Headline: Petraeus Resigns

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

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.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

Jim Thompson wrote:
Headline: Petraeus Resigns

...Jim Thompson



Turns out G.I. Joe was not anatomically correct.

--
Les Cargill

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.

--
Les Cargill

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?

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.

The Sovs always made up an "illness" story. We use... something
else.

--
Les Cargill

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.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

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.

I dunno - that works for me.

--
Les Cargill

On 2012-11-10, Les Cargill 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?

--
š‚šƒ 100% natural

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 11/11/2012 11:14, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2012-11-10, Les Cargill 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.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

flipper wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 00:43:45 -0600, Les Cargill
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

Les Cargill wrote:

flipper wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 00:43:45 -0600, Les Cargill
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?

Jamie

flipper wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:29:43 -0600, Les Cargill
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 00:43:45 -0600, Les Cargill
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."



--
Les Cargill

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 06:45:09 -0600, Les Cargill
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

--
Les Cargill

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:28:05 -0600, Les Cargill
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 06:45:09 -0600, Les Cargill
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.


It's domino-ing as we speak.

--
Les Cargill