That's Lovely, But It Actually Matters Right Now
I see that Naked Capitalism today links an article of mine about the fraud of "intelligence." The linked article (this one) is from three years ago.
In light of my discussion just the other day about the non-durability of most blogging and the rise of the superhuman army of what I call "60-second Arendts," it's rather amusing to see some notice paid to a piece from the summer of 2007. What is not quite so amusing is that Naked Capitalism fails to note that the older article was mentioned in a recent installment of my ongoing series about Wikileaks: "Good-bye to All That." (I'm certain my own recent mention of it is the only reason a three-year-old article came to anyone's attention this week.) That is: these issues are critically related to a major news story right now, which I myself view as the obviously more significant point. That is especially true when these issues help to explain a crucial aspect of Wikileaks' genuinely radical approach that I feel is far too little appreciated.
But I only wrote the articles in question, so what the hell do I know. Nonetheless, I added a couple of paragraphs at the beginning of the older article, noting its relevance today and directing people to the current article. If I sound a bit irritated, it's because I am. This pattern is overly familiar to me. As one example, this, also from 2007. I could provide many more examples ... hell, here you go. And here. When articles such as those are noticed, if they are at all, it's usually only three or four years after the fact. Under no circumstances should you pay any heed to what I'm writing now. Come back in 2013 at the earliest.
In any case, thanks to Naked Capitalism for the link. Our manners remain intact even under pressure. :>))
In light of my discussion just the other day about the non-durability of most blogging and the rise of the superhuman army of what I call "60-second Arendts," it's rather amusing to see some notice paid to a piece from the summer of 2007. What is not quite so amusing is that Naked Capitalism fails to note that the older article was mentioned in a recent installment of my ongoing series about Wikileaks: "Good-bye to All That." (I'm certain my own recent mention of it is the only reason a three-year-old article came to anyone's attention this week.) That is: these issues are critically related to a major news story right now, which I myself view as the obviously more significant point. That is especially true when these issues help to explain a crucial aspect of Wikileaks' genuinely radical approach that I feel is far too little appreciated.
But I only wrote the articles in question, so what the hell do I know. Nonetheless, I added a couple of paragraphs at the beginning of the older article, noting its relevance today and directing people to the current article. If I sound a bit irritated, it's because I am. This pattern is overly familiar to me. As one example, this, also from 2007. I could provide many more examples ... hell, here you go. And here. When articles such as those are noticed, if they are at all, it's usually only three or four years after the fact. Under no circumstances should you pay any heed to what I'm writing now. Come back in 2013 at the earliest.
In any case, thanks to Naked Capitalism for the link. Our manners remain intact even under pressure. :>))
posted by Arthur Silber at 9:08 AM
<< Home