Decius wrote:
] Jeremy says: Gold Star.
]
] I say: This link is on Free Republic. They are a bad
] reputation for being the Republican version of the Slashdot
] hordes. All power in numbers and no clue. However, the article
] is Stratfor, and hence worthy of attention. It reads a bit
] Republican, which is likely why the freepers have posted it.
] I'm not sure that it is. Stratfor likes to talk about what is
] going on and why. They don't usually talk about what might
] have been done. Its rare that they talk about what ought to be
] done.

The Gold Star is for the two paragraphs quoted, which are neither Republican nor Democrat. And while it is the problem with the CIA, it is also a more universal problem throughout government and the corporate world.

I don't care about Free Republic or the link or the reputation of their hordes. Don't click through. It's just a convenient cache/mirror. Find another one if you want or ignore it.

There are some emerging fundamental disconnects regarding the purpose of the site, of the status of an individual entry/article, and so on. The notion that an entry is a request to "click through" a particular link is one of the disconnects.

In this case, and in many others, the link is simply a convenient method of attribution. The text of the entry itself is the message. Do not click through. Go directly to the next post. Do not collect $200.

On 16 April 2004 you quoted a back-looking Stratfor article.

On 12 September 2002 you did the same.

On 20 May 2004 you did the same, in which Stratfor "offers an opinion", in your words.

On 20 March 2004 you expressed similar reservations about Stratfor "going political" on you. I didn't understand your William Safire comment at the time, and I still don't. Presumably it's not you, it's me.

As for why George Friedman isn't running for office, I'll quote you at

http://www.memestreams.net/thread/bid12789/blogid4068055

I've come to the conclusion that you actually want shifty, dishonest politicians elected by an apathetic populace. This means that things are working.

There are two reasons that people act: Carrots and Sticks. Lowering the barrier to entry might be a carrot, but the sticks are much more effective and come when the political situation makes it impossible for people to go about their lives without acting.

I'm confident that technology has improved the resources available to people if/when they choose to act. So far they don't need to, largely. Don't wish for times when they do. When people are involved and committed and political leaders are honest and have clear vision; that usually happens when things are really, really fucked up. Who are the U.S. Presidents we most admire? What was going on during their presidencies?

This can also explain why Stratfor "goes political" from time to time.

RE: The Problem With the CIA