Ignorance is the best argument against democracy, but the problem is
every alternative is worse.
------ Original Message ------
From: "Ken Hohhof" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: 1/31/2017 10:51:55 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Or: Sally Yates
The problem with polling “the majority of the nation” is that’s defined
as “me and my Twitter followers”. So if you’re Wayne, the poll would
include you and Garth.
If you want US policy to be guided by polls, first go to YouTube and
watch some clips from Jaywalking with Jay Leno. The average citizen
can’t answer questions like “where is the Panama Canal” or “name a
country that borders the US”. We’d be better off consulting the Magic
8 Ball.
From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of That One Guy
/sarcasm
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 9:34 AM
To:[email protected]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Or: Sally Yates
the insurance companies that participated in the "keep them calling in
until they give up" claims management schemes are a perfect example of
that.
I think the protests that are violating other peoples civil liberties
still in play follow suit. They havent been addressed because they
maintain the necessary chaos to keep the ranks of the enemy spread thin
and its beautiful.
The majority of the nation supports the travel restrictions, its
pissing off the poll mongers too because no matter how they skew the
data they cant get it under 50 percent. Note the lack of polls, the
stalwart of the left.
keeping the "hes a puppet of <insert lackey>" mentality is great for
maintaining chaos, And I would be there is a PR mechanism in play
keeping that going
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Faisal Imtiaz
<[email protected]> wrote:
There are multiple theories about Chaos....
having said that.. there is also something called Orchestrated
Chaos..
The most perfect Orchestrated Chaos would be one that can easily
be explained by 'simple incompetence'.
While I am not a subscriber to conspiracy theories...but having worked
with the ILEC's and watched their behavior over a a couple of decades,
it is very hard for me to deny that there isn't something which is
best called Orchestrated Chaos, whose end results always somehow fall
in favor of the Orchestrator while simple explanations allow for the
Orchestrator to distance themselves from the responsibility ....
Regards.
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: [email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Adam Moffett" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 7:26:12 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Or: Sally Yates
"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by simple
incompetence." (or words to that effect)
--attributed to a bunch of people
Calling it a "shock event" assumes it was intentional. He gave an
order without prepping anyone for it, but it's just as likely he just
didn't think anybody would be confused or question whether it was
legal.
Just an opinion.
------ Original Message ------
From: "Faisal Imtiaz" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: 1/30/2017 9:57:57 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Or: Sally Yates
Thought provoking !
===========================
From Heather Richardson, professor of History at Boston College:
"I don't like to talk about politics on Facebook-- political history
is my job, after all, and you are my friends-- but there is an
important non-partisan point to make today.
What Bannon is doing, most dramatically with last night's ban on
immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries-- is creating
what is known as a "shock event."
Such an event is unexpected and confusing and throws a society into
chaos. People scramble to react to the event, usually along some
fault line that those responsible for the event can widen by
claiming that they alone know how to restore order.
When opponents speak out, the authors of the shock event call them
enemies. As society reels and tempers run high, those responsible
for the shock event perform a sleight of hand to achieve their real
goal, a goal they know to be hugely unpopular, but from which
everyone has been distracted as they fight over the initial event.
There is no longer concerted opposition to the real goal; opposition
divides along the partisan lines established by the shock event.
Last night's Executive Order has all the hallmarks of a shock event.
It was not reviewed by any governmental agencies or lawyers before
it was released, and counterterrorism experts insist they did not
ask for it. People charged with enforcing it got no instructions
about how to do so. Courts immediately have declared parts of it
unconstitutional, but border police in some airports are refusing to
stop enforcing it.
Predictably, chaos has followed and tempers are hot.
My point today is this: unless you are the person setting it up, it
is in no one's interest to play the shock event game. It is designed
explicitly to divide people who might otherwise come together so
they cannot stand against something its authors think they won't
like.
I don't know what Bannon is up to-- although I have some guesses--
but because I know Bannon's ideas well, I am positive that there is
not a single person whom I consider a friend on either side of the
aisle-- and my friends range pretty widely-- who will benefit from
whatever it is.
If the shock event strategy works, though, many of you will blame
each other, rather than Bannon, for the fallout. And the country
will have been tricked into accepting their real goal.
But because shock events destabilize a society, they can also be
used positively. We do not have to respond along old fault lines. We
could just as easily reorganize into a different pattern that
threatens the people who sparked the event.
A successful shock event depends on speed and chaos because it
requires knee-jerk reactions so that people divide along established
lines. This, for example, is how Confederate leaders railroaded the
initial southern states out of the Union.
If people realize they are being played, though, they can reach
across old lines and reorganize to challenge the leaders who are
pulling the strings. This was Lincoln's strategy when he joined
together Whigs, Democrats, Free-Soilers, anti-Nebraska voters, and
nativists into the new Republican Party to stand against the Slave
Power.
Five years before, such a coalition would have been unimaginable.
Members of those groups agreed on very little other than that they
wanted all Americans to have equal economic opportunity. Once they
began to work together to promote a fair economic system, though,
they found much common ground. They ended up rededicating the nation
to a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."
Confederate leaders and Lincoln both knew about the political
potential of a shock event. As we are in the midst of one, it seems
worth noting that Lincoln seemed to have the better idea about how
to use it."
COPY AND PASTE. DON"T "SHARE"
=========================
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email:
[email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "That One Guy /sarcasm" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 9:36:57 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] Or: Sally Yates
Commence the full stroke meltdown
--
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your
team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
