Posts Tagged ‘three cups of tea’

On lying thru their teeth: MLK, three cups of tea bs et al.

June 8, 2011

Reading   Hampton Sides in Newsweek about his incredible incredulous mental ride to learn of Greg Mortenson monstrous (alledegly) lying “Three cups of tea”, thru Krakauers’ 60 minutes interview on the subject. Reading HS I shockingly re-learned about MLK plagiarism: MLK a plagiarist I asked myself?  I am vaguely aware of news about it a long time ago?? 

 However Sides, incorrectly ends: ” Mortenson himself said he was heading to the hospital for surgery to repair a “hole in my heart”—presumably a literal one. Until we hear from him, I prefer to hold on to the perhaps naive belief that the final truth of these allegations will fall somewhere shy of doing irreparable harm to his great cause. The idea of Three Cups of Tea remains heroic, even if its creator has gone astray. I, for one, still want to believe.” This is bad, because it kills your argument and softens the case against lying.

So, bout MLK, Wikipedia: “A Boston University committee reports that while 45% of the first half and 21% of the second half of King’s thesis was plagiarized (from fellow Boozer)  it was still an original contribution to scholarship, and his degree should not be revoked. The true extent of King’s plagiarism is much greater, and comparing his thesis with its sources, one can only conclude that BU’s conclusion was purely political and academically dishonest”

So:  Was MLK a liar? 

Back to Mortenson: he is a liar. But someone like Sides is willing to take a pass on the minor (metaphorically)  aspect of the story which is: lies. (or maybe non-free will)

Everybody lies: it is so tiring, so tiring. Case in point to which I alluded before (present in my life since I read an unpaid subcription): the WSJ strategizes their editorial comments around lies or half baked truths, which are full baked lies; their editorial pages are organized around lies: just think of it. And some of their special sections (journal, so forth; I have particular distate by Matt Ridleys’ section which is  irksome, lying, besides the fact he is a nazistoid free market fundamentalist and worst probably)). Today (wednesday 8)  Seth Lipsky makes Peter Diamonds’ (the Economics Nobel)  failed nomination a constitutional issue, thru an obscurest thing -ed-about dollars, founders and silver and gold: I recomend it, read it, worth it, to learn how a lie is built reasoning (is this possible?). I would call this carefully reasoned lying. And moreover, in the same page, Holman W. Jenkins (Jerkins) Jr gives Goldman Sachs a pass by making their investigation  case a “witch hunt”. If you start an editorial by labelling a process a “witch hunt” (the Goldman Sachs witches) then nothing that follows is true, even is it is.  Yesterday (!) Thursday, Mr Henninger makes the following statement: “If next year the American people pull the plug on the Obama presidency, mark down the past week as the beginning of the end . . . and what looks like the real beginning of Tim Pawlenty’s candidacy.” You wish, Henninger,  I’ll bet you my whole year salary, Mr Henninger,  that Barack will beat the crap out of anyone, in 2012. Today according to the same WSJ, seems to be Rick Perry, the messianic TX governor. The TX free market economy has been sanctified by the wingnutters as the MODEL: The model Of what? Isnt he whole country capitalist? See what I mean: WSJ builds around the least of angles to build a lie that mirrors as true. TX, free market (as if didnt exist or was suppresed elsewhere else), freedom, Rick Perry, GOP nomination, the feds…bs…you follow my drift.