Nah. Saying there’s artistry to doing something well is does not mean it’s a performing art. She’s simply making a correct distinction between categories of entertainment.
I’ve been to Dachau in person several times. I have literally never seen anyone smile, or even really pose at a concentration camp.
I was so bloody angry reading this article, but I have to say the comments (such as yours) have cooled me off and given me hope.
Jesus fucking christ if you don’t know anything about how Intel reports are written, maybe look into it before writing this shit. Terms like “high confidence” and “moderate confidence” ARE ACTUAL TERMS WITH SPECIFIC MEANINGS. It doesn’t mean “maybe”. It is also a DECLASSIFIED report, which means you don’t get to see…
BIG fan of Soviet Russia too.
And she’s never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down
Woah she plagiarized Melania too? Ruthless.
Counterpoint: Monica Crowley is an inspirational figure who rose from the South Side of Chicago to become the model she is, today. Her parents urged her on to a better life, noting that, in this country, the only limitations are the scope of your dreams. And hard work. Further, she has lived her life by the motto:…
The report often uses vague language, offering “high confidence” (note: this is not the same a being sure of something)
This is embarassing.
It’s not the person who wrote the NYTimes article, it is Hannah who doesn’t understand the NYTimes reporting or what an intelligence analysis is. She’s using a follow up article about Russia’s response as the basis for this garbage. The NYTimes has a whole collection of articles on the intelligence report and this…
I don’t disagree, that’s a valid point. But I believe they are going to withhold info from Trump as long as the can. Even the POTUS can be on a need-to-know basis and If they are looking into Russia’s connections to the hacks, it’s not a stretch to think they are also looking in Trumps connections to Russia.
From my experience, I can tell you exactly how shaming them will go:
The last paragraph is spot on. Transparency is far more complex than good or bad. Also, there has been some evidence...but the fact that the intelligence agencies aren’t discussing how they received this evidence (and other evidence that hasn’t come to life) is what the critics will pounce on. This headline is…
As it’s been reported, the publicly released version of the Intelligence community’s report on the election doesn’t include any info that could jeopardize sources and cyber trails. But the top secret version has them.
Is anyone stopping to think about the fact that presenting specific evidence would also be very telling to Russia as to how they got it? And given the bleak future we are looking at, they want to keep the sources of that info secure.
Cynicism is not the same as transparency.
There are many reasons to not present much of the evidence. Much of it can be surmised by what level of confidence each agency gave it. NSA can only give moderate confidence because of the way NSA gathers its evidence. The FBI and CIA almost certainly have human assets at high reaches of the government and their lives…
But the declassified report contained no information about how the agencies had collected their data