Author Richard Bach once said ““Every problem has a gift for you in its hands.” But what is the problem is the gift? That is the problem being contemplated by the Obama Administration after a series of truly embarrassing gift gaffes that make the country look cheap, unsophisticated, or ignorant — or all of the above. The gaffes range from an insulting gift inadvertently given to the Russians by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to a returning of a gift to England to the lack of class in giving gifts to the English Prime Minister.
Clinton thought that she had a novel idea for a gift by giving Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov a gift-wrapped red button that was supposed to say “reset” in Russian and English. It didn’t. “Peregruzka” means “overloaded” or “overcharged” and is viewed as a term of hostility. When Clinton look at a confused foreign minister asked if they got the word right, he said tersely, “You got it wrong,” Lavrov said. “This says ‘peregruzka,’ which means overcharged.” Clinton responded with a bit of a forced laugh and said “We won’t let you do that to us, I promise.” For the full story, click here. One would have hoped that a few people at the State Department might actually speak and read Russian as opposed to looking up terms in “Russian for Dummies” or wherever this particular word for found.
It was not a good week for Clinton after she got the names of EU diplomats wrong and left people shaking their heads at statement like:
“I have never understood multiparty democracy.It is hard enough with two parties to come to any resolution, and I say this very respectfully, because I feel the same way about our own democracy, which has been around a lot longer than European democracy.”
The European griped that they traced their democratic traditions to ancient Greece. They have a point. Madison and others cited the democratic roots of ancient Greece in forming our own representative democracy. For the EU story, click here.
The Obamas came off not as much uneducated as uncouth. First, the Obamas sent back a famous sculpture of Winston Churchill that had been loaned to President George Bush and sat in the Oval Office. I can certainly understand that desire to decorate the Oval Office as the Obamas prefer. After all, they kept Bush’s rug. However, they might have found another spot in the White House. Instead, they returned the gift, which rubbed many Britans the wrong way. The British had expressly offered to extend the loan for four years but the Obamas said that they would prefer to send it back. For the full story, click here. It was an odd decision because it is a widely respected and striking bust that was a very thoughtful cultural gift from our allies.
I am more sympathetic over the bust decision (though I believe it would have been wiser to keep it or send it back with greater tact) than I am the controversy over the gifts to Prime Minister and his family. Anyone who has traveled on official delegations will attest to the importance of gift exchanges. In the case of Gordon Brown and his family, the British did it right. Brown gave Obama a unique pen made from the wood of the HMS Gannet, the sister ship of the HMS Resolute. The President’s desk is made from the wood of the Resolute. For history bluffs like myself, it was an exciting and incredibly thoughtful gift. Brown also gave Obama a framed commission for HMS Resolute and a first edition of the seven-volume biography of Churchill by Sir Martin Gilbert. For her part, Mrs. Sarah Brown went to extraordinary lengths to get the correct sizes of Malia and Sasha to buy them dresses and matching necklaces from one of England’s best shops, Topshop. She also gave the girl’s pre-publication copies of children’s books.
What did we give the Browns? A box of 25 DVDs of movies like ET that you could pick up for less than $200 in England. It left the impression for some British citizens that we thought that they did not actually have things like DVDs or somehow missed the release of The Wizard of Oz. For the Brown boys, Fraser and John, the Obama’s gave them cheap replicas of Marine One which appeared to have been grabbed in the White House gift shop shortly before the event.
I am truly the last person to object about such issues of the protocol. However, I agree with irate British writers that the treatment of the Blairs was insulting and embarrassing. The First Lady has an entire office and staff that is dedicated to such events. It is indeed one of the most important jobs of the First Lady. The President has an entire cadre of protocol specialists. We looked perfectly wretched in all of this. It is not the diplomatic slight. As a private host, I would have felt obligated to show more effort for a visitor from abroad.
The new Administration may have a considerable number of tasks at hand but they should work a bit harder on acquiring a bit more tact.
For the full story, click here.
This is precisely why my latest signature line has become:
‘Parallel to the shore…!’
Against my better judgment, I allowed myself to get sucked in again. It’s unlikely to recur.
At this stage of my experience, it would be magnanimous, indeed, to suggest Jill simply doesn’t know, that she doesn’t know, what she is talking about. However, that is not my belief.
My intuitive sense holds the same objections I’ve held with regard to George Bush et al for 8 years toward a certain willingness to advance a preconceived agenda at he cost of the truth. And all the while proclaiming they were ‘protecting America from the terrorists’.
Some people called that ‘politics’. I call it something else entirely.
And I still say Bron98 is BB, CMM, Waynebro etc. The first thing Bartlebee did here was to attack my ancestry – for no reason. Btw,’data engineer/security consultant, whatever that is,’ doesn’t count as ‘Engineer’. I’ve known several engineers
– mechanical and civil, including a few of my medical colleagues AND my ‘Yalie’ grandfather, may he RIP.
Jill and Patty,
I owe you an apology if I was too critical earlier. I do like you both and your valuable posts. I like the others endorse detentes. I wanted to apologize if that last post was surly or mean spirited in any way. That was not my intention. By way of explanation but not excuse, I’ve been under the weather lately and I know myself well enough to know it can make me snappier than I mean to be. Upon rereading that last post, I thought I owed you both that.
Mike Spindell,
I actually do not have anything against Mr. Biden. I thought that his plagiarism 2 decades ago was inexplicably disingenuous, but I think that he is one of the more decent national public servants.
Katie,
Professor Turley explained clearly and succinctly why these diplomatic gaffs matter.
JT:
While it is nice work if you can get it, I would eschew the papal role. His Holiness Pope Giovanni I has a special ring to it, but your wardrobe hasn’t included pointy hats before, and Mrs. Turley would be quite surprised by your celibacy vow. And the kids … that would take quite bit of explaining to the Roman Curia.
Patty C & Jill:
With no right at all to say, I would second JT’s comments and join in his plea for peace. You both are articulate spokespersons for your particular points of view, and passionate advocates. The sniping however detracts from the discussion, the merits of the criticism notwithstanding. JT’s solution is a good one, and selfishly allows me the luxury of hearing both points of view.
JT and I disagree only on one point. I think the historical reference might be more properly made to the Treaty of Kadesh: The scene is 1274 BCE and the setting is ancient Syria, the Egyptians and Hitties have just fought the most recent battle of a seemingly unending war that both sides could rightly claim both honor and partial victory. Faced with other external threats, both their rulers, “Hatusiliš III and Ramesses [sought] to end their dispute and sign a peace treaty. Both sides could not afford the possibility of a longer conflict since they were threatened by other enemies: Egypt was faced with the task of defending her long western border with Libya against the incursion of Libyan tribesmen … while the Hittites faced a more formidable threat in the form of the Assyrian Empire which “had conquered Hanigalbat, the heartland of Mitanni, between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers that had previously been a Hittite vassal state.
The peace treaty was recorded in two versions, one in Egyptian hieroglyphs, the other in Akkadian, using cuneiform script; fortunately, both versions survive. Such dual-language recording is common to many subsequent treaties. This treaty differs from others, however, in that the two language versions are differently worded. Although the majority of the text is identical, the Hittite version claims that the Egyptians came suing for peace, while the Egyptian version claims the reverse.” (from Wiki)
Given the myriad of common interests and common opponents which you both have, I am prepared to say you both have performed honorably, the other side first sued for peace, and that given the sheer volume and vociferousness of our common opposition you both have bigger fish to fry.
Prof. Turley,
I want to know if Jill has to speak Portugese or if Patty has to speak it. I am sure that all of the citizens of Turleyville will find a way to coexist, even if they do not speak Portugese.
Chris,
Here is a link about the profiles of detainees:
http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/setonhalllaw?q=guantanamo+detainee+list&sa=Search+SHLS
chris,
Seton Hall University law students went through the records to list the people we detained and why. I’m putting in a link to their site–this particular one applies as well to another post about the 92 tapes destroyed by the CIA. They are detainees. See what you think of the information.
Jill
” Seton Hall Law Students Uncover Proof that Guantánamo Interrogations Routinely Videotaped
General Reports More than 24,000 Interrogations Conducted Since 2002;
Assertions that All Interrogations Were Videotaped Affect Impending 9/11 Trials”
http://law.shu.edu/administration/public_relations/press_releases/2008/guantanamo_interrogations_videotaped.htm
What are they then?
chris,
Do you mean terrorist business? becuase most of the people in Gitmo aren’t terrorists. Maybe you mean something else? If so, what?
Jill,
Do you think that maybe they are not allowed to speak to people outside the prison, such as their family, so that they are not able to conduct business through their family.
Just a plea again for civility. I realize that Patty C and Jill are often at loggerheads, but they are both valued members of our little community of rascals. May I suggest a degree of mutual avoidance? You both have great fans and foes. I suggest a division along the lines of the Tordesilla agreement negotiated by the Pope in June 7, 1494. (I will perform the papal role). Under the agreement, Spain and Portugal agreed to divide the world and live without conflict with one another. I do not want either of you to grow disgruntled and leave our blog. So I would consider it a personal favor if you would continue as mutually existent and separated superpowers. You can then leave any challenges to each other to the other denizens. It worked for Spain and Portugal.
cut him some slack for gift giving
Here is information from two sources on torture. Everyone must make their own decision regarding the information. I do not cut the President, the most powerful person in the world, slack when it comes to torture or violation of the laws of the US. I think it is dangerous to do so. Evidence of past and current torture is in plain sight. It is not acceptable to me that the US participate in torture nor that our govt. fails to file criminal suit against this behavior.
First, from Center for Constitutional Rights:
“The applicable laws governing conditions of confinement at Guantánamo include Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, but also the more specific provisions of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. Other relevant laws include international human rights treaties the United States has ratified protecting prisoners against unsafe or unhygienic conditions, torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and treaties protecting the rights of juveniles in detention. In addition, the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution prohibit cruel and unusual punishment and protect prisoners against treatment that shocks the conscience, including unsafe conditions, the denial of social or family contact, and prolonged isolation. The First Amendment protects prisoners’ rights to religious texts and books.
Currently at Guantánamo, the majority of detainees are being held in conditions of solitary confinement in one of two super-maximum facilities – Camps 5 and 6 – or in Camp Echo. The conditions in these camps are harshly punitive and violate international and U.S. legal standards for the humane treatment of persons deprived of their liberty. Solitary confinement, sensory deprivation, environmental manipulation, and sleep deprivation are daily realities for these men and have led to the steady deterioration of their physical and psychological health.
In addition, detainees are subjected to brutal physical assaults by the Immediate Reaction Force (IRF), a team of military guards comparable to a riot squad, who are trained to respond to alleged “disciplinary infractions” with overwhelming force. Detainees have also been deprived of virtually all meaningful contact with their families, and have suffered interference with and abuse related to their right to practice their religion.”
Secondly, from today’s Guardian: (this will see a trial in the UK)
“Mohamed claimed MI5 was not only supplying his interrogators with background information, but forwarding lists of direct questions that they wanted him to be asked. One MI5 memo from November 2002 lists 11 questions sent to the Americans, asking for a “timescale” for when they could expect answers from interrogators. It states: “We would be grateful if the following could be put to Binyam Mohamed…”
Another MI5 document, dated 5 November 2002 and disclosed to Mohamed in preparation for a US court case, reveals how UK intelligence officials were keen to get involved in interrogating Mohamed in order to increase “pressure” on the 30-year-old prisoner.
Evidence of British collusion has appeared in the form of a telegram, also dated 5 November 2002, that was sent by MI5 to the CIA. Entitled “Request for further detainee questioning”, it revealed that British intelligence was passed to American officials, who then passed it to Moroccan authorities.”
PATTYC/Jill:
The DAR/SAR and Dames of the Magna Carta are part of the problem with this country. Who gives a rats behind how far one can trace their lineage, the great thing about America is we are a country of new beginnings and limitless opportunity or at least we ought to be. Most of the DAR/SAR/DOM types are uptight & class conscious.
I did not vote for the man but for gods sake he has only been president for 6 weeks at least cut him some slack until May 5th.
And who the hell comes prepared for that job? Maybe God himself, but I think she may even have some problems with that job.
sigh One reads icons and reads icons but one may never truly learn.
I don’t question that Patty. I’ll even stipulate some people are loathe to apologize, but this is mine to you and by way of clarification. I may read too much into it since I do see Jill has presentation errors in re torture. But she is consistent in her stated motive, which I have not seen deviate – truth and accountability to ANY power. I don’t have to explain to you this is one view I am sympathetic towards. In an abundance of sympathy, I may even be cutting her more slack than I should. Bias can be a function of affinity and no one is totally clear of bias of any sort. Truthfully, I’m more in line Mike S. assessment that is a bit of a one trick pony, but I for the reasons stated, refrained from calling her out any stronger that you had. The more pragmatic of the factors was that you stay on her with persistence. Why duplicate the effort?
My issue was merely with the term “disinformation”.
My point was the difference between the terms “disinformation” and “misapplied information”. I think if you accuse someone of spreading disinformation is implies organization and motive. One must have an idea one wishes to oppose and a way to oppose it if one is engaged in a battle of ideas. There has to be a motive so there has to a mens rea component. Her stated intent isn’t to deceive, but to show what she considers abusive and that it’s not being brought to a stop quick enough. Her errors have have been presentational, but not purposefully deceptive based on why she claims to relay said information. They even show a bit of naivety about how hard it is turn something around as large as a government. Like they say in the car mags, “It’s got horsepower and torque, but the handling sucks.” True, our knowledge of her motives are limited to what she tells us, but isn’t that always the case?
Now look at the word itself. Disinformation. Etymologically speaking, dis- comes to English via French’s des- rooted in Latin’s dis-. The form hasn’t changed much at all. dis- is defined as – 1. “lack of, not” (e.g. dishonest); 2. “do the opposite of” (e.g. disallow); 3. “apart, away” (e.g. discard), from O.Fr. des-, from L. dis- “apart,” from PIE *dis- “apart, asunder” (cf. O.E. te-, O.S. ti-, O.H.G. ze-, Ger. zer-). The PIE root is a secondary form of *dwis- and is thus related to L. bis “twice” (originally *dvis) and to duo, on notion of “two-ways, in twain.” (source http://www.etymonline.com)
And just as with Jill, my concern here is purely presentational. “Disinformation” should be reserved for technical discussion. There is no need to use the term without that context as English already has the word “mistake”. And what is a mistake but misapplied information? If we assume Jill’s stated motive is as presented, it is not contrary to many of the pro-liberties sensibilities expressed here, but indeed in alignment. This make the word “disinformation” inappropriate because it it both inaccurate and carries a value you load associated with mens rea.
Attribute it to me having a Carlin moment over the word if you must, but I really think “disinformation” aside from being a word is a technical term. That’s critical as it’s a term of art and fundamental precept in both propaganda and it’s even more evil brother, psychological warfare. To use it out of context is a disservice to the language as it weakens the value of the word.
Forgive me, Buddha. You’re not that perceptive or observant 😛
In a year and a half, Jill has never once backed off a challenge of mine over any misstatement of fact by her on any issue from politics to medicine. Not one time.
She certainly has no monopoly on concern over the fate of this country and, in my opinion, vastly overestimates her significance toward contributing anything to the conversation because her ideas are not her own. She cuts and pastes to support an anti-Obama agenda.
The plight of this country is, on the other hand, very personal to me, because of my family’s Plymouth Colony and DAR/SAR War history. I grew up with it!
I don’t live in her ‘world’ nor would I want to. It’s full of handwringing negativity based on fear rooted in self-imposed ignorance.
And if I want to attack anything, I’d say that in so being, it disregards the truth to support only a ‘possible’ world view.
Or I might suggest she is just lazy. Cutting and pasting someone else’s work doesn’t equate learning with knowledge or wisdom.
In fact, I’d be willing to bet she still hasn’t viewed the CSPAN clip of the Patrick Walsh Pentagon briefing on Gitmo which I posted two weeks ago in response to the same ‘disinformation’ she repeated about the current status there – yet again.
Well said Buddha.
Patty,
Maybe there is a difference in terms here. I don’t find what Jill does to rise to the standard of disinformation. Sure, she’s passionate and her liberal bias burns brightly. She can be a little hasty, but I think I understand where her sense of urgency comes from even when I don’t always share it. Changing any process of complexity requires time, but not acting is still an action. It’s just the wrong one in this instance, also a proposition I don’t think would come under fire here. The differences seem to be as to method. The erosion of liberty is a serious matter and that is something I don’t think any of the regulars would disagree with in the slightest. Disinformation and misapplied information are not necessarily the same though they may look alike.
Now I know you and Jill have been going back and forth since before I got here and I’m not foolish enough to get right in the middle for two reasons. I both read and understand Sally’s icon and both of you are often right.
What I seek here is a clarity of terms. Disinformation vs. misapplied information.
Jill’s use of information though, if you must characterize it, I think is more in the misapplied category rather than the disinformation category. This distinction my be entirely my own because of how I view propaganda, but it comes down to veracity. When Jill is confronted with a factual refutation of her cites, she backs off or retracts them. I’ve seen her admit she’s wrong before. That’s not the hallmark of disinformation. A campaign of disinformation would press untruths as truths no matter what. Repetition as so duly noted. While her persistence is a tactical similarity to a disinformation campaign, that is the only similarity that I see.
Do I see where your frustration with Jill’s methods comes from? You bet. But while you may disagree with her application of what she learns, I’ve never found her to be disingenuous or motivated to use the pure lie. She may be a little over zealous and/or tactically awkward, but that’s far from being somebody pushing a false agenda for nefarious purpose. To me, that is true disinformation.
So whose idea was it exactly to send the 25 DVDs? His/her stupidity breaks my heart.