I also have Normal Performance Curve™ and related items they could buy from me: there's a way that American businesses can make a profit without hiring illegals, and I am happy to explain how.
While buying anything from me is entirely optional, bugging my apartment isn’t a convincing way to convey complete lack of interest.
By their nature, all big companies employ a certain number of people who are drawn from the less fortunate levels of society.
Not everyone who is poor is dishonest.
But some are.
Thus all big companies, such as Navistar, BP, and GE have an element of what might be called “the mob within.” That element consists of individuals who may, at times, cut ethical corners with the aim of achieving short-term results. That same sort of individual may, of course, be found within the ranks of present and past employees of federal intelligence agencies. The only difference is that the G-men and G-women have a "license." While they may not generally have a "license to kill," in the sense to being allowed to point a gun and squeeze the trigger, they seem to often do seem to have a license to take considerable license and do considerable harm.
Since I’ve never been a hawk, I may have, in the past, displeased some of those who were hawks. So I sometimes feel I'm getting a backlash from the CIA or CIA alumni. Even though it was basically a constructive event, the Energia booster (click for earlier reference) was a great surprise to the Reagan administration. It helped resolve the Cold War.
When wars end, there are those who are displeased: there seem to be those in government who think I’m somebody who needs to be watched. Part of that may stem from the peculiar role I chanced to play in the conclusion of the Cold War. On top of that in 2007 I proposed a stategy for peace in the Middle East which has won a certain amount of praise.
I've already discussed Sonitrol, with its federal connections. Click for earlier reference. Here's another anecdote. A number of years ago I visited the Department of Intormatics at IUPUI when it was located in the old IU Law School building. "Informatics" is a interesting-sounding word, and I was curious to find out what it might imply.
A hint came when I noticed that one office contained one faculty member with the name "Milosevic," the same as that of a well-known east-European bad boy (click left). I imagined that, as the result of some sort of a government diplomatic deal, it was thought advisable to find a safe place for this other Milosevic to be--a place out of harm's way.
The surname of the person in a nearby office was that of a high government official in the national security area. There was a slight spelling difference with the second name, as will be discussed shortly. Together the two names gave an indication that "informatics," at least in that building, might have something to do with covert diplomacy.
It's better not to specify the name of the second person and sacrifice a bit of vivid journalistic detail, than to perhaps cause some sort of unpleasant controversy or incident. So I'll refer later to the surname of the second of the two informatics faculty members in question by substituting the appropriate last name of "Snoopy."
But my freedom of speech is constrained in that fashion. Should there be a better wall between government and our educational institutions? Don't the national security agencies have enough buildings of their own?
And I afraid I don't have a good opinion of "informatics," as a word. It's of Stalinist origin, as the reader may check by consulting the unabridged Oxford Dictionary.
The original Russian word was "informatika." During the Cold War, the word seems to have been adopted by government people in eastern Europe and then by those in England and the U.S. The word is pretentious and implies that one's "information" has the quality of mathematical certainty. In human dealings, such certainty is hard, or impossible, to attain.
Now, I'm not one of those crazy people who thinks I did work for--or am now working for--the CIA. For one thing, as a former Peace Corps volunteer, I'm not their type. We do share a common interest in current world affairs. I'm content to let them do their work, if they stay within bounds.
Are they doing that?
I can accept the idea that a college professor might go to work for the government, and perhaps later return to academia. I'm not sure that I like the idea of a professor, particularly at my alma mater, doing both kinds of employment at once. But that may be the case with L. Ridgeway Scott of the University of Chicago, who is rumored to teach "bioinformatics" there. I tried to reach that shadowy person--who I will tentatively refer to as "Agentman Scott, Ph.D."--by phone with no luck. And the e-mail address on his web site likewise wasn't operative. While mysterious, the experience of trying to reach Dr./Agentguy Scott helped to confirm my general impression of informatics.
If I ever do get in touch with him I might like to ask this question: "In view of the remarkable bloody mess which the CIA created in Iraq, should we be trying to peddle that sort of employement to our college students?"
And, "Does he project a world in which the US will be forced to forever maintain huge federal securities operations? Are there any alternatives to that? Could the University of Chicago pause long enough in the act of gorging on federal funds to consider what those alternatives might be?"
And, "Do huge US security establishments constitute a group with an interest in maintaining perpetual worldwide conflict, as well as providing the basis for an Orwellian future--even now, when communism has become a diminished threat?"
The reader may view "informatics" at IUPUI by clicking at left. As may be noted, informatics includes something called "the New Media" (The New Media is evidently capitalized because it is Very Important.) But, since the word informatics itself is of Stalinist origin, it might be appropriate to ask how New Media differs from Soviet Realism.
Continue