A "rubber ducky in space" was the first reaction of mission controllers when the ESA Rosetta spacecraft got its first pictures of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko from within a few thousand kilometres. Rosetta has been chasing down the comet for ten years, and six billion kilometres, and this month finally moves to within less than 100 km.
The odd shaped object may have been sculpted by the solar wind, or could be the result of a merger of two bodies. By my rough calculations, two such bodies would be just within the limit of being gravitationally bound, given 67P/C-G's rotation period of 12.5 hours. Hopefully the comet won't fall apart (oops!) when Rosetta drops its Philae lander on it in November!
115 comments:
" Michacre said...
"Is there a way to get email notifications for this blog?"
Wed Aug 20, 01:58:00 pm
Blogtrotter will give you e-mail notices of new “articles”; i.e. new posts to the main page (among at least three, probably a half dozen, other potential e-mail sources). Firefox and Opera browsers will then offer the option of following new posts to the comments' sections via incorporated RSS type feeds to either the Firefox browser (via Google or Yahoo, at your discretion) or via Opera e-Mail (incorporated into the Opera browser--no new e-mail address required), respectively, albeit with some minor delay (usually under two hours).
Internet Explorer 8.0 and up also will subscribe to "feeds" from the comments' sections. (Under the ‘Tools’ tab; presumably via Bing.)
Awwwww, I can has comet for bathtub????
I hope you like ice baths. The comet surface temperature is –70ºC.
That's actually considered pretty balmy for a comet, and is due to the fact that the surface is covered in dust as black as the ace of spades.
So I should've said "I hope you like dirty ice baths". Or maybe a better analogy is Santa coming down an unswept chimney during a blizzard :)
No, no, Mel...a rubber ducky for God's bathtub...:)
Everyone needs their toys. :)
Hopefully the comet won't fall apart (oops!) when Rosetta drops its Philae lander on it in November!
All life's a gamble.
The comet would actually float quite nicely in a bathtub. Although comets have been referred to as "dirty snowballs", it would be much more buoyant than an iceberg. It has a density about 10% that of water so, in fact, it would bob around more like a rubber duck. Just make sure your tub is at least five kilometres long and four deep.
Maybe I was slightly joking about the lander breaking it. The comet weighs three billion tonnes. The poor little lander is about the weight of an extra large turkey. And as it happens, it'll be landing just before Thanksgiving :)
I confess my only knowledge of comets is that it'd be really bad if a big one hit us, but that the threat of that happening is hundreds of years in the future (as far as I've read).
For those of you who doubt the Nazi angle of the Ukrainian crisis (Lee C included. I know you lurk around) check out this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ozdz7fMdXI
It's a long one but just the first 2 minutes will give you a nice understanding of who the Maidan activists actually were.
Now, I'm not saying that there weren't other activists there, but these guys were the oes that mattered, the ones that outfought the Berkut police.
Nice allies no?
Marcus, stony or metallic asteroids are more of a worry than comets. An asteroid the size of 67P/C-G (equivalent spherical diameter maybe 3km) would certainly be a planet-killing proposition, but a similar sized comet which is about 25 times less dense than a stony asteroid would probably be a "mere" regional catastrophe (a few tens of thousands of megatons of explosive equivalent).
It's impossible to say what the threat is. An object the size of this comet probably hits us less than once per billion years on average, but that's not to say it won't happen tomorrow, or not for five billion years. Until we know where all these types of objects are, we can't be sure. And while we're working on mapping all the ones in more regular asteroid belt orbits, we're never going to be protected from rogue comets coming in from the outer solar system. Those are in a giant and completely invisible reservoir of up to a hundred trillion comets -- the Oort cloud -- which extends maybe as far as ten trillion miles from the sun.
"… but these guys were the oes that mattered…"
They matter to you. It is important to you that you find them. They matter much less in the real world.
The two ‘far right’ Ukrainian political parties (including the faux Nazi Pravyy Sektor) gathered 4% between them in the recent Ukrainian national elections. Sweden's very own neo-nazi political party took 5.7% in the last Swedish elections.
Correction: They gathered rather less than 4%, although one would think they couldn't get much less.
I'm gonna suggest nicely that we have a civil discussion, rather than personalising imputations of bias etc. from the get go.
I do not impute bias. I openly accuse him.
And why not present your evidence, and let it rest at that? Even without having any particular interest in the argument I can see that Marcus is suggesting that particular militants might have been influential in a conflict situation, while you are talking about election results -- two completely different things. By presenting your evidence dispassionately you could provoke useful debate, instead of a violent desire to punch yer lights out. What is to be gained by accusations?
"What is to be gained by accusations?"
Clarity.
"They matter to you. It is important to you that you find them. They matter much less in the real world."
Ok, let me cut to the chase. That specific form of words is provocative in an unnecessarily personal way.
Clarity might have been provided by saying: "you know what, radicals often do well in a fight, but fail to achieve electoral success".
"Ok, let me cut to the chase."
By all means, let's do that.
"Nice allies no?"
Marcus @ Thu Aug 21, 10:57:00 am
You want an ‘imputation’; there it is. But you ignored that to aim at me instead.
I think he is obviously if not openly biased. I see no point in dancing around the matter.
I do not impute bias. I openly accuse him.
You're never gonna change Lee C., Petes. That was just classic, and actually rather amusing. At least he is honest about his feelings. I think Marcus can hold his own in any fight.
It's impossible to say what the threat is.
I know they have been trying to identify possible dangers, but then what if we notice something headed directly for us that could impact our world detrimentally? What kind of defense do we really have? Oh sure, if it is small enough, it may not matter, but I'm talking about the civilization killers. Perhaps it is better not to know.
Marcus,
Perhaps the Ukrainian issue is dying a natural death. I have heard that some people in Russia are rather unhappy with Putin.
@Lee C: We've all got biases. That's not the point at issue. The "nice allies" comment is clearly rhetorical and not aimed at anyone in particular. Your reply, by contrast, was personally aimed to belittle.
Anyway, I've just rewritten the rules to ban cussin' and provocation thereto. So if Marcus chooses to cuss you out of it I'll just delete both your posts. Can't think of anything fairer than that :)
" Your reply, by contrast, was personally aimed to belittle."
I'll take issue with the use of the word ‘belittle’; that trivializes my non-trivial point. But it was indeed aimed directly at Marcus.
And, as I may not get a chance to put the question again…
What word did Zeyad use that you considered to be cussin’?
Can't remember.
lol!
Very clever, Petes.
Still can't remember.
You may need to get a little clarity in your own mind about your rules. If you can't articulate them, you certainly can't enforce them in an equitable manner. That may become a problem for you down the line.
Ciao for now.
I intend to enforce them as I see fit. They're not up for discussion. Don't let our little conversation just now mislead you. People have gotta figure out how to be civil for themselves. Do come back.
I had a thought as I wandered back to the real world…
Keep in mind enforcer… He called on me, specifically on me. It was Marcus who first went looking for a personal contest; i.e.:
"(Lee C included. I know you lurk around)"
Marcus @ Thu Aug 21, 10:57:00 am
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
And, you may well discover that your role as final arbiter requires a certain degree of restraint and adherence to clearly definable and enforceable rules that others, your audience, can understand. You may have to become a Jesuit in some respects. Otherwise your new blog may suffer.
Consider that as well intentioned advice, even if you don't believe it to be true. It is well intentioned. Good luck.
And Ciao.
Some might consider it a tad paranoid / narcissistic to interpret "Lee C included" as a personal contest.
It's not exactly "my" new blog. It was a toss up between me and Lynnette and she wimped out. I'm more than happy to relinquish my temporary godlike powers. Could even have a rotating godhead. Just like the EU. To appease the Yanks though, I'll stick with
presidential godliness until voted out of office or impeached.
"I know you lurk around."
Sure seems specifically personal to me.
Right, umpteenth attempt:
[Lynnette]: ... what if we notice something headed directly for us that could impact our world detrimentally? What kind of defense do we really have?"
The short answer is: none whatsoever. You could be talking about a trillion ton object, similar to Mt. Rainer or Mont Blanc down to their roots. No nuclear bomb would make either of those quiver, let alone divert them from their course if they were bearing down at 60,000 mph (a typical asteroid belt speed).
The good news is we know about all the dense asteroids of that size. Indeed, we know about 80+% of the asteroids above 1 km diameter. We can't predict their orbits into the far future because they can be perturbed by Jupiter and the other planets, but we would probably have many orbits and multiple years to figure out what to do. Given enough time, you only have to nudge the problem object gently but continuously to turn a collision into a near miss.
The problem is the far away objects that only come into the inner solar system once in many, many millions of years. We would be seeing them for the first (and possibly last) time. They are comets, and therefore much less dense than the iron and stony asteroids. But stopping one would be like trying to stop an avalanche with a stick of dynamite ... there's nothing very solid to push against.
Also, because of their elongated elliptical orbits, these objects have much higher speeds than ones that live in the asteroid belt and the inner solar system -- 120,000 mph or more. And while impact energy scales with mass, it also scales with the square of velocity, so they more than make up for their lower density. If one of those has our name on it, the fat lady will definitely have sung.
And if I were to ‘impute’ ‘paranoid / narcissistic’ attributes to you, how long would that post stay up?
Godlike beings are allowed to be paranoid / narcissistic. Expected to be, even.
Listen, we can play this game all day. The rule of the game is civility. I'm certain you can figure it out for yourself. If I'm wrong, I'll help you by deleting your posts. If that seems excessive or inequitable, then you can try to rally support from the co-commenters you have carefully avoided offending, and vote an end to my godship.
Oi! I have been made a goddess quite some time ago, and I demand the respect that comes with it. And there shall be no other gods beside me!
Wasn't the topic cute ducky comets anyway...?
"…and vote an end to my godship."
"Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to
themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled
child."
R.A.Heinlein ― The Notebooks of Lazarus Long
(Meanin’ no offense to your sweet self here Melantrys.)
Ah, so Heinlein left a parenthetic foot in the door for superior gods. Good for him.
Are you a Heinlein fan? I read plenty of him when I was a kid. Haven't read any fiction for decades now though.
[Mel]: "Wasn't the topic cute ducky comets anyway...?"
Yes. And big bad killer ones too. We seem to have gotten a little diverted. The Ukrainian Fascists ... didn't they have a number one hit in the eighties?
"Are you a Heinlein fan?"
Was. I'd pretty much gone through Heinlein by the time I was driving. He had some good lines though.
Same here. (Although ... don't you Yanks start driving at the age of six or something).
In retrospect some of his stuff was pretty weird... Stranger in a Strange Land in particular. Didn't seem so at the time, but then I was more liberal as a youngster.
Hhhhhm, I really liked "The Door Into Summer".
Admittedly, the book was sadly lacking comets though.
Especially duck-like ones.
Indeed. Now that you mention it.
Lee: "Sweden's very own neo-nazi political party took 5.7% in the last Swedish elections."
Sverigedemokraterna get a very bad rep in our domestic media, and perhaps the view of them outside our borders is distorted. I can tell you though that they are very far from neo-nazi in any capacity. For one thing they are outspokenly pro-Israel and have jewish MP:s.
They have one main political point, their original raison d'etre, which is to stop what they (and I'd agree) see as mass immigration to Sweden. Myself I have viewed them as a not-so-serious one-issue party but I have to say they have grown this last period since they got into parliament and are now a realistic option.
We have an election 3 weeks from Sunday and I'd be extremely surprised if they get less than 10%. I'd sooner guess about 15%.
But the point was that they can possibly be described as "xenophobic" if you must find such a label, but certainly not as Nazis.
Now, Paviy Sector in the Ukraine however, there's quite the bunch of real Nazis. And despite what you say they were indeed the shock-troops that fought down the Berkut police in the riots around Maidan. They were the ones with helmets, protective padding, riot shields, molotov coctails and crowbars with chains welded to them. They fought down the riot police, Berkut, in a country where that police was pretty damn tough. That wasn't achieved by the spontaneous actions of some group of pro-EU liberal urbanites.
(Our Nazis aren't Nazis, but their Nazis are in charge.)
I don't understand how you could put that out with a straight face.
And, by the way, substituting Arab for Jews as the more immediate ‘untermenschen’ threat to be dealt with does not make one ‘not a Nazi’. Hitler despised Arabs as well as Jews, but he considered Jews to be the more immediate problem, and was more than willing to avail himself of Arab assistance--figuring to take care of them later, just like the Jews, if they got anywhere close, or got in his way.
Here's what Lee was trying to say in that deleted post above -- sorry it's not in chronological order any more:
"Some unnecessary uncivil stuff, blah blah blah
They got less than two percent (2%) of the vote, in a country in crisis, in a situation where extremist nationalistic platforms are virtually guaranteed to garner more support than they'd get in a stable political environment, they took less than 2% of the vote.
The Ukrainians are not Nazis. By a wide margin they don't support Nazis. Putin's propaganda about a Nazi regime in Kiev is pure, unadulterated bullshit."
See how easy that was Lee?
This some sort of ploy to make people think I violated your amorphous ‘rules’?
You do realize that some people will have managed to read my post, even in that short a time period, and will know better, do you not?
I've no problem discussing the content of your post, whether people saw it or not, if it helps your understanding. The piece I deleted was: "You just don't get it. I can only assume your ignorance is willful, ‘cause this is too easy to not understand on account of stupidity, no matter how gloriously stupid one might wish to be."
This time round I did you the courtesy of pasting back in the acceptable part of your post. Don't expect that to continue.
Don't expect to get many further opportunities. Your comments' form says ‘no…provocations’. Truth provokes people, some people anyway. I've noticed that truths you don't like especially tend to provoke you.
So… Don't expect to get many further opportunities. Courtesies to Lynnette only get ya so far…
This is getting tedious. It's possible to tell the truth in a civil manner. It's even possible to tell someone you think they're deluded in a civil manner. I can understand how it might be satisfying to paint yourself as being victimised for "merely telling the truth". However, it's not going to wash. I'd like if you kept posting and were able to figure out how to make it more civil. I'm open to questions if you need clarification. We can't keep discussing it forever though, if you can't figure it out.
I've got it figured out; you're not nearly as subtle as you think.
I wasn't trying to be subtle. I hoped I was being frank. Anything that's not clear, I'm open to questions. I'm also open to anyone else volunteering to administer the blog, who might take a different view of things.
"I wasn't trying to be subtle."
Not here, no.
I wouldn't have been bothered one little bit with Lee's original post. I know I'm right and he's wrong here. He's out on a limb talking tough on matters he has very limited knowledge about (and that's not me not being civil, that's the obvious truth here).
Lee: "(Our Nazis aren't Nazis, but their Nazis are in charge.)
I don't understand how you could put that out with a straight face."
Yes we have nazis here as well. They even have a political party, Svenskarnas Parti (party of the swedes) that might get about ten thousand votes or so, way less than 1%, in out coming elections.
Then there is another faction (the Swedish Resistance front) who do not believe in democracy at all and stays away from party politics, they number in the hundreds.
A few of the former ones are in the Ukraine right now fighting as snipers in the Aasov-batallion.
But they have no connection whatsoever to Sverigedemokraterna. They hate them and call them a "controlled opposition" (you can probably guess who's supposed to be the controllers). If you read through the political points from Sverigedemokraterna I don't think you'd find anything too radical there. You might not have agreed with everything but you'd consider it pretty mainsteam.
Even our most rabid tabloids never call them nazis. In Aftonbladets recent webb-survey where you can fill in your wiews on various topics and match them to the 8 parties in parliament they score only 4'th to the right on the left/right axis, while 1'st as conservative on the conservative/progressive axis.
You just don't know what you are on about Lee. There's simply no comparing them with a militany movement like Praviy Sektor. They are closer to Fremskrittspartiet in Norway or Dansk Folkeparti in Denmark - both being part of the governing coalition in those countries. They sit in the same group as UKIP in the EU-parliament and Farage certainly would never have invited nazis to sit with him there.
Pete: "They got less than two percent (2%) of the vote, in a country in crisis, in a situation where extremist nationalistic platforms are virtually guaranteed to garner more support than they'd get in a stable political environment, they took less than 2% of the vote.
The Ukrainians are not Nazis. By a wide margin they don't support Nazis. Putin's propaganda about a Nazi regime in Kiev is pure, unadulterated bullshit."
I agree the Pravyi Sektor represent a very small minority in the Ukraine. BUT it was that ovement nevertheless that brought down the inept, corrupt but still democratically elected former regime. Now we usually call such a thing a coup, don't we?
For that matter do a Google on Pravyi Sector and check out the pictures gallery. Not nazis? I see an awful lot of heiling, swastikas and 14/88 symbols there myself. Don't know about ya'll. They look lib-dem to you?
Marcus, I'm hoping you realise the quote you're attributing to me are Lee's words (stripped of the unnecessary personal jibes)?
It still seems to me that you and Lee are talking cross-purposes. Does the presence of fairly obvious neo-Nazis among the paramilitaries involved in the coup necessarily mean that the resulting Kiev government are Nazis? I would agree with Lee to the extent that I'd say it's not necessarily so, but I'd be the first to admit I know little about the actual situation. Btw, that video you linked was presumably a Russian production? I only watched the first few minutes.
Pete: "Does the presence of fairly obvious neo-Nazis among the paramilitaries involved in the coup necessarily mean that the resulting Kiev government are Nazis? I would agree with Lee to the extent that I'd say it's not necessarily so, but I'd be the first to admit I know little about the actual situation."
No, no, the government there isn't a nazi one. But it's one that came into power because nazis were instrumental in bringing the old regime down and that has no qualms about using them for now to fight their fight. The nazis in turn play nice with the new government (up to a point, they did recently threaten to "march on Kiev") because they are given a free reign for the moment.
Who's using who and who will come out on top? Both sides are using the other and who will come out on top is anyones guess - that'd be my answer.
Pete: "Btw, that video you linked was presumably a Russian production? I only watched the first few minutes."
I got it from Sakers blog. Quite likely a Russian production yes. So it's one sided, but that doesn't mean it's lies.
BTW: my own opinion about the crisis in the Ukraine is that the most sensible argument I've yet heard is the one advocating a "Finlandisation" of that country. A non alligned nation that both sides can live with and that can do business with both sides. Sort of a buffer state if you will.
"But it's one that came into power because nazis were instrumental
in bringing the old regime down."
That's absurd. The Yanukovych government did not fall, Yanukovych did not flee because a few toughs, or even a few dozen, decided to go toe-to-toe or shot-for-shot with his snipers in Independence Square in Kiev. He had a lot more guns to put into the situation (if he could have relied on them to do his bidding, which he could not). He fled because the protests were routinely garnering half a million head a night in nasty weather, up to eight hundred thousand on good nights (which were still nasty cold), and they were growing to a million per night real fast. And the protests were spreading, across the country to cities outside Kiev.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Sort of a buffer state if you will."
What if they don't want to be a buffer state just to buy you some peace and settle down the rumbling of Russia just so you can sleep contentedly? They don't owe you that. You got no right to demand that from them.
"…who will come out on top is anyones guess…"
Don't need much help in making an educated guess. With Russia pouring up to 45,000 troops (around 20-25 thousand around election time) to the border with the Ukraine, we have a situation guaranteed to make a militaristic, nationalistic political party(in short, fascist, at least if they look like tough fascists, a PR image Pravyy Sektor likes to promote) seem like a more reasonable choice, that's just human nature.
And they still got less than two percent (2%) of the vote.
Check this out Lee, a long and thoughtful analysis of the Ukraine situation from a decidedly American realpolititical outlet:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault
Not that different from what I propose, is it?
Now, what do you have to offer in terms of a solution? Thermonuclear war?
"And they still got less than two percent (2%) of the vote."
Yeah, because they are for real outspokenly nazi. Svoboda gets another about 11% and they are pretty damn far right also. On par with Golden Dawn in Greece. Nazis? Maybe not. Fascists? Probably so. Difficult to tell but extreme right they are. Way, way to the right of Sverigedemokraterna that you seemed to believe were nazis. (have you capitulated on that claim btw? If so you should tell us so we can put that one down to Lee C inaccuarcy and forget about it)
[Marcus]: "...the most sensible argument I've yet heard is the one advocating a "Finlandisation" of that country. A non alligned nation that both sides can live with and that can do business with both sides. Sort of a buffer state if you will."
Funny you should mention Finland. Remember Karelia? Some Finns I spoke to down the pub recently didn't. (They seemed to be surprised I knew where Finland was, let alone know anything about their history). Having a nation that "both sides can live with" seems to involve forgetting about territory ceded to the Russians and repopulated by them, while the indigenous population got shunted west to the remainder of Finland. (The territory had been swapped many times before -- mostly between the Russkis and you Swedes, going back 700 years -- but the population displacement was new).
So does your Finlandisation mean annexation of territory by Russia and "pacification" of anyone not happy with the resultant border by the Russian and Ukrainian sides? Not sure I can see it ending happily (bearing in mind I live in a nation that has had two populations with different allegiances for hundreds of years).
"Now, what do you have to offer in terms of a solution?"
I would propose that Putin give up on the notion that Russia has some God-given right to subjugate its neighbors or force them into the status of ‘buffer states’. If he's not willing to give up that notion, I propose that we offer support to those neighbors who choose to resist him.
Pete: "So does your Finlandisation mean annexation of territory by Russia and "pacification" of anyone not happy with the resultant border by the Russian and Ukrainian sides?"
Obviously not. I, and the authors I read on the matter, was talking about modern Finland not some hstorical Finland with claims to this and that. I thought that was obvious.
Pete: "Not sure I can see it ending happily (bearing in mind I live in a nation that has had two populations with different allegiances for hundreds of years)."
Why not? You're usually an optimist Pete. Why couldn't Ukraine with its present borders be sort of like Finland, a neutral country?
"…have you capitulated on that claim btw?"
I've decided to ignore it for now as irrelevant to the core issue. I don't necessarily expect to be here long enough to have time for it. We might get back to that later, but then again I may be long gone by the time it comes up with time available just for fun.
Lee:
From that article I linked to that you clearly didn't have the time to read before you posted your reply:
"Imagine the outrage in Washington if China built an impressive military alliance and tried to include Canada and Mexico in it."
Try, I know this is nearly impossible for you Lee, but TRY, do your best to TRY, to see things from more than one perspective. Try Lee, try!
"I've decided to ignore"
Lee-speak for I was wrong and I don't want to keep talkin' 'bout that.
We all saw that you were completely wrong Lee and we all know ya'll by now to notice when you're trying to squirrle away from an error.
Let me clue you in: there's no invisible audience here you have to prance for. There's just the 5-6 of us regulars and we know eachother well enough.
What I can imagine is that things would have to change one hell of a lot for Canada or Mexico to either one ever want such an alliance with China. (Although, it would appear that what they might want makes no difference to you.) But, should that almost impossible to imagine situation ever come about, I have no doubt but that you'd be in their camp if we started making moves to invade or annex them.
The civility rule applies to everyone, Marcus!
"Lee-speak for…"
Your opinions are unlikely to extend my welcome here.
Let's stick with your willingness to sell the Ukrainians to Russia for a ‘buffer state’ all their very own. What right have you to ask that of them?
"Why not? You're usually an optimist Pete. Why couldn't Ukraine with its present borders be sort of like Finland, a neutral country?"
One reason is that it's bastard poor. Another is that it's surrounded by people who want to interfere with it -- Russia and the EU. So you have people like Yanukovych wanting to sell it to the highest bidder. One thing I find quite amazing is that the pro-EU, anti-Yanukovych, sentiment was so strong, given that the EU spent the previous ten years collapsing the Ukrainian economy with the same misguided credit splurge that laid waste to the EU periphery. Shows you what a truly shit prospect control by Russia is, I suppose.
And in fairness -- "EU expansion" is made sound like an imperial adventure by your article ... as opposed to a whole bunch of former Russian satellite states gagging to join, quicker than a lot of western Europeans want or feel the EU is ready for.
Pete: "The civility rule applies to everyone, Marcus!"
What did I do?!?
I must have come close to, or even strayed across the red line, but I can't see where. Please, oh pretty please, do point out to me where I was rude.
Lee said "hell". At 02:28:00 Lee said "hell".
Screw that. You can work on his amorphous ‘rules’ later.
What right have you to ask the Ukrainians to bow down before the Russians just for your peace of mind and untroubled sleep?
Nothing major. That "Lee-speak" comment wasn't very polite.
I was kinda hopin' people could be more than just basically civil -- wouldn't take too much to even be generous in conversation. Just a thought.
'Lee said "hell"'
Ok, now that made me laugh :)
Funny that. Lee gives me an answer 3 minutes after my post to an article I linked to that must take a good 10 minutes to actually read. He clearly has no intention to hear the other side's arguments. None. That's why I in the past has called him a shill. I stand by that.
Maybe he's a fast reader. Or maybe, like me, he was able to speed-read enough of it to know there's a few questionable points in it.
We're not gonna get sidetracked onto comparisons of reading speeds either. I have limited time here; that greatly lessens my willingness to run off on tangents with you; the old rules no longer apply.
"Let's stick with your willingness to sell the Ukrainians to Russia
for a ‘buffer state’ all their very own. What right have you to ask that
of them?"
So, give ‘em 13-15% for the fascists. I don't give a rat's ass. Given the Russians on their border with guns and field hospitals and the like it's surprising it wasn't higher. (France went 25% for right-wing crazies just a few years' ago.) For now:
"Let's stick with your willingness to sell the Ukrainians to Russia
for a ‘buffer state’ all their very own. What right have you to ask that
of them?"
Ok, I can live with no cussin', no hatred, and no personally directed attacks.
Should I ask again?
"Let's stick with your willingness to sell the Ukrainians to Russia
for a ‘buffer state’ all their very own. What right have you to ask that
of them?"
Probably no need to ask again. I'm gonna go with the proposition that Marcus' unwillingness to address the core question is all the answer we need.
One of the things that made Tim Russert such a great interviewer was that he repeated a question only so many times as was necessary to prove to his audience (however large that might or might not be) that the subject politician was not going to answer the question. Once that was proven, he moved on.
Time for me to move on I reckon. I think the point's made. I'm gonna trust my instincts on that one.
Ciao for now.
Lee:
"Let's stick with your willingness to sell the Ukrainians to Russia
for a ‘buffer state’ all their very own. What right have you to ask that of them?"
None. No right whatsoever. I have zero right to tell Ukrainains how they should live and what they should do. If only you Americans saw it the same way this awful mess would have never had to unfold, is my opinion.
My stance is based on me being realistic. Ya'll have pushed and pushed and pushed ya'lls infuence urther East - despite having promised in the past not to do so.
I see your grab for the Ukraine as a self serving move - certainly not one that's made for the benefit of ukrainians.
I see Russia's counter move as logical and inevitable. They do not wish to be encircled by an advesary that clearly hates them.
And for that matter, I believe you have a very distorted view of the popular opinion in the Ukraine as a whole.
Now, I've never been to the Ukraine but I've been to the Chech Republic. A staunch Nato ally on paper but where many people plain hate ya'll. But they have no say in western dominated media.
Thing is Lee: you know squat about european opinion. Hell (Pete: read heck) you can't even tell a Nazi from a conservative socialist.
"Americans saw it the same way this awful mess would have
never had to unfold, is my opinion."
It was the EU, not the Evil Merkins who presented the Ukraine with a ‘them or us’ option for assistance and trade.
"I see your grab for the Ukraine as a self serving move…"
I see the Ukraine as angling (and being angled) for membership in the EU; not as a candidate for our 51st state.
"Hell (Pete: read heck) you can't even tell a Nazi from a conservative socialist."
You musta been one of that 5.7%
Marcus -- I have to admit, I can't see how you're pinning this on the Yanks. It Europe which has courted Ukraine, has been giving it sweet credit deals, causing its property bubble, buying its land, depending on it for natural gas transit.
It would appear that America is more popular in the Czech Republic than is their own Czech government. And we get more approval than disapproval (no answer/don't know/don't care/etc. comes in highest).
I haven't been to Poland since around the time they joined the EU, 10 years ago. Was in the Czech Republic a little more recently. In both cases I'd say people on the ground were definitely more pro-American than the average in the EU. Although I'd tend to call it "pro-western".
Lee:"You musta been one of that 5.7%"
Nope. I wasn't. But I'm seriously thinking about votnig for them this time around. Have't made up my mind yet tgough. 3 weeks until our voting deadlne.
Well, the argument that ‘I can't be considered a Nazi ‘cause there's some few wingnuts even further to the right than me’ isn't gonna win too many arguments I don't think. Nor is substituting Arabs in place of Jews as the enemy within.
You're trying to argue degrees of Nazi-ness. I don't think I'm interested. The simple truth is that the Nazi political philosophy is incompatible with membership in the EU. If Nazis were anywhere close to being in charge in the Ukraine, then they'd not be seriously considering integrating their economy with the EU.
^what a load of incoherent dribble.
He clearly hasn't got a clue.
Well, I'm off for the evening.
"If Nazis were anywhere close to being in charge in the Ukraine…"
Or even garden variety fascists for that matter.
(I do think that Putin's political philosophy is very much along fascist lines; although that doesn't make him a Nazi-fascist.)
I'm beginning to think the only thing Marcus knows about fascist political/economic philosophy is that Hitler hated Jews.
I see Russia's counter move as logical and inevitable. They do not wish to be encircled by an advesary that clearly hates them.
Marcus, who ever said that we hated Russia? Or even that the NATO countries hated Russia?
While we have differences of opinions that doesn't necessarily equate to hate. Even now with Russia trying to strong arm Ukraine there is no "hate". We don't agree with their military involvement in Ukraine, that is it. What exactly is Russia so afraid of, anyway? I have never understood that. They appear to be a large country with a deep inferiority complex. (Yes, I know, some of my armchair psychoanalysis. :))
"Marcus, who ever said that we hated Russia?"
Putin.
Oh, sorry, let me clarify...whoever, that wasn't totally paranoid, said we hated Russia?
Guess that leaves out the winefalcon too, but I think he took his cue from Putin anyway.
Lee,
I finished The Making of Vladimir Putin article that you sent me. It was very good. I remember reading something on the Saker's site regarding the division within Russia in regard to Yeltsin's policies as well.
The points Talbot makes at the end about Putin trying to re-institute a system that failed in the past and the danger that Islamists pose in Russia were of special interest. The sanctions the West has placed on Russia are not going to make that remade system work any better. I understand Putin is already getting push back from his business associates. And the rise of ISIL in the ME can only encourage Russian home grown jihadists.
Talbot has a bit of history with Putin. I thought you would find it interesting.
One beneficial effect of our argument (or maybe it was just too much accumulated evidence), Marcus has finally given up on pushing the pretense that the Ukrainian ‘uprising’ is an authentic, home-grown movement rather than the Russian inspired and Russian led masquerade war that it really is.
And, I see news that the Russian ‘aid’ convoy of trucks has been unloaded and is now on its way back out of the Ukraine. My guess is that the contingent of uniformly young, surprisingly uniformly physically ‘fit’ drivers has now been replaced with the over-weight, middle-aged drivers more commonly seen behind the wheels of long-haul trucks.
So in your opinion Lee those 226 trucks were a decoy used to smuggle in 226 fighting men? Seems a bit overly complicated to me. They could just have gone in a couple of buses.
The article Lynnette posted was a very interesting one indeed.
"…226 trucks were a decoy used to smuggle in 226 fighting men? "
Hardly just that, but, as long as the trucks were going in anyway… And it's not like the young men had to drive the whole way from Moscow, just show up at the last rest stop prior to crossing the Ukraine, in their curiously all matching caps, shirts and shorts, and take waiting trucks that last short hop over the border. Plus protect Moscow's investment in whatever was really in those trucks at the crucial border crossing, just in case.
"uniformly young, surprisingly uniformly physically ‘fit’ drivers"
"curiously all matching caps, shirts and shorts"
I just assumed from the beginning they were military men. I mean they were driving white-painted military trucks so I assumed they were military men of some variety.
I'm sure the Russian army has truck-drivers like any other army and I would have guessed that they were the ones driving the trucks. But I seriously doubt the convoy was put in place to smuggle those guys into the Ukraine. They could just have crossed the border in buses if the aim was just to get them in there.
"I mean they were driving white-painted military trucks…"
I didn't know the Russians had admitted that yet.
"But I seriously doubt the convoy was put in place to smuggle those guys
into the Ukraine."
As I said… Long as they were goin’ in anyway…
Sort of a ‘final note’ before the subject fades away…
It's hard to tell sometimes which journalists are getting and giving good information. To some extent one has to rely on reputations, trusted sources, and whatever native bullshit detectors one can bring to bear when doing critical reading. But…
From what I've been reading it seems that Russian efforts to stir up secessionist and pro-Russian sentiments in both the east Ukraine and the southern marches along the Black Sea have been a fairly dismal failure as of yet. Putin seems to have had more success generating the desired sentiments among certain Swedes than among the Ukrainians themselves, even the ones who speak Russian as their milk tongue. However…
It's also possible that Putin and his controlled media have whipped up nationalistic fervor in Russia to such a pitch that what the Ukrainians in those regions think won't matter. Putin may well have boxed himself into a situation where he has to invade now or risk being turned out of office in Russia in the next elections (assuming, of course, that there are next elections in Russia). Especially if his proxies in the eastern regions of the Ukraine cannot hold out against the Ukrainian government even with the support of Russia, short of an open invasion and occupation.
Russian feelings run high about fellow Slavs. As much as you have Pan-Arabism among some Arabs, there was a similar Pan-Slavic ideal. Orthodox Christianity is another unifying factor in the mix. Pan-Slavism was one of the excuses for building the Soviet Empire. But it has surfaced a few times since the end of that era, like with the standoff between NATO and Russian tanks at Pristina airport at the end of the Kosova conflict. I'd say the desire for a Russia allied Ukraine is of a similar nature. There's no legal justification for it though.
Russian notions aside, Putin has seemingly managed to stir up significant distrust of and unease with the supposedly ‘fascist’ regime in Kiev, but their proposed solution to that seems to be they want some guarantees of local control over purely local matters (the guaranteed right to use Russian in the public schools and things like that). But, Putin needs more than that and he's not getting it. Secession from the Ukraine and/or annexation into Russia just doesn't seem to gather much local support, even among Russian language residents.
Post a Comment