> Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>> Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>>> Headline: Petraeus Resigns
>>>> It's a little surreal to see how the allegation of an affair is
>>>> normally handled when the guilty party doesn't get politicized
>>>> defense.
>>> Past a certain point in the security clearance hierarchy, an affair
>>> is as good as a resignation.
>> Of course, but this is the way these things are normally handled.
>> The case of Herman Cain was handled "normally" too. He asked a girl if she
>> wanted to go to a hotel. Now if he had sent a state trooper to aquisition
>> her and take her to the hotel room and asked her to "kiss it", and if he was
>> now President Elect, I wouldn't call that normal.
>> But the long course of events seems surreal when people act with such
>> astounding hypocrisy as if it's all ok.
> The only way I can stand the noise at all is to realize that it *is*
> surreal to begin with, that all the framing and making-into-narrative
> distorts things so badly that what's left is nothing.
> On 2012-11-10, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
>> Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>>> Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>>>> Headline: Petraeus Resigns
>>>>> It's a little surreal to see how the allegation of an affair is
>>>>> normally handled when the guilty party doesn't get politicized
>>>>> defense.
>>>> Past a certain point in the security clearance hierarchy, an affair
>>>> is as good as a resignation.
>>> Of course, but this is the way these things are normally handled.
>>> The case of Herman Cain was handled "normally" too. He asked a girl if she
>>> wanted to go to a hotel. Now if he had sent a state trooper to aquisition
>>> her and take her to the hotel room and asked her to "kiss it", and if he was
>>> now President Elect, I wouldn't call that normal.
>>> But the long course of events seems surreal when people act with such
>>> astounding hypocrisy as if it's all ok.
>> The only way I can stand the noise at all is to realize that it *is*
>> surreal to begin with, that all the framing and making-into-narrative
>> distorts things so badly that what's left is nothing.
> what if the woman is a spy?
Or was two timing with a Russian spy eg.
Christine Keeler in the Profumo Affair.
flipper wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 00:43:45 -0600, Les Cargill
> <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
>> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>>> Headline: Petraeus Resigns
>>>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>>> Turns out G.I. Joe was not anatomically correct.
>>> Why would even care to know?
>> I don't know. I didn't start the thread. Read it again until it's
>> funny; there is something deeply humorous about Petraeus being forced
>> to resign on grounds of virility.
> It might be 'humorous' if that were the reason but the reasons were
> because of exceedingly bad judgment and compromised security, both of
> which extend far beyond just the one man.
I suppose there is actual training materials and reams of regulation
on exactly what can transpire before it's a security breach?
> To wit, how are you going to explain to the rank and file that taking
> up with whatever bimbo who bats an eye is a potential security
> compromise if you wink and nod at the man with more security
> information than anyone else exercising similar 'judgment'?
We are already neck deep in swampy non-concepts...
"Judgement".
>> The Sovs always made up an "illness" story. We use... something
>> else.
> That because the Soviets had to "make up" something since, in their
> system, the 'privileged' were allowed whatever they wanted.
No, because absolutely nothing was ever issued as information
that *wasn't* made up, really :)
>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 00:43:45 -0600, Les Cargill
>> <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
>>> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>>>> Headline: Petraeus Resigns
>>>>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>>>> Turns out G.I. Joe was not anatomically correct.
>>>> Why would even care to know?
>>> I don't know. I didn't start the thread. Read it again until it's
>>> funny; there is something deeply humorous about Petraeus being forced
>>> to resign on grounds of virility.
>> It might be 'humorous' if that were the reason but the reasons were
>> because of exceedingly bad judgment and compromised security, both of
>> which extend far beyond just the one man.
> I suppose there is actual training materials and reams of regulation
> on exactly what can transpire before it's a security breach?
>> To wit, how are you going to explain to the rank and file that taking
>> up with whatever bimbo who bats an eye is a potential security
>> compromise if you wink and nod at the man with more security
>> information than anyone else exercising similar 'judgment'?
> We are already neck deep in swampy non-concepts...
> "Judgement".
>>> The Sovs always made up an "illness" story. We use... something
>>> else.
>> That because the Soviets had to "make up" something since, in their
>> system, the 'privileged' were allowed whatever they wanted.
> No, because absolutely nothing was ever issued as information
> that *wasn't* made up, really :)
> -- > Les Cargill
I don't know what the big fuss is all about, he got his PeePee wet, what's wrong with that?
flipper wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:29:43 -0600, Les Cargill
> <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
>> flipper wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 00:43:45 -0600, Les Cargill
>>> <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
>>>> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>>>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>>>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>>>>> Headline: Petraeus Resigns
>>>>>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>>>>> Turns out G.I. Joe was not anatomically correct.
>>>>> Why would even care to know?
>>>> I don't know. I didn't start the thread. Read it again until it's
>>>> funny; there is something deeply humorous about Petraeus being forced
>>>> to resign on grounds of virility.
>>> It might be 'humorous' if that were the reason but the reasons were
>>> because of exceedingly bad judgment and compromised security, both of
>>> which extend far beyond just the one man.
>> I suppose there is actual training materials and reams of regulation
>> on exactly what can transpire before it's a security breach?
> I didn't say breach and your query doesn't really matter because
> anyone who doesn't know that clandestine affairs compromise security
> also doesn't have enough brains for the job.
My bad on the use of the word breach, then. Transgression, violation,
infraction... whatever it is. Flag on the play.
But it's still a non-standard. I suppose there's a sort of calculus for
security "engineering" but I have to wonder how effective it is.
I know that a lot of the things I read on computer security sound like
folklore trying to be dressed up as standards.
>>> To wit, how are you going to explain to the rank and file that taking
>>> up with whatever bimbo who bats an eye is a potential security
>>> compromise if you wink and nod at the man with more security
>>> information than anyone else exercising similar 'judgment'?
>> We are already neck deep in swampy non-concepts...
>> "Judgement".
> If you lack a 'non swampy' concept of judgment then you should
> definitely stay out of positions requiring it.
It's just a really fuzzy concept. And as with all fuzzy concepts,
it's possible to have a really clear internal picture of it.
>>>> The Sovs always made up an "illness" story. We use... something
>>>> else.
>>> That because the Soviets had to "make up" something since, in their
>>> system, the 'privileged' were allowed whatever they wanted.
>> No, because absolutely nothing was ever issued as information
>> that *wasn't* made up, really :)
> Even if that wild absolute were accurate it would merely extend the
> scope of what I said, not contradict the truth of it.
Well, I did add a smiley.
> People 'make up' things to 'sound better' than reality (the
> President's typical political speech babble being a prime example)
Of course.
> and
> implicit in the goal is that the 'made up thing' should sound good. To
> wit, the excuse of 'illness' meets that criteria but an extramarital
> affair would not because, in the Soviet system, it would be akin to
> accusing the person of having a nice house. It's just another expected
> 'perk' of the 'privileged class' and, so, constitutes a "so what?" or,
> even worse, "then what about yours?"
I did not mean to imply that it was made up.
> The original salient point was the Soviets "made up" something whereas
> the Patraeus affair is not "made up."
> In France an extramarital child might even increase the popularity of
> an (ex) president :-)
> An extra marital affair is a security risk as long as the partners try
> to keep their affair secret, since they are potential blackmail
> victims.
> After the affair is publicly known, only the betrayed spouse can
> blackmail that person.
Two points, one is that while in the Military an affair seems to actually be a crime. I don't judge what that is about, but there it is...
The other is that in the CIA such an affair can easily compromise agents. Even if this is not true for someone in Petraeus' position, why should he not follow the same rules of conduct he expects from his subordinates?
On Nov 14, 8:51 am, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 06:45:09 -0600, Les Cargill
> <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
> >flipper wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:29:43 -0600, Les Cargill
> >> <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
> >>> flipper wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 00:43:45 -0600, Les Cargill
> >>>> <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >>>>>> Les Cargill wrote:
> >>>>>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
<snip>
> Sorry to ruin your day but everything is 'fuzzy'. For example, it was
> a well know 'scientific fact', well supported by empirical observation
> for over a thousand years,
We haven't had "science" let alone "scientific facts" for anything
like a thousand years.
is probably the first person to carry out systematic experiments in a
way that we would recognise as scientific.
> that the Earth was at the center of the
> universe, right up to when it was found to not be a fact.
Kepler and Newton between them made heliocentric cosmology a lot more
plausible than geo-centric cosmology but it's just a more convenient
way of looking at the universe rather than any kind of "fact".
> So we have to admit that even supposed 'facts' can be somewhat
> 'fuzzy', even if we don't see any.
flipper wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 06:45:09 -0600, Les Cargill
> <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> But it's still a non-standard. I suppose there's a sort of calculus for
>> security "engineering" but I have to wonder how effective it is.
> It amazes me how you come up with a contradictory 'wonder', as if the
> issue is the 'laxity' of ignoring the vulnerability inherent to a
> clandestine relationship.
No, you're right about that. The whole subject just inspires incredulity. Sorry if my post was troublesome. But *at
some level*, it's rather bizarre, even if you understand
the basic logic of it.
flipper wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:28:05 -0600, Les Cargill
> <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
>> flipper wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 06:45:09 -0600, Les Cargill
>>> <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>> But it's still a non-standard. I suppose there's a sort of calculus for
>>>> security "engineering" but I have to wonder how effective it is.
>>> It amazes me how you come up with a contradictory 'wonder', as if the
>>> issue is the 'laxity' of ignoring the vulnerability inherent to a
>>> clandestine relationship.
>> No, you're right about that. The whole subject just inspires
>> incredulity. Sorry if my post was troublesome. But *at
>> some level*, it's rather bizarre, even if you understand
>> the basic logic of it.
>> <snip>
> Speaking of contradictions, I went to some length in order to preclude
> you arriving at the very conclusion you just presented and have no
> idea how you imagine I think this case is anything but bizarre.
I don't believe I actually said that, and I certainly didn't think it.
> The main point was to simply explain that a clandestine affair is not
> a "so what" triviality, as some seemed to be saying, but that in no
> way means this case is 'normal' and, at this stage, I wouldn't be
> terribly surprised to see Boris and Natasha show up with a dancing
> bear and the whip lady.
Understood.
> Let's see, the latest news is Petraeus apparently had the impression
> he would stay as CIA director but, 'surprise', he's forced to resign
> immediately after the election. Hmm, a cynic might wonder if the
> President simply 'no longer needed' him after that, which begs the
> question of what did he earlier need him for. 'Appropriate' testimony
> about Benghazi, perhaps?
Nah. Not yet anyway. Other than terrifyingly bad judgement ( or even really bad luck ) , I doubt there's much to the benghazi thing.
There's just no upside to messing that up.
> I don't know what's going on but all indications are it's going to get
> worse.
> <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
> >flipper wrote:
> >> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:28:05 -0600, Les Cargill
> >> <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
> >>> flipper wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 06:45:09 -0600, Les Cargill
> >>>> <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
> >>> <snip>
> >>>>> But it's still a non-standard. I suppose there's a sort of calculus for
> >>>>> security "engineering" but I have to wonder how effective it is.
> >>>> It amazes me how you come up with a contradictory 'wonder', as if the
> >>>> issue is the 'laxity' of ignoring the vulnerability inherent to a
> >>>> clandestine relationship.
> >>> No, you're right about that. The whole subject just inspires
> >>> incredulity. Sorry if my post was troublesome. But *at
> >>> some level*, it's rather bizarre, even if you understand
> >>> the basic logic of it.
> >>> <snip>
> >> Speaking of contradictions, I went to some length in order to preclude
> >> you arriving at the very conclusion you just presented and have no
> >> idea how you imagine I think this case is anything but bizarre.
> >I don't believe I actually said that, and I certainly didn't think it.
> >> The main point was to simply explain that a clandestine affair is not
> >> a "so what" triviality, as some seemed to be saying, but that in no
> >> way means this case is 'normal' and, at this stage, I wouldn't be
> >> terribly surprised to see Boris and Natasha show up with a dancing
> >> bear and the whip lady.
> >Understood.
> >> Let's see, the latest news is Petraeus apparently had the impression
> >> he would stay as CIA director but, 'surprise', he's forced to resign
> >> immediately after the election. Hmm, a cynic might wonder if the
> >> President simply 'no longer needed' him after that, which begs the
> >> question of what did he earlier need him for. 'Appropriate' testimony
> >> about Benghazi, perhaps?
> >Nah. Not yet anyway.
> Not yet what?
> > Other than terrifyingly bad judgement
> There you go getting all fuzzy mysterious on me with a nonexistent
> standard of 'judgment'.
> "Terrifyingly bad" judgment is calling the murder of your Ambassador
> "not optimal" but a deliberate 'policy' of 'normalized' relations with
> an unstable nebulous government while your highest representative
> sends reports of increasing Al-Qaida activity, multiple attacks, and
> is desperately begging for increased security goes well beyond that.
> > ( or even
> >really bad luck )
> 'Luck" is when something unpredictable happens, like whether the next
> landing of an honest coin toss comes up heads or tails, but that an
> enemy, given the opportunity, will attack is not 'bad luck' nor is it
> 'bad luck' to pretend they don't exist, despite ongoing attacks, and
> then withdraw your defenses in front of them.
Predicting where an enemy will attack is a little more difficult than
predicting that they will attack. Putting enough defense in place at
every conceivable place that might need defense doesn't happen to be
practicable, even with the enormous resources that the US should be
able to command, given the size of it's defense budget.
> > , I doubt there's much to the benghazi thing.
> It's a catastrophe that even the slightest common sense most likely
> could have avoided.
If the attack could have been predicted. Of course, if it had been
predicted, and the defenses beefed up appropriately, the attack would
have gone someplace else
>To wit, you simply don't leave your people
> undefended in the midst of enemy attack.
Unless you have to plan on defending pretty much every embassy in the
Middle East against the same kind of hypothesised attack. Note that
nobody had been attacked until Benghazi, and bellicose rhetoric is a
lot cheaper than putting together an assault.
<snipped the usual right-wing drivel.>
> >> I don't know what's going on but all indications are it's going to get
> >> worse.
