We are all Slave now.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The National Review made sure to point out that Aretha Franklin was no Kelly Clarkson or Linda Ronstadt. So, that threat to white hegemony has been put in its place.

Bad politics, bad taste.

[Icky Thump]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/17/o...ol-left-region

In times of crisis, the leaders of the military and intelligence communities try to put aside their differences, often many and sundry, and work together for the good of the country. That’s what’s happening today with a remarkable group of retired generals, admirals and spymasters who have signed up for the resistance, telling the president of the United States, in so many words, that he is not a king.

Thirteen former leaders of the Pentagon, the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. have signed an open letter standing foursquare against President Trump, in favor of freedom of speech and, crucially, for the administration of justice. They have served presidents going back to Richard M. Nixon mostly without publicly criticizing the political conduct of a sitting commander in chief — until now.

“We have never before seen the approval or removal of security clearances used as a political tool, as was done in this case.”

They rebuked Mr. Trump for revoking the security clearance of John Brennan, the C.I.A. director under President Obama, in retaliation for his scalding condemnations and, ominously, for his role in “the rigged witch hunt” — the investigation into Russia’s attempt to fix the 2016 election, now in the hands of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel. The president’s latest attempt to punish or silence everyone connected with the case, along with his fiercest critics in political life, will not be his last.

First he went after his F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, and the acting attorney general, Sally Yates. Then he came for Mr. Brennan. Now it’s Bruce Ohr, a previously obscure Justice Department official targeted by right-wing conspiracy theories, a man who will lose his job if he loses his clearances. Tomorrow it may be James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, a cable-news Trump critic and a co-signer of the letter. It’s clear there will be more.

The president aims to rid the government and the airwaves of his real and imagined enemies, especially anyone connected with the Russia investigation. Somewhere Richard Nixon may be looking up and smiling. But aboveground, the special counsel is taking notes.

The list of the signatories to the open letter defending Mr. Brennan is striking for the length and breadth of their experience. I never expected to see William H. Webster — he’s 95 years old, served nine years as F. B.I. director under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, then four more as C.I.A. director under Reagan and President George H. W. Bush — sign a political petition like this. The same with Robert M. Gates, who entered the C.I.A. under President Lyndon Johnson, ran it under George H. W. Bush and served as Secretary of Defense under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. These are not the kind of men who march on Washington. These are men who were marched upon.


Robert M. GatesPool photo by Brendan Smialowski
The text was equally striking: “You don’t have to agree with what John Brennan says (and, again, not all of us do) to agree with his right to say it, subject to his obligation to protect classified information,” they wrote. “We have never before seen the approval or removal of security clearances used as a political tool, as was done in this case.” The president sent “a signal to other former and current officials” to refrain from criticizing him, the letter continued, and “that signal is inappropriate and deeply regrettable.”

“Decisions on security clearances should be based on national security concerns and not political views,” they conclude.

In a separate six-paragraph open letter published by The Washington Post Thursday afternoon, a few hours before the national-security emeriti weighed in, retired Adm. William H. McRaven, head of the Special Operations Command during the 2011 killing of Osama bin Laden, dared the president to pull his security clearance as he had Mr. Brennan’s. “If you think for a moment that your McCarthy-era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken,” Admiral McRaven wrote.


Retired Adm. William H. McRaven.Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly, via Getty Images
It’s clear that Mr. Brennan’s fierce political and personal attacks rattled the china in the Oval Office. The president essentially has accused Mr. Brennan of lèse majesté — the crime of criticizing the monarch, tantamount to treason. Remarkably, this relic of the days when kings were deemed divine remains on the books in some European monarchies as well as nations like Saudi Arabia, where a critique of the crown is considered terrorism.

It’s not a crime in the United States. That’s why we fought a revolution against a mad king.

For nine months now, the president has been ranting about the “Deep State.” He sees it as a coterie of present and former leaders of F.B.I. gumshoes and C.I.A. spooks who are out to get him through leaks and lies. There is no deep state in America — at least, there hasn’t been the threat of one since J. Edgar Hoover died in 1972, six weeks before the Watergate break-in. But in the mind of Donald Trump, if any group of retired military and intelligence officers could serve as the shadow cabinet for a silent coup, it’s men like Bill McRaven and Bob Gates. They worked for Obama! (Yes, and Reagan, too.)


Look how things have turned around on the Criminal Deep State. They go after Phony Collusion with Russia, a made up Scam, and end up getting caught in a major SPY scandal the likes of which this country may never have seen before! What goes around, comes around!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 6:54 AM - May 23, 2018

You don’t need a secret decoder ring to see what’s happening here. John Brennan, who knows whereof he speaks, believes that the president is a threat to the security of the United States — a counterintelligence threat, no less, in thrall to President Vladimir Putin of Russia. The president attacks him, severing Mr. Brennan’s access to classified information. The deans of national security rise up to defend him — and, by implication, intelligence officers and federal investigators who are closing in on the White House.

They are sending a message to active-duty generals and admirals, soldiers and spies. Remember your oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Think twice before following this man’s orders in a crisis. You might first consider throwing down your stars.

Tim Weiner, a former reporter with The Times, is author of “Enemies: A History of the F.B.I.,” and “Legacy of Ashes: The History of the C.I.A.”

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter

Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Contrarily, you keep ignoring many of my questions and points, because they show that the whole concept is nonsense.

I addressed your points. The impasse came when you adopted Klein's argument: "There's no good reason to engage in analysis of cultures that may provide people with a basis to avoid doing more for them."

The hypothetical you offered was, as I explained, inapplicable.

I'm not revisiting this subject again. I'm exhausted with it. It's a third rail conversation the best result of which is, "we agree to disagree."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Sebby, There are very, very few conservatives who go into academics, with the exception of a few disciplines that tend to be homes to a lot of them, like economics. And this makes sense: most of them would prefer to get rich, and subscribe to a philosophy where getting rich is an innate good, where teaching youngsters is for suckers.

This is terrifically biased horseshit. The caricature of all business people as philistines is below even your tribal generalizations.

For every seat that opens in a history department, there will be four Marxist applications, a half dozen traditional liberals, a couple Democratic socialists, a few applicants from abroad, and, every blue moon, a conservative. So, yes, there are many fewer idiots in tenure track positions on the left in academe (at least proportionately) because they have to compete for seats, where a conservative with half a pulse will find a seat.

This is interesting math. I'd assume with that many ardent liberals and Marxists, few if any of whom have any real world experience (ever met a pure academic who's made a payroll?), the chance of filling the slots near exclusively with idiots rises considerably.

Indeed, if you go looking for, say, American history books by conservatives in the last three quarters of a century, you don't find very many good ones (probably the highest quality works are by Eugene Genovese and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, both Marxists who turned to conservatism later in life under the influence of conservative Catholicism).

I wouldn't disagree with this. As a corollary, I'd add there are very few good history books written in the last 3/4 of the century, period, as most have been written by scholars with a bias.

That's not to say if conservatives wrote the books, the books would be any better. They'd likely just be biased in a different direction. If you hear a person openly describe himself as a liberal, conservative, progressive, etc., you should be suspect of what he authors. It's like journalism by a pundit. No matter how hard they try for objectivity, it eludes them. The only question is, how biased is the narrative? Within acceptable borders -- easily discovered and discounted from the book's actual facts? Or flatly revisionist?

By the way, conservatives are also highly favored in undergrad admissions. The next time you write a recommendation, throw in a line about the kids conservative politics, see how fast he or she gets accepted to a reach school.

YMMV, but I've found being able to pay full tuition is the most compelling factor for universities today. Those darling academics run their organizations like General Motors in the 80s. The fact that we not only allow, but encourage, young kids to borrow hundreds of thousands to spend at universities run by academics (most of whom could bankrupt a lemonade stand) is mind-bending. We give the least sophisticated borrowers cart blanche to fatten the wallets of people who have no concept of value or budgeting, and who see the student loan system as an endless, bottomless cash cow. It's criminally stupid. But that's another discussion, for another day.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/17/o...ol-left-region

In times of crisis, the leaders of the military and intelligence communities try to put aside their differences, often many and sundry, and work together for the good of the country. That’s what’s happening today with a remarkable group of retired generals, admirals and spymasters who have signed up for the resistance, telling the president of the United States, in so many words, that he is not a king.

Thirteen former leaders of the Pentagon, the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. have signed an open letter standing foursquare against President Trump, in favor of freedom of speech and, crucially, for the administration of justice. They have served presidents going back to Richard M. Nixon mostly without publicly criticizing the political conduct of a sitting commander in chief — until now.

“We have never before seen the approval or removal of security clearances used as a political tool, as was done in this case.”

They rebuked Mr. Trump for revoking the security clearance of John Brennan, the C.I.A. director under President Obama, in retaliation for his scalding condemnations and, ominously, for his role in “the rigged witch hunt” — the investigation into Russia’s attempt to fix the 2016 election, now in the hands of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel. The president’s latest attempt to punish or silence everyone connected with the case, along with his fiercest critics in political life, will not be his last.

First he went after his F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, and the acting attorney general, Sally Yates. Then he came for Mr. Brennan. Now it’s Bruce Ohr, a previously obscure Justice Department official targeted by right-wing conspiracy theories, a man who will lose his job if he loses his clearances. Tomorrow it may be James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, a cable-news Trump critic and a co-signer of the letter. It’s clear there will be more.

The president aims to rid the government and the airwaves of his real and imagined enemies, especially anyone connected with the Russia investigation. Somewhere Richard Nixon may be looking up and smiling. But aboveground, the special counsel is taking notes.

The list of the signatories to the open letter defending Mr. Brennan is striking for the length and breadth of their experience. I never expected to see William H. Webster — he’s 95 years old, served nine years as F. B.I. director under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, then four more as C.I.A. director under Reagan and President George H. W. Bush — sign a political petition like this. The same with Robert M. Gates, who entered the C.I.A. under President Lyndon Johnson, ran it under George H. W. Bush and served as Secretary of Defense under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. These are not the kind of men who march on Washington. These are men who were marched upon.


Robert M. GatesPool photo by Brendan Smialowski
The text was equally striking: “You don’t have to agree with what John Brennan says (and, again, not all of us do) to agree with his right to say it, subject to his obligation to protect classified information,” they wrote. “We have never before seen the approval or removal of security clearances used as a political tool, as was done in this case.” The president sent “a signal to other former and current officials” to refrain from criticizing him, the letter continued, and “that signal is inappropriate and deeply regrettable.”

“Decisions on security clearances should be based on national security concerns and not political views,” they conclude.

In a separate six-paragraph open letter published by The Washington Post Thursday afternoon, a few hours before the national-security emeriti weighed in, retired Adm. William H. McRaven, head of the Special Operations Command during the 2011 killing of Osama bin Laden, dared the president to pull his security clearance as he had Mr. Brennan’s. “If you think for a moment that your McCarthy-era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken,” Admiral McRaven wrote.


Retired Adm. William H. McRaven.Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly, via Getty Images
It’s clear that Mr. Brennan’s fierce political and personal attacks rattled the china in the Oval Office. The president essentially has accused Mr. Brennan of lèse majesté — the crime of criticizing the monarch, tantamount to treason. Remarkably, this relic of the days when kings were deemed divine remains on the books in some European monarchies as well as nations like Saudi Arabia, where a critique of the crown is considered terrorism.

It’s not a crime in the United States. That’s why we fought a revolution against a mad king.

For nine months now, the president has been ranting about the “Deep State.” He sees it as a coterie of present and former leaders of F.B.I. gumshoes and C.I.A. spooks who are out to get him through leaks and lies. There is no deep state in America — at least, there hasn’t been the threat of one since J. Edgar Hoover died in 1972, six weeks before the Watergate break-in. But in the mind of Donald Trump, if any group of retired military and intelligence officers could serve as the shadow cabinet for a silent coup, it’s men like Bill McRaven and Bob Gates. They worked for Obama! (Yes, and Reagan, too.)


Look how things have turned around on the Criminal Deep State. They go after Phony Collusion with Russia, a made up Scam, and end up getting caught in a major SPY scandal the likes of which this country may never have seen before! What goes around, comes around!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 6:54 AM - May 23, 2018

You don’t need a secret decoder ring to see what’s happening here. John Brennan, who knows whereof he speaks, believes that the president is a threat to the security of the United States — a counterintelligence threat, no less, in thrall to President Vladimir Putin of Russia. The president attacks him, severing Mr. Brennan’s access to classified information. The deans of national security rise up to defend him — and, by implication, intelligence officers and federal investigators who are closing in on the White House.

They are sending a message to active-duty generals and admirals, soldiers and spies. Remember your oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Think twice before following this man’s orders in a crisis. You might first consider throwing down your stars.

Tim Weiner, a former reporter with The Times, is author of “Enemies: A History of the F.B.I.,” and “Legacy of Ashes: The History of the C.I.A.”

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter

Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.

With these dog whistles from the intel community, and Trump's dog whistles to his "movement," all of which seem intentionally transparent, I have to wonder, When does the fourth wall break? When does Brennan or Clapper openly call for a leak of Trump's taxes? When does Trump announce, "Everybody who shuts his mouth gets a pardon"?

I understand we needed a little Kabuki to provide the public with a fiction that political games were legitimate, but Trump nakedly told Manafort he'll be getting a commutation last week, and Brennan's charge of treason is the CIA chief calling the President a Russian asset. Do we really need the dog whistles anymore? Brennan and Clapper should call for more leaks, and impeachment. Trump can return that serve with a declaration of pardons and commutations for all, and then revoke Mueller's security clearance. Nobody has complete faith in any of these institutions or these people anymore. Let's get the real dialogue out there, in plain English.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This is terrifically biased horseshit. The caricature of all business people as philistines is below even your tribal generalizations.



This is interesting math. I'd assume with that many ardent liberals and Marxists, few if any of whom have any real world experience (ever met a pure academic who's made a payroll?), the chance of filling the slots near exclusively with idiots rises considerably.



I wouldn't disagree with this. As a corollary, I'd add there are very few good history books written in the last 3/4 of the century, period, as most have been written by scholars with a bias.

That's not to say if conservatives wrote the books, the books would be any better. They'd likely just be biased in a different direction. If you hear a person openly describe himself as a liberal, conservative, progressive, etc., you should be suspect of what he authors. It's like journalism by a pundit. No matter how hard they try for objectivity, it eludes them. The only question is, how biased is the narrative? Within acceptable borders -- easily discovered and discounted from the book's actual facts? Or flatly revisionist?



YMMV, but I've found being able to pay full tuition is the most compelling factor for universities today. Those darling academics run their organizations like General Motors in the 80s. The fact that we not only allow, but encourage, young kids to borrow hundreds of thousands to spend at universities run by academics (most of whom could bankrupt a lemonade stand) is mind-bending. We give the least sophisticated borrowers cart blanche to fatten the wallets of people who have no concept of value or budgeting, and who see the student loan system as an endless, bottomless cash cow. It's criminally stupid. But that's another discussion, for another day.

Let me know if you'd like to read some good history books; there are some great ones being written these days. Of course, I did not characterize business people as philistines, but, then, we understand your reading comprehension issues so it's probably not worth dwelling on.

It strikes me reading this that you have little or no interaction with academia.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Let me know if you'd like to read some good history books; there are some great ones being written these days. Of course, I did not characterize business people as philistines, but, then, we understand your reading comprehension issues so it's probably not worth dwelling on.

It strikes me reading this that you have little or no interaction with academia.

I've litigated a resolution of an effort to expel a student for academic fraud. (The prosecution was dismissed, the professor leading it having raised absurd charges.) Also sued a college on behalf of a professor.

It's hard not to run into academics. Those who come to it as adjuncts, or following real world experience, are fine. Those who've never known anything but the soft measurements applied in that safe (save political infighting) world of theirs are booksmart and not much else. (Exempting of course most professors of hard science, math, physics, etc.)

Thinking is important, but thinking too much without doing will inevitably think you up your own ass... and render you utterly clueless in matters involving how the world actually operates.

Re this subject, on a humorous note: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I've litigated a resolution of an effort to expel a student for academic fraud. (The prosecution was dismissed, the professor leading it having raised absurd charges.) Also sued a college on behalf of a professor.

It's hard not to run into academics. Those who come to it as adjuncts, or following real world experience, are fine. Those who've never known anything but the soft measurements applied in that safe (save political infighting) world of theirs are booksmart and not much else. (Exempting of course most professors of hard science, math, physics, etc.)

Thinking is important, but thinking too much without doing will inevitably think you up your own ass... and render you utterly clueless in matters involving how the world actually operates.

Re this subject, on a humorous note: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM

Thanks for confirming my impression.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Thanks for confirming my impression.

Along with my belief that the views of any person calling himself a "Proud" conservative, republican, democrat, progressive, liberal, whig, libertarian, anarchist, etc. should be strongly scrutinized, I believe George Bernard Shaw's famous saying holds as much heft as it does humor: "Those who can, do. Those who can't teach."

Woody Allen improved upon it in Annie Hall: "Those who can't do, teach. And those who can't teach, teach gym."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I addressed your points. The impasse came when you adopted Klein's argument: "There's no good reason to engage in analysis of cultures that may provide people with a basis to avoid doing more for them."

The hypothetical you offered was, as I explained, inapplicable.

I'm not revisiting this subject again. I'm exhausted with it. It's a third rail conversation the best result of which is, "we agree to disagree."

I have yet to hear you say why, in the real world, you would ever want to be able to say that an oppressed group is x% responsible for its circumstances (were that even possible to "assess," which it is not, with "science" or otherwise -- which is the point of my Albania hypothetical, which you ducked). Why? You've talked about tort cases, but there are no tort cases for systemic, societal discrimination -- the design and operation of the courts is part of the problem, not the solution. So what's the point?

If you're exhausted with trying to explain the pointless and inane, that's fair.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

As a corollary, I'd add there are very few good history books written in the last 3/4 of the century, period, as most have been written by scholars with a bias.

Wut.

This is dumb in at least two important ways: There are a ton of great history books from the last 75 years, and all scholars have biases.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

With these dog whistles from the intel community, and Trump's dog whistles to his "movement," all of which seem intentionally transparent, I have to wonder, When does the fourth wall break? When does Brennan or Clapper openly call for a leak of Trump's taxes? When does Trump announce, "Everybody who shuts his mouth gets a pardon"?

I understand we needed a little Kabuki to provide the public with a fiction that political games were legitimate, but Trump nakedly told Manafort he'll be getting a commutation last week, and Brennan's charge of treason is the CIA chief calling the President a Russian asset. Do we really need the dog whistles anymore? Brennan and Clapper should call for more leaks, and impeachment. Trump can return that serve with a declaration of pardons and commutations for all, and then revoke Mueller's security clearance. Nobody has complete faith in any of these institutions or these people anymore. Let's get the real dialogue out there, in plain English.

If "you don't need a secret decoder ring to see what's happening here," it's not a dog whistle.

Hoover's FBI was politicized, as was the CIA. For the last few decades, the intel community has worked hard to stay out of politics. It has been dragged back into it, largely because of Trump, who is threatened by the Russian probe (and let's be honest, by the potential exposure of a lot of bad stuff) and who cares much more about that than about the institutional status of the intelligence community. The Republican Party is full of the likes of Devin Nunes, who will side with Trump. Not that the intel community has handled this flawlessly, but who ever does?

When conservatives want to polarize things, what are the rest of us to do?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I have yet to hear you say why, in the real world, you would ever want to be able to say that an oppressed group is x% responsible for its circumstances (were that even possible to "assess," which it is not, with "science" or otherwise -- which is the point of my Albania hypothetical, which you ducked). Why? You've talked about tort cases, but there are no tort cases for systemic, societal discrimination -- the design and operation of the courts is part of the problem, not the solution. So what's the point?

If you're exhausted with trying to explain the pointless and inane, that's fair.

You've just argued that certain facts should not be discussed. But to say that is to assert that certain defenses may not be raised. If you say "X suffers because of the actions of Y," then you've accused Y of something. In your bizarre construct, Y is not allowed to assert it is not the entire cause of X's issues. You see no problem with allowing accusation, but banning defense?

This is not a court concept. This is basic rational thought. You can't assert an accusation and tell the accused it may not defend itself. If you don't allow a defense, how can the accusation ever be fully tested? Until it's surmounted the defense, it's just a charge. Are you suggesting there are certain allegations that are self-proving in their entirety merely for having been leveled? Situations where mitigation is somehow invalid? That kind of thinking, right there, veers into authoritarian-speak.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If "you don't need a secret decoder ring to see what's happening here," it's not a dog whistle.

Hoover's FBI was politicized, as was the CIA. For the last few decades, the intel community has worked hard to stay out of politics. It has been dragged back into it, largely because of Trump, who is threatened by the Russian probe (and let's be honest, by the potential exposure of a lot of bad stuff) and who cares much more about that than about the institutional status of the intelligence community. The Republican Party is full of the likes of Devin Nunes, who will side with Trump. Not that the intel community has handled this flawlessly, but who ever does?

When conservatives want to polarize things, what are the rest of us to do?

I've no quibble with the response to Trump. Brennan's comments are valid. Trump's actions could sustain a claim of treason as I understand the word.

Mine is an issue with semantics. I hate pretexts. They slow things down and force people to obscure their aims.

I understand the need for these intermediating games. We have to observe the fiction that people are doing things for "acceptable" reasons despite the clear evidence to the contrary. This bullshit veneer is somewhat irritating. I'd like to see the power struggle here play itself out nakedly.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Wut.

This is dumb in at least two important ways: There are a ton of great history books from the last 75 years, and all scholars have biases.

You got me on the first point. That was some rhetorical hyperbole. Your second point, however, proves another of mine. Scholars all have bias. So if the last 75 years of history books have been written exclusively by liberals, as GGG would suggest, they may be good books, but they may also be telling us less than the full story. You might be assessing what's great without necessary comparisons.