Damn.  I think every journalist should adopt that format!  

As for being "anti-Russia," it is not the content but Lucas' tone that irks me.  World leaders, even the crummiest, are rarely described as "scary" or "monsters" by the press.  Hell, it took 5 years for the international media to even begin to suggest that maybe Bush is a nut.

Read the following and note the tone.

Now change the topic to Bush, and here is the standard tone one would expect to find:

See the difference?  Is Lucas "irreverent"?  Perhaps.  And I do like irreverent.  But is he purposefully irreverent?  Like Hunter Thompson, Chris Hitchens irreverent, where the irreverence is actually medium used to drive home a point that might be otherwise lost, as an idicator that the journalist is consciously committing an act of rebellion against journalistic norms, etc.?  No.  This author is not saying anything new or dangerous. This is just about colorful prose.  Colorful in a way not normally seen in the media when covering Bush, Blair, etc.  Because a bit of hyperbole here, a bit of irreverance there, a bit of patronizing there, is ok when talking about Russia.  Why?  Debate for another day and I won't say Russia doesn't encourage it.  

Hope this answers your question.


Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire