02-09-2011, 03:35 PM
VERY interesting, Gary.
Did you just today find that article, or did you have it in your quiver ready to be shot?
If then-young Ulrich thought then-young Charles to be "psychotic," so be it. I'm certain that both of them have matured as thinkers and as warriors -- for the truth and for justice -- over the intervening years.
Ulrich wrote, "This tendency to view more and more of the available evidence as suspect has devastating implications for us." I would respond that his failure to understand "evidence" in all its manifestations in deep political analyses -- or at least his failure to indicate that he understands how evidence is misunderstood, distorted and/or manufactured in our world -- renders his judgment fatally flawed.
You cannot escape the fact that you presented a deep political analysis of the Pentagon story that is so uninformed, immature, and simple-minded that it begged for the sternest rebuttal.
In the study of deep politics, ALL EVIDENCE IS SUSPECT UNTIL FULLY INVESTIGATED.
Arguments from authority don't cut it.
Back to your hasty posting -- for which I sincerely thank you -- of the Ulrich article. Was it the result of a hasty GOOGLE search? Have you been my secret fan all these years and so collected all references to me?
Or is there -- cue the spooky lights and music -- an alternate explanation?
Did you just today find that article, or did you have it in your quiver ready to be shot?
If then-young Ulrich thought then-young Charles to be "psychotic," so be it. I'm certain that both of them have matured as thinkers and as warriors -- for the truth and for justice -- over the intervening years.
Ulrich wrote, "This tendency to view more and more of the available evidence as suspect has devastating implications for us." I would respond that his failure to understand "evidence" in all its manifestations in deep political analyses -- or at least his failure to indicate that he understands how evidence is misunderstood, distorted and/or manufactured in our world -- renders his judgment fatally flawed.
You cannot escape the fact that you presented a deep political analysis of the Pentagon story that is so uninformed, immature, and simple-minded that it begged for the sternest rebuttal.
In the study of deep politics, ALL EVIDENCE IS SUSPECT UNTIL FULLY INVESTIGATED.
Arguments from authority don't cut it.
Back to your hasty posting -- for which I sincerely thank you -- of the Ulrich article. Was it the result of a hasty GOOGLE search? Have you been my secret fan all these years and so collected all references to me?
Or is there -- cue the spooky lights and music -- an alternate explanation?