1. FBI Kept Demanding
Email Records Despite DOJ
Saying It Needed a Warrant
2. Obama Wanted to Cut Social Security. Then
3. How Big Pharma Preps You to Buy Drugs You
4. Money Merry-Go-Round: Emails Show How Wall
Execs and Alums Crafted Trade
5. Jeremy Corbyn: I Would Kill TTIP
This is a Nederlog of Friday, June 3,
is a crisis log. There are 5 items with 5
dotted links: Item 1
is about the illegal practices of the FBI (that illegally demands
things it knows it has no right to, but does so nevertheless); item 2 is about cutting social security (that only Bernie Sanders - of the US's main politicians - is honestly against, it seems to me); item 3 is about what the pharmaceutical corporations and modern medicine are really about: Selling as much as possible of medicines that are expensive - that is: as profitable - as possible; item 4 is about how corrupt Wall Street executives cooperated to get precisely the TTP they wanted (all in secret); and item 5 is about Jeremy Corbyn, who is one of the few real leftists, who would kill the TTIP if he were prime minister.
FBI Kept Demanding Email Records Despite DOJ Saying It Needed a Warrant
The first item is
by Jenna McLaughlin on The Intercept:
This started as follows:
What this illegally operating FBI-freak "needs" the information for is completely undocumented, but the FBI wants it all, also if it is illegal,
The secret government requests for
customer information Yahoo made
public Wednesday reveal that the FBI is still demanding
email records from companies without a warrant, despite being told by
Justice Department lawyers in 2008 that it doesn’t have the lawful
authority to do so.
That comes as a particular surprise
given that FBI Director James Comey has said that one of his top
legislative priorities this year is to get the right to acquire
precisely such records with those warrantless secret requests, called
national security letters, or NSLs. “We need it very much,” Comey told
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., during a congressional
hearing in February.
which it knows since 2008.
But the FBI is not bound by any laws it does not appove of:
In 2008, the Justice Department’s Office
of Legal Counsel concluded that the FBI was only entitled to get the
name, address, length of service, and toll billing records from
companies without a warrant. Opinions issued by the OLC are generally
treated as binding and final within the executive branch.
The FBI has said it disagrees with that
conclusion, and interprets the opinion differently, according to
a 2014 inspector general report. It sees the question as more of an
“impasse” than an actual legal barrier.
Speaking for myself, I also see no reason whatsoever that the FBI gets the name, address, length of service and toll billing records of anyone without
specific evidence that these persons have committed a crime: They are not criminals, and their private communications should be left alone - as prescribed by the Fourth Amendment.
But the FBI wants everything, and it also proceeds to want everything if this illegal, and it proceeds to try to scam small companies with false and phony legal threats:
The FBI has been doing this illegal fraud now for eight years, but few seem to care that the USA's federal police has been doing these illegal scams for eight years now.
Chris Soghoian, chief technologist at
the American Civil Liberties Union, said FBI agents might be hoping at
least some recipients don’t know they lack the authority they claim to
“Essentially, the FBI believes they can
ask for the sun, the moon and the stars in an NSL, while knowing that
tech companies don’t have to turn over anything more than name, address
and length of service,” he wrote in an email.
“The FBI asks for so much, because it is
banking that some companies won’t know the law and will disclose more
than they have to. … The FBI is preying on small companies who don’t
have the resources to hire national security law experts,” he argued.
There is more in the article, that is recommended.
2. Obama Wanted to Cut Social
Security. Then Bernie Sanders Happened.
The second item is by Zaid Jilani on The
This starts as follows:
President Barack Obama endorsed
an expansion of Social Security for the first time on Wednesday.
“We can’t afford to weaken Social
Security,” he said during a speech on economic policy in Elkhart,
Indiana. “We should be strengthening Social Security. And not only do
we need to strengthen its long-term health, it’s time we finally made
Social Security more generous, and increased its benefits so that
today’s retirees and future generations get the dignified retirement
that they’ve earned.”
The increased benefits, he said, could
be paid for “by asking the wealthiest Americans to contribute a little
bit more. They can afford it. I can afford it.”
This was a far cry from Obama’s position
on the program in late 2012, when his
administration argued for reducing Social Security benefits by
recalculating the way cost of living adjustments are made.
Yes, indeed. Since I don't want to advertise propaganda and fraud this is the only bit from this article I review: Barack Obama, after eight years of trying to kill or diminish social security,
now "supports" extending it, indeed essentially because Bernie Sanders
support for social security is real and popular, since 1971.
There is more in the article. (I do not believe Obama. Period.)
3. How Big Pharma Preps You to Buy
Drugs You Probably Don't Need
third item is by Martha
Rosenberg on AlterNet and originally on The Influence:
This starts as follows - and incidentally (1) this is
USA and not about Europe for in Europe advertising for most medicines
is forbidden or restrained, and (2) this is strongly related to item 4 of June 1 (in which a
US psychiatrist describes the thoroughly corrupt and fraudulent "medical research" that now is the basis of "psychiatry" in the USA):
Did you ever wonder why new medications
so often debut right after awareness of the condition they treat
increases? It is no coincidence. The tactic is called unbranded
advertising and “disease awareness,” and drug companies spend
more on it than they do for regular advertising.
Unbranded disease advertising usually
suggests that many more people suffer from a condition than anyone
thought—it may even be a “silent epidemic.” It lists symptoms, offers
“quizzes” and tries to scare people into “seeing your doctor.” The
diseases may not be “made up,” but usually exist in much
smaller numbers than is suggested. What disease awareness advertising
does not do is tell you the drug that is being marketed for
the condition or the company behind the “education.” (Which is why it
is called “unbranded.”)
Incidentally, this also happens in
the form of "regular journalistic articles" that purport to give
"regular reports" by "regular journalists" - who act like careerist
liars but (of course) don't say so.
Also, this kind of indirect advertising probably does work in Europe as well. Here are some of the many advantages that fake "reporting" has over explicit advertising:
Pharma companies love disease awareness advertising because, unlike
direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising, risks and warnings of possible
drug treatments do not have to be listed. In DTC ads, the risks and
warnings are often as long as the sales pitch itself, and
sometimes perversely “unsell” the drug even as the viewer is looking at
sunsets and puppies.
And this is how The Guardian described it:
Note that this is a five-step process of deception, fraud, propaganda and carefully prepared consciously plugged falsehoods, exaggerations and lies:
“Typically, a corporate-sponsored
‘disease awareness’ campaign focuses on a mild psychiatric condition
with a large pool of potential sufferers. Companies fund studies that
prove the drug’s efficacy in treating the affliction, a necessary step
in obtaining FDA approval for a new use, or ‘indication.’ Prominent
doctors are enlisted to publicly affirm the malady’s ubiquity, then
public-relations firms launch campaigns to promote the new disease,
using dramatic statistics from corporate-sponsored studies.”
“Finally, patient groups are
recruited to serve as the ‘public face’ for the condition, supplying
quotes and compelling stories for the media; many of the groups are
heavily subsidized by drugmakers, and some operate directly out of the
offices of drug companies’ PR firms.”
(1) there are often falsified reports on efficacy of some new patented
medicine (or "medicine");
(2) "prominent doctors" aka "Key Opinion Leaders" in "medicine" are enlisted
for good pay to support the mostly false or exaggerated claims;
(3) "public relations" liars are rented to spread campaigns based on the
falsified statistics that were corporate-sponsored;
(4) "patients groups" now enter the propaganda with more propaganda for the
false or exaggerated claims, without telling anyone that
(5) in fact many of these groups are (at least) heavily subsidized by the
drug companies whose products they support.
The usual end is a great profit for the pharmaceutical corporations, and considerable profits for the KOLs who in fact advertised the "medicine", and profits for the medical doctors who prescribe it: Everybody profits (other than the patients), and that is the - new - end of medicine-as-is.
Also, one of the beauties of the schema is that everybody
involved (other than the patients) is thoroughly corrupt and
fraudulent, yet all pretend to be Honest Medical Scientists (Look!
Look!! They all wear their Infallible Medical Sign around their necks:
The Stethoscope! ).
There is more on June 1, 2016. And here is a link to an article I wrote five years ago, on how intelligent people (!) can recognize these frauds. There is
more in the article before that last one.
Money Merry-Go-Round: Emails
Show How Wall Street Execs and Alums Crafted Trade Bill
item is by Kathy Kiely on Common Dreams:
This starts as follows:
Foreign corporations could sue to
undermine US protections for consumers’ health, safety and financial
security under a provision added to the proposed Trans-Pacific
Partnership trade deal (TPP) after executives of big banks pressed the
nation’s chief trade negotiator, himself a former big-bank executive,
to include it.
A series of emails,
obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and released last week by
an organization that opposes the trade deal now pending before
Congress, confirm the push by financial service companies for the
“Investor-State Dispute Settlement” provision. ISDS, as it is referred
to by the cognoscenti writing the emails, would, in the words of one
critic, Public Citizen’s Lori Wallach, “elevate individual investors to
the status of a nation-state” in trade disputes.
Yes, indeed. This - the fact that "individual investors" (and only they) achieve "the status of a nation-state”, which they (and only they) can attack for delivering less profits than the individual investors desire - is what made me identify the TTP (and the TTIP, the TISA and also the NAFTA) as fundamental neofascist schemes that hand the power in states to the multi-national corporations.
Then again, my handicap is that I know a lot about politics and about fascism,
while most others who write about it know a lot less.
The present schema only supports my thesis:
And the major Wall Street firms are criminal organizations that are not prosecuted on the fake ground that "they are too big to fail", but whose leading men all are or were or will be part of the government for a while (in order to deregulate even more), after which they return to their extremely well-paying banking jobs...
The emails also are bound to reinforce
the suspicion that US trade policy is being set by what might be called
an “executariat” of corporate and government leaders who periodically
swap positions for their mutual benefit. “They’re written as if they
are being sent between colleagues,” says Dennis Kelleher of the
watchdog group Better Markets.
“That’s because the writers all have been, currently are or will be
colleagues at major Wall Street firms.”
Ah well. This is a recommended article.
5. Jeremy Corbyn: I Would Kill TTIP
and last item today is by Andrea Germanos on Common Dreams:
This starts as follows:
Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn
took aim at the TransAtlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) on Thursday, saying he
would kill the controversial U.S. and EU trade deal should he become
His comments came during a speech in
London campaigning to remain in the EU just three weeks ahead of the Brexit
referendum, which Corbyn has framed as an "era-defining moment" for
And Jeremy Corbyn - one of the (rather few) real leftists in the Labour Party - is quite right. Here is some more on his opinions:
Yes. And what will you call a society in which
"Many thousands of people have written to me, with their concerns about
the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (or TTIP) the deal
being negotiated, largely in secret, between the U.S. and the EU," he
said in his speech in London.
"Many people are concerned rightly that
it could open up public services to further privatization—and make
privatization effectively irreversible," he added. "Others are
concerned about any potential watering down of consumer rights, food
safety standards, rights at work or environmental protections, and the
facility for corporations to sue national governments if regulations
impinged on their profits," he said, referring to ISDS tribunals.
He also referenced French President
François Hollande's signaling
his opposition to the deal last month, adding, "So today we give this
pledge, as it stands, we too would reject TTIP—and veto it in
No, this can impossibly be fascism? Trust Obama! He means well! Trust the multi-national corporations! They work for your best interests!!
- public services are privatized (more profitable)
- consumer rights are abandoned (more profitable)
- food safety standards are abandoned (more profitable)
- workers rights are abandoned (more profitable)
- environmental protections are abandoned (more profitable)
- (only) corporations can sue national goverments (more profitable)?!
I am sorry, but I don't trust them. Not one bit.
 I am sorry, but I am ill for 37 years without getting any help whatsoever: I am a psychologist and a philosopher who has given up on "modern medicine", simply because I have been systematically lied to or not helped by 90% of the medics I turned to for help, and because I know the reasons why medicine got thoroughly corrupted: By profits.
And I have seen so many stethoscopes that any "doctor" I see with a stethoscope is a sign for me that I very probably am seeing yet another medical fraud:
Even psychiatrists wear stethoscopes and blue rubber gloves to "prove"
to the medically innocent that they are Medical Specialists.
These days, "medicine" doesn't serve patients anymore: it serves profits for medical persons and pharmaceutical corporations.