WEDNESDAY 23rd

UK-FRANCE DEAL
-Last night the government announced the deal agreed with France to reopen the border and allow freight to travel through

A story ...

In 1994, I was teaching U.S. history and American government at Oak Ridge HS in El Dorado Hills, California.

I had three bright students who were my TAs. The 20th anniversary of Richard Nixon's resignation was a few months away. I decided to have ... 1/

my students -- Sherilyn Peek, Aaron Leahy and Nicole Poimiroo -- take on an extra project. They contacted dozens of people who were in some way involved with the Watergate saga. Politicians, lawyers, political appointees, journalists and others. 2/

They spent weeks, before the internet existed, tracking down addresses. Then they sent a short letter that asked the recipients to respond to one question: What should America learn from Watergate?

Before long, responses started to show up in my mailbox at school. 3/

Archibald Cox replied, and I'm especially struck by this sentence: "...we should be reminded of the corrupt influence of great power, especially when the power is in the hands of someone who is willing to resort to any tactics, however wrong, to retain and increase his power."4/

Richard Kleindienst wrote his response by hand ... "Our Constitution worked! The federal judiciary worked. The Congress and a free press worked. That our Constitution works is the magic of America." 5/

In 2009, I studied the history of the FBI/CIA and also the Hitler regime (research for a book). I expected it to be a dull errand, not a horrific realization that the evil methods of operation of US agencies were often indistinguishable in their actions from the N regime. AND...

2) I found no evidence whatsoever that these abhorrent programs had stopped. Quite the opposite... I kept waiting for the books to get to the part where the programs ended, were properly disclosed/exposed, all went to prison, victims were compensated, and these agencies prevented

3) from ever conducting unethical operations against their own citizens and others ever again... But... no. That part of the books wasn't written. We can only conclude then, that the operations are still ongoing. Even programs that were supposedly forced to end have many signs

4) of simply changing the name of the program/operation and shifting things around to look like something else... nope, just a continuation of the same unlawful evil thing as before. Except, year after year, the tech capabilities rose, and the level of wickedness had to also rise

5) As society became progressive, there wasn't much left that society universally labels a "compromising position": activities rejected as unacceptable, unforgivable, unpardonable & if caught- jailed or fired. Blackmail doesn't work if all human activity is accepted and defended

THREAD: British people are so thick that they will watch the government make exactly the same mistake for a fourth time, and carry on cheering. Ok, yes, you're being lied to in the press. But the opposite of "opening up as quickly" is not "lockdown forever". Here's why: 1/

In fact, opening up as quickly as we can will lead to more lockdowns, and worse restrictions over the course of the next year. Or to put it another way an extra week of lockdown now saves us from an extra month of lockdown in the Summer or Autumn.

How does that work? Right 2/

now the number of infections is declining quite fast. But the number of cases is still quite high. If they are still quite high (or even medium) when we lift restrictions this will lead very quickly to a massive spike in cases, and then we will have to lock down again, 3/

probably for a long time.

Sounds familiar doesn't it. It's exactly what we did in November through to now. First we went into lockdown, then we released it too early (at the beginning of December). As a result, cases spiked. By the end of December there was an enormous wave 4/

of infection, which killed tens of thousands of people. In the first weeks of January the government put in the current lockdown restrictions. They didn't really have a choice: about 80% of the British public supported restrictions. But here's the thing: after six weeks of 5/

Why is Johnson's speech at the Munich conference hailed in some quarters, even by some journalists that should know better, as "a major policy speech" with "substance"? I went to read it expecting for once to be pleasantly surprised. Alas! Thread

It is full of the usual misplaced optimism not backed by any serious analysis, jingoism & digs at other EU leaders with transparent, nearly servile efforts to regain favour with the new US administration. A few examples:

The speech starts with the trademark rethorical device beloved of the UK right (whether to attack "woke' culture or pro-EU sentiments): A wildly exaggerated overblown simplistic statement that you then go on to "disprove"

So a dig aimed at Macron for saying NATO needs to adapt to changing circumstances and flattery towards America : "As you’ve seen and heard earlier, America is unreservedly back as leader of the free world and that is a fantastic thing."

Then the self- agrandissements : notice all the "I" & "Global Britain"