26-03-2010, 10:03 PM
Indeed, Helen, mysteries wrapped in enigma wrapped in plausible deniability wrapped in political posturing. This is why we do what we do in the dialogues about deep politics. Much of our difficulty is when it plays out in current time, not when we have the luxury of stepping back and examining things over time. I will assume that some of the 'evidence" you've postulated -- there is information available even beyond what you've mentioned -- is what is in the back of the fellow's mind -- as is the more certain facts and events surrounding the USS Liberty, espionage, etc. -- and he hints at knowledge at intel levels which may be lacking in credibility because of the recent records of "cooked" intel.
So we watch, and wait, and vet.
My personal orientation due to history and training tends to focus more on "news" than deep research. News-watching now is made more difficult because so much news is cooked, or contains honey pots and traps, that posting something, even 18-24 hours old and appearing in other places, can get one's fingers burned. So I tend to try to vet to some degree, employ my own internal "crap detector" (which is imperfect and challenged increasingly by the sophistication of the crap dealers).
Our task, I think, or my task, given my orientation to currency and news, is to put information out into the ether where minds such as those assembled here can discern, detect, and shoot down (or warn others about) the potency of the "nugget" in question.
As a child, I very much enjoyed playing the simulation game "Diplomacy" and went on to become deeply interested in such multi-player theoretical exercises that I have written professionally about the art and was employed in the design of a game that "played" out in accelerated process to depict a simulated week inside an hour of real time. The engine of that virtual exercise involved ascertaining hidden critical information from others in a setting in which each player wore as many as five to seven hats. As a child, it was difficult -- using the counter-culturist Bill Walton's answer as to why he had joined 'the establishment' by turning professional in basketball -- to "get a good game up" in which his skill (23 for 24 in an NCAA Final Four game -- would be challenged (and thus improved).
So our challenge in this day and age is to utilize our mental OODA loop as well as Walton played hoops and process the data at higher speeds. Why, when discrnment of deep politics in the case of JFK for example has taken decades, do we need to "be quick"? Because ICBM's fly at 7 kilometres per second or Mach 15 (if the data I saw is correct), and because close in-shore sea-launched missiles can arrive faster than many can read this thread (or perhaps even this post).
So we watch, and wait, and vet.
My personal orientation due to history and training tends to focus more on "news" than deep research. News-watching now is made more difficult because so much news is cooked, or contains honey pots and traps, that posting something, even 18-24 hours old and appearing in other places, can get one's fingers burned. So I tend to try to vet to some degree, employ my own internal "crap detector" (which is imperfect and challenged increasingly by the sophistication of the crap dealers).
Our task, I think, or my task, given my orientation to currency and news, is to put information out into the ether where minds such as those assembled here can discern, detect, and shoot down (or warn others about) the potency of the "nugget" in question.
As a child, I very much enjoyed playing the simulation game "Diplomacy" and went on to become deeply interested in such multi-player theoretical exercises that I have written professionally about the art and was employed in the design of a game that "played" out in accelerated process to depict a simulated week inside an hour of real time. The engine of that virtual exercise involved ascertaining hidden critical information from others in a setting in which each player wore as many as five to seven hats. As a child, it was difficult -- using the counter-culturist Bill Walton's answer as to why he had joined 'the establishment' by turning professional in basketball -- to "get a good game up" in which his skill (23 for 24 in an NCAA Final Four game -- would be challenged (and thus improved).
So our challenge in this day and age is to utilize our mental OODA loop as well as Walton played hoops and process the data at higher speeds. Why, when discrnment of deep politics in the case of JFK for example has taken decades, do we need to "be quick"? Because ICBM's fly at 7 kilometres per second or Mach 15 (if the data I saw is correct), and because close in-shore sea-launched missiles can arrive faster than many can read this thread (or perhaps even this post).
"Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"