Ever since Time magazine moved to glossy print, it isn't even useful as toilet paper. I'm really trying to wrack my brain and think of something nice to say about Time magazine, but I just can't.
At least this year's Man of the Year isn't as bad as last year's (YOU).
The shit they have been pulling in recent years is ridiculous. "You" is not a viable choice for candidate of the year and neither is "The American Army".
Tancredo is down to just a few aides, one of whom, not seeing the irony, signs off her campaign e-mails for "Tank" Tancredo with "Keep on Tankin'."
I'm actually surprised they didn't go with Petraeus, since they usually go with the flag-waving military-happy option, but Putin makes a lot of sense.
Frankly, if the progress generated by the surge in Iraq holds, he will be responsible for what will probably be one of the greatest turn-arounds in american military history; rescuing a situation many had written off as unwinnable and hopeless.
Frankly, if the progress generated by the surge in Iraq holds, he will be responsible for what will probably be one of the greatest turn-arounds in american military history; rescuing a situation many had written off as unwinnable and hopeless.
I thought the whole "ex-KGB agent gets elected President of Russia but everyone says, it'll be ok, he'll be a nice tame bear and there's no way he'll go all meglomanical Soviet Gestapo and roll back oh bollocks" thing was pretty badass. Especially the bits where at select points as Putin is killing / starving / freezing the ex-Soviet peoples of wherever, Western_leader_004 drones on about what a nice chap he is, how his soul looked, what good mates they all were, while Putin just stands there looking cold-blooded then publically tells Western_leader_004 to fuck off a few months down the line. Extra especially the fact that he pulled this trick a good three or four times (twice to Bush!) before the West caught on.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me; fool me three or four times, you must be a great shag!
I did a paper on Putin a few weeks ago for school. It basically solidified my intense loathing for him as a human being, although its also hard not to admire what he's managed to accomplish.
I don't see how practically destroying democracy in Russia is something that can be admired.
No, but bringing it back to even a shadow of its former glory can be.
What glory? The Soviet Union was about as glorious as a bag of flaming shit.
I did a paper on Putin a few weeks ago for school. It basically solidified my intense loathing for him as a human being, although its also hard not to admire what he's managed to accomplish.
I don't see how practically destroying democracy in Russia is something that can be admired.
No, but bringing it back to even a shadow of its former glory can be.
What glory? The Soviet Union was about as glorious as a bag of flaming shit.
It was one of two superpowers for 40 years. It had an absolutely enormous influence on the world. It had a sprawling empire. Just because it collapsed doesn't mean it didn't have glory back in the day. That sort of strength really appeals to nationalist types, the sort of people Putin is courting.
I did a paper on Putin a few weeks ago for school. It basically solidified my intense loathing for him as a human being, although its also hard not to admire what he's managed to accomplish.
I don't see how practically destroying democracy in Russia is something that can be admired.
No, but bringing it back to even a shadow of its former glory can be.
What glory? The Soviet Union was about as glorious as a bag of flaming shit.
I'd say being one of the only two superpowers in the world and possessing immense influence for four or five decades is pretty fucking glorious.
In hind-sight, aside from it's nukes, the USSR was basically a third world country with a big army. Most of the Russian threat was manufactured either by the Russian propaganda machine or the US government trying to scare it's citizens shitless.
nexuscrawler on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
In hind-sight, aside from it's nukes, the USSR was basically a third world country with a big army. Most of the Russian threat was manufactured either by the Russian propaganda machine or the US government trying to scare it's citizens shitless.
Huh, a 3rd world country that was the first into space, had tech equal to ours, and an incredibly sophisticated spy network.
Huh. The MIG-31, a third world invention.
Kagera on
My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
0
Options
DynagripBreak me a million heartsHoustonRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited December 2007
Its tech wasn't really equal, in some areas it was equal or better, but overall I'd say they lagged pretty far behind.
I did a paper on Putin a few weeks ago for school. It basically solidified my intense loathing for him as a human being, although its also hard not to admire what he's managed to accomplish.
I don't see how practically destroying democracy in Russia is something that can be admired.
He's restoring order to one of the more hellishly chaotic places on earth. He's heavy-handed, and in a variety of ways I don't like beyond the standard censorship (homosexuality isn't at all a safe way to be in Russia right now, for example), but I don't think it's crazy to suggest that an oppressive, oligarchical police state isn't a step down from roving bands of murderous children with AKs. It's bad, still undesirable, but it's better.
In hind-sight, aside from it's nukes, the USSR was basically a third world country with a big army. Most of the Russian threat was manufactured either by the Russian propaganda machine or the US government trying to scare it's citizens shitless.
Huh, a 3rd world country that was the first into space, had tech equal to ours, and an incredibly sophisticated spy network.
Huh. The MIG-31, a third world invention.
Yes they poured tons of money into military spending. Their attempts to keep up with the US crippled the USSR in other areas. They had Migs but it came at the cost of an appallingly low standard of living for average citizens.
nexuscrawler on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
In hind-sight, aside from it's nukes, the USSR was basically a third world country with a big army. Most of the Russian threat was manufactured either by the Russian propaganda machine or the US government trying to scare it's citizens shitless.
Huh, a 3rd world country that was the first into space, had tech equal to ours, and an incredibly sophisticated spy network.
Huh. The MIG-31, a third world invention.
Yes they poured tons of money into military spending. Their attempts to keep up with the US crippled the USSR in other areas. They had Migs but it came at the cost of an appallingly low standard of living for average citizens.
This is true. I wasn't saying I would have wanted to live there just that going into a war with them would have still been devastating (even if it was only conventional).
Might doesn't make right, but it makes for a powerful tool regardless.
Well, Time might be getting their balls back instead of using "Person of the Year" to put out a feel-good fluff piece. I'm still pissed that the 2001 Person of the Year wasn't Osama Bin Laden.
In hind-sight, aside from it's nukes, the USSR was basically a third world country with a big army. Most of the Russian threat was manufactured either by the Russian propaganda machine or the US government trying to scare it's citizens shitless.
Not that any of this really matters to your average Russian citizen, because as far as they are concerned, Russia was glorious & the big bear superpower & all sorts of other wonderful things.
Talking about past glory is an explanation for why Putin is popular among Russians, whether it is actually true or not.
For my own two cents, I think it's always instructive to compare attitudes toward Putin's illiberalism to attitudes toward friendlier petro-states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, etc. It's totally understandable that the United States government would take a different attitude toward governments who try to challenge US international hegemony than the one it takes toward those governments who help re-enforce it.
But to a striking extent, the press just follows along on this path. Gulf states that are far less democratic than contemporary Russia are typically portrayed as "moderate" or "reforming" whereas Putin's Russia is painted as a dark totalitarian nightmare. Even though though most people acknowledge, when pressed, that Putin is a broadly popular leaders whereas the sundry Sheikhs of the Gulf are mostly detested by their subjects.
To be honest, I think it would be bloody hard, as a normal citizen not to support someone like Putin after the 1990s. Imagine living in a country that collapses and is rebuilt into something totally alien, where a nominally equal society becomes one of crime and robber barons, where a guaranteed (if low) standard of living is replaced by uncertainty? Where everything you've known has been turned upside down. Not only have you lost an empire, you've also lost the things that made life bearable.
If someone came along and managed to halt that, to preside over a return to a livable normality, to promise and delivery stability I think he would be genuinely and wildly popular. Even if he is a jerk in many other ways.
To be honest, I think it would be bloody hard, as a normal citizen not to support someone like Putin after the 1990s. Imagine living in a country that collapses and is rebuilt into something totally alien, where a nominally equal society becomes one of crime and robber barons, where a guaranteed (if low) standard of living is replaced by uncertainty? Where everything you've known has been turned upside down. Not only have you lost an empire, you've also lost the things that made life bearable.
If someone came along and managed to halt that, to preside over a return to a livable normality, to promise and delivery stability I think he would be genuinely and wildly popular. Even if he is a jerk in many other ways.
"It was when Yeltsin was naming him as his successor [during a live New Year's Eve TV broadcast in 1999]. My soul exploded with joy! 'An ubermensch! God himself has chosen him!'" I cried. "
In hind-sight, aside from it's nukes, the USSR was basically a third world country with a big army. Most of the Russian threat was manufactured either by the Russian propaganda machine or the US government trying to scare it's citizens shitless.
WTF, they beat us into space, their fighters were just as good as ours, were the only other nation with a credible blue sea navy.
Far from a third world country. Aside from quality of lifestyle, and let's face it Americans are stupid debt ridden consumers that buy crap we don't need, they were just as good or better in every area.
And look at the situation now, that quality of lifestyle has put us so far in debt were royally screwed.
People crave stability and irredentism is and always has been a powerful political force.
This isn't just about stability, in some cases democracy does not work. The real question is what do the Russians want, they seem to enjoy an iron fist style of government.
waterlogged on
Democrat that will switch parties and turn red if Clinton is nominated.:P[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Wow waterlogged, no. You don't write off crazy bad quality of life with "but Americans are stupid consumers that buy crap we don't need". In fact, they weren't "just as good or better in every area". And no matter how screwed the average American is because of unfortunate decisions re: buying stuff, the average American is a hell of a lot less screwed than the average Russian, and this paradigm has held for quite a while.
And no, it's not that Russians simply want an "iron fist style of government", it's that an "iron fist style of government" is a lot better than roving bands of murderous thugs.
It is hard to really know if Russians take to democracy in the sense that English speaking Westerners do, given the vastly different situations we live in. Maybe they do need rule by a nominal democratic elite for a decade or two to stabilise the economic/political situation before proper representative democracy returns? Seemed to work for Korea and Taiwan
The traits are good - it's the way he uses them that are bad. Plenty of people get canonised with those traits because they use them for good, and nobody complains.
That's not really what I meant, but it was probably poor wording on my part. Specifically, I was speaking to people being placed on a media throne, i.e., Time's Person of the Year.
Denying that they can also be used for bad is not clever.
Agreed. What I was saying is that placing a person who goes the "bad" route on said media throne is also not clever. We can recognize and consider that those traits can be used for ill intent without using a filter or censor. We can also question photo op spotlights placed on those people by the media.
TIME's Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. It is not a popularity contest. At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world—for better or for worse.
I've read this statement over and over throughout the years, and it has never sat right with me. Plastering a person's photo on the cover of Time magazine is a media endorsement and, as I see it, and endorsement of that person and his or her actions in an ends-justify-the-means way.
NexusSix on
REASON - Version 1.0B7 Gatling type 3 mm hypervelocity railgun system
Ng Security Industries, Inc.
PRERELEASE VERSION-NOT FOR FIELD USE - DO NOT TEST IN A POPULATED AREA
-ULTIMA RATIO REGUM-
TIME's Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. It is not a popularity contest. At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world—for better or for worse.
I've read this statement over and over throughout the years, and it has never sat right with me. Plastering a person's photo on the cover of Time magazine is a media endorsement and, as I see it, and endorsement of that person and his or her actions in an ends-justify-the-means way.
What? No. I think Time is retarded, but by your logic Al Franken is endorsing Bill O'Reilly and company with his cover of Lying Liars.
Plastering a person's photo on a cover, alone, is not an endorsement of said person or a justification of said person's actions. Not at all. However, adding in the context of "Person of the Year" and I would agree that it's probably not the best message to send people (depending on the subject). But what you suggest is untrue; a photo alone is not an endorsement.
However, adding in the context of "Person of the Year" and I would agree that it's probably not the best message to send people (depending on the subject).
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
Specifically, I was speaking to people being placed on a media throne, i.e., Time's Person of the Year.
So we're in agreement.
NexusSix on
REASON - Version 1.0B7 Gatling type 3 mm hypervelocity railgun system
Ng Security Industries, Inc.
PRERELEASE VERSION-NOT FOR FIELD USE - DO NOT TEST IN A POPULATED AREA
-ULTIMA RATIO REGUM-
Posts
At least this year's Man of the Year isn't as bad as last year's (YOU).
They are a joke.
The shit they have been pulling in recent years is ridiculous. "You" is not a viable choice for candidate of the year and neither is "The American Army".
Hell, the Patriarch of Moscow might as well just put a crown of his head and acknowledge what we all already know.
God save the Tzar...
Margaret Thatcher
I'm actually surprised they didn't go with Petraeus, since they usually go with the flag-waving military-happy option, but Putin makes a lot of sense.
Frankly, if the progress generated by the surge in Iraq holds, he will be responsible for what will probably be one of the greatest turn-arounds in american military history; rescuing a situation many had written off as unwinnable and hopeless.
If.
Margaret Thatcher
Yay for a return to 2005 levels of violence?
http://www.en.rian.ru/russia/20071211/91857622.html
If that isnt badass, I dont know what is.
I thought the whole "ex-KGB agent gets elected President of Russia but everyone says, it'll be ok, he'll be a nice tame bear and there's no way he'll go all meglomanical Soviet Gestapo and roll back oh bollocks" thing was pretty badass. Especially the bits where at select points as Putin is killing / starving / freezing the ex-Soviet peoples of wherever, Western_leader_004 drones on about what a nice chap he is, how his soul looked, what good mates they all were, while Putin just stands there looking cold-blooded then publically tells Western_leader_004 to fuck off a few months down the line. Extra especially the fact that he pulled this trick a good three or four times (twice to Bush!) before the West caught on.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me; fool me three or four times, you must be a great shag!
Now we know his secret
What glory? The Soviet Union was about as glorious as a bag of flaming shit.
It was one of two superpowers for 40 years. It had an absolutely enormous influence on the world. It had a sprawling empire. Just because it collapsed doesn't mean it didn't have glory back in the day. That sort of strength really appeals to nationalist types, the sort of people Putin is courting.
I'd say being one of the only two superpowers in the world and possessing immense influence for four or five decades is pretty fucking glorious.
Huh, a 3rd world country that was the first into space, had tech equal to ours, and an incredibly sophisticated spy network.
Huh. The MIG-31, a third world invention.
He's restoring order to one of the more hellishly chaotic places on earth. He's heavy-handed, and in a variety of ways I don't like beyond the standard censorship (homosexuality isn't at all a safe way to be in Russia right now, for example), but I don't think it's crazy to suggest that an oppressive, oligarchical police state isn't a step down from roving bands of murderous children with AKs. It's bad, still undesirable, but it's better.
Yes they poured tons of money into military spending. Their attempts to keep up with the US crippled the USSR in other areas. They had Migs but it came at the cost of an appallingly low standard of living for average citizens.
This is true. I wasn't saying I would have wanted to live there just that going into a war with them would have still been devastating (even if it was only conventional).
Might doesn't make right, but it makes for a powerful tool regardless.
Not that any of this really matters to your average Russian citizen, because as far as they are concerned, Russia was glorious & the big bear superpower & all sorts of other wonderful things.
Talking about past glory is an explanation for why Putin is popular among Russians, whether it is actually true or not.
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/follow_the_leader.php
If someone came along and managed to halt that, to preside over a return to a livable normality, to promise and delivery stability I think he would be genuinely and wildly popular. Even if he is a jerk in many other ways.
Must....resist......comparison.....that....would....trigger....Godwin's...Law....
:P
Margaret Thatcher
Perfectly valid to make the comparison in this situation. People crave stability and irredentism is and always has been a powerful political force.
WTF, they beat us into space, their fighters were just as good as ours, were the only other nation with a credible blue sea navy.
Far from a third world country. Aside from quality of lifestyle, and let's face it Americans are stupid debt ridden consumers that buy crap we don't need, they were just as good or better in every area.
And look at the situation now, that quality of lifestyle has put us so far in debt were royally screwed.
This isn't just about stability, in some cases democracy does not work. The real question is what do the Russians want, they seem to enjoy an iron fist style of government.
And no, it's not that Russians simply want an "iron fist style of government", it's that an "iron fist style of government" is a lot better than roving bands of murderous thugs.
Wait...isn't J.K. Rowling a woman?
I'm saying that women aren't "hims."
Christ was stiff competition.
That's not really what I meant, but it was probably poor wording on my part. Specifically, I was speaking to people being placed on a media throne, i.e., Time's Person of the Year.
Agreed. What I was saying is that placing a person who goes the "bad" route on said media throne is also not clever. We can recognize and consider that those traits can be used for ill intent without using a filter or censor. We can also question photo op spotlights placed on those people by the media.
I've read this statement over and over throughout the years, and it has never sat right with me. Plastering a person's photo on the cover of Time magazine is a media endorsement and, as I see it, and endorsement of that person and his or her actions in an ends-justify-the-means way.
Ng Security Industries, Inc.
PRERELEASE VERSION-NOT FOR FIELD USE - DO NOT TEST IN A POPULATED AREA
-ULTIMA RATIO REGUM-
What? No. I think Time is retarded, but by your logic Al Franken is endorsing Bill O'Reilly and company with his cover of Lying Liars.
Plastering a person's photo on a cover, alone, is not an endorsement of said person or a justification of said person's actions. Not at all. However, adding in the context of "Person of the Year" and I would agree that it's probably not the best message to send people (depending on the subject). But what you suggest is untrue; a photo alone is not an endorsement.
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
So we're in agreement.
Ng Security Industries, Inc.
PRERELEASE VERSION-NOT FOR FIELD USE - DO NOT TEST IN A POPULATED AREA
-ULTIMA RATIO REGUM-