Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 9th mo. 26, 2016 at 2:03pm

Whoever was steeting GW wanted war with Iraq really badly; hence the Air Force got out of the way of Saudi terrorists formerly on 'our' payroll (the officially designated perps, at least) whose leader was based in Afghanistan and we started preparing to move into Iraq... A very odd chain of events, especially given the two cover stories for why the Air Force wasn't there: 1) We never imagined such a thing and 2) We were busy that day with a full-scale training exercise preparing to deal with such a thing...

But I'm not familiar with Susan Lindauer... Does she add anything significant to what everybody, by now, must know about that war -- if they want to know? Or does she clarify what's going on to make conspiracies-in-plain-sight a familiar feature of US politics?

Permalink Reply by Kirby Urner on 9th mo. 26, 2016 at 3:05pm

She has unique perspective as a CodePink type anti-war liberal (like many Friends in my Meeting), caught as a go-between (voluntarily) between high level Iraqis and high level USers pre 911 via Andy Card in the White House, the one whispering in the president's ear in that famous "goat book" shot. She'd already done work with the Libyans on Lockerbie, had a track record.  Her friends in the Middle East clearly trusted her more because she's authentic about her anti-war stance.  Those types do exist in Washington, DC (many Friends live there!), I sometimes tend to forget that don't I?

After 911 when she's reminding everyone she provided advance warning (lots and lots), they throw her in jail as an "Iraqi agent" however her documentation is uber-good and once Youtube got hold of it the judges had to let her go, and so now the Beltway crowd gets to contend with a rather loud (not a criticism!) storyteller. 

Good read so far, not through to the end yet, on my Kindle. 

Not saying we see eye-to-eye on everything (obviously, how could we) but she's pretty dang accessible as a writer so unlike yourself I'm not bored by the genre, consider it Russian Novel quality in some cases.

Forrest Curo

But I'm not familiar with Susan Lindauer... Does she add anything significant to what everybody, by now, must know about that war -- if they want to know? Or does she clarify what's going on to make conspiracies-in-plain-sight a familiar feature of US politics?

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 9th mo. 26, 2016 at 4:29pm

First there was Voltaire, being occasionally bored by writings that probably were tedious... and then one of Tolstoy's fictional characters, inclined by temperment to be more cerebral than emotional, found himself bored by poetry in general and Goethe in particular -- and then, after however many unknown quotations by various people, John Ralston Saul picked it up and used it; then I read it much later in one of his books (ah: _Voltaire's Bastards_) and squirreled it away because I liked it.

And then, you were objecting to my rather informal style, so I passed it along.

I'm probably not, however, that much interested in GW's misdeeds, now that we've found a successor or two (from the Good-Cop party of our national game of Good-Cop/Bad-Cop) to continue, exacerbate and extend those misdeeds with slicker presentations.

Permalink Reply by Kirby Urner on 9th mo. 26, 2016 at 5:03pm

Forrest Curo said:

And then, you were objecting to my rather informal style, so I passed it along.

I'm probably not, however, that much interested in GW's misdeeds, now that we've found a successor or two (from the Good-Cop party of our national game of Good-Cop/Bad-Cop) to continue, exacerbate and extend those misdeeds with slicker presentations.

That's somewhat abstruse and besides, I don't remember ever objecting to your rather informal style; I'm rather informal myself.

What I got from your "boring genre" quote was you tend to dismiss Spy vs. Spy out of hand, like every time I stray into that territory you yawn loudly and change the subject. I on the other hand grew up on MAD Magazine and tuned in that Coyote versus Bugs motif in like middle school.

I didn't say anything about GW, Rumsfeld or Cheney in my review.  I'm not one of those jumping up and down saying I know the job from the inside.  I don't even assume the WTC7 demolition was by the same people, as everyone was warned, twas even broadcast about early on the BBC, seems like a different group.  Pentagon ditto.  I'm very far from handing Oliver Stone a neat package like "Man X" did re JFK (aka L. Fletcher Prouty).

As for the Hilla-Trump two-headed dinosaur, I'm not gonna watch it talk to itself tonight, talk about bored.  I'm heading to Flying Circus for my Monday night peer group meetup.  There's precedent for this:  the night Obama was getting the nod in 2008, I was lecturing a crowd of IEEE types willing to descend into "the crypt" (out of cell range) for a play (about Bucky, which is why I was the pre-show).  The main show had to be canceled because most ordinary people care about outward forms (not Keith Saylor types, 0.001%).

What many bored readers might not track, is how George Tenet is gunning for Neocons right from page one (At the Center of the Storm [see page xx]) i.e. there's a widely shared assumption that the Neocons somehow managed to pin the 911 tail on the CIA donkey, as their "intelligence failure" and that this version of events will be (A) swallowed without debate by the American people and (B) taken lying down by the CIA itself.  If Susan Lindauer is any indication, this assumption is unwarranted.

Lindsey Moran is another good one to track (another Youtube personality).  Hey, even Valerie Plame herself came out as a star player in Countdown to Zero, in the abolitionist genre.  The women get more kudos than the men in this chapter perhaps.  Again:  I find this genre interesting, even if you don't.

Permalink Reply by Kirby Urner on 9th mo. 26, 2016 at 6:05pm

Correction: the term is "hilladon" (prehistoric).

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 9th mo. 26, 2016 at 6:49pm

The general public's innate contempt for treasons, strategems & spoils (when they haven't been sucked into fictional glorifications of the spy biz) is probably appropriate;

the honest analysts end up trying to solve no-solution puzzles based on the output of people so good at role-playing that half the time they can't be sure themselves which side they're really working for -- and then some political appointee rejects their conclusions on the basis of "Which conclusion favors the decision I want?"

One might as well just do something merciful, humane, harmless -- Other courses just lead to a magnificent Wiley Coyote view of some rapidly-approaching canyon floor.

Permalink Reply by Kirby Urner on 9th mo. 26, 2016 at 7:50pm

Forrest Curo said:

The general public's innate contempt for treasons, strategems & spoils (when they haven't been sucked into fictional glorifications of the spy biz) is probably appropriate;

Much of the "general public" is involved in at least stratagems, to sell soap, real estate, used cars, health insurance... you name it. 

Some of the stuff you need, some you don't, and some you really don't (but they manage to sell it anyway).  I wouldn't undersell the general public as all that unsophisticated.  They may feign contempt, but then they also do it for a living.  Kinda like how we all look down on eating junk food, but then indulge in "sinful moments".

the honest analysts end up trying to solve no-solution puzzles based on the output of people so good at role-playing that half the time they can't be sure themselves which side they're really working for -- and then some political appointee rejects their conclusions on the basis of "Which conclusion favors the decision I want?"

Har har, like those poor Truthers who fight NIST about pier #79 or whatever it is, the domino that supposedly started the collapse of WTC7, thanks to office fires (a theory no one believes yet feel obligated to disprove). 

We of Youtube World know for a fact that was no accident.  The building was cleared well ahead of time.  It came down in the evening, nothing else much happening around then, other than piles of rubble smoldering.  Then down it comes, right on cue, just like they said it would. 

And yet fifteen years later and it's still tied up in court, so to speak, thanks to political maneuvering. 

Me?  Playing Monday Night quarterback, I might've have brought it down too, as obviously way too damaged to fix up and make right again.  The thing was totaled, a white elephant.  Why not trash the sucker?  Add it to the rubble pile for cleanup. 

In so choosing, I'd not be acting in cahoots with any plot around expertly piloted aircraft (one chance in a million a veteran pilot could've hit the Pentagon like that, as Youtubers all know). 

This WTC7 demolition was a business decision all its own in this simulation, taken after lots of hours to think about it, nothing like a sudden plane crash or bomb, like what happened next store.

One might as well just do something merciful, humane, harmless -- Other courses just lead to a magnificent Wiley Coyote view of some rapidly-approaching canyon floor.

I'm suspicious of warnings to remain "harmless" as if that means refraining from keeping secrets. I'd remind you of the Underground Railroad etc. i.e. Quakers may use plain speech, but they're not averse to keeping confidences, refraining from gossip, helping innocent people escape tyranny.

Depending on which team you're on, you may regard it as a threat that you're not privy to everything happening.  Such is life.  I hear Quakers wanting to be "dangerous".  So why not teach them about encryption?   Actually, I'm sure the Earlham College computer science department teaches about RSA, TLS and all that, what any web browser worth its salt needs to implement.

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 9th mo. 26, 2016 at 8:32pm

There's good reason we (collectively) don't hold with secret societies,' etc.

If the Gestapo comes to your door and wants to know how many Jews you've got upstairs, I think a "Huh?" or other effort at deception is probably just fine. Short of that, slave patrols & etc... best to keep oneself clear.

Permalink Reply by Kirby Urner on 9th mo. 26, 2016 at 10:49pm

Forrest Curo said:

There's good reason we (collectively) don't hold with secret societies,' etc.

Do we not?  I'd be interested in specific Quaker advices or teachings on this matter. 

I agree that we ourselves have no secret rites.  In our Multnomah Meeting, for example (one of NPYM's) non-members are privy to the Clearness for Membership process (managed by Oversight), no problemo.  That's part of the "try before you buy" ethic:  if there were secret rites, how would you know enough to be convinced, minus access to these "higher" teachings? 

Quakers get around so many problems by avoiding secret handshakes etc., I'm with ya there.

However, I don't think we're somehow proscribed from associating with all brands of secrets-keeper.  The AFSC will keep its secrets.  Most organizations do. 

That's not in principle un-Friendly, just good business sense right?

If the Gestapo comes to your door and wants to know how many Jews you've got upstairs, I think a "Huh?" or other effort at deception is probably just fine. Short of that, slave patrols & etc... best to keep oneself clear.

Linus Pauling wanted to shield a certain Japanese-American family from the "US Gestapo", and got hate mail for it.  The FBI came anyway, and took 'em away.  This was back when he was a college professor at Cal Tech.

Linus wasn't Quaker, but his ethical stance earned him the respect of one Doug Strain, who's company (Electro-Scientific Instruments -- framed picture in our meetinghouse to this day) endowed our Multnomah Meeting with its digs. Doug's company was pacifist and pro AFSC.  Doug wasn't Quaker either.

Both Linus and Doug kept various secrets to themselves I'm sure, goes with the territory of being a Nobel Prize winning chemist and Silicon Forest entrepreneur respectively. 

To this day, the Linus Pauling name is celebrated in our zip code, his boyhood home just blocks away from said meetinghouse.  I meet weekly with a group there (the so-called "Wanderers").  We're not into secret rites either, but nor do we have rules against secret society people joining us at our meetings. 

Ordinary Silicon Forester engineers keep secrets regarding their work (Bruce Adams comes to mind [1]).  That's just in the nature of competitive business, but also goes with confidentiality, the right to privacy, the freedom to not disclose.

I used to work with medical records all that time; and a lot of my job was decoupling heart procedure data from the actual patients.  In statistical work, it's not important that we know exactly who it was who had that triple bypass.  We're looking at aggregate outcomes.[1]  We kept patient identities secret.  This is / was a Catholic hospital, but I could see Quakers doing the same.

When our Junior Friends went to Jamaica, they played cards a lot, to the amusement of Jamaican hosts.  Card games involve not tipping your hand.  I know many Quakers have a problem with playing games of chance, but do we proscribe all manner of card game?  Our meeting sure doesn't.  Indeed, we have Game Nights wherein Quakers excel at keeping secrets, including in Scrabble (I liked Stratego a lot, remember that one?).

Kirby

[1]  http://worldgame.blogspot.com/2006/02/bruce-adams-presents.html

http://controlroom.blogspot.com/2009/02/science-and-public-policy.html

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 9th mo. 26, 2016 at 11:51pm

https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=qu... includes a few clunkers, observations from outsiders as to our beliefs, also some surviving references in various Faith&Practices.

My own (as of a few years ago): I see that this (in the more current edition at least) is among the quotes, attributed to Iowa Yearly Meeting. Definitely an element of the tradition, though.

New England Yearly Meeting (1950 at least): The Society of Friends bears a testimony against membership in secret organizations. Secret societies are capable of producing much evil, and are incapable of producing any good which might not be effected by safe and open means. The pledge to secrecy may be in itself a surrender of independence, which tends to moral decadence and spiritual loss.

That seems to me a no-brainer. Many purposes are served by holding personal confidences concealed -- not all of them evil -- but any agreement which obligates a person to withhold the truth is potentially suspect, something to be considered with extreme caution. Undertaking an undercover way of life... would be profoundly at odds with Quaker ways. In such bizarre circumstances that an exception would be appropriate... A Friend would need to take great care he wasn't rationalizing a subtle wrong.

Permalink Reply by Kirby Urner on 9th mo. 27, 2016 at 12:28am

Hey thanks, much food for thought.  I wrote the previous post at PDX Code Guild during the "Hilladon Debate", am now back at the office... 

I hadn't seen that New England thing before, could give one pause, I agree.  Maybe explains how Ben Franklin the diplomat couldn't quite see himself as Quaker, nor Walt Whitman either? 

All those Friends "in the closet" for one reason or another... (Bayard Rustin was really "out" compared to most in the early civil rights period, as a contemporary of Malcolm X, Father Divine et al).

From my years of AFSC work here in Portland, and consequent access to a current library of pamphlets and publications, I know of just one clearly documented case of a public CIA employee (in public relations?) wanting to become a member of Langley Meeting, and the months of deliberation that caused. 

The outcome was "no", however I can't remember if that served as any barrier to his or her (I think a he in this case) continuing to attend (1990s or 1980s... dunno the date).

Back to New England, there are societies that are secret, and then societies that aren't secret at all, that have secrets.  I gave the example of a Catholic hospital obeying rules about patient confidentiality. 

No one says a person has to broadcast his or her medical data to the Meeting, as a condition for being accepted as a Friend in good standing.  Some prefer to keep that to themselves, easy to imagine a situation.

I'm back to "continuing revelation" on this one.  I want our Liberal Meeting to stay open, and that means we may freely accept refugees facing persecution, which often takes the form of some self-appointed "state police" hunting a wanted brand of criminal, say a Mormon or escaped slave. 

Quakers have a history of harboring people "in the closet" about one thing or another, waaay beyond issues of gender.  Quakers indeed will keep secrets, without thereby being a "secret society" (we advertise openly, whaddya talkin' about?).

Forrest Curo said:

...

That seems to me a no-brainer. Many purposes are served by holding personal confidences concealed -- not all of them evil -- but any agreement which obligates a person to withhold the truth is potentially suspect, something to be considered with extreme caution. Undertaking an undercover way of life... would be profoundly at odds with Quaker ways. In such bizarre circumstances that an exception would be appropriate... A Friend would need to take great care he wasn't rationalizing a subtle wrong.

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 9th mo. 27, 2016 at 1:41am

I don't think much of anything -- except a loud, acute case of Tourette's, irrepressible homicidal tendencies etc, would be a solid obstacle to attending.

There are clearly personal secrets that ain't nobody's business but their own... but organizations dedicated to activities that maybe should not be done... organizing the American Revolution, for example. Look what that led to! (& think about Pierre's adventures with the Russian Freemasons in W&P.) Secret associations just too readily lend themselves to corruption & abuses of power. The Mafia, for example, was supposed to have been founded as a Sicilian Resistance movement against the French invaders under Napoleon. But then a government-in-hiding, unable to do its evils publically, is likely to make them horrific, just to prove something-or-other about the weakness of the public government. Revolutions, the way they're normally done (ie violently) can lead to both the government & the opposition actively killing off anyone trying to be constructively neutral.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page