|
Kasz216 said: A) See... the whole article? it's sitting right there and it's not long.
B) "Sources, Kaz, sources. Mention of Gaidar, Transparency International, Freedom House, Shleifer are worth a lot of ":D" as well. Bibliography of research defines it well enough to make a judgement if said research is a worthy material or not, any academic or school teacher will tell you that." and "(which is really typical middle-class European political analytic or enthusiast opinion" come to mind. You keep broaching these points then backing off them. |
1) Er, probably our defenitions of "critically" differs from each other. I read it twice and yet wasn't able to see anything you might have considered "critical use of the sources".
2) Well, an idiot is an idiot regardless of his nationality and discussed subject, mantras differ from one information field (or culture) to another and from subject to subject, but they're still mantras (that's). What I'm trying to say that he's regular writing monkey on political and economic matters, so immensely mainstream it's boring (the reason why I dug into non-mainstream media often, like PCR, Borde, Escobar etc.). While reading I knew exactly what he's going to say and more importantly why, maybe I'm taking too much upon myslef, but it seems I understand things he doesn't (provided he's honest in his opinion, eventually I might elaborate this in details, running through his article with comments). Nothing is interesting or unexpected about him, not sure what exactly attracts your attention to Aslund. Take Glucksmann for example, I mean he's a complete and utter idiot, but at least he is fun :D or used to be... he's getting old, which certainly affects his writing style.
