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. Hackers Could Decide Who
Controls Congress Thanks to
Alaska’s Terrible Internet
Team Responds in Defense of Its Spyware
GCHQ chief accuses US tech giants of becoming terrorists'
'networks of choice'
4. Paul Krugman Exposes the Folly
of Running the Country
Like a Business
5. On Election Eve,
Deep-Pocket Dark Money Bulldozing
6. Chinese Announce
Anti-Drone Laser System
7. Cellphone Companies Are
Working to Track Your Every
8. Hedges and Wolin on How
This is a Nederlog of Tuesday, November 4. It is a crisis log.
This is a crisis file with 8
items and 8 dotted links: Item 1 is a
somewhat overstated claim on hackers; item
2 treats a defense of a software company's CEO; item 3 is about the new chief of the
GCHQ; item 4 is about Krugman on
governing the country as if it were a business; item 5 is about dark money and the
American elections; item 6 is about a
Chinese response to drones: they can shoot them out of the air; item 7 is about cellphone companies and
their indelible cookies; and item 8
is another issue of the long interview that Chris Hedges had with
I think most items are interesting. Also, I should say that yesterday I
miserable and have spent in bed for a good part. I do not know why,
except that it is M.E., and it is the first
time this year, and today I am a bit better. I hope I will pick up soon.
1. Hackers Could Decide Who Controls Congress
Thanks to Alaska’s Terrible Internet Ballots
item is an article by Steve Friess on The Intercept:
Well... since it is only
Alaska, it will take a lot of imagination to insist that hackers
could decide who controls Congress. I mean: it may be so - but
the problem is that "could", "may" and "might" are words that say
almost nothing except that the speaker conveys that what he or she says
"may" or "might" be the case must have a non-zero probability. That is
all. Since nearly every statement one could make has a non-zero
probability it follows that "could", "may" and "might" say virtually nothing.
Why are these words used so much, then? For two reasons: Most do not
realize this (although most know each of "could", "may" and "might" is nearly equivalent to "could not", "may not" and "might not")
and also because it serves mostly propagandistic moves: By saying it "could", "may" or "might" be so, one
suggests it is so, but one doesn't say so.
OK - this was a logical remark. Now to the beginning of the article:
When Alaska voters
go to the polls tomorrow to help decide whether the U.S. Senate will
remain in Democratic control, thousands will do so electronically,
using Alaska’s first-in-the-nation internet voting system. And
according to internet security experts, including the former top
cybersecurity official for the Department of Homeland Security, that
system is a security nightmare that threatens to put control of the
U.S. Congress in the hands of foreign or domestic hackers.
My points are that
Alaska is just one state and the electronic voters are a minority there
anyway, which makes the "could" of the title extremely thin.
I agree the ballot may be stolen by hackers, and the rest of the
article explains that fairly well, but I do not think the dangers in this
election amount to much.
Team Responds in Defense of Its Spyware
item is an article by Cora Currier and Morgan Marquis-Boire on The
Intercept. It also is a follow-up of an earlier article I reviewed in
Nederlog, which is here:
starts as follows:
I suppose David Vanzetti
has no problem with my copying a part of his utter propaganda.
part of the reply of Currier and Marquis-Boire:
Last week, The
manuals showing the workings of an invasive spyware tool made by
the Italian company Hacking Team and sold to authorities in dozens of
countries around the world.
Hacking Team’s CEO David
Vincenzetti responded to our piece over the weekend with a letter
addressed to The Intercept’s editors (and also sent to the
company’s mailing list):
There is little new in
the recent piece in The Intercept, Secret
Manuals Show the Spyware Sold to Despots and Cops Worldwide.
(Published Oct 29, 2014.)
nstead of a balanced look at a complex subject, this article is the
familiar perspective of activists such as Morgan Marquis-Boire, one of
its authors. The writers seem astonishingly unconcerned about or
naively unaware of the criminal and terrorist uses of secret
communications over mobile devices and the Web. In this case,
they go so far as to begin by mocking the concerns of even the most
respected law enforcement organizations (See FBI,
Comey, Oct. 16, 2014). The manuals published by The
Intercept appear to be stolen documents and are clearly out of
Mr. Marquis-Boire has
been a tireless wolf-crier on the issue of privacy as he defines it –
apparently requiring anyone to be allowed to do anything without fear
of detection. That’s a perfect formula for criminals or
terrorists who routinely use the Web, mobile phones and other devices.
These law-breakers take advantage of encryption technology,
anonymity tools and the “dark web” to engage in terrorism, pornography
distribution, sex trafficking, fraud, ransom demands, drug
distribution, abuse of women and children and so forth.
that Hacking Team’s software has been used by repressive governments to
spy on their citizens is backed up by a number of instances where
the software implants have been identified and subjected to academic
peer-review, not only by Marquis-Boire and other researchers with
the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab but also by security firms
Consulting and Kaspersky
Labs. Documented cases of Hacking Team’s use include attacks
against a Moroccan
citizen-journalism site, an Emerati
human rights activist, and Ethiopian
journalists based in Washington D.C. Citizen Lab also identified
suspected customers in several other countries with dubious human
rights records, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Kazakhstan, by
tracing back the chain of proxy servers used in Hacking Team attacks to
the endpoints in the countries in which they originated (the
methodology is detailed here.)
Anyway... it seems to me
Vanzetti sounds like a creepy crook who profits from the hysteria and
secrecy to help what he says he regards as the forces of the law to do
their illegal spying and snooping - and if I say "illegal" I
mean - in the first place - article 17 of the United Nations
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
Mr Vanzetti appears to
mean that he can do "arbitrary interference (..) with the
privacy, family, home or correspondence" of anyone (that has
been picked out by some government as their opponents). I would call
that "cyber terrorism", but I agree his private business is covered by
the cyber terrorism that the United States government protects, mostly
by lying, deceiving, or handing in mere lawyer's statements as if that
would settle the matter.
one shall be subjected to
arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family,
home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour
has the right to the
protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
There is more under the last dotted link.
GCHQ chief accuses US tech giants of becoming terrorists' 'networks of
item is an article by Ben Quinn, James Ball and Dominic Rushe on The
This starts as
Privacy has never been
“an absolute right”, according to the new director of GCHQ, who has
used his first public intervention since taking over at the helm of
Britain’s surveillance agency to accuse US technology companies of
becoming “the command and control networks of choice” for terrorists.
Robert Hannigan said a
new generation of freely available technology has helped groups like
Islamic State (Isis) to hide from the security services and accuses
major tech firms of being “in denial”, going further than his
predecessor in seeking to claim that the leaks of Edward Snowden have
aided terror networks.
GCHQ and sister agencies
including MI5 cannot tackle those challenges without greater support
from the private sector, “including the largest US technology companies
which dominate the web”, Hannigan argued in an opinion piece written
for the Financial Times just days into his new job.
I say. Let me
translate and comment this.
First paragraph: I
think privacy is an absolute right - as indeed does the United
Nations Covenant quoted in item 1. There is a
limitation, which is that there are suspicions that some
specific person has committed a specific crime, in
which case a judge can decide that person may be spied upon, for a
limited time, to try to get more evidence. And that is it - apart from
that everybody's life is private and should remain
Then again, when
Hannigan accuses "US
technology companies of becoming “the command and control networks of
choice” for "terrorists"
what he means is: These folks have no right to block my
spying on hundreds of millions of completely innocent citizens by
encrypting their private data.
When Hannigan speaks of "a
new generation of freely available technology has helped groups like
Islamic State (Isis) to hide from the security services" what he probably means is
that free software should not exist: Absolutely everything
computable should run via MS Windows or Apple, because these have
secret technologies that can be cracked by professional spies.
Also, when Hannigan
claims that "the leaks of
Edward Snowden have aided terror networks" he is bullshitting,
firstly by the phrase "terror
networks", as if his own
operation is not "a terror network", and as if "terrorist" has any
clear meaning (while in fact one group's freedom fighters are
another group's terrorists), and secondly by accusing Edward Snowden of
doing something quite different from what he did do,
which is to make what the spying governments' "terrorist networks" do
against hundreds of millions of innocent persons publicly
Third paragraph: What
Hannigan says in this paragraph seems
to mean: I
want access to all encryptions any US technology does, and as long as I
don't get that access I will accuse them of being "terrorist networks".
Well... I am glad encryption so far seems secure.
There is considerably
more under the last dotted link, but I only quote one more bit:
Krugman Exposes the Folly of Running the Country Like a Business
Among the advocates of
privacy protection who reacted to Hannigan’s comments, the deputy
director of Privacy International, Eric King, said: “It’s disappointing
to see GCHQ’s new director refer to the internet – the greatest tool
for innovation, access to education and communication humankind has
ever known – as a command-and-control network for terrorists.”
King added: “Before he
condemns the efforts of companies to protect the privacy of their
users, perhaps he should reflect on why there has been so much
criticism of GCHQ in the aftermath of the Snowden revelations. GCHQ’s
dirty games – forcing companies to handover their customers’ data under
secret orders, then secretly tapping the private fibre optic cables
between the same companies’ data centres anyway – have lost GCHQ the
trust of the public, and of the companies who services we use. Robert
Hannigan is right, GCHQ does need to enter the public debate about
privacy - but attacking the internet isn’t the right way to do it.”
item is an article by Janet Allon on AlterNet:
This starts as follows:
holds its corporate chieftains in such high regard that it looks
to them to solve the country's
most dire economic problems. This does not always work out. Paul
Krugman analyzes why in his column
Actually, the main reference
is a paper Krugman wrote in 2010, from which the following is cited:
I agree to that, but I
also do not agree with quite a bit Krugman says, though I will
leave that untreated.
Think of what
happens when a successful businessperson looks at a troubled economy
and tries to apply the lessons of business experience. He or (rarely)
she sees the troubled economy as something like a troubled company,
which needs to cut costs and become competitive. To create jobs, the
businessperson thinks, wages must come down, expenses must be reduced;
in general, belts must be tightened. And surely gimmicks like deficit
spending or printing more money can’t solve what must be a fundamental
however, cutting wages and spending in a depressed economy just
aggravates the real problem, which is inadequate demand. Deficit
spending and aggressive money-printing, on the other hand, can help a
There are two further points.
First, economy is not a hard science, and much that economists
write - of any kind - is nonsense or consists of mere guesses. In case
you doubt this: Extremely few economists saw the crisis of 2008
coming, whereas, if their science would have been a hard science, most
should have. They did not.
Second, Krugman probably also would have been right had he said that
most elected political persons do look at the economy and
indeed also the country as if these are businesses,
which in fact they are not: they are much more, and indeed also
much more complicated than businesses.
This indeed explains some of the more
idiotic remarks of many politicians.
5. On Election Eve, Deep-Pocket Dark Money Bulldozing
item is an article by Deirdre Fulton on Common Dreams:
This starts as follows:
Clearly, I am not amazed
and indeed I agree that "the
small donor got left behind". Also, I would not call these elections
"democratic", simply because a
In the final days of the
midterm campaign, shadowy outside groups that wield heavy influence but
don't disclose their donors are spending tens of millions of dollars on
attack ads, mailers, and negative automated telephone calls aimed at
tipping the balance in tight races across the nation.
Overall ad spending has
broken $1 billion in federal elections and state governors’ races, according
to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), which also predicted
last week that the 2014 election cycle will cost at least $3.67
billion—slightly more than the 2010 election, which tallied $3.63
billion. In the same analysis, CRP noted that "[t]he 2014 midterms may
well mark the election cycle in which the small donor got left behind,"
and that outside money has played an "outsized role" in this year's
few with lots of money can deceive the many by their billions of
advertisements: That is not a real democracy.
And there is also this consideration, which is a quotation from Chris
bucks is a boatload of cash," Frates said, rounding up CRP's estimate
of $3.67 billion. "It's 10 times more than the government has committed
to fighting Ebola in West Africa and would be enough to build 100
treatment centers and run them for years. That kind of money could also
buy 25 F-18 fighter jets, pay for more than 12,000 students' K-12
education and have enough left over to produce a summer blockbuster."
Quite so. Instead, it is
spend mostly on advertising that moves the less intelligent
lower half of the population to vote against their own interests, and
it will probably succeed precisely because most people are neither very
intelligent nor very informed. (And yes, I know this is not popular,
but not everything that is true is popular.)
Here are Lawrence Norden and Wendy Weiser who are quoted at the end of
the article, that is quite decent:
Court dismantled our laws regulating money in
politics and gutted core voting rights protections, we knew
those decisions would have consequences," they write. "But only now are
we seeing the full scope of their impact: a return to pre-Watergate,
pre-Civil Rights era practices. Cash from unknown sources is flooding
the most important races, while state politicians have instituted new
barriers to the ballot box for millions of Americans. Regardless of who
wins, the integrity of our elections has been undermined."
Precisely - and that is
why these are not democratic elections, indeed whatever the
6. Chinese Announce Anti-Drone Laser System
item is an article by Jon Queally on Common Dreams:
This starts as follows:
I say - but indeed this
also was to be expected. As the article makes clear, at the moment all
there is is news from "the
state-run Xinhua news agency", and nothing is really known, but I would not
underestimate the Chinese.
In a world increasingly
populated by drone aircraft, systems designed to counter such machines
are increasingly on the mind of world governments.
Weapon developers in
China have announced the successful testing of a 'laser defense system'
designed to target and destroy small-scale drones, according to the
state-run Xinhua news agency.
In a statement
released Sunday by the China Academy of Engineering Physics, cited as
one of the system's co-developers, the laser system is able to "shoot
down various small aircraft within a two-kilometer radius and can do so
in five seconds after locating its target."
The report in Xinhua
boasted that the system has had a 100 percent success rate in trials,
shooting down "more than 30 drones" during testing.
Companies Are Working to Track Your Every Move
item is an article by Kevin Drum on Mother Jones:
This is a quotation from
the Washington Post from the beginning of the article:
I am glad I do not have
a cell phone! And no, I do not want any supercookies
Verizon and AT&T have
been quietly tracking the Internet activity of more than 100 million
cellular customers with what critics have dubbed “supercookies”....
Consumers cannot erase these supercookies or evade them by using
browser settings, such as the “private” or “incognito” modes that are
popular among users wary of corporate or government surveillance.
....Privacy advocates say
that without legal action, in court or by a regulatory agency such as
the FCC or FTC, the shift toward supercookies will be impossible to
stop. Only encryption can keep a supercookie from tracking a user.
Other new tracking technologies are probably coming soon, advocates say.
“There’s a stampede by
the cable companies and wireless carriers to expand data collection,”
said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital
Democracy, a Washington-based advocacy group. “They all want to outdo
that are dedicated to following me, and that I cannot remove from my
Then again, as Kevin Drum says:
Is there any hope
for reining in this stuff? I'm pessimistic. The vast majority of users
just don't seem to care, and even if they do, they can usually be
bought off with something as trivial as an iTunes download or a $10
Groupon discount. On the flip side, the value of this data to marketers
is enormous, which means it can be stopped only by some equally
enormous opposing force. But what? Government regulation is the only
counterweight of similar power, and there won't be any government
action as long as the public remains indifferent about having their
every movement tracked.
Quite so. It is very,
very sad but both the government and the big
are spying as much as they can, and most users neither understand what
happening - and they do not care much either.
And here is Edmund Burke:
All that is
necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
8. Hedges and Wolin
on How New-Style Propagandizing Promotes Inverted Totalitarianism
and final item for today is an article introduced by Yves Smith, which
is in fact the 6th of 8 items that form the video + text of the
interview Chris Hedges made with Sheldon Wolin. Also, I should remark
that I have followed this from the start, and that the earlier reviews
I made are here, here and here:
This starts with an
introduction by Yves Smith, of which I quote the beginning:
There is more there. I
am not one of the "younger readers", but I would say that the main
points that did happen were, in my estimation: (1) the arisal of the
personal computer that from the beginnings of the 1990ies made it
possible to go on line (2) the partial collapse of the printed press
because of a major dip in their advertisements, and (3) the arrival of
relations") and their techniques of advertising and manipulation to
deceive the electorate.
Yves here. The Real News
Network continues with its discussion between Chris Hedges and Sheldon
Wolin of what Wolin calls “inverted totalitarianism.” One of the
focuses here is how skillful fragmentation of the public, and keeping
various groups separate from, and better yet, suspicious of each other,
has helped greatly reduced the cost of keeping this system in place.
Younger readers may not
recognize how radical the transformation of public discourse has been
over the last 40 years. While there were always intellectuals who were
largely above consuming much mass media, as well as political groups on
the far right and left that also largely rejected it, in the 1960s and
well into the 1980s, mass media shaped political discourse. There were
only three major broadcast networks: ABC, NBC, CBS. They hewed to
generally the same outlook. Similarly, there were only two major news
magazines: Time and Newsweek, again with not much distance between in
their political outlook.
All three are quite relevant, and it seems Yves Smith may have missed
the entrance of the professional liars from the public relations
offices, for she says at
The sort of
fragmentation that this interview mentions is in part a result of the
Karl Rove strategy of focusing on hot-button interests of
narrowly-sliced interest groups, along with media fragmentation which
has made it easier to target, as in isolate, them.
For no: That was not so
much Karl Rove's idea, as it was the result of applying
relations" techniques to voting, and that happened from
the 1970ies onwards, and indeed was done by all major parties:
You win an election by concentrating on the few states or districts (or
whatever) in which the total election will be won or lost; you isolate
a group of voters there and ask them everything about their
voting and preferences; and based on that you derive suggestions of
what the party leaders have to say and promise to win
(which is totally forgotten - Obama! - as soon as the leader is
This is quite how commodities are sold as well, and it
works because most of
the electorate do not have strong political opinions, do not
have much political kinowledge, and are easily misled and deceived - indeed again as they are about
nearly all of the commodities they buy or want.
But on to the interview.
This starts with a question by Chris Hedges, that I partially repeat
(repairing a probable typo):
We were talking
about superpower, the way it had corrupted academia, especially in the
wake of World War II, the increasing integration of academics into the
power system itself. And I wanted to talk a little bit about the nature
of superpower, which you describe as essentially the face of inverted
totalitarianism. You say that with superpower, power is always
projected outwards, which is a fundamental characteristic that Hannah
Arendt ascribes to totalitarianism fascism (...)
Note that "superpower"
and "inverted totalitarianism" are two aspects of the same process,
which is that both governments and big corporations got much
more power, which was taken away from the electorate, largely by
misleading them and by classifying a lot.
This is Sheldon Wolin's answer:
Wolin: Well, I think
in some respects it’s pretty apparent what it does in terms of
governing institutions. That is, it obviously enhances their power and
it increases their scope, and at the same time renders them less and
less responsible, even though we’ve kept the outward framework of
elections and criticism and all the free press, etc. But the power is
there, and it is–thanks particularly to contemporary technology, it is
power that’s kind of endlessly expandable. And it’s very different from
the sort of imperialism of the 18th or 19th centuries, where resources
always had a limit and that territorial and other expansion was
severely restricted by it. But now expansionism is accompanied by an
ability to impose cultural norms, as well as political norms, on
populations that did not have them. And that has made a tremendous
difference in the effect of the imperial reach, because it means that
it’s becoming easier to have it rationalized not only at home, but also
abroad. And the differences, I think, are just very, very profound
between the kind of expansionism of the contemporary state, like
America, and those in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Yes, although I do not
think that cultural and political norms are imposed on "populations that did not have them": Every population has
cultural and political norms, but it is true these may be quite
different and also do not need to be good in any sense for other
And it is also true that a good part of the increase in power of the
governments and big corporations is due to technology - that
was also intentionally classified,
kept secret, and abused. (This might have been quite different
in a more open and more democratic society.)
Next, here is part of Sheldon Wolin's reply to Chris Hedges' question
about what the consequences of superpower are for the population:
Wolin: I think what
it does is create an enormous chasm between the sort of pictures we
have of or are given of what our system is in high school, grammar
school, even college, and the reality of where we are. I think it’s
that disjunction that seems to me so kind of perilous, because it means
that much of our education is not about the world, our world that we
actually live in, but about a world that we idealize and idealize our
place in it. That makes it very difficult, I think, for Americans to
take a true measure of what their leaders are doing, because it’s
always cast in a kind of mode that seems so reassuring and seems so
self-confirming of the value of American values for the whole world.
Yes - though what
Sheldon Wolin says amounts to saying that the ordinary people do not
understand politics anymore, in considerable part because they still
believe the idealized and simplified pictures they were offered in high
schools and colleges.
And I think that that
problem is such that you don’t really have a critical attitude in the
best sense of the word. I don’t mean that the public is never
disgruntled or the public is never out of sorts; I’m talking about a
critical attitude which really is dealing with things as they are and
not with a simple negativism, but is trying to make sense out of where
we are and how we’ve gotten to be where we are. But it requires, I
think, a level of political education that we simply haven’t begun to
And I think it’s become more
difficult to kind of get it across to the public, because there’s no
longer what Dewey and others called the public.
I agree, but this does not simplify things. As to the public: I mostly
agree, but "public" is a difficult concept, and I would say that it
mostly disappeared because
most private - real, non-corporate - persons do not get any room to
voices heard, since all must do so by means of some corporation, that
want to have their voices heard, and especially not if it is
radical, clear and intelligent.
Here is more Sheldon Wolin on the public:
(...) the public has, I think, ceased to be a kind of entity that’s
self-conscious about itself–I mean when everybody may vote and we say
the public has expressed itself. And that in one sense, in a
quantitative sense, is true. But the real question is: did they, when
they asserted themselves or voted in a certain way, were they thinking
of themselves as a public, as performing a public act, a political act
of a citizen? Or were they expressing resentments or hopes or
frustrations more or less of a private character? And I think that it’s
that kind of a quandary we’re in today. And, again, it makes it very
difficult to see where the democracy is heading with that kind of level
of public knowledge and public political sophistication.
I must say that from my
point of view the majority of the people have always been "expressing resentments or hopes or
frustrations more or less of a private character", and the main reason is that they lacked the
knowledge to do more,
and often lacked the intelligence or the time to acquire the knowledge.
That is, I agree that the government and the big corporations got much
more powerful, but I do not have rosy ideals about the gifts of the
average - and indeed it would seem to me that the gifts of the average are a very
important part of a true explanation of what happened.
Next, here is Sheldon Wolin on fragmentation:
Sheldon Wolin: The ability of the fragmentation strategy is
really quite astounding, and it’s that we’ve got such sophisticated
means now of targeting and of fashioning messages for specific
audiences and insulating those messages from other audiences that it’s
a new chapter. It’s clearly a new chapter. And I think that it’s
fraught with all kinds of dangerous possibilities for any kind of
theory of democracy which requires, I think, some kind of notion of a
public sufficiently united to express a will and a preference of what
it needs and what it wants.
As I pointed out above,
I think the fragmentation is a consequence of, firstly,
the application of public
relations techniques, which is a fancy way of saying: professional
techniques designed to deceive, to politics and to voting, and, secondly,
of the ease with which the majority of the population can be
deceived due to lack of knowledge or lack of intelligence.
Finally, here is an opinion on whether this was all done consciously, I
mean defrauding, deceiving and misleading "the public":
Actually, while I agree
with Hedges and Wolin, at least on the level of Obama and other leaders
of government, I would also say that a good part of this was a more or
less automatic consequence of applying the techniques of deception to "the people", who in majority
also have agreed to the propaganda
that they are all individuals without moral responsibilities for almost
anyone who does not belong to their own groups of family and friends.
HEDGES: And this
was quite conscious, the destruction of the public.
absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, again it’s that theme we’ve talked
about. They’re capable of doing it now, that is, of dealing with
fragmented publics who aren’t aware of their ties to those fragments
but are–everybody feels sort of part of a group that has no particular
alliance with another group.
But this was another interesting interview, thanks to Chris Hedges,
Sheldon Wolin and the Real News.
P.S. Nov 5, 2014: I garbled
Hannigan's name. It has been corrected.
 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
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
from is quite pertinent.)
(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: