1. "When You're a Star…You Can Do
2. The Nobel
Prize in Economics Is a Force for Market
3. Trump Takes Second Presidential Debate Into the
4. Post-Lewd Tape Poll Shows Clinton With Double-Digit
Lead Over Trump
5. The Age of Decline, Apple Pie, and America's Chosen
This is a Nederlog of Tuesday, October 11, 2016.
is a crisis log with 5 items and 5 dotted links: Item 1
is a brief review which does list the precise Trumpian quote ("Grab ’em by the
pussy") in context; item 2 is - in fact - about economics, and I
list ten points on that "science" (in part to lift the level of the
present Nederlog, but I mean everything I say, and what I say seems
rather important, for economics); item 3 is about a
somewhat decent review of the latest Trumpian bullshit; item
4 is about the poll numbers: it seems Hillary Clinton now has a
firm lead; and item 5 is just one quote that has
the benefit of nicely summing up reasons why I think the
diagnosis of Trump is that he is insane (mad, crazy).
Also, there is an earlier file of today: Autobio
1993: Een andere betere woning + Elise
This is my
autobiography (in Dutch, mostly) about 1993. This wasn't published
part, for the moment --
In case you visit my
Dutch site: I do not know, but it may be you need
to click/reload twice or more
to see any changes I have made. This certainly held for
possible this was caused by the fact that I am also writing it from my
In any case, I am now (again) updating
the opening of my site with the last day it was updated.
(And I am very sorry if you have to click/reload several times
last update: It is not what I wish, nor how it was. 
C. In case you visit my Danish site: It now
works again (!), but I do not know how long it will keep working.
I am very sorry, and none of it is due to me. I
am simply doing the same things as I did for 20 or for 12 years, that
also went well for 20 or for 12 years.
I will keep this introduction until I get three successive days (!!!)
in which both providers work correctly. I have not seen that
for many months now.
"When You're a Star…You Can Do
The first item today is by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!:
This starts with the
Sunday’s presidential debate
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump capped an extraordinary weekend that
saw top Republicans call on Trump to end his presidential run following
the release of a videotape showing Trump boasting about sexually
assaulting women. The three-minute video, recorded by NBC’s "Access
Hollywood" in 2005, was released Friday by The Washington Post.
Next, in the original there is a
long quotation of the video, which you can check out in full using the
above dotted link, but I will only quote the relevant bit to show what
Trump did say:
TRUMP: Yeah, that’s
her, with the gold. I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs just in case I start
kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful—I just
start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. I just kiss. I don’t even wait.
And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
BUSH: Whatever you
TRUMP: Grab ’em by the
pussy. You can do anything.
The graphic is not by Trump, but it
the moral and intellectual level of the presidential candidate, who in
my psychologist's opinion speaks like that because he is insane (mad,
crazy). In case you doubt this, check out item 5,
with lots more Trumpian quotes.
Here is Amy Goodman's comment on
(which is a lot longer in the original):
Video footage of Donald Trump from 2005. Trump is now facing a growing
number of calls to step down as the Republican Party’s nominee. At
least 15 Republican senators, including former Republican presidential
nominee John McCain, are now openly opposing Trump’s candidacy. The
highest-ranking Republican woman in Congress condemned Trump’s
comments. Congressmember Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state
said, quote, "It is never appropriate to condone unwanted sexual
advances or violence against women. Mr. Trump must realize that it has
no place in public or private conversations," she wrote. Donald Trump
has rejected calls to step down. Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence, said
Saturday, quote, "We pray for his family and look forward to the
opportunity he has to show what is in his heart when he goes before the
nation tomorrow night," unquote.
There is a lot more in the
2. The Nobel
Prize in Economics Is a Force for Market
The second item is by Alexander Reed Kelly on Truthdig:
This starts as follows:
The Nobel Prize in
being announced Monday, dignifies those who advocate ceding to
private interests the public’s power to ensure the common welfare
and legitimizes the destruction their policies create, writes Avner
Offer, economics historian at Oxford and co-author of “The
Nobel Factor: The Prize in Economics, Social Democracy and the
Market Turn,” at The Guardian.
I say, but not really. First,
economics is not
a real science: If it were, there would have been far
more economists who predicted the 2008 collapse than there were.
Second, economics is not a real
science: If it were, there would be considerably more consistency in
identifying (at least) the factors and the models to analyse economics,
which in fact is divided into pools of wide disagreements between
supposed "scientists". Third, economics is not
a real science:
If it were, there would be far less propaganda,
far less bullshit,
fewer lies, and
far fewer deceptions
by the very men that economists tout as
"scientists of economics".
And I do know that economy is not a real science, because I
been reading economy and economists for over 50 years now - and I
grant, as I do in the case of psychology, that not everything is
baloney, and that there are a few who mostly seem to speak
they are in a small minority; they are not popular;
most of the good
ones (whether economists or psychologists) are not well-known; and -
again - their supposed sciences are not real sciences, even if
there are a few who think and experiment like
real scientists. 
Here is some more:
I say, but again not really.
Here are some
points on the above quotation. I start with the first paragraph:
Like market liberalism,
economics regards buying and selling in markets as the template for
human relations and claims that market choices scale up to the social
good. But the doctrines of economics are not well founded: premises are
unrealistic, models inconsistent, predictions often wrong. The halo of
the prize has lent credibility to policies that harm society, to
inequality and financial disorder.
Economics does not have the field
policy entirely to itself. A different view of the world – social
democracy – is used by governments to allocate about 30% of GDP in most
developed countries for employment, healthcare, education, and
pensions. Social democracy is not only a political orientation but also
a bipartisan method of government. Like economics, it accepts the
primacy of markets in production and consumption. Markets reward wealth
and success. In social democracy, entitlement is equal, and arises from
citizenship, though one-size-fits-all sometimes creates its own
The Nobel prize came out of a
social conflict. On one side, central banks and the better-off striving
to keep property intact and prices stable; on the other, everyone
else’s quest for economic security.
First, I am not a "market liberal": I believe neither in
(which also is a very
vague term, but let that be), nor does my ethical and political
extend to the fake "liberalism" that makes economists praise
rich men who take all the profits they want and can get, and who insist
that this - profit taking - is the only moral or
ethical norm CEOs have to fullfil (as Milton Friedman
has said). This
is utter trash, from an ethical point of view.
Second, those who favor "markets" ("Free Markets!", "Freedom!",
"Liberalism!") are either frauds or fools who insist that the rich
ought to be free to extract as much profit as they can
non-rich, and who speak almost nothing but propaganda
Third, I agree that economists' "premises
unrealistic" their "models inconsistent" and their "predictions often
Fourth, what the pretended "scientists" who are economists rarely
(for they drown this fact in their pretense that they are being real
scientists) is that every society is based on an ethical, moral  and ideological set
of presumptions - which are not "scientific", them- selves, but
which are, in the end, ethical.
(But nearly all economists pretend they are scientists, who do not
and should not! - have to do anything with matters of value.)
I turn to the second paragraph (and could have said more):
Fifth, the opposition between "social democracy" and "economics" is utter
trash, that only valueless pretenders that economics is a
science pretend to: What is here called "social democracy" in economics
is perfectly good economics (which is not a real
science) which goes
back to Owen, Ricardo and Marx in the first
half of the 19th century.
Sixth, it may be these economists (of
which there have been many, indeed also with quite a few different
theories) are called "social democrats" by fake economical
"scientists", but if so, the reason must be that they do allow for
ethical and moral positions in economics - which is wholly correct in
principle, simply because every society is based on an ethical,
moral  and ideological
set of presumptions.
Seventh, "social democracy" is not just "a
political orientation" nor just "a bipartisan method of government":
There are many economists who are social democrats (in some
may vary a lot), and who do not agree that they are politicians.
Eight, "social democrats" (including the economists) do not
necessarily accept "the
primacy of markets in production and consumption":
In fact, leftist economists (who - it seems - are here falsely
"social democrats") may be quite against the dominance of "markets" and
"profits", and are certainly more aware than their rightist opponents
that the economy - like all things human - is based in
part on ethical
of value (that cannot
be reduced to "science", nor be
explained away as "unscientific").
Ninth, "social democrats"
(including the economists) tend to not accept vagueries like
"entitlement is equal", because there simply is no equality whatsoever
in either riches or power between the rich few and non-rich many: To
insist that "entitlement is
equal" is to insist on a lie.
I end with the third paragraph and just one point:
Tenth, the Nobel Prize for economy arose out of the conflict
leftist and rightist economists, in which the rightists
insisted that their
values and choices (for profit, for the rich, against the poor, against
fair sharing) are "science", while the leftist values and choices
(against profits as an ethical or moral choice, for the non-rich,
against the rich, for fair sharing) are not "science": This was utter
trash, but it won the day and most of the battles, presumably
"science" like economics tends to side with the sides who have
the riches and the power.
And this is not a recommended article (it is mostly baloney), while I
threw out my ten remarks to - very briefly - explain my own view of
3. Trump Takes
Second Presidential Debate Into the Gutter
The third item is by Steven Rosenfeld on AlterNet:
starts as follows, and is here because this seems a reasonable
description of the debate (which I did not see and will not see
I have better uses for my time):
Let me say once again that Trump
talks like that because he is mad (insane, crazy) (and
I am a psychologist).
Donald Trump threw everything
vulgar he had at Hillary Clinton during 2016’s second presidential
debate, in an effort to salvage his sinking campaign after a video was
released Friday of him bragging about sexually assaulting women.
At the debate, Trump repeatedly
the taped comments as regrettable “locker-room talk" that didn’t
actually happen. He went on to accuse Clinton of being the serial liar,
threatened to jail her over her use of a private e-mail server as
Secretary of State, brought up Bill Clinton’s supposed sexual assaults
as a counterpoint to his own randiness, and stalked Clinton on the town
hall debate’s circular stage, shadowing her as she spoke to the
audience, interrupting and calling the moderators biased.
Here is a sum-up of the debate:
But more than anything,
was a bizarre drama in three acts that is not likely to change the
dynamics of the race or attract new multitudes to Trump. The first
third featured one of the sleaziest attacks by a presidential candidate
on a competitor in decades, as Trump went after Clinton in an almost
unhinged fashion by raising Bill Clinton’s “abusive” treatment of
women. The middle section featured Trump assailing Clinton as a serial
liar and even getting into an argument with ABC’s Martha Raddatz, one
of two moderators who tried to grill Trump on what specifically he
would do in Syria. Clinton replied that he lived in an alternative
universe; she gave prescriptions on specific issues, from responding to
the Russia-Syria alliance to fixing rising Obamacare costs. The final
section saw Trump continually butting in with the last word and saying
that Clinton had “tremendous hate in her heart," while Clinton, in
contrast, tried to answer the audience’s questions before returning to
the big picture.
a lot more in the original, which is recommended.
This starts as follows and is
mostly because of the poll numbers:
4. Post-Lewd Tape Poll Shows Clinton With Double-Digit
The fourth item today is by Andrea Germanos on Common
say. This opens a somewhat fair perspective that indeed Clinton
win the presidency, which I very strongly hope she does, and not
because she is any good (she isn't) but because she is not insane
crazy) like Trump is.
A new poll conducted before the second
presidential debate of 2016—but after the
release of a tape in which Donald
Trump bragged that his celebrity status allowed him to grope women
without their consent—shows Hillary Clinton with a double-digit lead
over her Republican rival.
The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll
shows that in a four-way match-up including Green Party nominee Jill Stein and
Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, Clinton has an 11-point lead among
likely voters over Trump—46 percent to 35 percent. Johnson had nine
percent and Stein 2 percent.
In the same poll conducted in
Clinton had a 6-point lead over Trump—43 percent to 37 percent.
Presented with a two-way
has a 14-point lead over Trump, with the former secretary of state
receiving 52 percent to Trump's 38 percent.
Incidentally: I think Gary Johnson is an utter fool (he doesn't even
know what "Aleppo" means, for one example), but even so he still has
more than four times as many votes (9 percent) as does Jill Stein (2
percent). And while I think Jill Stein has a far better program
Johnson (and Clinton and Trump), I do not think she is fit for
presidency, and I am certain she will not win it. (She isn't fit
because she isn't a good talker.)
Then there is this about Trump's "lewd comments":
I have three remarks on the above:
Asked about the lewd comments
Sunday's presidential debate, Trump said he was "very embarrassed" but defended
himself by saying, "it's locker room talk."
But it isn't, according
to some current and former professional athletes. Jacob Tamme, a
tight end for the Atlanta Falcons, for example, tweeted,
"Please stop saying 'locker room talk,'" and,
"It's not normal. And even if it were normal, it's not right." He added
Monday: "The attempt to normalize it as any type of 'talk' is wrong. I
refuse to let my son think that this is 'just how men speak.'"
The poll showed
Republican voters say that, in light of the lewd comments, GOP
candidates for Congress should still back Trump as their party's
candidate; only 9 percent said they should withdraw their support.
fallout on MSNBC's
"All In With Chris Hayes" on Friday, conservative talk-radio host
Charlie Sykes said,
"I don't know how any politician stands next to him and justifies in
any way saying, 'Okay, yes. The man is talking about sexually
assaulting women, groping women, but we should still make him the
president of the United States."
First, I doubt Jacob Tamme is correct. I don't know, because I
heard very little "locker room talk", and what I heard is very old, but
I know how many men talk about women, and that tends to be crude and
not sympathetic, especially between males only.
Second, regardless of "locker room talk", the real
point is not
about what "men" may say in locker rooms: the real point is
that the actual man
who defends his talk of grabbing women by their vulvas
And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. (...) Grab ’em by the
pussy. You can do anything." - is the
man who wants to be president of the USA.
Third, I should also say that I do not consider "9 percent" of
previous Trump-voters who revised their judgement on voting for Trump
small or negligible.
But this is a recommended article.
Age of Decline, Apple Pie, and America's Chosen Suicide Bomber
The fifth and last item today is by Tom Engelhardt on Tomdispatch:
This starts as
follows and is here because it gives a good summary of quite a
From the moment the first scribe etched a
paean of praise to Nebuchadnezzar into a stone tablet, it’s reasonable
to conclude that never in history has the media covered a single human
being as it has Donald Trump. For more than a year now, unless a terror
attack roiled American life, he’s been the news cycle, essentially the
only one, morning, noon, and night, day after day, week after week,
month after month. His every word, phrase, move, insult, passing
comment, off-the-cuff remark, claim, boast, brazen lie, shout, or
shout-out has been ours as well. In this period, he’s praised his
plan to destroy ISIS and take
Iraqi oil. He’s thumped
that “big, fat, beautiful wall” again and again. He’s birthered
a campaign that could indeed transport him, improbably enough, into the
Oval Office. He’s fought it out with 17 political rivals, among
others, including “lyin’ Ted,” “low-energy Jeb,” Carly (“Look
at that face! Would anyone vote for that?”) Fiorini, “crooked
Hillary,” a Miss Universe (“Miss
Piggy”), the “highly
overrated” Megyn Kelly’s menstrual cycle ("You could see there was
blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever"), always
Rosie O’Donnell (“a slob [with] a fat, ugly face”), and so many
others. He’s made veiled
the desire to punch someone in the face; talked about shooting
“somebody” in “the middle of Fifth Avenue”; defended the size of his
hands and his you-know-what;
and a quote from Mussolini;
denounced the outsourcing of American manufacturing jobs and products
his own jobs and products; excoriated immigrants and foreign labor
advertised the Trump brand in every way imaginable; had a bromance
with Vladimir Putin; threatened
to let nuclear weapons proliferate; complained bitterly about a rigged
debates, a rigged
moderator, and a rigged
microphone; swore that he and he alone was capable of again making
America, and so the world, a place of the sort of greatness only he
himself could match, and that’s just to begin a list on the subject of
Yes, indeed. There is a lot
the original, which is recommended, but I again conclude that Trump has
said the above summarized points because he is insane (crazy, mad),
while I say so because I am a psychologist.
And by now I also tend to think that this ought to be said a lot
plainly than it has been said so far: You do not say the
above utterly nonsensical/false things (and many more) as a
candidate unless you are not sane.
this is precisely as I said it does, and it goes on for
months now. I
do not know who does it, and I refuse to call the liars of
(really: the KPN), simply because these have been lying to me from
2002-2009, and I do not trust anything they say I cannot control
myself: They have treated me for seven years as a liar because
"you complain about things other people do not complain about" (which
is the perfect excuse never to do anything
 As I said, I have read economy
for over 50 years now, and this is one of the reasons I can judge it
fairly well. Also, I do know a great
amount about philosophy of science, methodology and probability and
statistics, and this is another reason (and there are not many
economists who know philosophy of science and methodology
as well as I do).
 There is - in my opinion, at least - a genuine
difference between ethics
Morals is about the norms of groups,
with which all adults have plenty of experience; ethics is about the
norms that should hold or hold in societies, which
are considerably more abstract and more general, while societies, as
such, also are not given in experience.