1. Why Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein Called Bernie
Bring Back a Hell of a Lot Worse Than
3. Key Members of Hillary
Clinton Team Lobbied Against
Bills She Now Touts as
4. Dangerous Speech: Would the Founders Be
Domestic Extremists Today?
Rape: Doctors still know best
This is a Nederlog of Tuesday, February 9,
1. Why Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein Called Bernie Sanders
crisis blog. There are 5 items with 5 dotted links: Item
1 is Goldman
Sach's Lloyd Blankfein vs Bernie Sanders; item 2 is
about Trump on
waterboarding; item 3 is about the great
differences between Hillary
Clinton's words and the deeds of her and her
supporters; item 4 is about "dangerous speech" and
the US governments politically very correct ways of undermining
the First Amendment; and item 5 is not a crisis
item, but is about psychiatry and medical doctors.
Also, the present Nederlog is a lot briefer than the previous one, in
part because I think I've earned it, and especially because I need to
do some other things today. This is also why it appears a bit earlier
in the day than is normal for me.
by Jim Schwarz on The Intercept:
I'll follow the title's lead. First, here
is Blankfein quoted on Sanders (without "personally" naming "it"):
“To personalize it, it has the
potential to be a dangerous moment, not just for Wall Street, not just
for the people are particularly targeted but for anybody who is a
little bit out of line.”
And here is Sanders on Blankfein (while
personally naming it):
I think this clarifies things: Blankfein
appropriated $824 billion dollars to save himself and his bank
(in virtually free loans) - and now wants to rob the poor and the
ill of money to survive; Sanders criticized him. 
SANDERS: Sometimes there is no end to
arrogance. … Lloyd Blankfein is the CEO of Goldman Sachs. … During the
financial crisis Goldman Sachs received a total of $814 billion in
virtually zero-interest loans from the Federal Reserve and a
$10 billion bailout from the Treasury Department. … And
now with his huge wealth he is coming here to Washington to lecture the
American people on how we have got to cut Social Security, Medicare,
and Medicaid for tens of millions of Americans who are struggling now
to keep their heads above water.
2. "I'd Bring Back a Hell of a
Lot Worse Than Waterboarding"
is by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!:
To start with, here is a quotation by Trump
TRUMP: Well, I’ll tell
you what. In the Middle East, we have people chopping the heads off
Christians. We have people chopping the heads off many other people. We
have things that we have never seen before—as a group, we have never
seen before what’s happening right now. The medieval times—I mean, we
studied medieval times. Not since medieval times have people seen
what’s going on. I would bring back waterboarding, and I’d bring back a
hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.
Incidentally, somebody who introduces a
morally utterly rotten point in the way Trump did, just doesn't
know what he is
talking about. Did Trump ever read a halfway decent book
about history? I much doubt it. (And waterboarding has been
a favorite form of torture since - at least - the 1600s, in part
because it is quick and leaves no external marks.)
And here is a senior staff attorney from the Center for Constitutional
Rights quoting American and international laws:
KEBRIAEI: Senator Cruz
said it wasn’t [torture - MM]. The International Committee of the Red
Cross, which is
an authority on the laws of war and international humanitarian law, has
said specifically waterboarding is torture. U.S. courts have said it.
U.S.—the United States has prosecuted U.S. and foreign soldiers for
engaging in waterboarding. There have been prosecutions domestically
for waterboarding domestically. So the idea that this is arguable is
just not supported. It is clearly illegal.
There is considerably more in the article,
also about Guantánamo, and the article is recommended.
Members of Hillary Clinton Team Lobbied Against Bills She Now Touts as
third item is by Donald Kaufman on Truthdig:
This shows how Hillary Clinton is doing
the same as Obama: Talking progressive to the Democrats who might vote
for her, while acting conservative to help the banks rob even more:
In December, in
an op-ed piece for The New York Times, Clinton wrote: “People’s
savings are being restored. And we have tough new rules on the books,
including the Dodd-Frank Act, that protect consumers and curb
recklessness on Wall Street.”
Yet The Intercept found that Clinton’s
chief pollster and strategist, Joel Benenson of the Benenson Strategy
Group, lobbied on behalf of Citigroup and Goldman Sachs and worked for
many years to weaken a wide variety of Dodd-Frank reforms. Another
campaign adviser, Steve Elmendorf, was at one time retained by Goldman
Sachs and tapped by Citigroup to help push through a bill that would
have allowed banks to avoid financial regulations by moving certain
operations overseas. And Jeff Berman, who is leading Clinton’s delegate
strategy, previously worked for TransCanada as a lobbyist for the
Keystone XL project. The oil pipeline’s extension was eventually
blocked when Obama rejected it late last year.
Hillary Clinton’s embrace of Washington
lobbyists offers a frightening picture of what her administration might
look like if she is elected.
Yes indeed, also because Clinton's "embrace of Washington
lobbyists" is all
on very impertinent lies - as illustrated by the quote.
Dangerous Speech: Would the Founders Be Considered Domestic Extremists
The fourth item is by John Whitehead on
This starts as follows:
“If you can’t say ‘Fuck’ you can’t
say, ‘Fuck the government.’” ― Lenny Bruce
Not only has free speech become a
four-letter word—profane, obscene, uncouth, not to be uttered in
so-called public places—but in more and more cases, the government
deems free speech to be downright dangerous and in some instances
The U.S. government has become
particularly intolerant of speech that challenges the government’s
power, reveals the government’s corruption, exposes the government’s
lies, and encourages the citizenry to push back against the
government’s many injustices.
Indeed, there is a long and growing list
of the kinds of speech that the government considers dangerous enough
to red flag and subject to censorship, surveillance, investigation and
prosecution: hate speech, bullying speech, intolerant speech,
conspiratorial speech, treasonous speech, threatening speech,
incendiary speech, inflammatory speech, radical speech, anti-government
speech, right-wing speech, extremist speech, etc.
Yet by allowing the government to
whittle away at cherished First Amendment freedoms—which form the
backbone of the Bill of Rights—we have evolved into a society that
would not only be abhorrent to the founders of this country but would
be hostile to the words they used to birth this nation.
I agree with this introduction, and like
to remark that this is all politically correct censorship,
which is what much of "leftist" politics has been reduced to (and no,
this is not leftist at all, which is why I wrote it between
scare quotes: it simply is authoritarian censorship of anything you
disagree with, on the pretext that you mean well).
There is also this on the Declaration of Independence and its authors:
For that matter, just try reciting the Declaration
of Independence, which rejects tyranny, establishes Americans as
sovereign beings, recognizes God as a Supreme power, portrays the
government as evil, and provides a detailed laundry list of abuses that
are as relevant today as they were 240 years ago.
My guess is that you won’t last long
before you get thrown out, shut up, threatened with arrest or at the
very least accused of being a radical, a troublemaker, a sovereign
citizen, a conspiratorialist or an extremist.
Especially if the police, or whoever
threatens or throws you out, has no idea
of whose words you quote (and indeed they usually don't: who reads 18th
Century writers these days?)
There is considerably more in the article,
mostly about a journalist who was arrested after the occupiers of the
Malheur National Wildlife Refuge were arrested, and who is accused of
the same things as the occupiers.
I'll leave that to your interests. Here is
the ending of the article:
Incidentally, I agree with Carlin
that rights have been treated as privileges, but I disagree
with his distinction between rights and privileges, firstly because an
evil government can take away anything
from you, including your body and bodily parts, regardless of whether
you had "a right" or "a privilege" or "a law" that said they should
not, and secondly because something counts as a right if it
is based on law and applies to everyone, whereas many priviliges
are not based on law and only apply to select groups.
As the insightful and brash comedian
George Carlin observed:
“Rights aren’t rights if someone can
take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this
country, is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news
even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter.
Sooner or later, the people in this country are gonna realize the
government does not give a fuck about them! The government doesn’t care
about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare or your
safety. It simply does not give a fuck about you! It’s interested in
its own power. That’s the only thing. Keeping it and expanding it
But Carlin is quite right about the government
(his, mine and most others):
They really don't care "about you, or
children, or your rights, or your welfare or your safety" also not if they are lying that they do: The government
simply is a very small group of presently successful liars and
deceivers who mostly work to extend their own powers and their own
This is the case both in non-democratic governments and in
democratic governments, and
the only way to curb these tendencies is by very much
more transparency and
honesty than there is almost anywhere, and by a really working
free press... 
5. Pharmaceutical Rape: Doctors still know best
The fifth and last item is by Laurie Oakley on David Healy's website:
This starts as follows (and is not a crisis
Many who experience
life-altering, adverse outcomes after taking their medicines as
prescribed do not receive acknowledgment of what they have experienced,
let alone the medical care they need. Medical systems do not recognize
many treatment related outcomes and patients are therefore denied
knowledgeable, compassionate treatment for the iatrogenic illnesses
they experience after following doctors orders. While health
practitioners can generally make a good living within healthcare
systems, thousands of patients end up on disability after adverse
pharmaceutical outcomes. Without the support of a doctor to verify
one’s condition, there are others who, tragically, end up on the
is a lot more in the article (which is one of a series called
"Pharmaceutical Rape"), and dr. David Healy is one of the very few good
psychiatrists I know about (as a psychologist).
As to psychiatry: It always was
and still is a pseudo-science. In case you want to know why, read my
treatment of "The six
most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis" (which is not easy and is long, but also is quite good
and never answered).
As to medicine:
It simply is a fact that 85% of the doctors I turned to - mostly
specialists, also - did not even know what I had (although this was well
described in their medical literature from 1965 onwards -
and I fell ill in 1979) and therefore (and for other reasons besides)
just were plain and obvious incompetents. (And yes, I do know
what science is and ought to be, and very much better than any medic I
have seen, simply because that was my specialism, as a philosopher of science.)
Therefore I say
(as a psychologist): Avoid psychiatrists whenever you
can (try psychologists if you need them: they probably don't know much
more , but at least they cannot prescribe you
expensive pills they themselves profit from) and disbelieve
most doctors, especially about non-standard diseases: They really do
not know very many things they should know, and at most 1 in 6 is
competent in my experience. 
 As I
have said several times (see: On socialism): Everything would
be changed in major ways with just ONE change, that
also effects less than 1%:
income cap on what people may earn in a year.
If you settle this by deciding nobody may
earn more than 20 times as much as the poorest do (like me), nobody
but the mega-rich 1% would loose anything, and everybody
but the mega-rich would gain very much.
Why keep a system that favors a few major frauds and enormous
liars to make millions or billions of dollars from millions or billions
of poor people? Why keep a system that is enthralled by the
very few mega-rich? Why keep
a system that is manifestly extremely unfair to more than 99% of the
people if it can be repaired as simply as by an income cap? That will
hurt less than 1%?!
And in case you protest: Most Americans are not for a 20 to 1
ratio, but favor a 7 to 1 ratio, while George Orwell favored a 10 to 1
ratio. I am more careful, and chose a proportion that favors over
99% of the living people.
But who talks about income caps? Ah well... here is something to think
about, if you care:
And this graphic does not address the issue of income caps. It does
show matters are extremely tilted towards the few rich, in the USA (and
much more than most Americans think or desire).
Also, the median income - half has less, half has more - is currently a
bit less than $52,000 a year, while only 3,65 % had incomes larger than
$200,000 a year (which - by the way - is less than the Clintons
receive for 1 speech to Goldman Sachs).
For more, see Household
incomes in the United States on Wikipedia.
 And I am
saying this with considerable pain, because the free press has mostly
died (from lack of advertisements and from being bought up by a few
billionaires), which means democracy and democratic law are dying or
There is no real democracy without a really free press.
 For psychologists are just as ignorant
as psychiatrists are about anyone's psychology and simply do NOT
know - I say this as a psychologist and a philosopher of science - nearly
everything there is to know about psychology, if only
because both fields are hardly older than a hundred years.
(That is: An incredible amount of science about psychology may be done
in the next four centuries or so, and probably will be done, if mankind
survives, but it simply has not been done so far.)
In other words, present day psychologists and psychiatrists are
about as far in to growing into a real science with
reputable and extensive and reliable results, as was the 17th
Century (before Newton, also) in physics (which now exists for over
400 years, quite unlike psychology and psychiatry).
And no: I have seriously studied both subjects; I have one of
the best degrees in psychology that were ever awarded; and I do
not think either psychology or psychiatry is a real
science (as physics and chemistry are, these days).
Also, most honest and rational psychologists would answer you in a
similar way, were it not that their livelihoods depend on their
pretenses. Mine does not, and that is another reason why I can be
 Also, the majority of the medical
folks I have seen were in fact quite impolite, quite greedy, and quite
dishonest (and some were clearly not, and that is part of the reason I know)
and for none of these blemishes there was any reason other than their
own personal decisions in view of their high status among the
scientifically totally incompetent.