10-12-2010, 12:55 AM
A personal statement:
it is my normal and normative approach to shovel a lot of information into the hopper for further analysis. It serves to illuminate and inform, leaving opinion and analysis to the reader. My early interest and education is in news, not in editorial.
To weed out prematurely, to suggest that certain views are anathema or disallowed, is to defeat the purpose of why we are here doing what we do.
It's almost 50 years later and people are still debating and arguing Dealey Plaza. It's almost a decade since 9/11. Both topics continue to see a lot of information that is pumped into its equation. Knowledgeable veterans of the Dealey Plaza event can discern quickly because much work has been done and much time has passed. 9/11 isn't quite yet at that level despite the presence of the Internet and its higher speeds for information circulation. Analysis must proceed within a global conversation because of the necessary expertise being separated by time and space. The question of some prior or ongoing assessment for validity of source has already been suggested here and elsewhere by me, as have leads to sources of information about critical thinking.
I appreciate and have said that I am a relative newcomer to this business of deep political reading, research and analysis. I have a great degree of respect for many people here, like David Guyatt and others, and if he has dismantled a post, then so be it. That is, as has already been said, the nature of the process. My hat is off to him. No skin off my teeth. No wounded ego. Delete it. As a single individual who is currently also dealing with other matters, I do not have the luxury of snap judgments or universalized knowledge or expertise. What is left standing after extensive analysis by many is at least a magnitude closer to understanding; time will allow even more analysis.
But one cannot drink from a fire hose. Wikileaks is an ongoing event. JFK has been buried, but comparably on the Wikileaks story, it is only 1964. FOIA videos and photos from 9/11 continue to emerge, but comparably on the Wikileaks story, it is only November 30th, 2001.
Premature analysis and conclusion is more dangerous that any lack of discernment in entering information or theory, particularly in an environment that is arguably on the edge of both information black-out and nuclear war.
- In a global world running 24/7/365 with information which is being spun or gamed in real time...[I have already entered an extensive section on PsyOps and MindWar];
- on a global discussion board with discussants living in Europe, the US, Australia and elsewhere (and thus subject to and available to the news, more astute about their local news outlets' perspectives and history, and more astute about their sovereign nations' "news management" and propaganda approaches);
- on a topic with as much possible portent, potential implication, and sheer weight of information (however valid or invalid it is);
- in a situation that has tremendous bearing on the future free flow of information, governmental transparency, or the ability of a group such as ours to even gather and analyze the information;
- in a situation that is fast-moving, potentially volatile; and
- in a world that is a virtual tinderbox;
it is my normal and normative approach to shovel a lot of information into the hopper for further analysis. It serves to illuminate and inform, leaving opinion and analysis to the reader. My early interest and education is in news, not in editorial.
To weed out prematurely, to suggest that certain views are anathema or disallowed, is to defeat the purpose of why we are here doing what we do.
It's almost 50 years later and people are still debating and arguing Dealey Plaza. It's almost a decade since 9/11. Both topics continue to see a lot of information that is pumped into its equation. Knowledgeable veterans of the Dealey Plaza event can discern quickly because much work has been done and much time has passed. 9/11 isn't quite yet at that level despite the presence of the Internet and its higher speeds for information circulation. Analysis must proceed within a global conversation because of the necessary expertise being separated by time and space. The question of some prior or ongoing assessment for validity of source has already been suggested here and elsewhere by me, as have leads to sources of information about critical thinking.
I appreciate and have said that I am a relative newcomer to this business of deep political reading, research and analysis. I have a great degree of respect for many people here, like David Guyatt and others, and if he has dismantled a post, then so be it. That is, as has already been said, the nature of the process. My hat is off to him. No skin off my teeth. No wounded ego. Delete it. As a single individual who is currently also dealing with other matters, I do not have the luxury of snap judgments or universalized knowledge or expertise. What is left standing after extensive analysis by many is at least a magnitude closer to understanding; time will allow even more analysis.
But one cannot drink from a fire hose. Wikileaks is an ongoing event. JFK has been buried, but comparably on the Wikileaks story, it is only 1964. FOIA videos and photos from 9/11 continue to emerge, but comparably on the Wikileaks story, it is only November 30th, 2001.
Premature analysis and conclusion is more dangerous that any lack of discernment in entering information or theory, particularly in an environment that is arguably on the edge of both information black-out and nuclear war.
"Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"