Would you like to know how many people have read this article? Or how reputable the author is? Simply
Why would I be disturbed if he had come from a family of military people and attended the Academy? I just don't like any of them. I have a genuine disdain for them. They carry themselves with a superior attitude, sell themselves out as ultimate "yes" men for low wages, and in my opinion can never actually lead people in any way other than war. The director of the C.I.A. shouldn't come from career military men because they only understand one side of the infinitely faceted diamond of leadership. That facet is war. I'm not so much disturbed by his being from a private school, but perhaps a little jealous. All of us poorer people wonder how we would have done had we have had an economic advantage. Why is this distrubing? It insists that money has more to do with acquiring a position of leadership rather than actual god damn talent. Lineage, as in the case of persons attending military Academies, is disturbing for much the same reason. There are plenty of good examples of people who come from these sorts of advantages who obtain power, but few who come to power without these advantages. The one who almost immediately comes to mind is Bill Clinton, who despite lacking these advantages, rose to a postion of power. The short explanation is lineage, opportunity, and genetic inheritance of desirable traits. The long explanation and counterpoint would be the issues of environment, lack of opportunity, and all the rest that come with it. I feel that I have a right to be jealous, and by god, I believe that I am every bit as good. (Yes, I am forever your narcissist!)
I'm not too concerned about this man's ability. I think he undoubtedly has lots of talent. I am concerned that a mililtary man is being chosen to do the critical outside the box thinking that accompanies work with the C.I.A. The C.I.A. needs a god damn poker shark, not a yes man, and certainly not someone whose former job was essentially running an enormous operation of intercepting communication. In fact, he didn't do that very well as the general public became aware of the fact that they were being surveilled. In that regard, he failed miserably. If you can't contain the secrets of your operations you don't have any secret at all. So why not hire a f*cking monkey that says yes to the President regardless of how retarded his ideas are...? Do they actually want a new director of the C.I.A., or someone who will take the fall when the public realizes that they have been manipulated into war? My analysis is this: They seek someone who will give them what they want irregardless of how good it is for the whole, but just so long as it is good for the few self interested members. Michael Hayden is the man for the job for the purposes the job now serves. This is an obvious move toward preparing for war. It arouses suspicion, escalates international paranoia, and excludes any forward thinking progressive legitimate god damn geniuses who could have evolutionized the craft all together. This is not a step forward. This is a step toward war, if not an outright threat to the rest of the world. This is flipping the chess board in the face of your oponents and pulling a gun on them. Then again, what the f*ck would I know? I'm merely a poor man with a second hand education and no lineage through which to legitimize my ideas or will myself to power. So, don't listen to me. Listen to the true geniuses that have brought you all this peace, prosperity, and happiness. (Rummy and Dummy)
