"They who can give up essential
liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty
-- Benjamin Franklin 
| "All governments lie and nothing
say should be believed."
editor Alan Rusbridger to be questioned by
MPs over NSA leaks
2. UK objects to attempt by
Council of Europe to examine
3. The Dynastic Hillary
Bandwagon – Bad for America
4. Health Action
International: Access to Trial Data
5. The very INegalitarian
It is Saturday today,
and there wasn't much about the crisis. But I did find three files that
are definitely about it, at least if you consider Hillary Clinton's
prospect to be the next president of the U.S. as part of the crisis,
which indeed I do, because the Clintons have sold out the left and the
Democrats in major and new ways, just for their own benefits
two items are about health, and the need for scientists to get the full
access to trial data, which they have lost to the managers of Big
Pharma for quite a while now (roughly since the 1980ies), and about how
INegalitarian the Dutch are: in fact considerably more so than
most European nations.
editor Alan Rusbridger to be questioned by MPs over NSA leaks
To start with, an item on
Alan Rusbridher in the Guardian:
This starts as follows:
The editor of the Guardian is to
be questioned by MPs about his newspaper's publication of intelligence
files leaked by the American whistleblower Edward Snowden.
is to appear before the House of Commons home affairs select committee
next month following warnings from British security chiefs that the
revelations were damaging national security.
It seems to me a sick
procedure, that is probably due to a couple of Tory MPs who would
absolutely love to see a British police state, because this makes
government so much easier:
Tories Julian Smith and
Stephen Phillips called on Rusbridger to clarify whether he had "acted
on every security concern raised by government" over the news stories.
They also asked him to
confirm whether anyone at the Guardian had "directed, permitted,
facilitated or acquiesced" in the transfer of the files obtained by
Snowden to anyone in the US or elsewhere.
Firstly, no editor has any
duty to act on "every security
concern raised by government":
The government very well may be - and in this case is - quite mistaken.
Secondly, I would decline
to answer whether anyone had "directed,
permitted, facilitated or acquiesced" any files: this is not theirs to
know, and indeed also not to ask.
2. UK objects to attempt by Council of
Europe to examine
Next, an article by
Nicholas Watt in the Guardian:
This starts as follows:
Although this is by the
(or a) "chief political correspondent", I object to confusing the
desires of the Tory government with Britain: At most Britain's present
government seems the correct phrase, though I agree it is longer.
Britain is delaying the
publication of a declaration on internet freedom by the 47 members of
Europe's human rights
watchdog after objecting to a probe into the gathering of "vast amounts
of electronic data" by intelligence agencies.
In a sign of Britain's
determination to protect the work of GCHQ and other intelligence
agencies, the government is declining to endorse a political declaration by the Council of Europe that could
limit the ability of "security agencies" to gather electronic data.
In fact, this is about the following:
And it seems to me that
the reason the British government protests against this is because they
are perfectly happy to become a police state. This they may think and
want, and I agree it makes governing very easy, but it is
utterly stupid to object to even examining "the gathering of data by intelligence agencies".
The document, entitled
Political Declaration and Resolutions, says that the Council of Europe
should examine whether the gathering of data by intelligence agencies
is consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The disputed section of
the draft declaration says: "We invited the Council of Europe to ...
examine closely, in the light of the requirements of the European
Convention on Human Rights, the question of gathering vast amounts of
electronic communications data on individuals by security agencies, the
deliberate building of flaws and 'backdoors' in the security system of
the internet or otherwise deliberately weakening encryption systems."
Indeed, the director of Liberty, Shami Chakrabati, quite correctly said
"Bad enough that
our authorities engaged in blanket surveillance
mandate or legal authority; worse still when they attacked the ethical
journalists who exposed that scandal. Now they delay the Council of
Europe's action on the issue and risk turning Britain into an arrogant
bad boy on the world stage. The nation that led the establishment of
post-war European human rights now jeers at the Strasbourg court and
tolerates no scrutiny for spooks or privacy for ordinary people.
Churchill must be spinning in his grave."
The Dynastic Hillary Bandwagon – Bad for
an article by Ralph Nader about Hillary Clinton:
This starts as follows:
I think the question is fair,
and indeed my answer is no. Also, Nader gives quite a few reasons for
his saying no. Then again, I would not be amazed if she will be
the next president of the U.S., not because she is really fit for the
job, but because she can get the most money to win the fight.
The Hillary Clinton for
President in 2016 bandwagon has started very early and with a purpose.
The idea is to get large numbers of endorsers, so that no Democratic
Primary competitors dare make a move. These supporters include Senator
Chuck Schumer (D-NY), financier George Soros and Ready for Hillary, a
super PAC mobilizing with great specificity (already in Iowa).
Given this early bird
launch, it is important to raise the pressing question:
Does the future of our
country benefit from Hillary, another Clinton, another politician
almost indistinguishable from Barack Obama’s militaristic, corporatist
policies garnished by big money donors from Wall Street and other
Health Action International: Access to Trial Data
Finally, an item
that does and does not belong to the crisis, namely an article by Leah
Cohan and Ancella los Santos, on David Healy's blog:
I think it does belong to the
crisis, especially because of the following:
And none of these
three points is the case now, for at least twenty years also -
while only a few medical doctors, that include David Healy and 1 boring old man, have protested.
Clinical trial data must
be made publicly available for three main reasons:
For too long, unfounded
concerns over commercial confidentiality have prevented public access
to full clinical trial data.
- Firstly, to strengthen
the protection of public health; many adverse drug reactions (ADRs),
including deaths, could have been avoided, had the public known about
the undisclosed effects of the medicines that caused them harm. In
addition, open access to trial data can facilitate independent
re-analyses of medicines’ claimed efficacy and comparison between
- Secondly, disclosure
of CT data will enhance the cost-effectiveness of public health
expenditure, by ensuring that resources are allocated to medicines
which have an assured safety and efficacy profile.
- Lastly, CT data should
be made available for ethical reasons. If trial data is not publicly
available, it would be an affront to the large number of participants
that are exposed to safety risks when participating in a trial.
According to the Declaration of Helsinki, authors have the duty to
publish the results of their studies – whether positive, negative or
Finally, here is my reason why this belongs to the crisis: Because it
is yet another example of how the rich and powerful have broken
previously existing good or decent standards only to increase
their own riches and power.
very INegalitarian Dutch
This last item is about Holland and about Dutch pretensions, in
particular the lie that I have heard, and reheard far beyond
the ad nauseam level, for literally thousands of times,
in many speeches and in more conversations, and since my teens, that
"everybody knows" - in Holland, anyway 'A Paradise' - "that everybody is equivalent".
Note first that in Dutch this is even clearer: the Dutch for
"equivalent" is "of equal value" that is in Dutch "gelijkwaardig",
and the whole Dutch phrase also is singularly inept and hardly
grammatical, because the equivalence to whom was never specified, but
merely asserted: "Iedereen weet dat iedereen gelijkwaardig is" (in
every respect, to anyone, wherever, whenever, for that was claimed)
My own problem since my teens is that I knew this to be an
absolute hypocritical lie: Absolutely no sane man thinks he or
his family are of the same value as Eichmann or Hitler, and
almost everybody will try to bring it about that he or his family will
get the best jobs, if there is a choice he has, namely between
furthering the interests of those he knows and loves or likes, and
those he does not know.
There is also nothing wrong with this (outside a few contexts): People
may make great mistakes in appraising their own value, but it is very
human to try to get the best for those one loves, including oneself.
But not according to those paragons of honesty and common
sense, namely scores of Dutch politicians, and especially those
of the Dutch Labour Party:
These just "knew" that "everybody is equivalent", and said it tens of
times a day if possible, especially in the 1970ies an 1980ies, probably
because many of them were and are total bastards, and real bastards
know that the majority is easily deceived, and is much more docile if
they can be tricked into thinking that absolutely everyone "is of equal
value": it gives no reason to protest anything.
I never accepted it, but I must be one of the rare few who also
protested against it in public - which meant that I risked
being called "a fascist", because that was the Dutch epitheton for
everyone the Dutch disagreed with: disagreeing with the majority - any
majority - is despicable, in their eyes, and therefore someone who does
disagree easily got branded as "a fascist".
And I have been called "a fascist" many times, by people who were
generally very much more fascistic than I was, because I come
from one of the most anti-fascistic families in Holland: my parents and
grandparents were in the resistance against the Nazis, which was very
rare in Holland, and is one of the reasons the Dutch lost more than
1% of the population, and for which reason both my father and my grandfather were
convicted to concentration camp imprisonment, as "political
terrorists", which my grandfather did not survive, while my father, who
happened to be very healthy and strong, survived more than 3 years and
9 months of those camps, were the average survival lasted 3 months,
also because he again went into the communist resistance inside
But I did not want to talk about that, except as a background to my
angrily denying the hypocritic lie that "everybody knows everybody is
equivalent", which also was the ruling value of the University of
Amsterdam between 1970 and 1995, which (easily) comprised all the years
I attended it.
Incidentally, this norm, that was for more than 25 years one that nearly
every Dutchman falsely claimed to believe, has these days
been left, since so very many Dutchmen have found that, in their
opinion, Muslims must be their inferiors, which indeed also is what
many have been saying publicly since before this century
But I did not want to talk about the sense of values of the Dutch
either, and only made the last point as a clarification.
What I do want to talk about is a contribution by a professor
Bas van Bazel of the University of Utrecht, who explained yesterday on
the radio how it is really arranged in Hollland, where "everybody" except for me and a very
small minority "knows everybody is equivalent", at least until
I have paid close attention and made notes, and here is the gist:
10% of the Dutch households is in debt, often in large
debt, and this is rising.
50% of the Dutch households does not have property.
40% (almost) has some property, but most do not have
1% of the Dutch households owns 40% of the
Dutch riches: 92,000 households.
As professor Van Bazel stressed several times: This is considerably
more unequal than in most other European countries, but is about the
same as it is currently in the U.S. - except that the Dutch inequality
lasted much longer.
And as professor Van Bazel also repeatedly said: Holland is not
an egalitarian country at all, and has never been.
He also repeatedly said: These facts are hardly known among the Dutch,
and these facts are almost never spoken about, for they are strongly
tabooed (which is possible, as he did not say, because the Dutch press
serves the interests of the rich, and is hardly independent, especially
Well, here they are, and I note several things about the numbers, which
I do believe are correct:
First, 60% of the Dutch either makes enough money to get
through the months, but has hardly anything left, or else does not make
enough money, and is in debt, and this last percentage is rising.
In fact, I belong to these 60% due to my illness that now lasts
35 years (otherwise I would not: I do have the degrees to make an
excellent and quite remunerative career, if only I had more
health) - and in fact I do not have any debts, since
quite a few years.
Next, the nearly 40% with some property does indeed have some
property, but it is usually not much, and indeed this group is also
Finally, most of the Dutch riches are owned by the 1% who owes 40%
of them, which is of the size of a small Dutch town: 92,000
households. And this also shows why the 40% who owe something
do not own much: They do owe 60% but divided by 40, and it is
spread mostly quite thinly (and the 1% owes 40%).
So in fact in Holland, where the political Úlite has lied to
the 99% who owe little or nothing for more than a generation
that "everybody knows everybody is of equal value", this political
lying was done, in part at least, to keep it a taboo and a secret that all
the time the Dutch are as unequal as the U.S. now
are, and that a very small group owns most, and the great majority owes
little, nothing or debts.
I found it quite nice to learn these facts and numbers, not because
they enjoy me, but to know how much I and all other Dutchmen have been
lied to, and indeed also to know how many Dutchmen have furthered and
defended these lies.
 Here it is necessary to insist, with
Aristotle, thay the governors do not rule, or at least, should
not rule: The laws rule, and the government, if good, is part
of its executive power. Here I quote Aristotle from my More on stupidity, the rule of law, and Glenn
It is more proper
that law should govern than any of the citizens: upon the same
principle, if it is advantageous to place supreme power in some
particular persons, they should be appointed to be only guardians, and
the servant of laws.
(And I note the whole file I
quote from is quite pertinent.)
About ME/CFS (that I prefer to call M.E.:
The "/CFS" is added to
facilitate search machine) which is a disease that I have since 1.1.