Sunday, February 12, 2017


Much to my chagrin, fewer and fewer things have the capacity to excite my gorge. I do heartily pray that others, in full cry, will chase down and lustily maul the various forms of social inequity that come cloaked in oak-paneled rooms, modulated voices and decanters so wondrously cut. Yes, I bless their names, but for my part, I play the 'old' card.
Downing Street believes a major overhaul of existing secrecy legislation is necessary because it has become outdated in a digital age when government employees can easily disclose vast amounts of sensitive information. 
Nevertheless when England becomes the stalking horse for what any jackass can see is in the wings (in the U.S. et al) , I still get throw-uppy. If there were traffic-warning signs, perhaps they might say, "Caution -- well-coiffed twerps ahead." My unrepentant gorge responds, "I do hope you will consider chemical castration." I am sick of those whose sink-hole politics profess virtue while doing little more than vexing and impugning those who aerate a stale and self-serving closet.

But back to my gorge: England seems to have donned the veil of proposing that whistle-blower penalties (think Edward Snowden) should be radically enhanced.

I dislike it intensely -- in the U.S., in Great Britain, in Israel, in Turkey, in Russia .... -- and in all the other places where cutting "terror" down to size cannot be accomplished without sowing a new and improved terrorism.

Secret shit is often very complex. I have read books that follow its filigreed paths. I haven't got the energy for that any more. What I do have energy for is this: In any instance where a so-called whistleblower has outed information previously held secret ... will those seeking to punish such whistleblowers please demonstrate in particular who has been harmed/killed/beat up/fucked over or otherwise inconvenienced? Let's hear it. It really isn't enough to say "we can't tell you because that would harm still others" or "national security is at risk." There have been years that have passed between accusation and result ... so who, precisely, got hurt, who got helped, and is there a reason why a formal discussion cannot discern what helped and what didn't. As far as I can figure out, the damage left in the wake of whistleblowing is not demonstrated.

If someone's job is put at risk, is that enough to increase the penalties for whistleblowing?

I cannot parse the power points of secrets ... how much is personal aggrandizement and how much of it really is for the public good (as defined by those too often aggrandized?)

Anyway ... I hope the barkers will raise hell in England: Their accents always make such discussions sound more civil ... even with the puke on the floor.

1 comment:

  1. I've always been a news addict, but find it increasingly distasteful. Those who did learn from history, use that knowledge for their own purposes. Big brother doesn't want any siblings at the table.