who can give up essential
liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty
-- Benjamin Franklin
"All governments lie and nothing
say should be believed."
"Power tends to corrupt, and
absolute power corrupts
absolutely. Great men
almost always bad men."
1. Murky Special Ops Have Become
of drugs for personal use under review
by Lib Dems
3. Fleshing Out Nixon’s
4. Berkeley vs. Big Soda
Are You Ready to 'Disrupt'? Climate Movement Readies
This is a Nederlog of Tuesday,
September 9. It is a crisis log.
There are five items with five links. Actually, these are mostly
disappointing articles, in my eyes, to be sure, but I explain why. The
one exception is item 3, but that is mostly
historical, though it also illustrates that many U.S. presidents have not
And I updated the
crisis link in all Nederlogs of
September, which I forgot to do till today.
Murky Special Ops Have Become Corporate Bonanza, Says Report
item is an article by Ryan Gallagher on The Intercept:
This starts as follows:
Note this is clandestine,
worth billions, and comprises spying (aka "surveillance"), torturing
(aka "enhanced interrogation"), and propaganda (aka "public relations")
- and it is done all by private corporations, for the U.S. government.
Also, it is all very secret. And it costs billions of dollars.
The U.S. government is
paying private contractors billions of dollars to support secretive
military units with drones, surveillance technology, and “psychological
operations,” according to new research.
report, published last week by the London-based Remote Control Project,
shines a light on the murky activities of the U.S. Special Operations
Command by analyzing publicly available procurement contracts dated
between 2009 and 2013.
USSOCOM encompasses four
commands – from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps – and plays
a key role in orchestrating clandestine U.S. military missions overseas.
Researcher Crofton Black,
who also works as an investigator for human rights group Reprieve, was able to dig
through the troves of data and identify the beneficiaries of almost $13
billion worth of spending by USSOCOM over the five-year period. He
found that more than 3,000 companies had provided services that
included aiding remotely piloted drone operations in Afghanistan and
the Philippines, helping to conduct surveillance of targets,
interrogating prisoners, and launching apparent propaganda campaigns.
In fact, this is very handy: They outsource their dirty work to
corporations, who do it for them, while being kept secret. There will
be no one who is accountable or responsible: The government isn't,
because private corporations did the harm; the private corporations
aren't, because they were told to, and while each points at the other
no one gets the blame, and all get very well paid.
In fact, of the 3,000 companies involded over 50% of the billions spend were received by just eight
no doubt very patriotic companies: Lockheed
Harris Corporation, Jacobs Engineering Group, MA
Federal, Raytheon, and ITT Corporation.
Greed is good! Also if it involves spying, torturing and lying!
2. Decriminalisation of drugs for personal use
under review by Lib Dems
item is an article by Rowena Mason on The Guardian:
This starts as follows:
I must say that this
would have looked much more credible to me if it were not for the
following facts: (1) it is by the Liberal Democrats, who need a
topic to appear to be Liberal about, and (2) it is a campaign by Nick
Clegg, who must be the most honest politician that could be found in
while also (3)
The Liberal Democrats
are looking at the decriminalisation of all drugscannabis to be sold on
the open market. for personal use and allowing
Launching his party's draft election manifesto, Nick Clegg, the
deputy prime minister, said the party would consider such options after
they were advocated in a policy paper due to be discussed at the Lib
Dem conference next month.
The paper said the Lib
Dems "will adopt the model used in Portugal, where those who possess
drugs for personal use will be diverted into other services". The
southern European country decriminalised personal possession of all drugs in 2000.
The document also said
the party "welcomes the establishment of a regulated cannabis market in
Uruguay, Colorado and Washington state".
I recall the autumn of 1969, a mere 45
years ago, when I attended a conference in Amsterdam that planned to
legalize marijuana, and based itself on a British parliamentary report,
(<- Wikipedia), that said, in the year 1968, among other
"The long term
consumption of cannabis in moderate doses has no harmful
effects (…) Cannabis is less dangerous than the opiates, amphetamines
and barbiturates, and also less dangerous than alcohol. (…) An
increasing number of people, mainly young, in all classes of society
are experimenting with this drug, and substantial numbers use it
regularly for social pleasure. There is no evidence that this activity
is causing violent crime, or is producing in otherwise normal people
conditions of dependence or psychosis requiring medical treatment (...)"
45 years of
use of cannabis and marijuana in Amsterdam strongly support this, since everybody has been abled to
buy these drugs nearly anywhere in Amsterdam, starting in 1967 or so
house dealers, where the conference I attended was held.
the 1980ies everyone could buy marijuana and cannabis in hundreds
of so-called "coffeeshops", which seem quite free and legal,
but are in fact all illegal, except that they
have gotten "personal permission" of Amsterdam's mayor to break
the law (I feel sure for a percentage - say 5 or 10% of the turnover -
the mayor or his lawyers, for there are no free lunches,
especially not in Holland, but I have no documentary proof ).
But yes... it did show what the Wootton Report claimed, in 1968:
Marijuana and hashish are not dangerous, and in fact are a lot
less dangerous than is alcohol and nearly all other drugs.
So in fact I think this is an other bit of propaganda for
Clegg and his
Lib Dems, that will almost certainly come to nothing, which will then
be blamed on the Conservatives.
What do I think about drugs? I am for legalization of drugs since 1967,
but I do not
see this happening in Holland as long as Dutch politicians can become
millionaires, albeit quite secretively, through giving "personal
the drugs mafia to deal their illegal drugs wherever the mayor
is kind enough to "personally permit" them to. I also do not
see this happening in England, but
England may well do it - eventually - sooner than the Dutch, because
while the English
politicians may be quite corrupt, they are not drugs corrupt, while all
of Holland is drugs corrupt for over 30 years now, and legalizing very
probably will cost the Dutch political worthies a lot of
(illegal, but who cares) money.
Out Nixon’s Vietnam ‘Treason’
item is an article by James DiEugenio on Consortiumnews:
This starts as follows:
I have reported on this
before (see: The heinous crime behind
Watergate, of August 10, 2014), and it is indeed this treason -
upsetting one's own government's peace negotiations in order to win a
presidential election, that then causes 4 more years of war with 20.000
Americans and over a million Vietnamese killed - that caused the
One of America’s great
political mysteries continues to come into sharper focus: Did Richard
Nixon sabotage President Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam peace talks in 1968
to win that election and did Nixon’s fear of exposure lead him to
create the burglary team that got caught at Watergate in 1972?
Pieces of this puzzle
began to fall into place even in real time as Beverly Deepe, the
Christian Science Monitor’s Saigon reporter, got wind of Nixon’s
treachery before the 1968 election although her editors spiked her
article when they couldn’t get confirmation in Washington. [See
Almost Scoop on Nixon’s ‘Treason.’”]
In the ensuing years, other
journalists and historians began assembling the outlines of Nixon’s
peace-talk sabotage with the story getting its first big splash of
attention when Seymour Hersh made reference to it in his 1983 biography
of Henry Kissinger, The Price of Power.
Then, in 2012, investigative
reporter Robert Parry discovered that Johnson’s long-missing file on
Nixon’s 1968 operation, which was later turned over to the Johnson
library, helped explain another mystery: why Nixon launched his
Plumbers’ operation in 1971 and thus set in motion a series of
burglaries that led to the Watergate scandal in 1972.
Here is a small part of The
Almost Scoop on Nixon’s ‘Treason’:
President, Nixon escalated the Vietnam War, expanding U.S. bombing
raids across Indochina and ordering an invasion of Cambodia. Under
Nixon, the war would grind on for another four years at the loss of
20,000 more U.S. troops and possibly a million more Vietnamese. In late
1972, Nixon agreed to a peace settlement similar to the terms available
to Johnson in 1968.
There is a lot more in
the article, that is in fact a review of a recent book by Ken Hughes "Chasing Shadows: The Nixon Tapes, the
Chennault Affair and the Origins of Watergate". It is a good article.
And it is in the crisis series mostly because it clarifies Nixon's
doings and also because it clarifies the illegal and unconstitutional
quite a few U.S. presidents did.
vs. Big Soda
item is an article by Robert Reich on his site:
I'll quote just three
paragraphs from close to the beginning:
Fifty years ago this
month, Berkeley was the epicenter of the Free Speech Movement. Now,
Berkeley is moving against Big Soda.
The new movement isn’t
nearly dramatic or idealistic as the old one, but the odds of victory
were probably better fifty years ago. The Free Speech Movement didn’t
challenge the profitability of a one of the nation’s most powerful
Sugary drinks are blamed
for increasing the rates of chronic disease and obesity in America. Yet
efforts to reduce their consumption through taxes or other measures
have gone nowhere. The beverage industry has spent millions defeating
I say. At the moment,
Reich is supporting the fight against Big Soda (Pepsico and Coca Cola),
who are against a soda tax.
Well... I've checked
Reich's biography on Wikipedia, and he wasn't in Berkeley fifty years
ago (at the time he studied in Dartmouth), but it does seem rather "a
sign of the times" to me that, fifty years onwards, the Left (what is
left of them), gears up, not to fight for free speech, nor
for a better
education, nor for a changed society, but for the right to
soda tax of 1 cent per fluid ounce, so as to decrease the consumption
of "sugary drinks".
I merely register it,
possibly for a few who might turn nostalgic. If fighting for the right
to impose a soda tax (of
1 cent per fluid ounce)
is what the remains of the left these days do in the U.S. ...
You Ready to 'Disrupt'? Climate Movement Readies Global Mobilization
item is an article by Jon Queally on Common Dreams:
This starts as
On Sunday night, a new
documentary film highlighting the intertwined story of the
climate crisis and the growing social movement which has grown in
response to it was released online for national screenings that took
place in people's home and public meeting spaces.
At just under an hour
long, the film—titled 'Disruption'—was
produced with a stated goal to "galvanize a new wave of climate action
and climate leadership" across the globe and comes just weeks before
the 'People's Climate
March' being organized for New York City that will take
place on Sunday, September 21.
I must say that I do
not believe in it, mostly for similar reasons as Chris Hedges does not
believe in it, which I reviewed yesterday.
Here are a few of my
But OK - I wish you much luck.
- "the climate" is
"supported" by most governments, since many years also, but to no avail;
- the problems of "the
that there are too many people who consume too much, and neither factor
got - ahem, ahem - much less the last 45 years;
- to act to "galvanize a new wave of climate action and
climate leadership" (?!?!) seems a pretty crazy goal in my eyes (but
indeed it is one in which you always can claim
success, unlike "let's all consume 20% less", say);
- the problem with climate
actions is that you'll find most of the big corporations to be much in
favor: it will help them sell things, like wind mills, solar panels,
and electric cars, and seem to be quite moral as well.
 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.)
Incidentally, 5 to 10% of the turnover is a mere 500 million to 1
billion a year, that is easily covered by price increases, and these
things are very well understood though rarely
written about in the Dutch papers, that generally seem very
controlled, and will not spoil the trade.
Also, while I have no documentary proof, I have lived for nearly
years above a coffeeshop that was given personal permission
marijuana and cannabis by mayor Van Thijn, and that also was
by the same mayor, his aldermen, the district attorney, the judges and
the police, to threaten me with murder (5 times); to deal cocaine and
heroine; to gas me (literally: I was nearly killed with carbon monoxide);
to keep me out of sleep; to tell me I was a liar for four
years, and nothing else was the matter; and to ruin my life for
20 years, for no one of these did anything against
these dealers, who were
extremely well protected by the Amsterdam police, and who still
and who have florished ever since 1987, quite unlike me.
So yes, I feel certain that the Dutch Labour Party, its Amsterdam
mayors and Amsterdam bureaucrats are major drugscriminals, for they certainly
are, in that they protect and further the illegal
trade in marijuana and hashish since 1980 or so, which
also is exceedingly profitable and quite tax free, but
I also feel certain this will never be proved in Holland without a
prior revolution, and that almost no Dutchman will care before the
revolution. (For it is quite clear that they do what I claimed they do,
almost no Dutchman cares: Who cares in Holland if the mayors, the
aldermen, the politicians, the judges, the police, and the district
attorneys have been drugscorrupted for 30 years? So what if it
gives everybody access to illegal drugs? So what if the politicians
(that I prefer
to call M.E.: The "/CFS" is added to facilitate search machines) which
is a disease I have since 1.1.1979: