January 7, 2016

Crisis: China, Terrorism, Sanders' Program, Chomsky, Moore, M.E.
Sections                                                                                          crisis index       

Chinese Stock Trading Halted Again After Markets Plunge
The Deceptive Debate Over What Causes Terrorism
     Against the West

Bernie Sanders Inveighs Against Wall Street in Major
     Address on Economic Policy Proposals

Noam Chomsky: Electing the President of An Empire
5. Dear Gov. Snyder: You Have to Go to Jail
6. Trial By Error, Continued: Questions for Dr. White and his
     PACE Colleagues

This is a Nederlog of Thursday, January 7, 2016.

This is a crisis blog with 6 items and 6 dotted links. Item 1 is about another collapse (after last Monday) of the Chinese stock markets; item 2 is about an article by Glenn Greenwald on a truly insane argument on the causes of Muslim terrorism; item 3 is about an important speech by Bernie Sanders; item 4 is about an interview by Abby Martin of Noam Chomsky about the present political scence in the US (with support for Bernie Sanders); item 5 is about a letter of Michael Moore to his state's governor, who managed to poison all children in Moore's home town; and item 6 is not a crisis item but is about M.E. and the reasons this tends not to be investigated by real scientists but by fraudulent, lying, deceiving psychiatric moral degenerates (I am sorry, but that is what they are).

1.  Chinese Stock Trading Halted Again After Markets Plunge

The first article is by Anonymous on The Huffington Post:

This starts as follows:

BEIJING (AP) — China halted stock trading Thursday, its second daylong trading suspension this week, after prices plunged in the latest spasm of investor panic on its volatile markets.

Chinese markets have lurched up and down as regulators gradually withdraw emergency measures imposed after the main stock index plunged in June following an explosive rise.

A similar price plunge Monday triggered a sell-off on Wall Street and other global markets.

On Thursday, trading was suspended after a market index, the CSI 300, nose-dived 7 percent a half-hour after markets opened, triggering a "circuit breaker" that took effect Jan. 1.

As I have several times said before, The Guardian turned quite illiberal and makes it impossible (without strong measures: it can be done) to copy from their pages, so I have to use other sources. [1]

Anyway - this is from The Huffington post and says all (plus more you can read by clicking the last dotted link): For the second time this week, this is a day of forced non-trading on the Chinese stock exchanges because the prices fell too steeply.

Here is what those anonymous great brains called "financial analysts" think of it:

Financial analysts have warned Chinese markets are likely to see extreme volatility for a few more months as they seek a stable level following last year's rout.

I say. More to follow, no doubt.

2. The Deceptive Debate Over What Causes Terrorism Against the West

The second item is by Glenn Greenwald on The Intercept:
This starts as follows:
Ever since members of the U.K. Labour Party in September elected Jeremy Corbyn as party leader by a landslide, British political and media elites have acted as though their stately manors have been invaded by hordes of gauche, marauding serfs. They have waged a relentless and undisguised war to undermine Corbyn in every way possible, and that includes — first and foremost — the Blairite wing of his party, who have viciously maligned him in ways they would never dare for David Cameron and his Tory followers.
Yes, indeed. And there are two main reasons for this that I can see: First, the Blairites are a class of professional personal profiteers who went into politics to become possibly as rich as Tony Blair (who presently owns between 20 and 80 milion pounds), and second I do not regard their frontman Blair as any better than a common neo-fascist mass-murdering complete moral degenerate, who ought to stand trial [2].

But OK - I have been called "a dirty fascist" by the Stalinists of the Amsterdam student party ASVA for a mere 12 years because I was pro science and pro truth in a "university" (while my grandfather was murdered by the Nazis in a German concentration camp, and my father survived more than 3 years and 9 months of German concentration camps as a communist, o neo-stalinist verbal thugs from the ASVA!) so I presume I know a lot more about fascism than most.

Here is one specific bit of crappy Blairite insane bullshit:
This claim — like the two ousted shadow ministers themselves — is so commonplace as to be a cliché. One hears this all the time from self-defending jingoistic Westerners who insist that their tribe in no way plays any causal role in what it calls terrorist violence. They insist that those who posit a causal link between endless Western violence in the Muslim world and return violence aimed at the West are “infantilizing the terrorists and treating them like children” by suggesting that terrorists lack autonomy and the capacity for choice, and are forced by the West to engage in terrorism.
I guess the main background behind these sick lies is that the speakers in fact believe themselves to be supermen (German: Übermensch) with respect to Muslims, especially angry Muslims, and want to deny them any mental activity of their own.

Indeed, I grant I am uncertain, because this really is totally insane: Of course people will get upset if you bomb their families. But then Glenn Greenwald makes the same point:
And then there’s just common sense about human nature: If you spend years bombing, invading, occupying, and imposing tyranny on other people, some of them will want to bring violence back to you.
Anyway - there is a lot more in the article, which is interesting.

3. Bernie Sanders Inveighs Against Wall Street in Major Address on Economic Policy Proposals

The third item is by Anonymous on Truthdig:

This starts as follows (and is the full text of his "Prepared Remarks"):

“The American people are catching on. They understand that something is profoundly wrong when, in our country today, the top one-tenth of 1 percent own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent and when the 20 richest people own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans – half of our population. They know that the system is rigged when the average person is working longer hours for lower wages, while 58 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent.

They also know that a handful of people on Wall Street have extraordinary power over the economic and political life of our country. As most people know, in the 1990s and later, the financial interests spent billions of dollars in lobbying and campaign contributions to force through Congress the deregulation of Wall Street, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and the weakening of consumer protection laws in states.

They spent this money in order to get the government off their backs and to show the American people what they could do with that new-won freedom. Well, they sure showed the American people. In 2008, the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street nearly destroyed the U.S. and global economy.

And it ends thus (on page 5):

Finally, let me tell you what no other candidate will tell you. No president, not Bernie Sanders or anyone else, can effectively address the economic crises facing the working families of this country alone. The truth is that Wall Street, corporate America, the corporate media and wealthy campaign donors are just too powerful.

What this campaign is about is building a political movement which revitalizes American democracy, which brings millions of people together – black and white, Latino, Asian-American, Native American – young and old, men and women, gay and straight, native born and immigrant, people of all religions.

Yes. Wall Street has enormous economic and political power. Yes. Wall Street makes huge campaign contributions, they have thousands of lobbyists and they provide very generous speaking fees to those who go before them.

Yes. They have an endless supply of money. But we have something they don’t have. And that is that when millions of working families stand together, demanding fundamental changes in our financial system, we have the power to bring about that change.

Yes, we can make our economy work for all Americans, not just a handful of wealthy speculators. And, now more than ever, that is exactly what we must do.

And so my message to you today is straightforward: If elected president, I will rein in Wall Street so they can’t crash our economy again.

Will they like me? No. Will they begin to play by the rules if I’m president? You better believe it.

Thank you and I look forward to working with the most powerful force in our great nation, not the Barons of Wall Street but the people our government was created to serve.”
This is a very imporant article, and should be read by anyone who considers votiing in the American elections: There are a whole lot of sensible proposals in it, none or almost none of which can be found in the campaigns of anyone else for presidency. (Also, see the next item.)

4. Noam Chomsky: Electing the President of An Empire

The fourth item is by Abby Martin and is a recent interview she had with Noam Chomsky. I found it on AlterNet:

This starts as follows (after a few introductory remarks):
Noam Chomsky:
The spectrum is broad but in an odd sense. The spectrum is basically center to extreme right. Extreme right. Way off the spectrum. The Republican Party about 20 years ago basically abandoned any pretense of being a normal political party. In fact, the distinguished, respected conservative commentators, from the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing think tank, like Norman Ornstein, described the Republican Party as a radical insurgency which has abandoned parliamentary politics. They just don’t want anything to happen. Their only policies are “don’t do anything” or bomb. That’s not a political party.
I say - which I don't say because I disagree, but because the opinion that "the Republican Party [is] a radical insurgency which has abandoned parliamentary politics" comes from the right-wing think tank the American Enterprise Institute.

Here is Chomsky on the Democrats:

The Democrats have shifted to the right as well. Today’s mainstream democrats are pretty much what used to be called moderate Republicans. Somebody like Eisenhower, for example, would be considered way out on the left. So for example Eisenhower strongly made it clear that anyone who questions the programs of the New Deal is just not part of American political life. Well, by now, that’s a left-wing program. It’s basically Bernie Sanders’ program. It’s Eisenhower.
Hm. I think this may be a bit confused (but it probably is due to the vagueries of speech): I agree Bernie Sanders' program is much like Roosevelt's New Deal, and I also agree that the Republican Eisenhower "made it clear that anyone who questions the programs of the New Deal is just not part of American political life" but Sanders' program is not the same as Eisenhower's program, even though Eisenhower taxed the rich properly, on the principle that "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society".

Then there is this on the sources of the enormous profits of the rich:

There was recently an IMF study, International Monetary Fund, of the profits of big banks in the United States.The financial sector has become enormous during the neoliberal periods. Almost half the profit of corporate profit.

Now where does their profit come from? Turns out it comes from the taxpayer. ...there’s an implicit government guarantee against failure. It’s not state, it’s not the law, but it’s understood that if a major financial institution gets into trouble that the government will bail it out, which happened repeatedly. Only during the neoliberal period, incidentally. There were no major failures during the 50’s and 60’s. When the neoliberal policies began to be instituted, deregulations and so on, then you start getting a series of financial crises, and every time the public bails them out.

Precisely - and considerable parts of the profits are from the bailouts, which are from ordinary people's tax money.

Then there is this on the term "libertarianism"

Remember: What is called libertarian in the United States has nothing to do with traditional libertarianism. It’s a kind of ultra-right capitalist - a narco-capitalism, they call it.

If that was allowed to function, the whole society would collapse. And we turn to total tyranny. We would have tyranny of unaccountable private institutions. Private concentration of capital is totally unaccountable to the public is absolute tyranny. The only thing that protects the public from predatory capitalism is some degree of state intervention.

I quite agree, and generally like to rewrite "neoliberal" and "libertarian" as "neocoservative" simply because they are, and because I - who is a classic liberal - find no genuine liberalism in most libertarians or neoliberals, and instead tend to find enormous amounts of very egoistic greed for big money for themselves.

Finally, here is Noam Chomsky on Bernie Sanders:

Noam Chomsky:
Take, say, the Bernie Sanders campaign, which I think is important, impressive. He’s doing good and courageous things. He’s organizing a lot of people. That campaign ought to be directed to sustaining a popular movement that will use the election as a kind of an incentive and then go on, and unfortunately it’s not. When the election's over, the movement is going to die. And that’s a serious error.

I agree, and I like it that Chomsky is pro Sanders, even though (as in my case) he certainly doesn't agree with everything Sanders says.

There is a lot more in the interview, which is recommended reading.

5. Dear Gov. Snyder: You Have to Go to Jail

The fifth item is by Michael Moore (<- Wikipedia) on Common Dreams:

This starts as follows:

Dear Governor Snyder:

Thanks to you, sir, and the premeditated actions of your administrators, you have effectively poisoned, not just some, but apparently ALL of the children in my hometown of Flint, Michigan.

And for that, you have to go to jail.

To poison all the children in an historic American city is no small feat. Even international terrorist organizations haven't figured out yet how to do something on a magnitude like this.

But you did. Your staff and others knew that the water in the Flint River was poison -- but you decided that taking over the city and "cutting costs" to "balance the budget" was more important than the people's health (not to mention their democratic rights to elect their own leaders.) So you cut off the clean, fresh glacial lake water of Lake Huron that the citizens of Flint (including myself) had been drinking for decades and, instead, made them drink water from the industrial cesspool we call the Flint River -- a body of "water" where toxins from a dozen General Motors and DuPont factories have been dumped for over a hundred years. And then you decided to put a chemical in this water to "clean" it -- which only ended up stripping the lead off of Flint's aging water pipes, placing that lead in the water and sending it straight into people's taps.
There is more under the last dotted link, but Michael Moore is clearly right - and he is a dangerous opponent. I do hope Snyder ends in jail, though that probably needs a lot of work, not because he doesn't belong there, but because the political and legal systems in the current USA have been vastly corrupted by men like Snyder.

6. Trial By Error, Continued: Questions for Dr. White and his PACE Colleagues

The sixth and last item is by David Tuller on professor Racaniello's Virology Blog:

This starts as follows and is in fact about M.E. which is a serious disease I now have for the 38th year, which is still unacknowledged by the Dutch bureacracy because they choose to believe the insane or cruel completely unscientific English psychiatrists who got millions to conduct a competely flawed experiment:

David Tuller is academic coordinator of the concurrent masters degree program in public health and journalism at the University of California, Berkeley.

I have been seeking answers from the PACE researchers for more than a year. At the end of this post, I have included the list of questions I’d compiled by last September, when my investigation was nearing publication. Most of these questions remain unanswered.

The PACE researchers are currently under intense criticism for having rejected as “vexatious” a request for trial data from psychologist James Coyne—an action called “unforgivable” by Columbia statistician Andrew Gelman and “absurd” by Retraction Watch. Several colleagues and I have filed a subsequent request for the main PACE results, including data for the primary outcomes of fatigue and physical function and for “recovery” as defined in the trial protocol. The PACE team has two more weeks to release this data, or explain why it won’t.

Any data from the PACE trial will likely confirm what my Virology Blog series has already revealed: The results cannot stand up to serious scrutiny. But the numbers will not provide answers to the questions I find most compelling. Only the researchers themselves can explain why they made so many ill-advised choices during the trial.

In fact, I found 33 references to quite good articles by David Tuller between 2010 and 2012 (mostly in 2011).

But by that time and especially since 2012 (when I did publish a fine study of the postmodern unscientific extremely fraudulent pseudoscience of many psychiatrists, I have mostly lost my interest in M.E., simply because it turned out that most things I said were judged false by completely anonymous sick (?) men and women without the slightest inkling of science but with terrorist verbal practices and extremely strong irrational prejudices.

I still think so. I like David Tuller, I like professor Racaniello, I like most real scientists who are actively involved in helping patients with M.E. but I am not going to be discriminated and scolded by anonymous patients without any understanding of science and no real scholarship at all.

There very probably will be more bits on M.E., for I have it 38 years now, but I will not attend to the scientifically unqualified patients' opinions anymore, that I indeed have nearly completely avoided since 2011.

And yes, that made me feel considerably better than I felt in 2010 and 2011, simply because I have many theoretical interests, that I can serve much better without being involved in quarrels over the scientific nonsense patients spout.

But if there is a real scientific advance about M.E. that is written about by rational people who do know some science, I will probably report it here.


[1] Yes. I will not copy from The Guardian anymore; I suppose they went the same way as the thoroughly sick Dutch paper the NRC-Handelsblad (that I read between 1970 and 2010, but since has turned into mostly bullshit), but I do want to know by what way their Wolfgang Blau prevents any copying, for I do not think this is done by Javascript.

[2] I have been called "a dirty fascist" by the Stalinist thugs from the ASVA for 12 years while being no such thing at all, and indeed it rankles. The neo-fascist Tony Blair can go to the Dutch courts if he wants to avoid reading my opinions on his greedy and sick personality.

       home - index - summaries - mail