consultants are sandburs



Saturday, February 18, 2017

A national shame? A University of Minnesota - Morris prof. makes news; stating beliefs about immigrants which are First Amendment protected speech and should not be punished, because a breach of academic freedom would be entailed; and what really should be the first thing said against the man's viewpoint?

The question is deceptively simple in its statement, but each person likely has a personal, differing "first thing" answer.

Starting with links about the prof/commentary, for background; here, here, here, and this websearch. From web searching the situation has not grown internet legs to any great extent, yet, with most attention focused in Minnesota, per the websearch. Whether the matter grows legs or not is independent of this post.

This thumbnail image, cut from the City Pages reporting, presents the Facebook post - click it to enlarge and read:


One of the sites already noted as commenting on the Facebook post, this one, has a sidebar item, linking here. READ IT.

With that read, as context, this screencapture from here:


So, Kurt G. had a postulate, and do you suppose, put aside John Roberts as a person and his Citizen United opinion as evidence of the Goedel hypothesis, and consider only this: SEVENTEEN FUCKING INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES IS MORE THAN EVEN STALIN HAD. EVER. BELIEVE ME OR RESEARCH IT YOURSELF.

That said, each of the magnificent seventeen has a payroll and a pretty badge.

Doubt that badge comment, then view the evidence by looking here (admittedly, several badges published there are for the parent bureau, e.g., the Coast Guard or State Department, with it possible that intelligence sub-bureaus have secret, perhaps top secret badges, for themselves as a special privilege and distinction; but don't doubt the payroll part since spooks never work for free). Of the stand-alone badges, the NSA is a Snowden favorite, so it's reproduced below in honor of patriotic whistleblowing:


The questions of which is prettiest stand-alone badge involves subjective judgment, but my suggestion of prettiest:


I like the asymmetry, and the imaginative rendering of the national bird, while the font and color choices rock. Only two more, this one, most familiarity (this is like a beauty contest, Miss Cordiality, . . .)


And only one more, in honor of our news media's current favorite veteran currently being yanked around by his security clearance:


It's also neat, how each of those stand-alone badges represent agencies who can identify and differentiate with only a three letter acronym; but if having only seventeen, that might not be too difficult a task. Still, neat, slick, special.

Now back to the MN-Morris prof; starting an argument with an arguable postulate is questionable practice; and so, what of his "rule of law" gig?

Is "rule of law" necessarily a postulated good; or might it be examined? The rich make the laws, to serve themselves, and to protect the sanctity of capital as the preeminent value - beyond family, religion, and individual rights. There is a bill of ten rights; but how many laws are there protecting capital - it's only taxed on an uber-valued multimillion dollar estate upon transfer because some rich fart croaked, not otherwise; but what's all of contract law and central banking next to that sole exception?

More of the argument against the man's opening postulate can be formulated; and readers are capable of such detail.

BOTTOM LINE: Ain't those intelligence agency badges really pretty; and isn't it heartwarming to the citizenry to know taxes are so expended? Who could argue against that? Spook paychecks; seventeen varieties each likely printed with proper badging, it almost brings tears of joy to know a nation that values a high soaring predator bird also has seventeen separate spook payrolls. Do your suppose anybody sees a payroll check threatened by the mood, worldview and orientation of Gen. Flynn? Doubt of dogma should have consequences, a general should know that from moving up the ranks.

A few more links: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and if you think you've seen the last of badges, think again:

Wikipedia

If Flynn truly wanted the beast more trim and agile, more fat-free, what's to be made of his demonization? Business should be done as it's been done? Paycheck mania? What? Get them out of the office and forward deployed seems to entail safety consequences; and Trump giving a speech to insiders standing in front of the CIA's wall of stars might have resonated wrong with a building full of desk jobbers.

Who knows? I don't. Without getting any security briefings I only have opinions. Bless free speech. Is a hatchet job being planned for the MN-Morris prof? That would be an unfortunate consequence of arguable issues vs. trending insider dogma. Doubt of dogma after all has consequences; Luther's nailing theses on a door being but one example. It's a shame Goedel did not publish his "proof." The narrative of its genesis is hoot enough, but the proof; that would be golden.

Last: YouTube.

_____________UPDATE____________
The RT version. Not hanging together entirely, either. Likely correct on the intelligence powers, their term "the deep state" wanting its narrative and not Flynn's; but they fail to explain where Trump is in all of this - who he listens to and what decisions can be anticipated - next time, new issue. Loose cannon, vs. their assertion of a weakness and insecurity. The RT interpretation of "drain the swamp" sees the intelligence community's positioning of policy narratives as "The Swamp." Is it a swamp, but not "The Swamp?" The Swamp seems to be the stranglehold money has over political decision-making in DC, and it seems the intelligence community either likes it as is; or has no skin in that game - domestic policy setting, vs international positioning. Time to call Ghost Busters.

_________FURHTER UPDATE__________
Most readers would agree double standards suck. Where was mention of the Logan Act, with this? And, that's written prior to research of the Logan Act, itself. Just, what Flynn did, a few phone calls; and Romney going to Israel and getting in cahoots with Netanyahu; was it monitored, and if so, why was it NOT leaked?

Things don't seem justly congruent, and distinctive criteria need to be pointed out to me, in my naive state of thinking consistency somehow should matter. Reader help is requested on why Flynn was keelhauled, and Romney was reported as "an old Bibi pal" with no implications to that being problematic, U.S. private citizen conferring with a head of state via an extended personal visit.

Simple questions, for which the President can and should demand intelligence subordinates provide a comprehensive answer:

Was the Romney Bibi spiel monitored, and if not why not? What was said about policy - and potential policy revisions, should Romney win the White House?

This is the candidate, himself in the flesh on an extended visit to a foreign power. Not a phone call. Or two. With an election pending - in the balance, not between a victory and an inauguration, briefly by phone involving a subordinate of the victor - not an extended stay confering while a private citizen with a foreign head of state and not a subordinate.

Wha's happening? Bibi special, Putin evil? Get real. That's phony. Does the Logan Act have a statute of limitations; and would Romney still be on the hook?

Okay - make it the Russians again, and be bipartisan. This, as Logan Act material? Have to study the Logan Act, to see its reach here or here.

BOTTOM LINE: Flynn was removed. Trump had that option and made that choice. Done is done and will not be undone. So?

What remains for study: Why did the intelligence community have it in for Flynn; what policy of his did they dislike, and were they right in using a sneak attack via a little used, virtually unknown Act? Also, this Logan Act - what does it say, what is its history, and would it be a good snare for sleazy business deals involving foreign government officials? There has been a claim that the new Secretary of State's corporate person, EXXON, was a "Citizens United" person with a half a trillion oil deal in play with the Russians; so could it at that level have all been private sector? What of Guilani and Qatar, et al.?

The beat goes on. Unless that Logan Act is to be read narrowly, there could be a very crowded gallows.

For readers wanting to do a bit of research; Google Scholar, Federal Courts, search = "Logan Act." The first of the blurbs the search returns says "a natural person" so it would have to be EXXON officials, not the inanimate corporate "person" on the hook there. Study is needed.

___________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Badge design must be a well-paying cottage industry; if farmed out to crony consultants, or a time sink, if done in house. A bet: bang for the buck, cost of badge vs. quality of badge is bad use of cash.

That last one shown, sixteen stars around the center design, complete with a bastardized Latin banner. "COLLABORATUS VIRTUS FIDES" if you read the enlarged archived Wikipedia image. And looking at that, why the five hot dogs drawn around the central eagle? What are they for?

At least it's a badge costing less than an F 35, at going rates; that can be said in its favor. Why not banner the badge as "virtuous, loyal collaboration," with five swords instead of hot dogs, or is bastardized Latin a requirement to be "official?"

No comments: