OrpheusAgonistes
Posts: 253
Joined: 3/29/2010 Status: offline
|
Schenker is a very smart guy who normally hedges his bets more than the article implies. I haven't read his piece yet (and I might not ever have the time or inclination) but I'd be surprised if his tone was anywhere near as histrionic as the headline/article. He's normally more inclined to ask rhetorical questions, shrug, and let people draw their own conclusions. He also tends to present both sides of the issue, even if his bias is always clear. I'd also urge anyone who wants to take this report at face value to consider the think tank itself. Its webpage is here http://www.jcpa.org/ . Again, I don't think the JCPA is part of Israel's hard right/dick waving hawk brigade; but they do have an obvious slant. There's a move afoot to try to drag the US back to Bush era support for Israel. I would expect a deluge of reports like this in the next few months. Some will be reasonable and scholarly, some will get tweaked up all the way into hysterical Doomsday scenario territory. One of the most difficult questions in modern politics is the epistemological question--how do we even decide what counts as evidence and which sources to trust? It's a vexing concern, so I think it's important to always remember that think tanks are generally driven by agendas (and those agendas are generally driven by the money behind the think tanks) and to read their reports with that in mind. Just a quick glance at a think tank's previous body of publication is usually enough to suss out roughly where their bias is on crucial issues, which is helpful to intelligent readers who want to form opinions based on something other than knee-jerk reactions.
_____________________________
What I cannot create, I do not understand.--Feynman Every sentence I have written here is the product of some disease.-- Wittgenstein
|