Editor’s note: the original interview can be seen here.
Tick Tick Tick
Did Charlie Rose look like a fucking idiot last night on 60-Minutes, or what, asking Vladimir Putin how he could know for sure that the US was behind the 2014 Ukraine coup against President Viktor Yanukovych? Maybe the idiots are the 60-Minutes producers and fluffers who are supposed to prep Charlie’s questions. Putin seemed startled and amused by this one on Ukraine: how could he know for sure?
Well, gosh, because Ukraine was virtually a province of Russia in one form or another for hundreds of years, and Russia has a potent intelligence service (formerly called the KGB) that had assets and connections threaded through Ukrainian society like the rhizomorphs of the fungus Armillaria solidipes through a conifer forest. Gosh, Charlie, it’s like asking Obama whether the NSA might know what’s going on in Texas.
And so there is Vladimir Putin, a former KGB officer, having to spell it out for the American clodhopper super-journalist. “We have thousands of contacts with them. We know who and where, and when they met with someone, and who worked with those who ousted Yanukovych, how they were supported, how much they were paid, how they were trained, where, in which country, and who those instructors were. We know everything.”
The only thing Vlad left out of course was the now-world-famous panicked yelp by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland crying, “Fuck the EU,” when events in Kiev started getting out of hand for US stage-managers. But he probably heard about that, too.
Charlie then voice-overed the following statement: “For the record, the US has denied any involvement in the removal of the Ukrainian leader.” Right. And your call is important us. And your check is in the mail. And they hate us for our freedom.
This bit on Ukraine was only a little more appalling than Charlie’s earlier segment on Syria. Was Putin trying to rescue the Assad government? Charlie asked, in the context of President Obama’s statement years ago that “Assad has to go.”
Putin answered as if he were explaining something that should have been self-evident to a not-very-bright high school freshman: “To remove the legitimate government would create a situation which you can witness in other countries of the region, for instance Libya, where all the state institutions have disintegrated. We see a similar situation in Iraq. There’s no other solution to the Syrian crisis than strengthening the government structure.”
I guess Charlie and the 60-Minutes production crew hadn’t noticed what had gone on around the Middle East the past fifteen years with America’s program of toppling dictators into the maw of anarchy. Not such great outcomes.
Charlie persisted though, following his script: Was Putin trying to rescue Assad? Vlad had to lay it out for him as if he were introducing Charlie to the game of Animal Lotto: “What do you think about those who support the terrorist organizations only to oust Assad without thinking about what happens to the country after all the state institutions have been demolished…? Look at those who are in control of 60 percent of the territory of Syria.
Meaning ISIS. Al Nusra (formerly al Qaeda in Syria), i.e., groups internationally recognized as terrorist organizations.
Charlie Rose, 60-Minutes — and perhaps by extension US government agencies with an interest in propagandizing — seem to want to put over the story that Russia has involved itself in Syria only to aggrandize its role on in world affairs.
Forgive me for being so blunt, but what sort of stupid fucking idea is this? And are there any non-lobotomized adults left in the USA who can’t see straight through it? The truth is that American policy in Syria (plus Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Somalia, Afghanistan) is an impressive record of failure in terms of the one basic aim that most rational people might agree upon: stabilizing the region in a way that does not leave Islamic jihadi maniacs in charge.
Okay, so now the Russians will do what they can to try to stabilize Syria. They’ve had their failures, too (famously, Afghanistan). But Russian territory adjoins the Islamic lands and they clearly have stake in containing the virus of Islamic extremism near their borders. Is that not obvious?
Charlie made one other extremely dumb statement — he seems to prefer making assertions to asking straight-up questions — to the effect that Russia was misbehaving by deploying troops on its border with Ukraine.
Putin again seemed astonished by this credulous idiocy. The US had troops and nuclear weapons all over Europe, he answered. Did Charlie think that meant the US was attempting to occupy the nations of Europe now? Was it “a crime” for Russia to defend its own border with a neighboring state (formerly a province) that, he implied, the US had deliberately destabilized?
The Putin segment was followed by a sickening session with Donald Trump, a man who now — after a month or so of public exposure — proves incapable of uttering a coherent idea. I wonder what Vladimir Putin makes of this incomparable buffoon. Perhaps that America has gotten what it deserves.
Oh that pesky 1st Amendment with its annoyances like free press… Maybe now that Eric “Turn The Blind Eye” Holder is gone, we’ll have some actual prosecution for high crimes & misdemeanors, corruption, and racketeering. And this traitorous wench should be first in line for the grand jury, just in front of John “The Slime” Corzine, Hank “Bailout” Paulson, and Timmy “TaxMan” Geithner.
“I don’t want her in my house!” … classic!
“Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%” — Thomas Jefferson
This comes to mind today with the Supreme Court decision to not hear the gay marriage issue. It opened the door to gay marriage in Nevada, despite our popularly voted state Constitution ban on such. Is it potentially freeing the 49% from the tyranny of the 51%? I think probably so. And I have no problem with the citing of the equal protection clause as justification.
Still, I find it interesting that no one is mentioning multiple marriage. After all, what if three women want to get married? Or two women and one man? Or two men and one woman? Surely that can also not be denied now – after all, don’t they also deserve the protection of the “equal protection” clause? It is only a matter of time. And don’t get me wrong, that’s not bad – that’s good.
That points out the fundamental libertarian belief that marriage is a contract between consenting adults, and it is none of government’s business. I hope we get to a point where we realize this, and things like filing joint tax returns either go away, or recognize plurality. Things like allowing ONE spouse on your insurance either go away or recognize plurality.
If you think about really what marriage ought to be, a family bond among consenting adults, involving a church if they so desire, or not… it’s none of government’s business to meddle in that at all, in any way shape or form. Whether it be one man & one woman, a gay couple, or a multi-couple.
I hope that we take the next evolutionary step and realize that, and remove anything having to do with marriage from any governmental body, including any preferential or detrimental use of government force thereto, including taxation.
Marriage is an inherently personal contract between consenting adults that may or may not involve religion, but it most certainly should not be *required* to involve the government, whether local, state, or federal.
What I fear is that when polygamists come forward and also demand equal protection, those supporters of “gay marriage” will recoil with horror using terms like “disgusting”, “reprehensible”, “no safe place for a child”, “abusive”, “bestiality”, “pornographic”, and so forth, which would of course be completely intolerant and highly ironic since those same arguments have been used to attempt to block the liberties of the gay rights movement for decades. I hope my fears are unfounded, and that gay rights advocates truly are for liberty for ALL minorities, not just their own.
Best case for all: get government out of marriage! Then you marry whoever you want however you want.
My cringe word is “bi-partisan”. Whenever I hear that, I know we’ve just spent a crap ton of money we don’t have on both welfare & warfare. We’ve been “bi-partisan” for decades… where has it led us? Endless war and $17 trillion in debt. Our grandkids will pay it back with interest I’m sure…. NOT! Nor should they. We’ll be lucky if they bury us in something other than mass graves.
Don’t say there was no warning…
Here it is… major company (WMT) bailing at providing medical benes to those who work less than 30 hrs/wk…
Obama could have pushed hard for an end to the monopoly and price-fixing ways within our medical system in 2009 and actually accomplished something. The legal framework to end that crap already exists. Instead he got on his knees and paid tribute with political fellatio aimed at the entire medical and insurance industry, and you, dear citizen, are being lined up to pay for it.
So lube up America and assume the position, because here it comes again.
I agree. But… again, it’s not totally Dear Leader. For those GOP faithful out there,
the House could have put a stop to this at any time by de-funding it
. But they didn’t. They placed re-election “not rocking the boat” over principle. And then we wonder why there’s a Tea Party, Libertarian Party, etc…
In any event, the end is 30k less workers with benefits and going onto the state dole to get such, and all that much more fodder to yap for single payer socialism. Starting to realize that both “sides” work for the same master yet?
What a ridiculous idea. How exactly do you prove that there was an affirmative answer? This is exactly the opposite of innocent until proven guilty, upon which our whole legal foundation, and freedom by the way, is built. Terrible idea.
You might also need a witness to sign at the time of penetration & also at withdrawal. Your bodies are now considered a parking structure managed by government.
No one is for sexual assault, obviously, but this is nothing more than a fill our prisons with innocent people law. Better fire up Alcatraz again, I think ya’ll are going to need it. Don’t forget to raise taxes even more too, you know, to pay for it.
I remember when it used to just be about football… say, last year… but yes sadly aside from scandals, more & more penalties for hitting the precious receivers or quarterbacks a little too hard or in the wrong place is taking its toll on the game. I for one will probably end up watching more & more college football, where it basically still is about the game as it was meant to be. At least until the PC police descend on college too.
This is what “bi”-partisanship (aka purple party) gets you… More war, more death, more debt, and more government. SMH. 🙁
This is a bit of hope, but Dirty Harry will kill it in the Senate. The Bankers will win this day. I wonder what those 90 Nays are thinking… “yeah, let’s just leave an unelected elite group of banksters free to print as much as they want & give it to whomever they want – that’s a plan”. 1913… the gift that keeps on giving.