Node Of Evil - Fair And Balanced Reporting

For those who feel the war on terrorism
could use a little "Structural Adjustment".

Hey all, here's something that's vitally important -- the U.N. aid program in Palestine is close to running out of funds. Please take a minute to donate something to help the Palestinian refugees. You can donate here. More information about the program can be found here.

Who We Are: Did you feel left out of the "Axis of Evil"? Do you not have enough WMD's to qualify? Well, fret no more friend, 'cause any rational left- or right-leaning individual who dares disagree with the war on terrorism is a threat to every peace-loving nation! That means us! and that may mean you, too, are qualified to make the Most-of-the-Most-Wanted list. We're here to welcome all who disagree with, or generally dislike, any aspect of the war on terrorism with open arms! Declare yourself an enemy of the state - join the Node Of Evil.

Why join the Node Of Evil? We offer benefits such as a clear conscience and the ability to express your opinion, plus the opportunity to lob a few political hot potatos in the general direction of the White house.

How do you join the Node Of Evil? To join, simply repeat the phrase "I hate the war on terrorism". Yes, it's that simple!


Monday, March 15, 2004

There's been lots of talk around the 'net about what all these recent events mean (i.e., Al-Qaeda-suspected attacks in Spain, whether or not sniper shootings in the U.S. are the work of Al-Qaeda organizations, increased effectiveness of attacks in Iraq, the changing of the guard in Spain, the U.S. elections, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, blah, blah, blah...). The best way to start is to avoid over-emphasizing how much these events are related. There are so many different forces at work here that it's much more like the weather (which can sorta be predicted, but not effectively modeled for prediction purposes). As our understanding of the world increases, our ability to see the complex interconnection of events will also increase. However, I'd say that the general ability of folks to do this hasn't reached the point where it's reliable.

That said, here are some fuzzy rules I try to follow when analyzing world events. Rules are in order of importance:

1.) Know Your Sources. Do they have an ideological bent? Do they tend to be right (over the broad course of history)? Have they been around long enough to have a history? Does anyone agree with them? Who disagrees? What are their interests generally? I tend to trust people who have a long history of successfully dealing with a subject, whether that success is in analysis or prediction. Thus I tend to trust Hersh and Fisk, distrust think tanks, and generally let everything slosh around and wait for the cream to rise (as it always does). Do they cite a variety of sources, or does it sound like their story is coming from one place/group/source?

2.) Logic can only take you so far. People are illogical. That's a truth that can be hard to learn, i.e. we like to assume that people are consistent but they aren't by nature. Bush could wake up tomorrow as a liberal democrat, if he so chose, and for no good reason other than he had a p&j sandwich for breakfast as opposed to eggs. Not likely, but with people anything is possible. Ghaddafi can decide that he wants to play nice. The U.S. can become a threat to world peace. So, don't assume something is right or wrong because it's "rational" or "logical". Those definitions depend on who's doing the defining.

3.) Read widely and diversely. I cringe when I read Kissinger (because I fundamentally disagree with him) and Perle and all the others, but it's important to keep your information stream diversified. Let Iraq be the guiding principle here -- the U.S. got it wrong because they filtered the stream and didn't allow dissenting opinions the same weight as assenting opinions. Consider the other person's point of view and be convinced by their logic (if only for a few minutes). If you crawl around inside their argument, you might find things you'd never considered.

4.) Study people. Studying about people is, due to that illogical thing, a different sort of pursuit from studying "truth". Understanding the difference between Bin Laden's flights of fancy and Saddam Hussein's can contribute to coming up with an understanding of what would "fit" in their worldview. Again, adapting another person's logic (and inconsistencies in logic) can be quite instructive and help screen out actions which aren't consistent with their persona.

5.) Challenge your comparisons and assumptions. Being pattern-loving people, we at the Node tend to like similies. For instance, Bush and the Nixon whitehouse seem to share alot of the same M.O. But there are differences. No one is going to challenge Bush from the right (Nixon had to worry about Reagan) in this election, and that'll have an important impact on how things turn out. It's nice, mentally, to be able to assume you know how thing A is because its similar to thing B. That, however, if indulged in to extremes can lead to sloppy thinking and wrong conclusions.

Anyway, that's just something that's been on my mind for the last couple of weeks. It's not a complete list, and I'm sure things will change over time, but so far those things have helped the Node keep its head straight and fly right.

Andrew 4:09 PM : |


New York Times
The Independent
Google News

The New Yorker
The Atlantic Monthly

Bloggers we like:
Baseball on Blake Street
Non Tibi Spiro

Bloggers you already know:
Daily Kos
Kevin Drum

Andrew's Music:
Poser P
Our history: The Node Of Evil started in the spring of 2002, before the age of dated posts. The original site is here.

Hook Into The Node - Add Your Comments

See What Others Think - View Comments

Lob A Hot Potato At The White House:

Email The President (

Email The Vice President (

Throw something at a senator, too:

Senators by state.

I am responsible

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Weblog Commenting by