1. Bernie Sanders on NH Victory: "Tonight We Served
Notice to the Political and
2. Robert Reich: The Big Fat Message Coming Out of New
3. GOP Candidates Compete
Over Who Will Commit Most
War Crimes Once Elected
4. Caving to Coal Interests, Supreme Court
Wants Fence Around Israel to Keep Out
6. The Whole POINT of the Internet of Things Is So Big
Brother Can Spy On You
This is a Nederlog of Thursday, February 11,
Sanders on NH Victory: "Tonight We Served Notice to the Political and
crisis blog. There are 6 items with 6 dotted links (and I am in part
updating on the New Hampshire elections, because there was no crisis
blog yesterday, but a philosophy blog). I am keeping it short: Item 1 is about Bernie Sanders' winning in New
Hampshire, which was large; item 2 is about Robert
Reich's reaction to Sanders' win; item 3 is about
how the - crazy, and I am sorry, but that is how I see this, though I agree
that the craziness is mostly contrived rather
than real - GOP candidates vied for who would do the worst war crimes
if elected; item 4 is about a decision of SCOTUS
that - once again - avoids doing anything about climate change; item 5
is about a really crazy plan of Netanyahu to put a fence (?!) all
around Israel, to protect it from what Netanyahu calls 'wild beasts'
(i.e. non-Jews); and item 6 is about the whole point
of the internet of things (and - who knows?! - the whole internet ): Total spying for total knowledge
about anything anyone does. I quote Frank Church once
more, but I also think that the abyss he spoke of has been
passed: Either the NSA and the GCHQ get stopped, and radically,
or the American and English futures will be neo-fascistic, with everybody
risking disappearance (without any mentioning also:
that would be forbidden, as it is now )
who disagrees with the government.
Am I pessimistic? Perhaps, but then I do know a whole lot about
politics and about history. In any case, I can freely say what I want
(so far), if only because I have no children whose futures may be
risked by my opinions...
by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!:
This starts as follows:
In the Democratic New Hampshire
primary, Senator Bernie Sanders beat former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton by a margin of 60 to 38 percent. Eight years ago, Clinton won
New Hampshire, defeating Senator Barack Obama. When polling first began
in New Hampshire over a year ago, Clinton was projected to win by as
much as 50 percent, but Sanders has steadily chipped away at her
support. On Tuesday, Sanders beat Clinton in nearly every demographic
area except for senior citizens and families earning over $200,000.
According to exit polls, 55 percent of women—including 70 percent of
women under 30—backed the Vermont senator. Overall, Sanders won 83
percent of the under-30 vote. By winning New Hampshire, Sanders becomes
the first Jewish candidate to ever win a major presidential primary.
There is some more in the article, but this
is the summary of Bernie Sanders' win in New Hampshire, which is pretty
impressive, but also merely the second
election to select the Democrats' presidential candidate. (I don't know
how relevant it is that Bernie Sanders is a Jew, also in view of the
fact that religion is not important to him, but indeed he is.)
The other presidential candidate to win in New Hampshire was Donald
Trump, though not by a landslide.
This led to quite a few comments, of which the next item is one example (from very many more):
2. Robert Reich: The Big Fat
Message Coming Out of New Hampshire
is by Robert Reich on AlterNet and originally on his site:
This has the following diagnosis:
The truth is that the putative
“center” – where the Democratic Leadership Council and Bill Clinton’s
“triangulation” of the 1990s found refuge, where George W. Bush and his
corporate buddies and neoconservative advisers held sway, and where
Barack Obama’s Treasury Department granted Wall Street banks huge
bailouts but didn’t rescue desperate homeowners – did a job on the rest
of America, and is now facing a reckoning.
I agree that both the Republicans and the
Democrats "did a job on the rest of America" that served the very rich and hardly anyone else. (As for
Bill Clinton, see the utterly false and deceptive "Third Way".)
The “extremes” are not gaining ground. The anti-establishment ground
forces of the American people are gaining.
And indeed I hope they are "now facing a
reckoning". But it is early in the
selection of presidential candidates.
There also are the candidates of the GOP, and this is the subject of
the next item:
Candidates Compete Over Who Will Commit Most War Crimes Once Elected
third item is by Murtaza Hussain on The Intercept:
This starts as follows:
At a rally
in New Hampshire on Monday night, Donald Trump was criticizing Ted
Cruz for having insufficiently endorsed torture — Cruz had said two
nights earlier that he would bring back waterboarding, but not “in any
sort of widespread use” — when someone in the audience yelled out that
Cruz was a “pussy.” Trump, in faux outrage, reprimanded the
supporter, repeating the allegation for the assembled crowd: “She said
he’s a pussy. That’s terrible. Terrible.”
The spectacle of one Republican
presidential candidate being identified by another as a “pussy”
for failing to sufficiently endorse an archetypal form of torture
exemplifies the moral state of the current race for the GOP nomination.
Yes indeed. And these were just the two
leading GOP candidates. This is about the lot of them:
The Republican candidates have seemingly
been competing with one another over who would commit the
gravest war crimes if elected. In recent months, one candidate or
another has promised to waterboard, do a “helluva
lot worse than waterboarding,” repopulate
Guantánamo, engage in wars
of aggression, kill
suspected terrorists, and “carpet bomb” Middle Eastern
countries until we find out if “sand can glow in the dark.”
The over-the-top bombast plays well
in front of self-selected Republican audiences — the crowd responded to
the description of Cruz Monday night with full-throated chants of
“Trump! Trump! Trump!” But such promises of future criminality from
potential presidential nominees have outraged many legal experts.
The basic problem - as far as I am
concerned, at least - is that all GOP candidates are either insane or
very great liars. I take it most are great liars, since that is the way
to become a leading poltician in the USA (and elsewhere),
but this does not make them less dangerous.
The real problem is that they may win the
elections simply because so very
many of those who elect them do not have any adequate ideas about
lying politicians, propaganda and deception.
And that is frightening, even though I still believe
neither Trump nor Cruz is likely to win the presidential elections.
(But I may be mistaken (!))
4. Caving to Coal Interests, Supreme Court Blocks Key Climate
The fourth item is by Nadia Prupis on Truthdig, and originally on
This starts as follows:
In a startling ruling Tuesday night, the
U.S. Supreme Court blocked President Barack Obama’s sweeping plan to
lower greenhouse gas emissions, pending resolution of a last-gasp
lawsuit filed against the initiative by the coal industry.
Voting 5-4, the justices ordered the
Obama administration not to implement the Clean Power Plan (CPP) until
it has been reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit, with arguments set for June 2.
According to SCOTUSBlog, that means the
plan may end up being stalled “until after the president leaves office
next January,” and spares coal-power plant operators from “having to do
anything to begin planning for a shift to energy sources that the
government considers to be cleaner.”
According to the rest of the article, those in favor of the Clean Power
Plan still believe it will win in the end, because "you can't stay
climate action", in which they may be right (eventually), but meanwhile
SCOTUS and the coal interests have blocked another way of doing
something against climate change.
5. Netanyahu Wants Fence Around
Israel to Keep Out 'Wild Beasts'
The fifth item is by Andrea Germanos
on Common Dreams:
This starts as follows:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu has proposed a plan to encircle his entire country with a
fence as protection against "wild beasts," referring to those in
neighboring Arab states.
He made the comments Tuesday while
visiting an 18-mile stretch of fence already
under construction on the Israel-Jordan border.
"At the end of the day, in the State of
Israel as I see it, there will be a fence like this one surrounding its
entirety," he said, according to a statement on the Prime Minister's website.
"They tell me: Is this what you want to
do, defend the villa? The answer is yes. What, are we going to surround
the entire State of Israel with a fence, a barrier? The answer is yes,
unequivocally. In the environment in which we live we must defend
ourselves from the wild beasts."
He added that it would be a multi-year
project, multi-million dollar project.
It sure was a great day for the
makers of fences and for those who believe they are supermen because
they are Jews, to whom the Israeli prime minister belongs.
As for the rest, including quite a few Jews, here is Asher Schechter in
Haaretz columnist Asher
that "Israel is already not even trying to function like a democracy,"
and writes that Netanyahu's statement is "a display of everything
wrong with Israel under his leadership. Israel circa 2016 is fearful,
hateful, and paranoid, self-involved to a degree even Donald Trump
would find distasteful, and soon it might have big walls surrounding it
from every which way, quarantining it, and a political system where
only Jews need apply."
Provided - of course - they have documentary
proof of 4 Jewish grandparents, I suppose, showing their racial purity.
Apart from that: Believing or pretending a fence will keep the enemy
out, is simply plain crazy.
6. The Whole POINT of the Internet of Things Is So Big
Brother Can Spy On You
The sixth and last item is by Washington's Blog on his site:
This starts as follows:
The government is already spying on us
through spying on us through our computers,
phones, cars, buses, streetlights, at airports and on the street, via
mobile scanners and drones, through our credit cards and smart meters
and in many other ways.
Spying in the U.S. is worse
than under Nazi Germany, the Stasi, J. Edgar Hoover … or Orwell’s 1984.
Yesterday, U.S. Intelligence Boss James
that the government will spy on Americans through the internet of
In the future, intelligence services
might use the [IoT] for identification, surveillance, monitoring,
location tracking, and targeting for recruitment, or to gain access to
networks or user credentials.
Yes. And while proven liar Clapper is
building up his neo-fascistic spying network (for that is what it is,
and I am sorry if you think otherwise), there is also this:
Yves Smith has the definitive
comment on Clapper’s statement:
Oh, come on. The whole point of the
IoT is spying. The officialdom is just trying to persuade you that it
really is a big consumer benefit to be able to tell your oven to start
heating up before you get home.
Personally, I’m a tech geek, and love
the latest gadgets and toys. But I don’t want my dishwasher or
refrigerator sending messages to me … let alone the intelligence
agencies. Despite all of the hype about IoT, I don’t know anyone
I am not a tech geek, and I dislike
gadgets and toys. But that is not relevant:
What is relevant is that
the "internet of things" is what gets these state
spies into your house, into your bedroom, into your phone and into your
computer totally regardless of what you did and completely without a legal court-order (that you may publicly question in a decent court: that belongs all to the pre-2001 past).
In any case, I will not allow it, and if necessary
disconnect from the internet, indeed just as I do not have a
smartphone and refuse to have one, as I do not
have a webcam and can't be forced to use one, as I do not have a
Facebook page and do not want one, and as I do everything I can to
avoid the spies from Google. I just don't want any of these sick spying shits in my privacy. 
And just for two examples, there is also this:
The Guardian notes:
Just a few weeks ago, a security
researcher found that Google’s Nest thermostats
were leaking users’ zipcodes over the internet. There’s even an entire search engine for the
internet of things called Shodan that allows users to easily search for
unsecured webcams that are broadcasting from inside people’s houses
without their knowledge.
While people voluntarily use all these
devices, the chances are close to zero that they fully understand that
a lot of their data is being sent back to various companies to be
stored on servers that can either be accessed by governments or hackers.
Of course the vast majority
that carries smartphones and uses computer lack any adequate
ideas on either spying or computing. But that is the main problem,
and in any case I do have adequate ideas about spying and
computing and I say
that unless you love neo-fascism and control and being a willing slave
to the sick spies from the government and from Google and Facebook, you
allow them in: They are immoral, they are indecent, and they will steal
And here is the fundamental reason why, in
the words of Senator Frank Church, from August 1975 (!):
In the need to develop a capacity to
know what potential enemies are doing, the United States government has
perfected a technological capability that enables us to monitor the
messages that go through the air. Now, that is necessary and important
to the United States as we look abroad at enemies or potential enemies.
We must know, at the same time, that capability at any time could be
turned around on the American people, and no American would have any
privacy left such is the capability to monitor everything—telephone
conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to
If this government ever became a tyrant, if a dictator ever took charge
in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence
community has given the government could enable it to impose total
tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most
careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no
matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government
to know. Such is the capability of this technology.
I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the
capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must
see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this
technology operate within the law and under proper supervision so that
we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is
As far as I am concerned, that abyss was
passed - illegally, immorally, but passed - in
2001. There is no place to hide, and the American government is
- illegally, immorally and indecently - getting
everything they can from everyone, without any
reason except their desire to control everyone to do just as they
 Personally, I have gotten a whole lot more skeptical
about the internet itself, which has been made by American
defense (DARPA) - that already in the 1960ies (!!) claimed it would
control the future of America in the future by controlling what
people did by way of the computers that were then mostly foreseen but not
My reasoning is quite simple: I am using a computer daily since 1987.
This did help a whole lot, right from the start, with writing
things, calculating things and administrating and surveying things.
But: These great advances started 9 years before I acquired
internet (which also was quite slow the first 13 years), and all that internet
added to me were e-mail (that turns out these days to make it more
complicated to contact those who claim they "serve" you, and also makes
everything you write accessible to government and corporate spies and
spying systems) and videos (from 2009 onwards).
That is all the internet gave me that I did not
have on my computer from 1987 onwards. And while I did not seriously
consider spying-by-computers in 1996 (in which I was seriously
mistaken), why did Sir Tim Berners-Lee also not seriously
consider the tremendous potentials for abuse that inhered in
I am just asking. And for me the internet has turned into - by far
- the biggest threat against human freedom and against
effective democracy and equality that has ever been designed.
And everything could also have been quite different if
Sir Berners-Lee and a few others had said, around 1990: Wait - until
this is encrypted, this will open everyone's privacy to the secret
services and to anyone with the money and power to do searches.
But they did not. Why not? Where they really not aware of the tremendous
potential for abuse and spying? As DARPA-members?
 For nobody knows how many
been served by legal orders that accuse them of having done something
that upset the spying possibilities of the NSA, while simultaneously forbidding
them from telling anyone anything about it, except one
lawyer, on which the same legal injunction gets served?
All I know is that such things have
been done because a few courageous individuals said they were served
such orders, which these days are "legal" in the USA.
And please note this may apply to several tens, several thousands,
several hundredthousands or even more American individuals who may have
received these - in my eyes completely illegal. extremely
authoritarian and very dangerous - orders that set them up
for questioning by "law courts" while being denied any right to
Incidentally, while I think I can do so (with considerable work and trouble), I also think it will only make
a difference to me. Besides, if I do so (I may, for I have an extremely
low estimate of whoever spies on me) it may be possible only because of
my age (I am 65, and soon 66), for I will not be amazed if the Dutch
fascists who implement these horrors in Holland - led by a narko-nazi from New "Labour" - will
soon make internet - completely unencrypted, with Windows or Apple also, so that none of the very many spies misses a single bit - a legal duty for everyone to have, simply to make sure everyone gets covered by the secret services.
We are not yet as far as that, but we may very soon be there, for no
one can be trusted by the governments' secret spies who is not totally
known, and the way to totally know anyone is by way of the unencrypted
So I really will not be amazed if everyone in Europe has to have internet, totally unencrypted
also, and else will be called a terrorist and treated as one if he or
she objects: The secret services will rule you and know everything
about you, and there will be no way you can legally object.
But yes, I agree we are not - yet (!) - as far as that.