PRESIDENT OBAMA ON PUTIN:

  I don't have a bad personal relationship with Putin. When we have
  conversations, they're candid, they're blunt, oftentimes they're
  constructive. I know the press likes to focus on body language and
  he's got that kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back
  of the classroom. [1]

Putting Russia-United States relations aside, I thought that was a spot-on description of Vladimir Putin's body posture, that he uses to great effect, when he wants to be perceived as not being terribly interested in what's going on.

It is quite funny.

[1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewUXm_gqzrU

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/09/us-usa-russia-obam...

This article offers an interesting look at Russia-US relations:

"Diagnosing Sochi Media Coverage: Virulent Russophobia...

The water, the toilets, the hotels – nothing pleases our pampered media divas, whose hatred of all things Russian oozes from between the lines of their "reporting" like pus from an old wound."

All the antipathy we saw aimed at Russia during the cold war years is now being revomited up by the political class, albeit in a new flavor: instead of genuine martyrs like Andrei Sakharov and Alexandr Solzhenitsyn being lionized, we see the professional provocateurs of "Pussy Riot" elevated by Western media to the status of "dissident" stars.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/02/09/diagnosing-soc...

So a bit like someone reading The Onion and not knowing it's fake? :)

It's a bit like being a well-known expert in finance, reading The Onion, and writing a post on your personal blog on ft.com on why the government should not dump dollars into the giant money hole. :D

Amazing how language barriers can create this kind of confusion.

That's not just the matter of language barriers -- that's basically a situation where you have some information and you try to draw conclusions without trying to get some context. Quite common with people who know a very narrow field very well which gives them the false sense of competency in other issues.

Actually, that is somewhat informative. I was skeptical of the used methodology and conclusion which reminds me of conspiracy theory nonsense. Knowing that the guy in the middle is pasted in is pretty helpful.

I'm still not convinced about the relevance of the white outline on Putin.

I am skeptical of anyone using the expression "conspiracy theory nonsense" so casually.

I can't think why. Almost all conspiracy theory is compounded of excess credulity, overactive pattern-matching, and reheated leftover California counter-culture convictions regarding the so-called "Establishment".

The first part might be true for the Aliens/Elvis Alive/Illuminati kind of conspiracy theories.

But conspiracies happen all the time, and expecting them is not a "theory", it's a fact of politics and government, since before there was Machiavelli.

Everytime a government decision is taken behind closed doors for things that affect politics/the public/etc, it's a conspiracy.

It can be as simple as a few party heads deciding on who to push for the presidency (outside official party prodecures). Or a company paying a politician to pass some favorable law.

Or some public prosecutor trying to get some black kid thrown in jail, because he is convinced it's guilty, and not hesitating to supress witness and withold evidence (as has happened thousands of times).

Or it can be the head of FBI secretly keeping tabs on politicians and blackmailing them or giving tidbits to the press for those he didn't like. Like this Hoover guy.

It can be the President of the United States ordering people to break in the headquarters of the opposition party or eavesdrop on them. You know, like this Nixon guy.

It's idiotic to think conspiracies do not exist, or that "counter-culture convictions regarding the so-called "Establishment" were somehow proven wrong.

If anything, the whole Snowden affair proves otherwise. As if we needed such a thing.

People living in countries with actual heated political history, even places like Spain or Italy, know all about state conspiracies, including murder of dissidents (tons of them taken to court and proved from later, freeer, governments). Case in point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

It's only apolitical people living work-to-home and back everyday lives, and only getting their information from mainstream news that can claim that conspiracies don't exist. Open a history book -- preferably one that's not about the Civil War but modern history, and you'll find aplenty.

Oh, conspiracies, sure. You'd think that something called "conspiracy theory" would have more to do with them, wouldn't you? But the sort of person who, when presented with a big list of interests, would briefly consider checking the "conspiracy theory" box and then not just refrain from doing so in case the Men in Black might notice, but actually feel himself quite wise and clever for having entertained this train of thought, tends to be the sort of person who finds things which actually ever happen rather dull.

The problem is there's also the inverse sort of person, who casually dismisses stuff that happens as "conspiracy theory".

The NSA eavesdropping on Americans? Conspiracy theory.

The head of FBI blackmailing politicians? Conspiracy theory.

And then, when such things came to light, there's this other person (ofter the same as the one dismissing them before), saying:

"Well, duh, we knew all along that something WAS happening, nothing new here...".

Between them it's nearly impossible to get a better understanding of the kind of shitty stuff governments and big corporations do.

Somehow managing to believe everything while believing nothing. Aliens at Roswell? Sure! US managed to land on the moon? Ridiculous!

I'm still surprised, when I bother to think about it, that no eager beaver has come up with the idea that perhaps the US did land on the moon, but only thanks to alien technology reverse-engineered from the remains of 1947 Roswell crash.

I can't speak for your specific example, but there are some theories that equate the massive technology leap we had in the 50s->present day has been due to reverse engineered alien technology.

In fact Star Trek: Voyager did a two part episode that used this conspiracy theory as part of the main story line.

I think I remember that episode.

I suppose "aliens" are a much more attractive explanation than "government-funded wartime R&D centers plus post-war prosperity plus Cold War arms race equals massive scientific advancement"