"Those who sacrifice liberty for
security deserve neither."
-- Benjamin Franklin 
| "All governments lie and nothing
say should be believed."
Krugman: Chaos Looms
Members of Congress denied access to basic information
3. Why Are Liberals Like Hillary
Clinton and Elizabeth Warren
So Quiet About Snowden's
Astounding NSA Revelations?
Again I did not sleep too well and so there may be less today than
there might have been.
Today's file covers Paul Krugman on the looming chaos; Glenn Greenwald
on the lack of information of members of Congress; and Ana Marie Cox on
the question why Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren and others are quiet
Krugman: Chaos Looms
The following is by Paul
Krugman, in his column in the New York Times for August 1:
Krugman put it as
He also speaks of
Right now, if inherent
importance were all that mattered, I wouldn’t be writing about the
effects of sprawl, or the Fed succession, or even, probably, about
China’s brick-wall problem. I would instead be writing all the time
about the looming chaos in U.S. governance.
In the short run the
point is that Republican leaders are about to reap the whirlwind,
because they haven’t had the courage to tell the base that Obamacare is
here to stay, that the sequester is in fact intolerable, and that in
general they have at least for now lost the war over the shape of
American society. As a result, we’re looking at many drama-filled
months, with a high probability of government shutdowns and even debt
...the madness of
I am quoting him because I
guess that he is right, which means that there will be exceedingly
little legislation of any kind by the U.S. law makers, and many
And I also do not know of any cure: We shall see, but it will not be
2. Members of Congress denied access to
Next, there is Glenn Greenwald with another column in the
This starts as follows:
And I think they are quite
right: First, almost everything that could be made secret about it has
been made secret, and secondly, the few who did know, such as Wyden and
Udall, were met with lies by the bureaucrats of the NSA. And president
Obama was simply and plainly lying: You can not speak up about things
you do not know.
Members of Congress have
been repeatedly thwarted when attempting to learn basic information
about the National Security Agency (NSA) and the secret FISA
court which authorizes its activities, documents
provided by two House members demonstrate.
From the beginning of the
NSA controversy, the agency's defenders have insisted that Congress is
aware of the disclosed programs and exercises robust supervision over
them. "These programs are subject to congressional oversight and
congressional reauthorization and congressional debate," President
the day after the first story on NSA bulk collection of phone
records was published
in this space. "And if there are members of Congress who feel
differently, then they should speak up."
But members of Congress,
including those in Obama's party, have flatly denied knowing about them.
Greenwald details the experiences of Congressmen Griffith and Grayson:
The former got no replies; the latter got a negative, that further
inquiry turned out to be classified. The brief of it is:
To date, neither
Griffith nor Grayson has received any of the documents they requested.
Also, there is this little
when members of the Intelligence Committee learn of what they believe
to be serious abuses by the NSA, they are barred by law from informing
Which itself is a travesty in
a real democracy. In brief, in the terms of the concluding statement of
Whatever else is
true, members of Congress in general clearly know next to nothing about
the NSA and the FISA court beyond what they read in the media, and
those who try to rectify that are being actively blocked from finding
3. Why Are Liberals Like Hillary Clinton and
Elizabeth Warren So Quiet
About Snowden's Astounding NSA Revelations?
This is an interesting
question, that Ana Marie Cox tries to deal with on Alter net:
She starts with a more
Why hasn't the left been
able to rally support around opposition to domestic spying?
Part of the answer to that
is that "the left" are Democrats in the U.S., for the most part, and
the majority of these folks believe president Obama should be trusted,
and indeed should be trusted blindly, as the case is.
But there is another
One bomb, one
devastating video, one instance when our agencies can prove a near-miss
and a denouncement of surveillance becomes a millstone and not a
To which I say: Yes
Yes, in the sense
that, if there is such a problem, whether it is engineered or real,
this may cost votes.
But definitely no in
the sense that you cannot logically subscribe to anything like
surveillance of the computer data - of virtually anything that any U.S.
citizen does with his or her computer - of over 300 million U.S.
citizens and claim that you live "in a democracy" where "the
Constitution" is maintained.
So the real
answer for this ostrich-like policy of putting their heads in the
sand when faced with a crisis seems to be:
Because many of the
politicians of "the left" in the U.S. rather are cowards who want to be
re-elected in a non-democracy where there is no maintained
Constitution, than they want to defend the principles they swore
That was it for today.
If I had slept better, there might have been more, but I did not, and
it also is Sunday.
 Here it is necessary to insist, with
Aristotle, that the governors do not
rule, or at least, should not rule: The laws rule, and the
if good, is part of its executive power. Here I quote Aristotle from my
More on stupidity, the rule of law, and Glenn
It is more proper
that law should govern than any one of the
citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to place the
supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed to
be only guardians, and the servants of the laws.
(And I note the whole file I
from is quite pertinent.)
ME/CFS (that I prefer
to call M.E.: The "/CFS" is added to facilitate search
is a disease I have since 1.1.1979: