« Good News From Africa | Main | Help! IANAL (Scalia And Hamdan Edition) »

March 26, 2006

Comments

...Putin, a former KGB agent, may have cheated and lied....

Shock horror! There was I, innocently assuming that he never did anything worse than pulling some poor bastard's fingernails out.

I'm not interested enough to go find that paper and read it, but I do wonder what it said about "Strategic Planning and Policy," particularly if it had any conclusions relevant to Soviet planning and policy.

And, as with any plagiarism, I wonder if the stolen work Putin presented as his own was something he actually: a) understood; and b) agreed with.

I always thought that cheating and lying was considered a necessary trait to be successful in the KGB.

Given the new allegations that Russian spies passed intelligence on our Iraq war operations to Saddam, the plagiarism issue seems like rather small potatoes by comparison...

Please. This is torture, no? The Washington Times? Mere sarcasm then? Just happened to discover Putin's channel now? Where were those Russian translators when we needed them 30yrs ago? Who exactly are they now? Can we take a quick look at their credentials and affliations?
"Seems like small potatoes". No, fish. Damn stinking, rotten fish, reminding us that W's records could not even be located.

Well, actually, the source seems to be the center-left Brookings Institution.

OT? But this is what I think of Big Media. I can come with examples almost any given hour.

Kilmer on Sunday Talk Shows at RedState ...Decent but long, One of the things I read at RS to get perspective.

"Also on FNS, Secretary Rice said that if the Iraqis progressed militarily and politically, it was "highly likely" that we would see a drawdown in troops stationed there by the end of the year. This was, she added, contingent on the military situation. On CBS's FTN, guest host Gloria Borger confronted National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley with what she said was Rece's assertion that she expected to drawdown troops. Period. Hadley reacted by giving an answer similar to the one Secretary Rice actually gave to Chris Wallace." ...Kilmer

Gloria Borger:Deliberate mistatement of Rice's words? Check. Intending to create trouble or damage or hurt i.e. malice? Check.
Libel? Check. Hard to actually prove? I am not sure, if Borger watched the tape we can fairly assume she changed the meaning for a purpose, and that I can think of no benevolent purpose. She made a mistake? Misheard? If I had the resources, I would have this stuff in court every day. Let a jury decide. This what the media do, this is what they are. It is completely non-partisan and non-biased.

Most of Big Media is worse than Domenech every single day.

Let me be clear. Any excerpting from say a two hour speech is always a distortion (which is why the blogs, with links, are superior). What is chosen as an excerpt is a deliberate purposeful decision. The purpose of the excerpting is usually to create controversy which demonstrates malice.

The right says the "good news" is not reported from Iraq? The left says the media is glossing over the bad situation in Iraq? Both say it is done with bad intentions? They are both correct. The nature of news, where editorial decisions are ever in play, in Big Media is lies with bad intent.

Wasn't part of Tony Blair's famous Iraq dossier plagarized?

Ahem. Or even "plagiarized"? (English...spelling...fagh!)

"Wasn't part of Tony Blair's famous Iraq dossier [plagiarized]?"

Yes.

"The nature of news, where editorial decisions are ever in play, in Big Media is lies with bad intent."

This is true, I think, Bob, only if "lies with bad intent" has been and continues to be demonstrably more lucrative than any alternative.

I firmly believe these decisions are ultimately about nothing but money.

One questions whether the President saw this when he looked into Putin's soul.

To modify an old Woody Allen joke, it's a good thing Bush and Putin weren't taking a philosophy or theology class together in college, because one might have cheated by looking into the other's soul.

Vladimir Putin may be a plagiarist. But he's also running Russia, a world power with many nukes, a more-or-less functioning secret police, and fantabulous amounts of petroleum under his control.

Who's going to hold him to account? Thanks, but I'm busy this decade.

"Who's going to hold him to account? Thanks, but I'm busy this decade."

I'm free.

"I'm free."

I understand, in this one, the smart money's on Farber...

Or as John McClain so eloquently put it to Hans Gruber:
"Yippee-ki-yay, motherfucker."

"I understand, in this one, the smart money's on Farber..."

Small point: I kinda need something approximating the full powers of the United States government at my command to get a decent start on the job.

I don't think an excess of nagging comments on Putin's blog will do the job, no matter how good I might be at that.

Funny, Gary, but don't knock it till you've tried it. Nothing lays the mighty low like a passionate fisking.

"Yippee-ki-yay, motherfucker."

In keeping with the motif, I was so hoping you were gonna say "motherfarber". (:

"Small point: I kinda need something approximating the full powers of the United States government at my command to get a decent start on the job."

Are you even old enough to run for prez yet? Be that as it may, if you promise to try to hold Blair accountable too I'll vote for you.(Or against you if you're feeling superstitious: I've voted in five presidential elections. The candidate I voted for one in only one of those elections.)

"Are you even old enough to run for prez yet?"

I'm 47 (as of last November 5th; hurrah for Guy Fawkes). But, don't worry, I'm very childish, er, child-like. But I wasn't announcing my campaign for office. I will accept delegated powers. And cookies.

I'll also accept the power to grant lordships and knighthoods, in return for cash, if delegated to me by proper authority. Or even improper authority; let's not violate precedent.

Anarch: Oh, the price of being un-clever!

" The candidate I voted for one in only one of those elections."

That's adorable.
What would you call that?
A mala-homophone-apropism?

"Powers plenipotentiary and extraordinary," is the term, actually. Splendid word, "plenipotentiary," isn't it?

"That's adorable.
What would you call that?
A mala-homophone-apropism?"

Mala-homophone-apropism. I like it. Alas, what I'd really call it is poor editing. Nonexistent editing, if one wants to get technical about it. One of those ones should be won, of course. But I'm glad it amused you at least.

"One of those ones should be won, of course."

Of course it should, Dianne. And I new you new it should.

(And it did amuse me, but only because I'm not that busy right now and have always been easily amused... just ask hilzoy...

on the other hand, her lips are probably sealed...)

"on the other hand, her lips are probably sealed..."

Discretion is such a boring virtue.

But vices are usually less boring than virtues; or are they? (I momentarily considered writing "are always," but instantly realized that that was wrong; sloth, in fact, is a pretty boring vice. And I should know.)

"And I new you new it should."

And I gnu you new.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad