zenpundit.com

On The John Boyd Roundtable:

Shlok Vaidya:

It has the uniqueness of both being able to touch off debate, but still offer a framework with which to talk about the future of warfare (or more appropriately, decision making) – in other words, it demonstrates exactly how to approach Boyd.

Michael Tanji:

The point, made in a side-discussion between myself and the editor, is that this is yet another way in which TT 2.0 works, and perhaps is an indication that the transition to a 2.0 model is well underway:

• Virtual discussion (Time? Distance? Ha!)
• Serious discussants (So much for online not being ‘legit’ or ‘real’)
• Digital delivery (for the digerati)
• Dead-tree format (for those who like it like that)

Tanji is correct. One objective here was to bridge the gap between symposium, blog and book. One set of ideas, many modalities.

UPDATE:

Sam Liles:

As a book about a book it should also be noted that this not much different than the literary critique found in most academic journals. The bonus is that it isn’t nearly as dry. The article penned by Chet Richards discussing “The origins of John Boyd’s A discourse on winning and loosing” is the kind of in depth research that is hard to find. I am fascinated by his discussion of how the specific philosophies were brought into alignment and filled in the gaps of Boyd’s theories.

I have always been interested in how like some Greek philosopher John Boyd effectively portrayed his ideas and communicated them so diligently and never wrote a book. This is antithetical to today’s world where you write the book then get to convey your ideas if the book sells well.  Lexington Green in “Why didn’t Boyd write a book?” discusses the interactive nearing on Socratic method Boyd used with audiences. The points conveyed provide a true insight into what may be the instantiation of John Boyd’s true genius. The reason Boyd likely didn’t write a book may be so that people could continue to discuss and adapt his ideas into the future. A  point Lexington Green discusses and points out eloquently.

Lex’s essay is one of my favorite parts of the book too.

CONTRIBUTOR’S POSTS:

TDAXP  and TDAXP II   HG’s World    DNI

Shloky’s right. Obama’s “national security working group” is designed to be safe, graybeardish and reassuringly vetted to avoid some embarrassing time bomb going off in the media down the road. Madeleine Albright is the edgiest figure in the group! You can almost hear Senator Obama saying, much like a used-car salesman, ” this foreign policy team was owned by a liberal Southern governor of a small rural state who only drove it on Sundays…”. How many of the somewhat conservative Democrats on this list will actually be offered a job come January if Obama wins?  Nunn and Hamilton were too conservative for the Clinton administration and Barack Obama is quite a bit left of old Bill.

The Starbuck’s sipping radicals in Yglesias’ comment section appear to be unhappy but for different reasons; evidently they expected the Obama campaign to have named Leon Trotskii and Che Guevara as advisers…

For readers who are not aware, blogfriend Shlok Vaidya also publishes the excellent Naxalite Rage site dedicated to the analysis of that particular insurgency in India. Shloky has been getting well-deserved VIP attention of late – check out Naxalite Rage and find out why.

UNFOCUSED MUSINGS

I’m tired and mentally foggy but still have an itch to blog a little, so I’m going to do something I don’t usually do outside of twitter – microblog!

Shloky was justly praised for Naxalite Rage. Not a conflict of which I know much about but Shlok will help get me up to speed.

Wikinomics is a book worth the time spent reading, despite my not being a fan of “business lit”. It bridges those constraints to also be a ” big idea” book.

Regarding the Mukasey hearings, the Left seems less interested in stopping intrusive electronic surveillance of Americans than it does of throwing up abstruse procedural delays to monitoring foreigners who are suspected Islamist terrorists living overseas in third countries. The Liberal Democrats in the House have so voted:

“Rules Committee Chair Louise Slaughter did something unusual however, in the hearing on legislation to extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act–she announced at the start of the hearing that no amendments of any type would be allowed for debate. Committee Democrats followed Slaughter’s lead and voted against amendments to: authorize surveillance of those engaged in the creation of Weapons of Mass Destruction; authorize surveillance of foreign terrorists outside the United States; extend liability protection to telecommunications companies that relied on government directives and shared information deemed necessary for protection from terrorist attack; and, allow a debate on the Bush administration’s alternative.”

Hat tip to Bruce Kesler.

This is why, despite everything the Bush administration has done wrong in Iraq, that the Democrats still have a ” national security problem” with the public. Frankly, they always will ,so long as the Boomer-Left remains generationally dominant in that party.

HEY…VALDIS KREBS HAS A BLOG!

Social networking theorist/mapper Valdis Krebs, has a blog, Network Weaving. How’d I miss that one ?

Hat tip to Der Shlokmeister.