Prev-IndexNL-Next

Nederlog


  November
4, 2014
Crisis: Hackers * 2, GCHQ, Krugman, Dark Money, Drones, Cellphones, Hedges & Wolin
  "They who can give up essential 
   liberty to obtain a little temporary
   safety, deserve neither liberty
   nor safety."
 
   -- Benjamin Franklin [1]
   "All governments lie and nothing
   they say should be believed.
"
   -- I.F. Stone
   "Power tends to corrupt, and   
   absolute power corrupts
   absolutely. Great men are        
   almost always bad men."
   -- Lord Acton
















Prev- crisis -Next
Sections
Introduction

1.
Hackers Could Decide Who Controls Congress Thanks to
     Alaska’s Terrible Internet Ballots

2.
Hacking Team Responds in Defense of Its Spyware   
3. 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
     Democracy

6. Chinese Announce Anti-Drone Laser System
7. Cellphone Companies Are Working to Track Your Every
     Move

8. Hedges and Wolin on How New-Style Propagandizing
     Promotes Inverted Totalitarianism


About ME/CFS


Introduction:

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 Sheldon Wolin.

I think most items are interesting. Also, I should say that yesterday I was fairly
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.

Here goes:

1. Hackers Could Decide Who Controls Congress Thanks to Alaska’s Terrible Internet Ballots  

The first 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 "could", "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.

2. Hacking Team Responds in Defense of Its Spyware 

The next 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:

This starts as follows:

Last week, The Intercept published 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):

Sir,

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 date.

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.
(...)
Regards,

David.

I suppose David Vanzetti has no problem with my copying a part of his utter propaganda. Here is part of the reply of Currier and Marquis-Boire:
The “conjecture” 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 Arsenal 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:

Article 17

  1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
  2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
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.

There is more under the last dotted link.

3.  GCHQ chief accuses US tech giants of becoming terrorists' 'networks of choice' 

The next item is an article by Ben Quinn, James Ball and Dominic Rushe on The Guardian:

This starts as follows:

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 private.

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.

Second paragraph: 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 known.

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:

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.”

4. Paul Krugman Exposes the Folly of Running the Country Like a Business 

The next item is an article by Janet Allon on AlterNet:

This starts as follows:
America 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 Monday.
Actually, the main reference is a paper Krugman wrote in 2010, from which the following is cited:

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 problem. 

In reality, 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 lot.

I agree to that, but I also do not agree with quite a bit Krugman says, though I will leave that untreated.

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 Democracy

The next item is an article by Deirdre Fulton on Common Dreams:

This starts as follows:

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 campaigns.

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
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 Frates:
"Four billion 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:
"When the 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 outcome.

6. Chinese Announce Anti-Drone Laser System

The next item is an article by Jon Queally on Common Dreams:
This starts as follows:

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.

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.

7. Cellphone Companies Are Working to Track Your Every Move

The next item is an article by Kevin Drum on Mother Jones:
This is a quotation from the Washington Post from the beginning of the article:

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 Google.”

I am glad I do not have a cell phone! And no, I do not want any supercookies
that are dedicated to following me, and that I cannot remove from my computer.
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 corporations
are spying as much as they can, and most users neither understand what is
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

The next 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:

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.
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 professional propagandists (aka "public relations") and their techniques of advertising and manipulation to deceive the electorate.

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 end:
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
"public 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 elected).

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):
Chris Hedges: 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:
Sheldon 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 populations.

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:
Sheldon 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.

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 explore.

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.
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.

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 have their
voices heard, since all must do so by means of some corporation, that does not
want
to have their voices heard, and especially not if it is radical, clear and intelligent.

Here is more Sheldon Wolin on the public:
Sheldon Wolin: (...) 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":

HEDGES: And this was quite conscious, the destruction of the public.

WOLIN: Oh, 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.

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.

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.
Notes
[1] 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 government, if good, is part of its executive power. Here I quote Aristotle from my More on stupidity, the rule of law, and Glenn Greenwald:
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 quote from is quite pertinent.)


About ME/CFS (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:
1. Anthony Komaroff

Ten discoveries about the biology of CFS(pdf)

2. Malcolm Hooper THE MENTAL HEALTH MOVEMENT:  
PERSECUTION OF PATIENTS?
3. Hillary Johnson

The Why  (currently not available)

4. Consensus (many M.D.s) Canadian Consensus Government Report on ME (pdf - version 2003)
5. Consensus (many M.D.s) Canadian Consensus Government Report on ME (pdf - version 2011)
6. Eleanor Stein

Clinical Guidelines for Psychiatrists (pdf)

7. William Clifford The Ethics of Belief
8. Malcolm Hooper Magical Medicine (pdf)
9.
Maarten Maartensz
Resources about ME/CFS
(more resources, by many)



       home - index - summaries - mail