-sterling-press-conference-article-1.1773513#ixzz30fhaAzLR

"Sentiments of this kind are contrary to the principles of inclusion and respect that form the foundation of our diverse, multicultural and multiethnic league."

Silver is suggesting that a foundation of the league is diversity. It is not. Where are all the Korean woman?

He further suggests that the league is founded on multicultural and multiethnic inclusion. It is not. How many Chinese players are being recruited?

If the NBA were truly diverse a basketball team would look like something out of a YMCA infomercial.

Sorry, I can't take this argument seriously anymore.  If you can't figure out the difference between race discrimination and talent discrimination, then you're an idiot.  Korean and Chinese citizens are welcome to play basketball in the NBA if they are talented enough to do it.  That there are few Korean and Chinese citizens with the requisite talent and desire to play NBA basketball doesn't mean that the NBA doesn't value multiculturalism.  That's mindbogglingly asinine.

Did you read the Daily Mail article? He was receiving abuse from his business partners because of his girlfriend's actions.

The article says that some board members called him and told him that they didn't like the look of his girlfriend's associates.  No one, including Sterling, uses the word abuse.  You're just inventing that.  No one, including Sterling, says anything about anyone being bad for business.  You're trying to pretend that this guy is being harassed by racists into acting racist to avoid some kind of threat.  That's totally absurd.

Basketball is played the world over. There are athletes of all genders and races. But the league seems content with recruiting mainly black americans.

Because individuals in that demographic are overwhelmingly more likely to have both the talent and desire to play NBA basketball.  I dunno why you're trying to pretend that it has anything to do with race, as if the NBA has few Chinese players because they hate Chinese people.  That's idiotic.

That was not my question. I asked that if you sent your daughter to an all-Indian school and you started receiving continuing abuse for it (I didn't specify whether it was from your friends) and you finally got fed up with it and took her out of that school, are you then a RACIST for taking her out of the Indian school? You are taking her out of the school because of their race. You must therefore be a RACIST, right?

Let me be more clear.  I wouldn't pull my daughter out of her school and send her to a new one just because I got some phone calls from some racists telling me that they didn't like Indian people.  That's absurd.  And, yes, I think that submitting to racists and behaving as they command you to behave is probably going to cause you to do some racist things.  Acting like a coward doesn't stop one from also acting like a racist.

But let's make a real apples-to-apples comparison: If I owned a sports franchise and got calls from board members telling me to stop associating with minorities, I can't imagine how that could possibly be so traumatic to me that I'd actually submit to it. 

Your narrarive of the sweet old man who got harassed into accidentally saying a bunch of super racist shit on tape is completely bogus.  Sterling didn't receive threats.  His business wasn't in jeopardy.  At worst, some racists were mean to him.  Big fucking deal.  He's an adult.  It makes no sense that that would be the cause of his remarks.

1583

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The NBA should be shut down

« on: May 03, 2014, 04:29:55 PM »

I am simply pointing out that the lengthy statements the NBA has made, that they never discriminate, and that they are an inclusive, open association, is false and hypocritical.

I cannot find any quote by any NBA representative, including Adam Silver's press conference, saying that the NBA never discriminates.  Please provide me with a quote so that I can better understand what makes you think that the NBA's position is that it's wrong for anyone anywhere to ever discriminate against anyone else for any reason of any kind, and that everyone is free to be included and associated with the NBA to any degree without being discriminated against for any reason, including being bad at basketball.  I can't really find anything like that, but maybe I missed it.

The NBA doesn't hire Chinese women as basketball players because it would result in bad business is as valid as Sterling opinion that his girlfriend's actions would result in bad business. Both actions are discriminatory. Both actions can be passed under the "it's just business" scapegoat you are flaunting.

I just want to get this straight.  You heard that whole transcript, and what you took away from it is that Donald Sterling thinks that his girlfriend associating with Magic Johnson (or anyone else) is bad for business.  You think that?

If discrimination is wrong, then it is wrong at all levels, not just what you pick and choose.

That's an incredibly infantile view of discrimination.  Discriminating on 'how good are you at basketball' is pretty different from discriminating on 'how white are you.'  Honestly, tell me that you can't see the difference.

I didn't read anything about black people being the enemy.

If your girlfriend started going to parties with other guys, causing you to receive all manner of racist comments and treatment, you would probably want her to stop, too.

If you sent your daughter to an all-Indian school, and received continuing abuse for it, you would want to take her out of that school, too. Are you a RACIST for taking your daughter out of the Indian school? You are discriminating against Indians, after all, not wanting your daughter to be associated with them because of their race. I have not yet received an answer to this question. I believe it to be very valid and pertinent to the issue at hand.

The 'enemy' bit is contained in the link I posted.

I don't hear Sterling anywhere describe that he's being abused.  He says he's receiving negative comments from associates.  He doesn't say anything about it hurting business or anything like that.  You know why?

Because Magic Johnson's presence at a Clippers game is not bad for business.  That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.  It's like saying that bringing Magic Johnson to a basketball game is going to hurt...oh wait, I just covered that.

And no, I don't think that the best response to aggressive racists is to submit to them and become a racist.  Your comparison isn't apples to apples, anyway.  If my child were in a threatening environment of any kind I would want her removed from that environment.  Race is irrelevant to that.

In a more accurate comparison, if I sent my daughter to an all-Indian school and some friends of mine starting 'abusing' me with racist remarks about it, I'd get new friends.  Or stand up for my daughter.  Or really anything else but submitting to their racism.

1584

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The NBA should be shut down

« on: May 03, 2014, 04:11:49 PM »

Businesses exist to make profit.  If you're the NBA, employing Chinese women to play basketball is bad for business.

That doesn't make discrimination right.

If you treat all discrimination of any kind equally, sure.  That's asinine.  It makes you sound like an idiot.

The MLB refusing to employ Jackie Robinson because he's black is wrong.  The NBA refusing to employ me because I suck at basketball is perfectly fine.  If you can't see the difference between these two things, then you're an idiot.

I want to hear you say, explicitly, that you think that it's morally wrong for an NBA franchise to discriminate against employees based on who is and isn't good at basketball.

Also, you should have actually read the article you posted.  It has a nice link to all of the other racists shit Sterling has been documented saying.  Not that it matters to you, I imagine.  You already glossed over the whole "I don't want Magic Johnson at my games," and the shit about black people being "the enemy."

And somehow in your mind Sterling is defending himself from racism?  What?

1585

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The NBA should be shut down

« on: May 03, 2014, 06:18:58 AM »

That's why the NBA didn't say shit when Sterling was sued by the federal government for housing discrimination against minority tenants.  It wasn't on TMZ, so no one gave a shit.  The NBA is a business.  It exists to make money.

He settled the lawsuits without prejudice.  The NBA could not really substantiate a case if Sterling decided to sue them which he likely would have.  This incident was slam dunk (see what I did there?).

I know virtually nothing about the legal side of any of this, but I think the NBA agreement gives the Board of Governors pretty broad authority to do what they want so long as they have the support of 2/3 of the owners.  I think the BoG has its own hearing where they can run a full-court press...

1586

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The NBA should be shut down

« on: May 03, 2014, 05:43:43 AM »

Who is the NBA to condemn Donald Sterling for his opinions on people with certain physical characteristics, when the association is itself guilty of discriminating against people for their physical characteristics?

If you think that the NBA banned Sterling to punish him for being a racist, then you're an idiot.

The NBA is a for-profit enterprise.  The LA Clippers are a franchise of that enterprise.  The owner of that franchise has made himself a liability to both the franchise, and the league.  If it cares about making as much profit as possible (typically the point of a business), then they'd be absolutely insane not to do everything in their power to take that franchise away from him.

Businesses exist to make profit.  If you're the NBA, employing Chinese women to play basketball is bad for business.  So is a franchise owner who gets taped making racist statements that get played on TMZ.  It's that simple.

That's why the NBA didn't say shit when Sterling was sued by the federal government for housing discrimination against minority tenants.  It wasn't on TMZ, so no one gave a shit.

1587

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Game of Thrones

« on: May 02, 2014, 04:00:05 PM »

They're probably going to have to add a bunch of stuff to Bran's story that isn't in the books.

I don't think Jon is going to actually meet up with Bran at Craster's.  I think Bran will be gone by the time he arrives.  While watching the scene I thought they might get attacked by wights with Bran and co. fleeing in the chaos.  Now I think that Ghost and Summer are going to get free and kill a bunch of dudes while Bran and co. escape.  Jon will get to Craster's and find nothing but dead people and maybe some evidence that Bran is alive.  Maybe he gets Ghost back or something.

1588

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change

« on: April 13, 2014, 07:48:24 PM »

Let's try another analogy.  Alice and Bob are degenerate gamblers who bet on a coin flip together exactly once per day.  Alice always selects heads and Bob always selects tails.  They've been playing for ten years.

Claire is friends with Bob, and she suspects that Alice has been cheating for the last 100 days with an unfair coin that flips heads more often than it should.  She tells Bob, and Bob responds that he's certain Alice isn't cheating.  Sure, the coin came up heads 95 of the previous 100 days, but that's just variance!

Can Claire prove to Bob that Alice is probably cheating?  Does she need to flip a separate coin and compare notes? 

This is an attempt at a false equivalence. You can name all possible outcomes of a coin, you can not name all possible outcomes of a climate. See chaos theory for more on that regard.

The logic is precisely the same whether we're talking about coins or climates.

Tweak the analogy.  Imagine that Alice and Bob use a random number generator instead of a coin.  Let's say it generates a random decimal number between 0 and 1.  There are infinite end states, and they're completely unpredictable from the initial conditions.  If Alice cheats and tweaks the number generator to generate her numbers 90% of the time, Bob can detect that the generator is biased, analytically, by recording the proportions of the end states and comparing that to the likelihood of those proportions being truly random.  Bob can then quantify exactly how certain or uncertain he is that the number generator is biased.

Or go with the original.  The final position of a coin spinning through air is chaotic (or at least approximately so).  I can still use probability and statistics to detect an unfair coin by recording and analyzing the proportions of its outcomes.  There are many more possible 'outcomes' for a climate than for a coin, but I can still record and analyze their proportions.

The motion of a pinball in a pinball machine is chaotic.  One could still detect a tilted machine by recording and analyzing a sufficient number of end states of the pinball.

All of that said, I'm not sure why you think the climate is a chaotic system.  That's definitely not a given.  Weather is chaotic, but that doesn't necessitate that averages of those systems are.  See 'attractors' for more on that regard.  But you know all about chaos theory, so I don't have to tell you that.

From where I sit, climate is very predictable.  It's so predictable that I could buy a plot of land grow the same kind of plant in it every single year for the rest of my life.  Year in and year out I could reasonably predict how hot/cold it will be, when, and with how much variation.  Lots of people have been doing this very thing for...well, years now I think.

So imagine that it's 1000 coin flips instead of 100.  No, make it 10,000.  1,000,000?  Since it's a fictitious analogy, you can pretend there are as many trials as you'd like to.  Next, pretend that 95% of those flips come up heads.  Welcome to the point.

If you have a point to make, just make it - you will find that people will be much more receptive of your message if you actually send it. So far, you're arguing against your own premise, and doing a supreme job at it.

The downside of that is that it leaves me confused and doesn't give me much to be smug about, since you've already done it all to yourself.

I made my point very clearly. 

You said my sample size was laughable.  I said it was a made up, fictitious sample size for a fictional analogy, so go nuts imagining whatever sample size you like.  The imaginary sample size is not the point.  The point was to imagine a coin that is obviously biased: it comes up heads 95% of the time.

Then I went on to explain in detail how you are wrong anyway.  100 coin flips is more than sufficient to rule out as fair a coin that is biased to land heads 95% of the time.  I even linked sources supporting my claim.

You chose to ignore that and omit it from your quote as if I never said it, as usual.  You didn't say anything of substance about it or the part you actually did quote.  You're just making incredibly ironic quips about me not responding to you.  Look at your post.  Where is the substantive argument?  Highlight for me the sentence that you wrote that makes a point of any kind.

I'll respond to any sentences you write that are arguments of some substance directly related to my point.  The rest of it is boring. 

1589

Technology & Information / Re: HeartBleed - Why so long?

« on: April 13, 2014, 03:32:38 AM »

This is on point: http://www.vox.com/2014/4/12/5601828/we-massively-underinvest-in-internet-security

1590

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change

« on: April 12, 2014, 08:34:17 PM »

I have a coin.  I flip the coin 100 times and get 95 heads.  Based on your advanced knowledge of statistics, can you think of any analytic tools that could tell me the likelihood of a fair coin flipping heads 95/100 times?  Do I need to flip a second coin to reject the null hypothesis that the first coin is fair?

Probability is basic math, not necessarily a form of statistics. It is based on a number of possible events, not the number of outcomes.

Ok.  I agree.  What does that have to do with either of my questions?  Are you aware of any analytic method to deduce the likelihood of a fair coin flipping heads 95/100 times?  Do I need to flip a separate coin to reject the hypothesis that the coin is fair?

Let's try another analogy.  Alice and Bob are degenerate gamblers who bet on a coin flip together exactly once per day.  Alice always selects heads and Bob always selects tails.  They've been playing for ten years.

Claire is friends with Bob, and she suspects that Alice has been cheating for the last 100 days with an unfair coin that flips heads more often than it should.  She tells Bob, and Bob responds that he's certain Alice isn't cheating.  Sure, the coin came up heads 95 of the previous 100 days, but that's just variance!

Can Claire prove to Bob that Alice is probably cheating?  Does she need to flip a separate coin and compare notes? 

Do I need to flip a second coin to reject the null hypothesis that the first coin is fair?

No, you just need to perform an experiment on a sample size that isn't as laughable as the one you suggested.

So imagine that it's 1000 coin flips instead of 100.  No, make it 10,000.  1,000,000?  Since it's a fictitious analogy, you can pretend there are as many trials as you'd like to.  Next, pretend that 95% of those flips come up heads.  Welcome to the point.

Also, the sample size required to measure a significant effect depends entirely on the experiment.  I recommend some light reading on 'statistical power.'  For coin flips, 100 flips is absolutely sufficient to rule out a fair coin, depending on how unfair the coin is (and your required level of certainty).  If a coin is only a 51% favorite to land heads, then it will take many many trials to prove that it isn't fair.  If instead it's a 90% favorite to land heads, then I have something like a 95% chance to detect its unfairness with only 10 trials.

http://www.statisticsdonewrong.com/power.html
http://vault.hanover.edu/~altermattw/methods/assets/Readings/Statistical_Inference.pdf

1591

Flat Earth Theory / Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch

« on: April 12, 2014, 04:05:45 PM »

lol, North Korea can't even feed its people, let alone successfully launch a satellite.

By this logic, NK can't do anything more complex than feeding its population.

1592

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change

« on: April 12, 2014, 04:04:38 PM »

That isn't experimentation, it is data gathering for statistical analysis. It gives us a data set of CO2 over the history of the earth. That isn't useful unless you have two Earths. Basic statistics, you have to have more than one sample from a population. We don't have a population of Earths to take samples from. This means Earth has to be the population, which is an awful way to go about statistics. You're comparing your data to itself.

I have a coin.  I flip the coin 100 times and get 95 heads.  Based on your advanced knowledge of statistics, can you think of any analytic tools that could tell me the likelihood of a fair coin flipping heads 95/100 times?  Do I need to flip a second coin to reject the null hypothesis that the first coin is fair?

1593

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change

« on: April 12, 2014, 05:17:31 AM »

http://phys.org/news/2014-04-statistical-analysis-natural-warming-hypothesis-percent.html

1594

Flat Earth Community / Re: The FES

« on: April 06, 2014, 03:28:35 PM »

I think FES is really just a gathering of like-minded folks.  Aside from the few FEBs, it is a place to [talk about bitcoin and your favorite episode of 'Community' with the half-dozen or so people who post here].

e: not making fun of Junker in particular, just the site in general...

1595

Arts & Entertainment / Wargame: Red Dragon

« on: March 22, 2014, 04:32:17 AM »

Does anyone here play Wargame?  The open beta for Red Dragon is out on Steam, and so far it's a real good time.

For those who haven't played it before, it's a RTS that's actually interesting.  AirLand Battle is the current iteration, and Red Dragon (finally featuring naval warfare omg) is coming out soon.  I'm having trouble finding a better description on the internet, but the big picture is that it's a RTS that attempts to accurately and realistically simulate conventional warfare between NATO and Warsaw Pact powers. 

The best part of the game is the 10v10 matches.


Here's a smaller scale conflict.


So, you know, holler if you want to annihilate Capitalists.  Or Communists.  Or whatever.

1596

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Russia Invades Ukraine

« on: March 07, 2014, 03:00:15 AM »

This is all irrelevant to my point that Russia has a legitimate interest in protecting the democratically-elected government in Ukraine from an unconstitutional coup.

Indeed, but it's not irrelevant to the claim I made, which you're currently responding to - that the election was far from legitimate. Please try to keep up with your own claims.

I've already provided you with evidence that international monitors approved the 2010 elections.  Here's more:

http://www.utoronto.ca/jacyk/ElectionWatch/Blog/Entries/2010/1/19_International_observers_say_elections_in_Ukraine_held_at_a_high_level-_Jakob_Hedenskog.html

Despite warnings of large-scale election fraud in the days leading up to Sunday’s vote, officials and international election observers have said the ballot was fair and orderly. The preliminary report of the International Election Observation Mission (OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, NATO Parliamentary Assembly, European Parliament Mps, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) concluded that the first round of the presidential elections in Ukraine was held in accordance with the majority of obligations taken within the framework of the OSCE and Council of Europe.

Here's the report.  It says that, although there were still some problems, the elections were generally fair and transparent: http://www.enemo.eu/press/Ukraine%202010_ENEMOFinalReport.pdf

ENEMO observers note that in general the Central Election Commission (CEC) has functioned in a professional, transparent and timely manner. However, throughout these elections the CEC continued its practice of adopting decisions in closed meetings to which observers were not allowed. In addition, CEC has repeatedly failed to issue clear and consistent instructions regarding voter registration during Election Day and mobile voting procedures, which lead to their different implementations by lower-level election commissions across oblasts.

On February 25, 2010 Victor Yanukovich was sworn in as the new President of Ukraine following the final tabulation of results by the Central Election Commission. Prior to that the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine considered a complaint made by the runner-up candidate Yulia Tymoshenko regarding alleged violations of the voting procedures in several oblasts. However, the Court did not have the chance to make a formal decision because the plaintiff dropped the case. ENEMO observers reported that the contestation took place in a climate free of pressure and in keeping with the Ukrainian laws in vigor.

And more: http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/51830

The first round of Ukraine's presidential election was of high quality and showed significant progress over previous elections, meeting most OSCE and Council of Europe commitments, concluded the international election observation mission in a statement published today.

You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary.  You also haven't addressed the fact that it makes no sense to jail Tymoshenko after the intl community approves of the elections, and after she's already dropped her legal challenge, if all he want is to keep her from questioning the legitimacy of his presidency.

And you're wrong anyway.  Tymoshenko was first charged in December of 2010

Sigh. Have you at least tried Googling it, or are you too "well-informed, thanks" for that kind of stuff? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/7717602/Ukraine-reopens-bribery-case-against-Yulia-Tymoshenko.html

Have I tried Googling it?  Is that a joke?  You may want to click a few of the many links I've posted and read the documents attached to them.  They're full of interesting information on the topic at hand.

Tymoshenko was charged in December of 2010.  Your link says: ""At the present moment, a pretrial investigation of the [2005] case has been resumed," its statement said."  And May of 2010 is still after February of 2010, when Tymoshenko dropped her legal challenge to Yanukovych's election.

 

Lexis Nexis.

LexisNexis, the law research tool? I didn't think they do world news, and I'm struggling to find it.

I thought the democratically elected government of Ukraine voted to get rid of the president and replace him with a provisional one until the people of Ukraine can vote on who should run their country.

Russia then invaded and occupied Ukraine because it saw its interests being threatened. That's the coup.

That's certainly the West's viewpoint.  Russia claims that the vote to oust Yanukovych was unconstitutional and illegal, and that it was basically coerced by an angry mob.  I dunno shit about Ukraine's legal system/constitution, though, so I don't have much of an opinion on that.  But, I can understand how Russia would see the new government as the coup.  It seems like it's just a matter of perspective.

1597

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Russia Invades Ukraine

« on: March 06, 2014, 08:38:21 PM »

Tymoshenko was charged in May of 2011.

Try again. That was the last charge in a fairly long streak, and the one that was ultimately successful. Her first charge* came up on the 12th of May 2010.

* - Okay, technically that was a re-opening of a past charge.

This is all irrelevant to my point that Russia has a legitimate interest in protecting the democratically-elected government in Ukraine from an unconstitutional coup.  They're neighbors and allies.  Russia needs access to Crimea.  Russia needs access to LNG transportation through Ukraine.

And you're wrong anyway.  Tymoshenko was first charged in December of 2010:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2c703cec-0c79-11e0-8408-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2vDIB1tGM
http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/56556.html

That's 10 months after Tymoshenko dropped her legal challenge of Yanukovych's election:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/world/europe/21ukraine.html?_r=0

She was convicted in October of 2011. 

You apparently have nothing to say on my most salient points, that 1) arresting Tymoshenko after she drops her legal challenge, and after the elections have been declared legitimate, makes no sense; and, 2) that Tymoshenko wasn't the figurehead of any of the international or domestic organizations overseeing the elections in the first place.

At the time she was arrested, Tymoshenko was focused on speaking out against a new parliamentary coalition founded by Yanucovych and supported by the then-PM, Mykola Azarov.  Seriously, their relationship reads like a season of House of Cards.  It's about way, way more than her opposition to his presidency.

Russia's response has hardly been wanton.  There's been no violence

Out of curiosity, what's your favourite source of world news? It's starting to sound like you watch RT.

Lexis Nexis.  Al-Jazeera America if I'm watching a news station on TV. 

Putin himself had to defend his country against allegations of aggression, which have been widely documented.

Russia's response has been non-violent and measured.  That's the opposite of wanton.  They sent some troops to Crimea and surrounded some military bases.  That's about it.

Compare that to the US reaction to Noriega's coup in Panama in 1989.  I'd say the Russians are being downright polite by comparison.

1598

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Russia Invades Ukraine

« on: March 06, 2014, 02:25:23 PM »

trumped-up felony charges

In fairness, looking at the histories of most Ukranian MPS, charges of corruption could be deployed against virtually any of them. The choice to use it against the opposition leader was purely political.

I agree completely.  I have a lot of sympathy for Tymoshenko, but she's probably just as corrupt as the rest of Ukraine's political body.

Also, she's really, really hot.

1599

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Russia Invades Ukraine

« on: March 06, 2014, 05:38:17 AM »

Yes, but "lots of people" were not figureheads of the questioning. Tymoshenko was. There's no point in jailing "lots of people" when you can resolve the whole situation by jailing one.

To claim that she wasn't jailed for questioning the elections means to ignore the timeline of events.

Have another look at the timeline.  My evidence indicates that the 2010 election was already given a big thumbs-up by both Ukraine's Central Election Commission and the EU's own election commission.  The situation was already resolved.  Tymoshenko was charged in May of 2011.  It doesn't make sense to me that Yanukovych would jail Tymoshenko for questioning the legitimacy of his government after it had already been approved as legitimate.  There's nothing to gain on that front.

It also makes little sense that Yanukovych would think that arresting Tymoshenko could 'resolve' international and domestic oversight of his election by the Ukraine Supreme Court, the Central Elections Commission, and the EU.

It makes a lot of sense to me that, at the height of his power, he jailed his primary political opponent of the last two decades on trumped-up felony charges to prevent her from being able to legally hold office.  They've been adversaries for nearly two decades.

The fact that the West tried to maintain good "soft" relations with Russia in the past does nothing to substantiate your claim that Russia's wanton invasion is legitimate.

Where did I say that?  That's not how I'm substantiating my claim.  The issue for me is of Russia's legitimate national interests in Crimea and Yanukovych's legitimate claim to be the democratically elected ruler of Ukraine.  If you believe as I do that an unconstitutional coup has overthrown a constitutionally elected government, then why shouldn't Russia, its neighbor and ally, get involved?  Even if it didn't have an interest in controlling Crimea, it certainly has a legitimate interest in protecting both ethnic Russians in the region, and the government of a neighboring state.   

Also, Russia's response has hardly been wanton.  There's been no violence, and Russia has a well-known and explicit interest in the region.

1600

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Russia Invades Ukraine

« on: March 06, 2014, 01:59:11 AM »

No, they're keeping a revolution from turning a pro-Russia government into a pro-EU government, which would cost them their only deep warm water port. A EU Ukraine would devastate the Russian economy. This isn't at all about Ukraine itself, Russia is acting solely in Russia's best interest.

Ultimately, I agree completely.  That's what I was getting at with my Panama analogy.  The US would certainly have a keen (and legitimate, in my view) interest in protecting the Panama canal.  Likewise, I think Russia has a legitimate interest in protecting its resources in Crimea.

Personally, I think it's about more than that.  Russia's national and cultural interests aren't at odds here.  They're both important causes.  And, the Ukraine is undoubtedly a state to which Russia feels a strong regional and cultural connection.  They're its protectorate.

Gary, you may want to read up on that "legitimately" and "democratically elected government". Its election was surrounded with questions and unexplained inconsistencies, which eventually led to Tymoshenko being jailed for questioning it too much.

The European Union thought in 2010 that it was a fair election: http://www.ponarseurasia.org/sites/default/files/policy-memos-pdf/pepm_090.pdf

The dénouement of Ukraine’s presidential election in January-February 2010 was as raucous as the campaign. Appearing at a victory rally on election night, Viktor Yanukovych spoke to his supporters only in Russian, even as he claimed to be grateful to “all Ukrainians.” In subsequent days, the defeated candidate, Yulia Tymoshenko, refused to accept the outcome even though all international election monitors reported that the election had been fair and legitimate...The head of the large election observer mission for the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe, Heidi Tagliavini, hailed the 2010 Ukrainian election as “a well-administered and truly competitive election offering
voters a clear choice.”

I don't think that the West should now turn around and use political corruption as an excuse to support an unconstitutional coup of a democratically elected government. 

FWIW, Tymoshenko wasn't jailed for questioning the elections.  Lots of people in Ukraine did that.  She and Yanukovych have been political adversaries for nearly 20 years.  Tymoshenko was probably arrested to prevent her from seeking office in the future.

A good summary of those events: http://helsinki.org.ua/files/docs/1321265218.pdf

As I understand it, that whole area is basically pro Russian because they are mostly Russian immigrants. 

The Crimea and the Eastern part of Ukraine are largely ethnically Russian, with the rest of the country mostly ethnic Ukrainian.  The ethnic Russia's are very pro-Russia, but the ethnic Ukrainians are more divided.  Some love the West.  Some just want to be independent of both the West and Russia.  And, some still see Russia has a valuable protectorate. 

You also have a smattering of other ethnicities that complicate things.  Moldavians, Poles, Tatars, Belarusians, etc.