Things Fall Apart; the Centre Cannot Hold

The Second Coming

W. B. Yeats, 1865 - 1939

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus MundiTroubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Looking at the political trainwreck of the last few weeks, one can't help but think the paradigm shift under way is coming close to a climax. Of course, one has thought that before and one has been wrong, so we'll see, won't we?

It's not just the gold-plated turd that is Trump, though he is certainly the Shiny Object keeping attention away from More Important Things. His constant ravings have fully captivated the media, and they hold more sway than they should over the public attention.

Yet many are beginning -- finally -- to see that Trump isn't an outlier of his class; he is a representative of these insensitive pricks who've ruled us for doG knows how long. He is them, they are him. The entrance of one prickish billionaire after another into the political fray demonstrates clearly that these people, mostly privileged white men, are appallingly dense, vicious, stupid and cruel. Well, yes. That it wasn't obvious before is the peculiar thing.

The whole "populist" act that Trump has been putting on is failing -- the Foxconn Debacle being a case in point -- but he keeps trying, so I'll grant him that. He's also methodically putting together a War Upon War finale to his reign that might just pull the popular will right along with him into the Abyss.

Yeats wrote his dirge post-Easter Rising, post-WWI. He could see -- how could he not? -- that what Used to Be was no more, and wasn't coming back, either.

We're not at that point yet, but we're getting closer.

So I'll go make some coffee in my ancient MidCentury Universal percolator. Sit and contemplate with Siddarth Gautam Buddha, nag champa incense wafting through our dusty, drafty house in the middle of nowhere. Wondering what today's new cycle will bring.

On Falling

Every time I visit the doctor -- lately several times a month -- I'm asked whether I've fallen in the last 90 days, and I've always said "No". Next time I will have to say "Yes," because the day before yesterday, I had a bad fall, and this morning, I can barely walk (though I think that's a consequence of an RA flare coming on as well as any lingering effects of the fall itself.)

It happened this way: Ms. Ché and I were talking the afternoon away in the house when I thunderstorm came up the way they've been doing almost every afternoon for weeks now. No big deal. Ms Ché got up to let a cat in and casually remarked, "Oh look, it's hailing!."

I said "Oh shit!" and got up. "The tomatoes!" We needed to cover them fast or they could be destroyed. One year, the hail pretty much destroyed everyone's tomatoes in the area. Our friend across the highway had a wonderful crop on the way; the hail not only destroyed her plants, it ruined all but a few of the tomatoes on the plants.

That year our plants were damaged but survived. The crop was minuscule, but at least there were a few.

This year's plants are still very young and quite fragile. They'e Cherokee Purple grown from seed, and we have way more plants than I thought would come through the various disasters of trying to grow tomatoes from seed at this altitude. Close to 100 plants at the moment are in various stages  of growth, and some have been transplanted to containers scattered around the place and are growing well.

Hail, though, could mean the end of many of them. So we raced to get as many as we could under cover. As we did, the hail came down stronger and stronger, and as I headed back to the house get more covering, I tripped on a wire -- actually a section of chicken wire laid on the ground to keep the cats from using a patch of lawn as a toilet.

BAM! I fell hard on the gravel -- the rough gravel we use for some pathways -- on my knees, and the pain was amazing. I thought I had broken both knees. Ms Ché saw me down and hollering in pain, while the hail storm intensified. Oh doG, what to do now?

I asked her if she could help me get up, but that didn't work, so I sat there in pain while the hail pelted the both of us and we became soaked to the skin. I couldn't get up on my own, and I was pretty much convinced that at least one knee was shot, if not broken. After sitting there for a while, I asked Ms. Ché to bring over a couple of milk crates that we use to transport things around the place. She did, and with some effort, I was able to hoist my bottom onto the crates, and once there, I was able to slowly and gingerly get myself into an upright position -- with the help of a walker that Ms Ché brought from the studio.

Now what? Could I walk? I didn't know. But I tried one foot in front of the other and sure  enough I was able to shuffle through the hail to the back door and make it up the steps and into the house. Whoo-hoo!

The pain in my knees was pretty bad, though, and slowly, I peeled out of my soaked duds. Both legs were pretty banged up from knee to ankle, the left one much more so than the right one. The left knee was quite bloody, and it looked like I'd done more than scrape the skin. I asked Ms Ché if she had any Bactine, and by golly she did. We sprayed it on the wounds.

And I sat for twenty minutes or so in my damp underwear, catching my breath and trying not to get overwrought.

Not a pretty picture.

Ms Ché was soaked, too, of course, but she tried to take it all in stride. I said, "Get into some dry things, I'll be all right." She went off to find something dry to put on while I continued to sit and contemplate my wounds. Apart from the scrapes and what looked like a broad puncture from a piece of gravel, it didn't look too bad, and because I could still bend my knees -- carefully -- I figured nothing was broken. I got up and...walked... ha ha... to the bedroom to find some dry clothes, and Ms Ché and I chatted about what had happened as she re-dressed in dry things. Well, you know, it was just one of those things.

She was worried that I shouldn't be walking, but I said I better figure out how lame I was, and see if we could deal with the wounds as best we could. Some Neosporin and bandages should be enough.

So over the next hour or so, we sorted out our various conditions. Ms Ché wasn't injured in the incident, but she's dealing with leg and foot issues of her own thanks to diabetes and an outbreak of psoriasis that makes her have difficulty with her own mobility. The stress of this incident didn't help at all, but she's developed some remarkable strategies to get and keep going no matter what.

I'm not nearly as good at it, but nevertheless, I didn't want to make too much of falling, but I wanted to make the best of it, no matter.

After an hour or so, I was pretty well bandaged up and recovered enough to go out and check the tomatoes. The hail had stopped and it was barely raining.

We only got the plants in the side yard covered. Those on the north side of the house were on their own.

I noted there was a bit of damage here and there, but nothing too serious. It looked like most of the plants would pull through just fine. Whew!

And I could walk. Pain was still pretty bad, but I could walk and get myself up and down steps, so that was good.

By bedtime I was afraid I wouldn't be able to sleep because of the pain. I'd taken a couple of Aleve, though, and the pain was fading. I slept fine. Got up the next morning and was nearly pain free. Wow.

Took it easy yesterday just the same.

But last night when I headed to bed, I felt more pain in my knees, and this morning, I woke up in severe pain -- both knees and ankles. I could barely walk at all. Oh.

I attribute most of it to a developing RA flare. It's been more than two weeks since the Rituxan infusion, and I've had no joint pain or flare. Doctor says, however, I most likely will continue to have flares for at least another month. I took a couple of Aleve which has moderated some of the pain, so I suspect that not all of what I'm feeling is RA related.

We'll see. Today we were planning an expedition to Santa Fe to explore the "Counterculture" exhibit at the history museum. I think we'll have to pass.

So it goes...

UPDATE: By yesterday afternoon, all of the pain was gone, and I could walk without difficulty, though both legs were still stiff and sore from the fall.

I emailed my rheumatologist about it asking whether the absence of pain after what seemed like the start of an RA flare was a sign that the Rituxan was starting to work. It's been a month since the first infusion and she's said that it generally takes six weeks to two months for Rituxan to have measurable effects on RA.

No word back yet.

UPDATE 2:

Got word from my rheumatatologist that it's possible for Rituxan to work within a month though it is rare. The situation as I reported it suggests that in fact the infusions may be working. I need to keep monitoring symptoms and response. And not fall down!

Banned at NC? [Updated]

Um. Could be.

Seems that Yves at Naked Capitalism is quite cross with me, seeming to claim I "made stuff up" in violation of site rules so she's put all my comments into moderation. I have been quite active over there since the election, and before that, in part to counter some of the inappropriate Trump fluffing I was seeing there day in and day out. And still today.

Of course, let's not forget Lambert banned me at Corrente because I wouldn't fall for his bullshit about nonviolence and called him out on it. This was during Occupy.

Let's see, who else? Digby banned me when I advocated on behalf of Karen Bernal, the chair of the CA Democratic Party's Progressive Caucus. The Caucus had been suspended for daring to suggest that Obama should be primaried in 2012 for his failure to follow through on economic and other promises he made during his 2008 election campaign. This was after I'd tangled with her several times over Occupy and her apparent ignorance of it. Shortly afterwards she got rid of her comment section altogether as she was not finding much sycophancy there anymore. From anyone. Funny that.

Barbara O'Brien (Mahablog) banned me for something I don't remember, probably yet another challenge of her ignorance or arrogance (they go together, don't they?)  Oh, I remember! It was over the Vietnam War protests and student rebellions of the '60s. I'm not sure what the issue with her was, something about SDS perhaps, but my view was less antagonistic about anti-war organizations than hers. She claimed to have been involved with SDS, and she loathed them after Mark Rudd took over.

At least that's how I recall it. I may have defended Rudd to her chagrin. Anyway, years later -- again during Occupy  -- I met and tangled with Rudd at UNM; he had become a nonviolence absolutist, and was saying that even wearing all black or wearing bandanas was "violence" and I told him it was horseshit. The violence was being perpetrated against Occupy by police, and they would do so regardless of bandanas and black clothing.

I still get invitations from Barbara to join her at Linkedin. I haven't responded.

I wasn't banned from Greenwald's Salon effort, but I withdrew when it became clear I wasn't welcome there for challenging his arrogance and ignorance and for rejecting his vicious attacks on longtime posters who he suddenly took a dislike to. His behavior was becoming bizarre and erratic (I suspected drugs) and it was a very hostile environment. When I better understood his phoniness and lying, it wasn't a place I wanted to hang out at anyway. I check the Intercept now and then, as I would occasionally look at his Guardian posts. At the Guardian it was clear that he'd become lazy and indifferent and his comment section was filled with multiple IDs for only about 40 individuals. Then Snowden came along.

The issue with Yves is not so much her false accusation that I made something up about crowds in the streets protesting Trump as it is my challenges to her and Lambert and large numbers of the commentariat fluffing Trump every day.

The proximate issue: There was a demonstration in Los Angeles yesterday which was referenced on my Win10 news feed, the headline stating 100,000 marching on Wilshire Blvd. I scanned it quickly and posted a comment on the Links thread at NC which confirmed what another commenter had said about the demonstrations. Some time later, another poster suggested that the "100,000" in the streets of LA that I'd referenced might be fake, that there was a photo of demonstrators in Venezuela going around the internet that was being passed off as yesterday's demonstration in LA. I thanked him and said I'd find the source, which I was able to do rather quickly. It was not fake and the images and videos were not from Venezuela. They were from yesterday's demonstration in Los Angeles. However, the 100,000 number only appeared in a tweet. The headline stated 10,000. Other estimates ranged to a low of 8,000 up to 100,000. To my eye, the crowd looked to be much closer to 100,000 than 8,000 or 10,000 (I've had some experience estimating crowd sizes from photos and videos after all, and I usually get within 15% to 20%.) [I went back and did a more careful estimate of the crowd size shown in the  overhead photos and videos posted here. It's my original source. I note that in all the pictures and the videos, one cannot see either the beginning or the end of the march on Wilshire Blvd. From what can be seen, I estimate 12 - 14,000 but there are clearly more than that as the march continues well beyond the view of the camera. For there to be 100,000, the crowd would have to continue down Wilshire Blvd five or ten times farther than is shown in the pictures. I'm dubious that it does, but it's impossible to tell from the pictures and videos. I could only guess, and I would say the total size of the demonstration is probably in the 25-30,000 range.]

At any rate, Yves has taken the position that the protests are small and trivial, and that there are not enough people involved to have an effect on Trump's assumption of the presidency. She is rigid in her stance, and she repeats it as often as possible. OK. She also goes on and on about how "if" Trump does this or that he'll be popular and reelected, and she and Lambert defend Trump to the hilt. No matter what he does or says, their hatred of Clinton and the Democrats gets the better of their judgment.

Lambert has even suggested that the protests are somehow arranged by Clintonites to embarrass Trump. This is ridiculous. The entire political class, including Clinton and her flacks, have been telling the protesters to desist and accept the outcome. The protesters are disobeying their orders from Clinton HQ, and at least to my eye, they have no interest in seeing Clinton back in the White House. They don't want Trump installed either, but mostly they want the system changed..

Yves and Lambert's reaction to the protests and challenges to their Trump fluffing -- I'm not the only one doing it, but I'm more persistent -- indicate to me that there is a spreading panic among Trump partisans over the protests and over the general resistance to the Trump regime, and especially to the widening gap between Clinton's and Trump's popular vote. I saw one item today -- unconfirmed -- that she now has 3.5 million more votes than Trump. That seems to me to be way more than the count should be given that it was barely more than 500,000 more for Clinton than Trump yesterday. The NYT suggested that her lead would top out around 2,000,000 when all the votes are counted. I estimate something closer to 3-4 million if all the votes are counted. This would be stunning, unprecedented. To deliver the presidency to a candidate who so convincingly lost the popular vote might be "constitutional" but it would be a travesty. Ultimately, it would be unstable and unsustainable, even "if" Trump provided promised bennies to his loyalists.

Even Lambert is now hinting Trump will face a "legitimacy crisis." Indeed.

Anyway, Yves and Lambert clearly dislike my harping on these issues over there, and I wouldn't be surprised if they tell me to get lost, "loser."

Not. A. Problem!

Things are moving fast throughout the political class and the blogosphere; people are starting to bunker down for good reason. My Predict-O-Meter has been on the fritz for years, but I predict that Mr. Trump will face many severe challenges between now and inauguration day, that he will (barely) get through them and will be inaugurated under guard against a backdrop of massive protest, that his cultists and the protesters will essentially battle on the streets and parks of DC, that troops will be deployed to prevent the mayhem from affecting the inaugural festivities, that there will be bloodshed, and that within a few months of his inauguration, Trump will be gone from the Presidency -- either voluntarily or forced out. Mr. Pence will briefly take his place, and may or may not have an opportunity to appoint a vice president. If he does, then I suspect Pence will resign and whoever he appoints will become our next unelected president.

What fun. Not.

[Update: Well I haven't been banned -- yet -- only severely chastised by Yves for my "lack of critical thinking." Oh dear me all to heck. The irony, it burns. I had been driving a lot of clicks her way. Well, I will vow to stay away for a week or so, and see whether the regulars and the proprietors develop any critical thinking skills themselves. Seems to me most of them have totally captured by the Trump cult, and it's hard to shake. I think Scott Adams may have been right about Trump's hypnotic persuasive skills.  Sad.]

Let Us Reason Together -- Things Fall Apart (4)

The heat of the Omidyar/Greenwald "partnership for a new global media" hasn't produced any light at all to date, and given Twit Trends, it may never. There is something going on that we, the Rabble, are not privy to. What it is may never be revealed, but the signs aren't looking very promising right now.

"Pierre" has never had any kind of public profile or persona to speak of. He's always been in the shadows -- at least until recently. Now that he's declared his intentions, however, he's come under a lot of scrutiny, from people already in the media (such as Mark Ames and Yasha Levine who've been plugging away on the oligarchy beat for many a long year) and many others.

Greenwald has a long and storied history of turning on, attacking and smearing individuals who are natural allies in what he says he wants, in the quest for civil rights and liberties, and in the realms of media, law, and justice.

Together, the scrutiny of "Pierre's" dealings with the world and his companies' actions (particularly eBay and PayPal -- but there is more, much more) and Greenwald's... social difficulties... seem to be combining into a perfect storm that may lead to the undoing of the "new global media" venture before it even goes live for the first time.

The difficulty of the project was inherent, of course. The idea of forming a media partnership with a somewhat shadowy billionaire to concentrate on investigative journalism exposing government secrets and wrongdoing sounds pretty straightforward and necessary... until...

When you realize that "government" is operating today essentially as a service to and adjunct of corporate interests and power, the notion of exposing its secrets and wrongdoing may not be what it initially appears to be, especially when the exposition is being underwritten by one of the oligarchs (for that is what "Pierre" truly is) who is intimately involved in the nexus of government-corporate power through his companies and apparently through his charities as well.

If you don't ask what the intent is and just blindly and mindlessly accept that any exposure of government secrets and wrongdoing is a priori a Good Thing, then you probably don't understand the nature of government operations today and the many connections between corporations and government that have almost completely blurred the lines between the two.

To set an objective of exposing "government" secrets and wrongdoing while not mentioning the level of corporate control of the governments under which we live, suggests that the real intent of this "new global media" venture is to enhance corporate power and authority and diminish (perhaps extinguish) "government" authority over certain corporations.

Ultimately, one has to ask, "Is it all that wise to sacrifice what little government power and authority remains and submit entirely to corporate authority and control?"

I always ask, when people are pontificating about 'civil liberties' -- "Liberty for whom? To do what?" They never have an answer. But in Greenwald's case, it has long been clear that he is an advocate of "liberating" corporate interest from government control or authority, and he has little or no interest in personal liberties beyond his own. His defense of the abomination of the Citizens United decision was a clear enough indication of where his sympathies lay. And it's not with the People at all.

This may be why, in some measure, he tends to alienate so many people who would otherwise be his natural allies.

On the other hand, "Pierre" and his various enterprises (including a small media venture in Hawaii) seem to be allied with the National Security State in many intricate and intimate ways. The prosecution of the PayPal 14 is one of the highest profile examples of that alliance.

And that's where things have started falling apart.

Alexa O'Brien, who is as dogged and intrepid a New Media journalist as there is, who calls them as she sees them, covered the trial of the PayPal 14 and was horrified at the case presented by PayPal -- owned by "Pierre" -- that asserted falsehoods and damages that were never done, insisted on prosecution for relatively minor online offenses, and required severe punishment for those involved. Wait, said Alexa, this is wrong. This is corporate wrongdoing on a significant scale and an abomination. "Pierre" is involved in this matter, and his companies are pursuing to the limit these individuals that did not damage him or his companies in any sensible way but who fought back against his blockade of WikiLeaks, a rival in the "new global media of wrongdoing" game...

And Greenwald is now linked with this outfit?

She called "Pierre" out on it, and she's called Greenwald out on it. How can you be against "government" secrets and wrongdoing while protecting the kind of corporate viciousness she's seen in full cry in the case of the PayPal blockade of WikiLeaks and the trial of the PayPal 14?

She gave an interview in Germany (Episode 105: Jung und Naiv) in which she reiterated her reservations (linked in a previous post) about "Pierre" and his new media venture and refusing to endorse it or Greenwald's participation in it.

Shortly, Greenwald and O'Brien met on Twitter and had at one another in a very public spat in which, apparently, Greenwald was so rattled, he outright lied about whether Alexa had ever raised the PayPal 14 issue with him when he spoke to her about joining the New Media Conglomerate.

Understandably, Alexa is pissed.

Greenwald has a tendency to double down in these sorts of situations, so I wouldn't be surprised to see him smearing Alexa in numerous full-throated denunciations. It never seems to matter to him who he alienates or what sort of wreckage he leaves behind him as long as he gets what he wants. Which -- among other things -- is power, fame, and money.

Alexa is strong. Greenwald is ruthless.

And "Pierre" wants... what?* Well, that remains to be seen, doesn't it? But from the signs he wants to make government subject and subservient to his demands.

------------------------------------------------
Oh, and any bets on how soon Snowden is offered immunity and repatriated?
------------------------------------------------

* The intimacy with which "Pierre's" companies are allied with the Security/Surveillance State is a subject of a good deal of crowd-sourced research at the moment. Every day, something new comes to light, as should be expected given the depth of penetration the Oligarchy has among those who surveil us and secure them from us. There seem to be a number of overlaps -- shall we say -- between Omidyar's empire and that of the Booz Allen investment conglomerate (IIRC, Booz is wholly partially owned by Carlyle, but I could be misremembering [Indeed].)  In other words, my speculation the other day that perhaps Snowden and "Pierre" hooked up in Hawaii well before the Revelations of the Story of the Century, LLC™ may be at least partially correct. It's hard to believe there would be "no knowledge" between them given their proximity and their co-interests. Ahem. (Did they [Snowden/Pierre] meet in a Honolulu strip club? "It would be irresponsible not to speculate..." Heh.)

But time will tell. Unraveling this thing is going to take a great deal of investigative journalism, and we can bet that none of the principals in First Look will have the slightest interest in doing it.

Clever.

This particular document may be getting close to the "smoking gun..."

 http://www.minds.com/blog/view/264199355085361152/5-unnerving-documents-showing-ties-between-greenwald-omidyar-and-booz-allen-hamilton

Things Fall Apart (Question Mark)

The Snowden Saga has more twists and turns than practically any spy novel or movie would have by this point. Well, I'm assuming. I'm not really into the genre, preferring as I do history and science fiction/fantasy. Chacun à son goût, n'est pas? Si tu veux.

And it seems to be falling apart.

What has been revealed of the domestic and international surveillance programs run out of the NSA shop by its corporate partners is interesting to be sure, and the documentation so far supplied by the Guardian may prove useful in providing standing for those who have been trying to launch legal challenges against the Surveillance State on 4th and other Amendment grounds, but it's hard to say at this point whether any court in the land is prepared to allow such suits given the "national security" arguments of the Government.

They've been reluctant to provide a path to litigants against the Surveillance State for the simple reason that the surveillance serves the interests of the courts as well. When we are told that  "all three branches of government have signed off" on the surveillance programs, what we should be hearing is "all three branches are convinced that the surveillance programs are in their interests and are protecting them."

From whom, you may ask. Yes, well. That's fairly obvious, isn't it?

It has nothing to do with protecting you. Never did. It all has to do with protecting them from you. And with profiting from your fears.

It's all really quite cynical.

Nothing Young Snowden has revealed has undone any of that. It's merely brought some of it into the light of day.

The Ars Technica story about Snowden's chat logs c. 2009 seems to have started the unraveling of The Narrative that had been so carefully constructed by the Guardian and (apparently) WikiLeaks about Snowden and his heroism/bravery or what have you; the "traitor" narrative is the other side of the same coin.

While Ars Technica tried to present it in the best light possible for Snowden, anyone who is exposed to the chat records that they published would likely say, "Wait, something ain't right here." People may disbelieve the logs -- they could be fabricated, after all -- but neither Snowden or anyone connected with him has denied them, so it's likely they are legit. If so, then it's no wonder that the situation seemed to change for Snowden almost immediately after the Ars Technica publication. The tone of the bluster changed, for one thing. Putin seemed to be smirking quite a bit over his catch. The White House pretended not to be particularly concerned about Snowden's attempts at defection, nor did they appear to be all that upset about his revelations.

They did not, however, appear to want him to receive asylum in any state. The Russian "offers" of asylum seemed to ring particularly hollow once Putin explained that Young Snowden might be granted asylum so long as he stopped his "work" harming Russia's American partners. It's an interesting locution given the pre-eminence of the Agencies' corporate partners.

The chat logs show someone who is all in with the Surveillance State. His advocates have had to turn themselves into pretzels in order to get past this narrative roadblock. For the most part, they've just ignored it -- publicly. In the background, though, it seems obvious that the Snowden in the chats has been a highly perturbing element in the story. Not only does it not fit The Narrative (Hero! Traitor!), but it is an indication that Snowden himself may have been trying to put one over on his handlers and the public.

Ergo. There he sits. Supposedly in the transit zone at the Moscow airport. Friendless. Alone. Trapped. With no place to run. But apparently plenty of places to hide. There have been no verifiable sightings of him in Moscow nor on the plane to Moscow from Hong Kong. Whether he is actually in Moscow -- or ever arrived in Moscow -- is subject to some dispute. It's not even certain that his WikiLeaks handler is there. It is fairly obvious that the recent "statements" from Snowden, such as his letter (said to have been written in Spanish) to Rafael Correa in Quito and his "I am unbowed" statement released by WikiLeaks were not written by him. Who did write them, I don't know nor does any skeptic, but they don't scan as being directly from the Whistle Blower himself.

This is not unlike the news articles revealing the surveillance programs bylined Glenn Greenwald (and somebody else) that don't read like Greenwald wrote them at all. Compare and contrast the news articles with his columns and the stylistic differences should be immediately clear. The news articles are not written in Glenn's style or voice; they are far too journalistically tight and succinct. They were clearly written by (or so heavily edited by they may as well have been written by) professionals at the craft of newspaper writing which Glenn is not.

Apparently Glenn tweeted the other day something to the effect that Snowden is now out of the story altogether; further revelations will come from Greenwald and the Guardian, not from him. Who? Snowden? Never heard of him.

That sounds an awful lot like they (Guardian/Greenwald) are washing their hands of Snowden now that they've got everything they want out of him. Of course, it's Twitter, and you can't make too much of it, but given the extraordinary silence at the Guardian about the Ars Technica chat logs, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they've decided to drop kick him into the ozone.

On the other hand, there is another whole layer to this at play. Greenwald appears to me to be a political actor in this drama, just as Judith Miller was in the run up to the Iraq debacle (she who is avidly supporting Greenwald these days, much as Howie Kurtz does... Howie who is also a political actor...)  Greenwald plays for a particular faction on behalf of, shall we say, seizing the rulership. I call it the Koch Faction. He's not a neutral observer -- any more than Judith Miller and/or Howie Kurtz are.

It seemed to me that Snowden was playing on the same team as Greenwald, but not in the same way, and with the Ars chats, it was unclear whether he was even playing for the same goal.

Could it be that Snowden is actually a "Statist?" OMG!

Meanwhile, supposedly Snowden has withdrawn his supposed request for asylum from Russia and has supposedly expanded his list of countries from which he is said to be trying to obtain asylum, all according to WikiLeaks which appears to be running the Snowden Operation these days. Little wonder, then, if the Guardian has severed its ties with him. WikiLeaks and the Guardian are supposedly not the best of friends...

I thought it was interesting that the Guardian editors told Charlie Rose they vetted Snowden by interviewing him in person in New York before he went to Hong Kong, and further having Ewen MacAskill interview and vouch for him there. Greenwald hardly appears in their account of what happened at all, even though Greenwald has been at the center of the story from its first publication and has remained there.

This is yet another indication that there is a whole other level of this story that is being hidden from the public, and how it all shakes out is anyone's guess.

Whatever the case, there is no sign that the National Surveillance/Security State is jeopardized in any way, nor that domestic surveillance will be curtailed.

But there is quite an active debate about it all, isn't there?