Over the last couple of weeks, there have been a couple stories that give me the feeling of an itch that I can’t scratch. The first is the continuing Edward Snowden saga and the second is the reporting on the next Chairman of the Fed.
I guess the Snowden Affair has almost died because there’s now a commission that’s both independent and blue ribbon investigating things. But the whole thing still just doesn’t make sense.
Snowden just doesn’t seem like a whistleblower. I don’t get any decent sense of a coherent ideological position from the guy. The idea that we should care about the government knowing who we call on the phone (who even makes phone calls anymore?) when the government already knows exactly how we make and spend money, is gaining access to our health records, etc. is just silly.
Most importantly, the story has been manufactured and controlled way too well. Perhaps I’ve just read too much non-mainstream history to believe that there’s any possibility that Glenn Greenwald writing for the Guardian is writing a story that’s deeply injuring to USG. Glenn Greenwald is – as much as anyone else – part of USG. There are lots of people suggesting that the story is 90% Greenwald’s . . . crafting and 10% hard facts. Count me in that camp – and round up.
To make it all worse, I’m now supposed to feel sorry for Greenwald’s husband because he was questioned while carrying illegally obtained documents? How dumb do I look?
The second itchy story relates to the nomination of a new Fed chairman (covered from the reactionary angle already here). Progressive insiders (i.e. inflationists) seem to support Janet Yellen while the administration seems to support Larry Summers. From where I’m sitting, it wouldn’t really matter (both would seem to be against meaningful changes to financial regulation – I’m not saying that’s good or bad, it’s just the thing that most affects me).
Anyway, the odd thing was the immediacy with which the press was filled with stories attacking Summers (even The American Conservative, which apparently took a break from policing the opinions of its contributors with respect to certain subjects, jumped into the fray). There were so many stories, which all said the same thing. The effort had to be coordinated.
I’m not sure how to draw this all together. I think my point is that if you’re paying attention, you see certain cracks in the narrative. Be wary of what you read.