From the Times Online (UK):
The United Nations withheld some of the most damaging allegations against Syria in its report on the murder of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, it emerged yesterday.
The names of the brother of Bashar al-Assad, President of Syria, and other members of his inner circle, were dropped from the report that was sent to the Security Council.
Glenn has already covered this—and points to an interesting corollary post from Ginny at Chicagoboyz—but what I want to hightlight is this bit (h/t Dario Ronzone):
Mr Annan had pledged repeatedly through his chief spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, that he would not change a word of the report by Detlev Mehlis, a German prosecutor. But computer tracking showed that the final edit began at about 11.38am on Thursday  a minute after Herr Mehlis began a meeting with Mr Annan to present his report. The names of Maher al-Assad, General Shawkat and the others were apparently removed at 11.55am, after the meeting ended.
Well, sure. But lest we get too indignant, it behooves us to remember that, in the culture of the UN, this is not so much a “cover-up” as it is an executive decision that is made by our betters to protect us from an inconvenient truth that could, potentially, upset the careful equilabrium of international harmony that the UN is so dedicated to protecting.
And besides, it’s very difficult to hold a snifter of Cognac when you’re compelled by circumstance to wag your finger at a dictator tied to a political assassination—particularly when, with a few simple taps at the keyboard, you can make the whole thing go away and get back the serious business of blaming the US and Israel for all the world’s ills…
Savages and Technology: an amusing mix sometimes.
SB: first
HAH!
Wow. That Kofi Annan, what a guy. What. A. Guy. I don’t know how he does it really: skimming off the Oil-for-Food program, trying to take over the Internet, dropping ‘inconvenient details’ out of reports when needed – all while holding that snifter. Dick.
Can we just hang Kofi for being a scumbag, and then bulldoze the UN Building?
Racists.
You know who’s going to be the scapegoat on this one don’t you? Microsoft. That evil US corporation that has a bug in it’s software where tracking changes are viewable by anyone. Just another reason to file yet another 600 million dollar lawsuit against them and push for the ever popular UN governance of the Internet.
I for one, wonder if this is enough for Syria to be removed from the UN council for human rights.
Just as an aside, every time I see incriminating reports about Kofi Annan I get Lethal Weapon 2 flashbacks, “Diplomatic Immunity!” or…
Rudd: Now we DO have a serious diplomatic situation here, which I will be taking up with your state department first thing in the morning.
Riggs: Whoa, you got me quakin’ in my boots, but I’m still gonna bring you down.
Rudd: My dear officer, you could not even give me a parking ticket!
That last line seems to be the God honest truth of the matter.
I’m just wondering how deep a game Mr. Mehlis is playing. “Oh no, Mr. Annan, I had no idea that the changes you wanted me to make could be revealed in that way. It must have been a devious American plot.”
I know if I was forced to make those redactions, I’d be tempted to ‘forget’ that feature as well. Plausible deniability at it’s finest.
TW: hard – It’s hard to resist so many possibilites with this word.
Hilarious!
Too soon to start talking about Syrian democracy?
Technology sure is a bitch…
Somewhere in this story is a great Ratherism…
“Glenn has already covered this…”
I’m seeing this sort of construction more and more around the blogosphere. I don’t understand why it’s used when the cited story is actually that of a big-media outlet, in this case the (London) Times.
I mean, I get the whole “hat tip” thing, even if it does seem superfluous in most cases. But I don’t get the whole “so-and-so covered such-and-such” (or its even more egregious sibling, “so-and-so reported such-and-such”) in reference to another blogger’s mere citation of a big-media article.
“Cited,” “noted,” “pointed to,” etc., are far better verbs for these cases—both syntactically more precise and ethically more appropriate.
No offense, Chris? But I’ll chose my own verbs. In this case, “covered” is meant to indicate that I know that many of my readers read Glenn and so would have come across his link to this story already.
But then, that doesn’t fit in with your pointed little lecture meant to reveal that the blogosphere is often parasitic in its reliance on the work of actual journalists. Which, WOW! That’s deep, man!
Of course, in the next post up up I’ve got a mustache-off between Bolton and Geraldo. So you’ve clearly wandered into the wrong venue for making your point about bloggers taking themselves too seriously.
I wasn’t making a point about any parasitic relationship between blogs and “actual journalists.” I was simply making a point about language and the ways we use language, which I thought were favored topics of this blog.
(Speaking of which… “No offense, Chris?”— is this, like, upspeak?)
That’s upspeak, alright. I’m a big fan of like, Valley inflection?
If you’re making a comment about language, you should know that this blog favors intentionalism. Therefore, you need to suggest that I was using the verb “covered” to suggest something inappropriate to my intent. Else the observation has no force.
Now, is there something wrong with the way I used “covered”? Or am I exempted?
“Therefore, you need to suggest that I was using the verb ‘covered’ to suggest something inappropriate to my intent.”
I’d need to do that if I were making a point about intentionalism in regard to your post. But I wasn’t. Now, I can see how a reader might, um, interpret it that way because of my “ethically more appropriate” line, or even because they read something into the descriptor “big-media” that I didn’t, um, intend.
(Though I’d also figure that my “I don’t understand” and “I don’t get” lines would preempt such readings, by clearly expressing that I do not know the motivations of those who use the construction in question.)
Sheesh, Chris, get your own blog or something, dude.
I mean really, how boorish of you to drop by Jeff’s blog and pick nits over language and/or syntax.
TW: bad. Really
But, kelly, I’m in the comments section of the blog, the section were readers are ostensibly welcome to comment. It’s not as if I broke into his server and started writing stuff where his posts are supposed to go.
Now, if Jeff asks me to not comment here—or to not comment on language in this thread—then I’ll graciously respect his wishes. But from our position as readers, your comment in a reader-comments section criticizing my comment in a reader-comments section is itself no better or worse than my comment in a reader-comments section.
This is the single dummest thread I’ve ever participated in. And on this site, that’s saying something.
I, on the other hand, learned what “upspeak” means. Via the Guardian 09/21/01:
“According to a 1995 piece in the Houston Chronicle, “It began as a feature of valley speak, the adolescent argot native to the San Fernando Valley and immortalised by the valley girl. But now uptalk has taken on a life of its own.” Other commentators have likewise associated uptalk with other features of west coast “mallspeak”, such as the slacker habit of self-interrupting sentences with “like”, using the intensifier “totally”, and responding to any actual question (as opposed to an uptalk interrogative) with “whatever”.”
So, yeah, I’m a fossil.
Instapundit is in it’s own category in terms of readership and exposure Chris. Mention of Glenn’s site is not equivalent to Jeff using the same language citing AVS or some other blog (no offense to Michelle’s fine work).
It’s like mentioning an IT issue has a thred at Slashdot.org. In other words if you’re in that circle of interest (ie current event politics) you’ve likely touched on said headlines.
Just to be clear, YOU are implying ‘motivations’ for the syntax of his post when no one else sees them. Pray tell, what motivations have you conjured up?
RACIST NERDS!!!
Speaking of which RSM, it’s my life’s goal to see Nicholas Cage on the street and yell, “Loved you in Valley Girl!”. I mean, how devistating would that be?
Others would be:
Oscar nominee Johnny Depp, “You were fantastic in Cry-Baby!”
Oscar winner Tom Hanks, “Dude, you were awsome in Bosom Buddies!”
and to Robin Williams, “Flubber was your finest work!” Just because Flubber is a great and embarassing name to yell.
One day I shall have my day in the Sun.
Well, not to come as boorish or anything, but a legitimate thread on upspeak could actually be quite stimulating. I’d be interested to read your take on the phenomenon, which not only has become the dominant manner of speech for Generation Y (or whatever we’re calling it), but is making a substantial infiltration into broader American culture.
There’s bound to be a little armchair sociology in there somewhere: Does it represent some new emotional security in American society at large? Some new sort of deference by speakers toward listeners? Some new sort of contempt from speakers toward listeners? Etc.
Well, I’d find it stimulating, at any rate.
“Just to be clear, YOU are implying ‘motivations’ for the syntax of his post when no one else sees them.”
Eh? Not sure I understand. You’ve emphasized the word “YOU”—in “YOU are implying motivations”—as if I’ve accused someone else of implying motivations, when I’ve done no such thing.
Regardless, as I’ve already noted, I wasn’t purporting to understand anyone’s motivations on this front. In fact, that’s why I’d written in my initial comment, “I don’t understand.”
Now, you may have read that as sarcasm, but I did not intend it as sarcasm. I intended it to mean, “Here is this thing. I do not understand this thing.” No inferring is necessary on your part, because I wasn’t implying anything.
(And just to add another twist to the convoluted conversation, my comment about armchair analyses of upspeak was supposed to read: “Does it represent some new emotional insecurity in American society at large?”)
I’ll ag…..Hey!
DumBest, I think
Dumb, dumber, dumberest
Thanks for not shooting.
SB: person
I AM… aw, forget it.
No offense, Chris? But I’ll chose my own verbs.
BECAUSE OF THE IRONY
I thought NO ONE was going to get that…
Really? Thanks. I had NO IDEA.
Dang! I completely miss that –
Maybe Chris gave up navel-gazing for Lent and ended up here.
All your syntactic structures are belong to us!
Upspeak? Like ending all declarative sentences with a question mark? Like that? Like this? Huh?
Whatever.
BTW, Chris, the COC (comment on comment) paradigm is thoroughly acceptable netiquette whereas the COPSOU paradigm (comment on post syntax or usage) is less so.
You heard it from me first, pal.
BECAUSE OF THE COC OF LIES!!!
What NEIL S said.
Chris plays Zippy the PinHead on the net…
I miss the dear departed syrian old man: HalfAssed AssHat
His boys ended up fucking the dog.
Covered. Who knew?
http://www.imao.us/sound/BombingSyria.mp3
I was gonna say something, but this thread is like watching a Grateful Dead concert with no drugs…
Let’s leave during the drum solo…
SB: speak
ARF!
I’m sorry, I have to leave now. I just wanted it on the record that I participated in