Russia Today: Iran is all a CIA plot
By Sean at 24 June, 2009, 7:59 am
There is nothing more hilarious when people give wondrous powers to the United States. It’s no surprise that Russia Today would feast on a the idea that the “Green Revolution” is a US orchestrated plot. Russia already convinced itself that every colored revolution was cooked up in Langley.
And this makes Craig Roberts a perfect guest (I know nothing about Wayne Madsen, but his wiki entry suggests that he’s a crank). He argued that the Iranian protests are “classic CIA destabilization” in an article on Counterpunch. What a sad convergence of opinion between some in the American Left, Russia’s conservatives, and the theocrats in Iran.
The idea among some Leftists that every uprising they don’t like is the work of the CIA (or Mossad) always strikes me as orientalist.
Popularity: 2% [?]
Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
What do you mean by Russia’s conservatives? A “conservative” in Russia is a Communist (who do think that colored revos were cooked up in Langley). You know, somebody who is conserving something. Medvedev etc. are demokraty and reformers.
“What a sad convergence of opinion between some in the American Left, Russia’s conservatives, and the theocrats in Iran.”
Well you didn’t actually mention any on the American Left, unless you meant that Paul Craig Roberts was part of it (not Craig Roberts). The man was in the Reagan Treasury Department, and the originator of Reaganomics, so if Reagan is now the American left, the US really is screwed.
There are those on the American left, such as Seymour Hersh, who also think the US is behind the Iranian protests.
So you have some on the American left and the American right thinking this, plus Russia. So if Russia thinks it, it must be loony. Strange attitude for a Russian researcher.
Also strange for a graduate student to cite wiki and then write off the man for being a crank because of the entry, but still, what exactly was the part that qualified him for crankhood? That he was an intelligence officer in the US Navy or that he was a communications security analyst with the NSA?
“The protests in Tehran no doubt have many sincere participants. The protests also have the hallmarks of the CIA orchestrated protests in Georgia and Ukraine. It requires total blindness not to see this.” Wrote Paul Craig Roberts
Keep those blinders on.
Don’t even get me started about Paul Craig Roberts.
“Stuff somebody said on Russia today” does not mean “stuff Russia thinks.”
Is it possible to have a colorless revolution?
If colorless revolution happens, will people see it?
Personally, I don’t object to color revolutions. I object to noisy revolutions. Revolutions are so noisy. Can we have a silent revolution?
Thanks for the post, Sean. Yes, it’s hilarious, but it’s also pathetically sad.
It reminds me of one of my late father’s quip that usually had the effect of momentarily silencing the people at the dinner party or whatever social gathering he was attending among fellow Russians: “If the Jews are responsible for even one fifth we blame them for, then we have to take our hats off and admit that because of their superiority over us the Jews do indeed deserve to be our masters.” Neither of my parents had any Jewish blood, but, as a Russian, my father found it shameful that so many (not all!) Russians were obsessed with “the nefarious role of the Jews” in Russian and world affairs.
The same with the CIA. Amusingly enough, the same folks that often deride the CIA for its incompetence and stupidity, credit the CIA for pulling off fiendishly clever and complicated conspiracies.
———-
In Russia during the late 1980s and early 1990s, “conservatives” were Communist Party members who wanted a return to the good old days of the Soviet Union. If you were an anti-communist (even if you used to be a party member in the past) pushing for freer markets and freedom of expression, you were a liberal (even if you were a Milton Friedman and Hayek admirer.) In Russia itself, how folks pushing for a Friedman-like vision of things are now labeled?
“In Russia during the late 1980s and early 1990s, “conservatives” were Communist Party members who wanted a return to the good old days of the Soviet Union. If you were an anti-communist (even if you used to be a party member in the past) pushing for freer markets and freedom of expression, you were a liberal (even if you were a Milton Friedman and Hayek admirer.) In Russia itself, how folks pushing for a Friedman-like vision of things are now labeled?”
A person pushing for a Friedman-like vision is pretty much what “liberal” means in Russia. That’s why everybody hates them.
And in today’s Russia, who would be labeled a “conservative”?
I’m aware that even in the US such labels are tricky because the same word has somewhat different meanings according to geographic location and historical period. Hayek, a darling among many US conservatives, once wrote an essay titled something like “Why I am not a conservative”. For him conservatives were what in the US now are termed “social conservatives”–many of them of the Christian Right with an authoritarian streak. Friedman was not a social conservative. I guess that’s pretty much what American libertarians are: social liberals, fiscal conservatives. But then, what would a Russian call someone who in the US is usually labeled a liberal or liberal/progressive (e.g., someone who is for the legalization of marijuana, gay marriage, universal health care and a more robust safety net)?
“And in today’s Russia, who would be labeled a “conservative”?”
A supporter of the Communist Party.
A person pushing for a Friedman-like vision is pretty much what “liberal” means in Russia
It’s pretty much what liberal means outside of America, in my experience.
I have a question. Who watches RT? Does it broadcast in Russian, or is it explicitly for an English-speaking audience? Who is getting their news from RT? More and more I see it being cited by people who have absolutely no connection to Russia, for stories that have no real connection to Russia. I don’t know how others see it in America, but in Chicago one NBC station and one PBS station have begun airing it throughout the day. So suddenly it is on all of the time.
I have a difficult time getting all het up about RT even when it goes down the conspiracy theory path. I mean, it isn’t clear that their only goal is outstanding objective journalism. It seems meant to provide a counterweight to the western mass media. Some hybrid of Kremlin propaganda (whatever that means), innocuous Russophilia (or not innocuous) and provocative devil’s advocate (though they often have a good point). I watch it and either think, “This is brilliant! Why is no one else doing/saying this? Spot on!” or, “Uhm, what planet are these people living on? Are they completely mental or what?” Sometimes both responses are inspired by the same thing. Which, come to think of it, are my responses to most things Russian…
Anyway, let’s draw a distinction between claiming outright that the Iranian protests are a CIA plot, for which there remains no evidence, and questioning what role the US has had in it. The US should be “a person of interest,” given their past behavior and their stake in the outcome. There’s little to charge them on, however. The fact is, I don’t know exactly who has played exactly what role in Iran, and probably few people do. What I do know is that politics is about money and power and people who will do nearly anything for one or the other, and neither altruistic grassroots movements nor covert plots for world domination have much chance for success without the help of such people, and such people don’t help unless they have something to gain from it.
“But then, what would a Russian call someone who in the US is usually labeled a liberal or liberal/progressive (e.g., someone who is for the legalization of marijuana, gay marriage, universal health care and a more robust safety net)?”
Russia has universal (bad) health care, so that question is moot. Everybody is in favor of a more robust safety net, except for the liberals (one of Latynina’s most vile moments for me was when she related telling an on-air caller with cancer that she didn’t deserve state medical care because death is a personal matter in which the state should not interfere). Somebody who really thematizes the social safety net would be a lev.
I don’t think drug legaliztion and gay marriage issues are even on the radar screen for most people.
“Who watches RT? Does it broadcast in Russian, or is it explicitly for an English-speaking audience?”
To my knowledge, it broadcasts in English and Arabic, maybe Spanish too but I haven’t checked.
Just a note to commentators. I deleted JackUK’s comment. I will tolerate a lot of things on my blog, but I will not tolerate under any circumstances racism and antisemitism.
This reminds me Clive James’ comments on the conspiracy-nut theories that 9/11 was inside job ordered by the secret cabal behind G.W.Bush. Clive James take on these speculations was that the competency the US administration is such that if they had plotted to have a strike on WTC and Pentagon, the Golden Gate Bridge would fall down instead…
What a mind blowing pathetic site.
Everybody knows that the Americans, Dutch and British are dogs.
Kolya « The same with the CIA. Amusingly enough, the same folks that often deride the CIA for its incompetence and stupidity, credit the CIA for pulling off fiendishly clever and complicated conspiracies. »
True but a country that admits to spending 50 billion a year on 16 different secret intelligence organisations is liable to get blamed for a lot of stuff. Note that the 50 billion is only what they admit to but it is still more than a major defence player like for example France spends on its entire defence budget in a year. If you listen to what Wayne Madsen actually says, he does not blame the CIA for the whole shooting match and his comments are pretty sensible. Craig Roberts merely points out the obvious that if you constantly threaten regime change and death and destruction against a country it is pretty likely that the bad things that happen in that country are in part at least down to you. Starting in Latin America and post WW2 world wide the US has a track record of just such meddling in the affairs of uncooperative countries particlualry Iran. Nobody ever said throwing people alive out of helicopters was ‘fiendlishly clever’. Britain of course has a worse record in Iran going back to 1812 when the Foreign Office graciously gave a chunk of Persia to Russia. Wayne Madsen a crank? Dont know but I do know he says things that are screamingly obvious that the Western MSM does not rush to notice.
Even worse are Americans of Dutch and British descent.
“Starting in Latin America and post WW2 world wide the US has a track record of just such meddling in the affairs of uncooperative countries particlualry Iran.”
The US is a dim shadow of its former self. I frankly don’t think it has that kind of power anymore.
Moreover, Iran is not uncooperative in the places in which the US needs it to be — Afghanistan and Iraq, especially the former, where Washington and Teheran’s interests coincide. Which is probably why Obama and Brown’s criticisms have been so muted.
Chris Van Doom “Which is probably why Obama and Brown’s criticisms have been so muted.”
Yes I suppose to some extent it is the “give a dog a bad name” syndrome. Madsen also made the good point that apparently virtuous efforts to encourage ‘civic society’ actually often only leads to ‘civil strife’.
First of I am not an anti Semite or a racist and nether was my comment as a I quoted simple facts including a reference from a Jewish writer himself.
I just stated the obvious fact that Jews have an inordinate representation and influence in media, government and finance and use this to further there own political and/or economic advantage.
I will be happy to read your or other peoples comments refuting the facts that I have mentioned.
“I am not an anti Semite”
Oh God. You’re worse. You’re an anti-Semite who doesn’t know it.
In fairness to Jack, I have no idea what is it that he wrote. The fact that Jews have an influence in the world of culture, finances, politics and science that is not proportional to their percentage in the world’s population is not a controversial claim in itself.
About RT: RT sucks. The fact that, say, FoxNews sucks is little consolation. Call me naive, but I still think that two wrongs don’t make a right. In any event, although FoxNews is terrible, RT is even worse. Frankly, it’s not too hard for a news outlet to be much less tendentious despite having its own slant on issues.
Chris, I guess I was not clear in my question. I’m genuinely curious to know how a Russian in today’s Russia would label someone who in the US holds socially liberal views (with respect to freedom of expression, drugs, sex, and so on) AND at the same time supports a strong social safety net (good universal health care, strong enviromental protection, unemployment benefits, public education, and so on.) In the US such a person is usually called a liberal or a progressive. (Yes, I’m aware that this sort of “liberal” is different from the so-called classical liberals.) How would a person with similar views be called in today’s Russia (regardless of whether this person is a Russian, American, Swede, or whatever)?
Chris (or anyone else), just in case: I didn’t ask whether there are many of them in Russia.
Good but misleading headline, Sean
The main suspects in the TV program were Soros and other NGOs (as I understood). And they are.
“Western media” – they don’t need any CIA assistance to produce their BS. And they know well what kind of BS they are expected to generate.
And from the beginning everything looks so familiar
The “opposition leader” – the ex-PM. Give me a break. He is looser. But as long as he is “leaning to west” and to “democracy” – he is “our hero”.
The victory is declared before the end of election based on “exit polls”.
Immediately after the official results – claiming about fraud and appeal to go to streets to demand full “re-play” of the game. Over and over gain.
Slogans printed in English – for easy readings by western “supporters”
Color uniform, balloons, flags (how much does it cost? What about logistics?).
And of course the main claim that all this for the sake of democracy. In Iran. OMFG!
And Obama with UN secretary – “Please treat demonstrators well”. I’m really surprised how well they are treated – no tanks, no machine guns.
PS. Craig’s claim that CIA involvement is a common knowledge well covered by press – is BS.
CIA as well as MI5 are involved but I assume they are good enough to hide their ears. As well as SVR, Mossad, Paks and Chinese guys. Iran is too sensitive matter. If it explodes – malo ne pokazhetsa.
I haven’t read “Ahmadinejad Theorizes Colored Revolution” before posting my comment, I swear.
The unfeasible, conspiratorial nature of the story is presumably what attracted Sean’s coverage. Not, therefore, a sensible place for an attempt to shine via hugely out-dated anti-Semite ideas.
“I’m genuinely curious to know how a Russian in today’s Russia would label someone who in the US holds socially liberal views (with respect to freedom of expression, drugs, sex, and so on) AND at the same time supports a strong social safety net (good universal health care, strong enviromental protection, unemployment benefits, public education, and so on.) How would a person with similar views be called in today’s Russia
No such political faction exists. A Martian? Somebody mixing liberal and Communist views in some weird way.
You may hate me for saying this, but I think that your views on social and economic issues put you closer to the Communists than to anybody else in Russian politics. (I also think that one of our problems in communicating in this forum is that when I talk about “liberals,” I mean social Darwinists, and when you talk about “liberals,” you mean people in favor of free speech.)
Chris, my question was straightforward. I didn’t ask whether there is such political faction in Russia. Remember that I ended my comment with: “regardless of whether this person is a Russian, American, Swede, or whatever.” There are not many monarchists in the US, but I would be able to say, “well, if a person believes this and that and that, then he’s best described a monarchist.”
In any event, I simply tried to describe a generic (not a radical) US/Canadian liberal/progressive (perhaps I should have also added respect for private property and enterprise in the description)–regardless of my own personaly symphaties.
As to our own dificulties communicating in this forum, they have very little to do with our political differences or the same word meaning different things. Such things can be easily clarified. For example, I have no problems communicating with Sean even though he’s a Marxists who is not fond of liberal democracies. When I don’t understand what Sean is getting at, I ask him and he replies in a straightforward fashion.
Whether I disagree or don’t see eye-to-eye with them, I can state that in this forum Sean and Lyndon (among others) are intellectually honest. On the other hand, you and Candide are intellectually dishonest. To each his own. I know you are fond of such games.
Hey, what did I do?!?
“On the other hand, you and Candide are intellectually dishonest.”
Huh? What did I do?
“In any event, I simply tried to describe a generic (not a radical) US/Canadian liberal/progressive (perhaps I should have also added respect for private property and enterprise in the description)–regardless of my own personaly symphaties.”
What I was saying was that no such person exists in Russia, or not to such an extent that they would have a label attached to them. You’re asking about people who believe that Mars is inhabited by superintelligent cyborg chickens, and then getting mad because I didn’t tell you what people in Newark called them.
Definitely no foreign involvement or George Soros coloured revolution.
http://de-construct.net/e-zine/?p=6589
And it is not just that that there media power is disproportionate to there population they dominate and control the media and government appointees I could list the Bush and Obama administrations and media ownership in the US, as well as in Canada and in Europe and I dare you to refute what I am saying but I want this comment posted so if you ask me I will post in another comment.
Why does RT suck?
It was blatantly obvious that western mass media consistently lie about foreign affairs the latest Georgia conflict being the best example when CNN used footage of South Ossetia and claimed it was Gori.
The best example is the former Yugoslavia against the Serbs when we were arming and training Ustasha forces in Croatia including Operation Storm when a private US military contractor MPRI trained Croat and Muslim forces to assault to Serb enclave in Croatia ethnically cleansing 200,000 and killing 10,000 (I will also point out that MPRI instructors were training Georgian forces in sabotage techniques just before the conflict) and Islamic militants in Bosnia where Atta and KSM operated during the Bosnian war where financial records and some of the hijackers linking Bosnia to 9/11 were revealed .
KSM Granted Bosnian citizenship.
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/aki012009.htm
There are some very good documentaries including a US one called Yugoslavia The Avoidable War.
Part 1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5860186121153047571
Part 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6371060303901674397
Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base
http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/iran.htm
Article written by Seymour Hersh (not a crank, to my knowledge) in 2008:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh
It doesn’t prove involvement in the current situation. But does it make it more difficult to dismiss the notion outright?
Contrary to myths about the magic powers of the CIA, you cannot motivate tens of thousands of people to act using covert operations.
I tend to underestimate the power of groupthink, but I would really like to believe you are right. However, the two need not be mutually exclusive.
Look at it this way — if John Kerry had won the 2004 elections, only the loony right would be calling it a “Soros coup.”
To my knowledge, Seymour Hersh is a crank.
Hersh has become a bit cranky. None of the his investigative exposes have come true. According to him, shouldn’t we have been at war with Iran sine 2006 or something? I sometimes wonder if his sources are playing him. I think I read someone suggesting this somewhere.
Being wrong about something is hardly the same as being a crank.
I agree with Sean. Despite his very self-assured style, Hersh’s track record during the last few years has not been impressive at all. He had too many consecutive strike outs. Perhaps he’ll hit another home run in the future, but he’s definitely in a slump.
On the topic ” investigative journalist: hero or zero?” I’m throwing the name “Matt Taibbi” into the void that is SRB. Perhaps he’s somebody others here have discussed before I ever arrived on the scene? If so, I apologize for raking over an old topic. But, I see him as a reporter whose style was forged in the crucible that was mid-to-late 90’s Russia. His career can be plotted on the same chart as Paul Klebnikov, Chrystia Freeland, Matt Brysinski–There were even more names I cannot think of, all trying to launch journalism careers from the Moscow bureau in the 90s. And most had bigger brand publishers behind them…compared to the eXile. But, Matt Taibbi seems to be the success story. Why? Please discuss. (klebnikov was murdered, of course. Did that cause the others to change course, be more cautious?)
re: Taibbi’s big story in Rolling Stone this week about Goldman Sachs. My first thoughts were that all the big firms were doing the same thing; GS is not that special. And yet….the next story comes out today about the Russian emigre stealing the secret GS code that gives GS an unfair advantage in commodities trading. Hmmmm?
Is Taibbi recognizing patterns he saw in Russia in the 90s, and that is why he is first with this story?
Taibbi’s a reasonably good writer who writes in an “I’ll look insightful and superior, even if I’m really not, and this will let my readers feel insightful and morally superior too, even if neither of us actually know anything” kind of way.
I adore Taibbi. I once dated a guy who said, “If Matt Taibbi ever bothered to get his act together, he could actually be a very good journalist.” It was a red flag – our relationship ended within months.
Though, I’m a little bored with his current obsession. Maybe Russian robber barons are just more interesting to write about, but I appreciated him more back in the day. Still, he’s an asset to America, IMO.
Now everyone may proceed to rake me over the coals and call him a hack. “Lalalalala – I can’t hear you.”
He’s not a hack. He’s just a much better writer than he is a thinker, relying on prejusice and appealing to a lot of default beliefs on the part of his audience. His Yeltsin obit was utter crap. I hate Yeltsin as much as the next guy, but Taibbi’s piece was based entirely on innuendo.
That said, I haven’t read anything he’s written in years.
//Taibbi’s a reasonably good writer who writes in an “I’ll look insightful and superior, even if I’m really not, and this will let my readers feel insightful and morally superior too, even if neither of us actually know anything” kind of way.//
I confess I have not read much of Taibbi. Not enough to remember any particular piece. In general, though, I deeply disliked eXile. Having said that, the above excerpt probably describes a good number of well-known writers–right or left.
I haven’t read much of his stuff, either. I’ve even only read the ‘cliff notes’ version of the current Rolling Stone GS article – what you can see online. The opening “Octopus sucking face” first sentence is typical of his style, as I understand it. Maybe I’m not the right demographic, but the ugly shock-value metaphors are off-putting. But, is he a journalist worth reading for his investigative work? Even if you find his writing overdone and his conclusions specious? Will this story get buried – despite Ballroom dancing, Secret steeling, computer programming VP Russian emigre whose existence sort of proves that Taibbi has a point about the GS banksters.
“But, is he a journalist worth reading for his investigative work?”
Does he do any?
While it doesn’t take much sleuthing to figure out that GS alumni have power positions in key legislating and regulating roles; and that when you’re holding both sets of levers you can game the system, Taibbi listened to sources and did research…So yeah that’s investigative work.
How about the GS PR comeback to Taibbi about how “GS recognizes its role as a force for good in the world…” Pretty funny.
I haven’t read him since around 2003 or so (as I have almost no interest in US politics). So I couldn’t say.
Speaking of Taibbi, flipping TV channels recently while in a hotel I saw part of an interview of him. In my extreme superficiality, I was surprised by how boringly square he looked. I don’t know what I expected, but not that.
Here is an expert of a Megan McArdle’s takedown of Taibbi:
“a number of you have asked me what I thought of Matt Taibbi’s Rolling Stone piece on Goldman Sachs. What I think, sadly, is that Matt Taibbi is becoming the Sarah Palin of journalism. He seems to deliberately eschew understanding his subjects, because only corrupt, pointy-headed financial journalists who have been co-opted by the system do that. And Matt Taibbi is here to save you from those pointy headed elites.
Taibbi is a gifted narrative journalist, whose verbal talents I greatly admire. But financial meltdowns don’t offer villains, for the simple reason that no one person or even one group is powerful enough to take down a whole system. Confronted with this, Taibbi doesn’t back away from the narrative form, or apply it to smaller questions where it is more appropriate, as William Cohan did in House of Cards. Instead, he grabs whoever’s nearest to hand and builds them up into a gigantic straw villian, which he proceeds to bash with a handful of recently acquired technical terms that he clearly doesn’t quite understand. It’s not that everything he says is wrong, but the bits that are true aren’t interesting, and the bits that are interesting aren’t true. The whole thing dissolves into the kind of conspiracy theory he so ably lampooned in The Great Derangement. The result is something that’s not even wrong. It’s just incoherent.”
Interesting blog
His career can be plotted on the same chart as Paul Klebnikov, Chrystia Freeland, Matt Brysinski–There were even more names I cannot think of, all trying to launch journalism careers from the Moscow bureau in the 90s.
Indeed, it was the beat that launched a thousand careers. Lots of people who made their journalistic bones in Moscow have moved on to other (bigger and better? debatable) places and roles. Of the people you mentioned, Freeland got a book out of her time in Moscow and is now in a management role with the FT (according to Wikipedia, which also reveals that she is a “Canadian-Ukrainian”). Brzezinski Jr. has been a law firm partner in DC for a while now, I doubt he is interested in being a practitioner of gonzo journalism anymore. I don’t really have an opinion on Taibbi’s work, other than to say that as everyone seems to agree it is very readable.
Thanks for your thoughts Kolya and Lyndon. Taibbi’s name and his GS story just keep getting more play, as I understand GS is to announce record profits today. I’m unfamiliar with Megan McArdle – but, her quote makes me laugh and gets at the point I was trying to make, however badly. ie, that there were all these ambitious, credentialed financial writers trying to launch from Moscow in the 90s and reinvent in the wider English language press later. And they were flame-outs or sell-outs for various reasons. Then you have Mr. eXXXile, who just based on his degrees and his launch publication seems lighter weight. And, yet his name recognition just keeps growing, writing about whatever – now finance. Surely, I’m not as smitten as poemless, but I wondered if he was like a Zorro, ie one needs to look beyond the baffooning to see that he’s actually quite serious in his mission and brave in his targets. (Maybe I am as smitten as poemless, maybe I like square.) But, I probably give him to much credit there…I can see where he’d get under the skin of a career financial reporter like Ms. McArdle. However, as Jon Stewart made clear in his take down of the “money honey’ Maria – the financial press has a lot to be defensive about. Time will tell if he’s got longevity in this field.
I think my smitten-ness is less to do with his journalistic acumen and more to do with the fact that the eXile was the only publication in the universe that was verifying for the world my own observations over there while every other journalist couldn’t stop gloating about peachy keen life in the new Russia was. Probably precisely because they were in the warm safe womb of a Moscow bureau while people like Taibbi bothered to venture outside the walls of the bureau, embassy, their hotels and local pizza joints. I would not put Taibbi and Ames on that same career track. With hindsight, perhaps it appears that way. But I get the impression he was doing journalism to justify being in Moscow while others were in Moscow to justify their journalistic credentials.
“Chris Von Doom on June 29, 2009 11:08 am
Contrary to myths about the magic powers of the CIA, you cannot motivate tens of thousands of people to act using covert operations.”
What a Moronic statement do you think the CIA in the 50’s in Iran when they installed the government of the Shah were not able to use techniques to cause instability to motivate key demographic of the country.
The CIA provides millions of dollars to groups inside Iran on propaganda to motivate people against the government although there is probably wide spread resentment among certain sectors of the population.
poemless, you wrote:
“while every other journalist couldn’t stop gloating about peachy keen life in the new Russia was.”
If you are referring to Russia in the 1990s, my memory is quite different. Western media back then seemed to be replete with stories about how hard life is in Russia: crime, corruption, short life expectancy, violence, etc, etc.
Tess, my comment on how “square” Taibbi looked on that TV appearance was meaningless and superfluous.
Megan McCardle, by the way, is one of the bloggers for The Atlantic. She’s a young and very smart economist. I know she voted for Obama, but she’s not a Democrat. She’s socially liberal, but fairly conservative in the economic sense. I guess that makes her a libertarian of sorts, but I don’t know whether she would agree with such label. Frankly, I don’t know whether she was fair to Taibbi in the piece I excerpted. I appreciate McArdle’s intellectual honesty and sometimes find her interesting, but in terms of economic policy I’m quite to the left of her (not that I know much of economics–I’m simply stating my own preference.)
For what it’s worth the beginning of a response from Taibbi to McArdle:
“While I’m here: a lot of people have been writing me asking me to respond to Megan McArdle’s bizarre freakout on the Atlantic website, where she lambasted my Goldman piece in curiously discombobulated fashion and then apparently spent the next couple of days jamming her feet in her mouth in the comments section (Megan at 6:52 P.M. on July 10: “No, his facts are wrong, his conclusions are wrong, and only his discomfort with Goldman Sachs’ role in our public life is correct.” Megan three hours later: “Or perhaps a better way to say it is that the facts are right, but the mini narratives are ludicrously wrong.”). I’m reluctant to get into this, among other things because I’ve already done two different too-long responses to critics of this piece, and I’m also supposed to be writing something else right now, so… But I will get to her later in the week, when I have time, and I’m going to need time, just going by one quick read-through of her piece.”
Quick note on McArdle, since I brought her into this thread. As as I said, she voted for Obama, but her leanings are libertarian. I was wrong about her being an economist. She has done with work with economists, but her background is in business finance. Also, a few days ago the Boston Globe listed her as one of the new conservative voices. So, although it seems that she does not label herself as such, at least some conservatives see her as of their own. In other words, she’s more conservative than I had thought.
Old thread….
Since I excerpted a Taibbi takedown, let me excerpt from a Curious Capitalist post in which he’s praised:
“The same goes for Matt Taibbi and his already legendary Goldman Sachs rant. If all financial journalists shared Taibbi’s disregard for fairness and his juvenile glee in name-calling, financial journalism would be unbearable. But since most financial journalists try so hard to be fair that they often miss the truth, and write with such sobriety as to be unreadable, Taibbi offers a welcome change of pace and point of view.”
http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2009/07/20/two-cheers-for-a-more-diverse-journalistic-ecosystem/