Comments on: The Russians Are Coming!

By: Richard McEnroe

Richard McEnroe — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 20:07:48 +0000

“The Russians Are Coming!”

Nah, she was probably faking it…

By: Formerly Grant

Formerly Grant — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 20:10:20 +0000

To quote a librarian I’m related to ‘they could have just asked me for the information, that’s my job’. To me, the only troubling part of this is the involvement of think tanks that I could have been relying on for analysis of something. Considering the information involved, I’m not sure why Russia bothered to spend so much. Of course we can’t disregard the possibility that the FBI was aware of some other leak that they simply couldn’t prove or admit to. Wonder who we’ll trade them for.

By: D. Taylor Sgt.USA -Ret

D. Taylor Sgt.USA -Ret — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 12:58:33 +0000

Question:
What are we not supposed to be paying attention to, while this media circus is being played out before the (gullible?) American public?
Very often the sound not heard (or being drowned out) is more important then the noise that permeates the masses.

By: Rob Dover

Rob Dover — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 08:30:06 +0000

I understand your point, but I disagree. This is not about accounting for ones benefactors – a’la big pharma etc – in science. This is about research institutes pumping out social scientific /political propaganda; and doing so on behalf of interests which are directly opposed to what one might loosely describe as a ‘western way of life/politics’. Now, there is obviously a ‘critical’ point to be made about the rest of us who are government funded, and that point is taken. But the weak underbelly of liberalism is its willingness to allow its enemies to come and preach unfettered to it. Oh, and these institutes never announce themselves.. the funding tends to be obscure.

By: Quintin

Quintin — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 05:05:54 +0000

The growing influence of Russian money (amongst others, let’s not single out Russia here, there are some very much less desirable funding sources in UK think-tanks and higher education than them) is perhaps the bigger cause for concern.

This is potentially a double-edged sword. When in the near future, a scientist develops a train of thought that departs from the mainstream, would he also be expected to prove his endeavours as nonpartisan by arguing all of his benefactors and grantors as non-influential – in a manner of guilty until proven innocent? And since it is reasonable to expects some manner of influence from a grantor, where would we draw the line on that?

By: MrKelvin

MrKelvin — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 05:19:49 +0000

Oh dear, We in the US have an unfair advantage, and we aim to clean up. You need to understand we love you, but we need to move forward as one in science. You are going to have to earn our trust, or fear our kindness.

Mind control is a is a voice in your head…..but which one?

By: Rob Dover

Rob Dover — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 19:18:06 +0000

Many thanks!

By: Ed

Ed — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:28:56 +0000

Stick a nice big red label on something that says ’secret’ or ‘top secret’ and I can guarantee you a politician will actually see ‘important’, or ‘very important’ (I wonder if anyone has ever done systematic research on that?). Check out the chapter on "scarcity" in Robert Cialdini's magnificent Influence: the Psychology of Persuasion. Basically, yes.

By: Rob Dover

Rob Dover — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:51:55 +0000

The ignominy…. :-)

By: The Faceless Bureaucrat

The Faceless Bureaucrat — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:44:56 +0000

The sneaky bastards: cleverly disguised as hoseheads!

http://www.canada.com:80/news/national/Somnia/3212596/story.html