1. California Democrat
Zev Yaroslavsky Tells Robert
Scheer Why the State Is a
Model for Progressives
2. A ‘Jaw-Dropping’ Assessment on Arctic Warming
3. 100 CEOs Have as Much Retirement Savings as 116
4. Beyond Resistance: The Story of 2016
5. Suppose the Pope Condemned Health Care
and Hardly Anyone Noticed?
is a Nederlog of Saturday, December 17, 2016.
is a crisis
log with 5 items and 5 dotted links: Item 1 is (in
my extracts) about the multi-millionaires who were presidents of the
USA; item 2 is about arctic warming, which goes
much faster than elsewhere; item 3
is about 100 American CEOs whose retirement savings are equal to the
retirement savings of 78% of all Americans; item 4
is another warning about the extreme skewness of incomes in the
present USA (that will get much worse with Trump); and item
is about health care corruption and the mainstream media: There is
massive health care corruption, but hardly any gets ever reported in
the mainstream media (and this may effect you, whoever you are,
wherever your are, as soon as you get ill with some not totally
part, for the moment --
In case you visit my
Dutch site: It keeps being horrible most days and was so on most days in
But on 2.xii and 3.xii it was correct. Since then it mostly wasn't
(until and including the 16.xii).
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. 
In case you visit my
Danish site: This was so-so till 18.xi
and was correct since then (most or all days).
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.
keep this introduction until I get three successive days
in which both providers work correctly. I have not seen
for many months now.
1. California Democrat Zev Yaroslavsky Tells Robert Scheer
Why the State Is a Model for Progressives
The first item
today is by Robert Scheer on Truthdig:
This starts as follows:
On his KCRW show, “Scheer
Intelligence,” Truthdig Editor in Chief Robert Scheer speaks with
Zev Yaroslavsky, one of the leaders of California’s Democratic Party,
about the California paradox, or how progressives swept the nation’s
largest state in the 2016 election while Hillary Clinton got Trumped
elsewhere in the country.
Yaroslavsky also talks about Democrats’ lack of coherent messaging
during the election, which in the minds of many voters stood in
contrast to Trump’s perceived clarity. Finally, he discusses the value
that the increasingly progressive California sees in immigrants.
I like Robert Scheer and I did not know
Yaroslavsky (<-Wikipedia) is. From the Wikipedia he seems to be
a quite decent politician, which means that he belongs to a rather
small minority of all American politicians (most of whom are - I'm
sorry - corrupt frauds).
But I was a bit disappointed by the
interview, which takes 5 pages on Truthdig, because I had selected it
to get a clear answer about the state, but I don't think I got it (and
I read all).
I did get two bits from it, and here is
Scheer: Let’s cut to the chase
here. I think there was a world of difference between Bernie Sanders
and Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton. You’re a politician. Come on,
Zev. You’re a progressive politician but you’re a very successful
politician. You’re preparing to run for the Senate for the President of
the United States. You’ve been a Senator from New York. What do you do?
You go to Goldman Sachs and take three-quarters of a million dollars
for three speeches that weren’t even speeches. They were little blather
there and you don’t even cover yourself by saying to these folks in
case those speeches become public, and any speech you give should be
public, you don’t even say, “Hey, you guys bear some of the
responsibility.” On the contrary, you say, “We need you down in
Washington to write better laws because you understand it so bring it.”
What was this woman thinking?
Yaroslavsky: I don’t know and you
have to ask her, but I’ll tell you one thing. That’s not the reason she
lost the election. I think the reason the Democratic Party and its
candidate lost the election is because ... The reason Jeb Bush and John
Kasich and all the others on the Republican side didn’t get any
traction on their side was because they were not in touch with what the
people of this country were going through. A big chunk of the people
and a critical mass of them who tilted the election from her to him.
I think - to answer Scheer's qutestion -
that Hillary Clinton was doing what Bill Clinton was doing before her:
Cashing in as millionaires
(together they now seem to be worth around $120 million, but
this is one estimate of several) for massively helping the Wall
Street bankers to enrich themselves and deregulate
the laws that bound them. They wanted money for that service, and they
got it, and making speeches for $250,000 a speech was the way.
And I think all of that was quite
and started in the early 90ies under Bill Clinton, and was continued
all the way since, under Bush Jr. and under Obama, who probably is
going to do the same as Bill and Hillary Clinton: Cashing in on
the massive help he provided to the bankers, whom he gave what they
As to Yaroslavsky's answer: I am sorry,
but this is the theology of politics. Nobody
knows what tens of millions of people thought, felt and believed, and
while there has been some research into it, that research tends to be wholly
neglected by politicians who plug their own
theological explanations of voters without offering the least
evidence for their guesses.
This is the second and last bit that I'll
As to Scheer: I think that if there is an
atomic war, we are all dead. And I also think that with Trump as
president - who I think is both a neofascist and a madman - the probability that this
will happen is appreciable, and much higher than it probably ever
was precisely because Trump is ignorant,
tempestuous and mad. (I am sorry if you disagree, but I am a
psychologist and this is what I think.)
Scheer: All right. Let me end
with this question. How worried are you? This guy does have ...
President-to-be Trump does have his finger on the button. He could do a
lot of damage. President of the United States is the most important
human being in the world. He could without even thinking, and maybe
that’s the problem, can cause a lot of harm. Are you losing sleep over
Yaroslavsky: Well I’m not losing
sleep but I tend to sleep better now than I used to. My waking hours
are ... Give me stomach aches. Let me put it that way. I’m worried
about it mainly because I don’t know ... Aside from his behavior and
having his finger on the button and his clearly tempestuous
personality, I don’t know what he stands for. I don’t think anybody
knows. I’m not sure he knows what he stands for.
As to Yaroslavsky: I am sorry, but that is nonsense. Clearly, Trump is
a neofascist in my
sense, which I once again repeat because I think it is a good
definition, for which I have read a whole lot. You can read more about
is a. A social system that is
marked by a government with a centralized powerful authority, where
the opposition is propagandized and suppressed or censored, that
propounds an ethics which has profit as
its main norm, and that has a politics that is rightwing, nationalistic, pro-capitalist,
anti-liberal, anti-equality, and anti-leftist,
and that has a corporative
organization of the economy in which multi-national corporations are
stronger than a national government or state, b. A political philosophy or
movement based on or advocating such a social system.
Also, I must say that if you have been a
progressive Jewish Democrat for over 40 years, which is all
true of Zev Yaroslavsky, it seems to me rather odd
to insist that you don't know what Trump stands for and to add that you
even doubt he knows: Even if you know nothing else about Trump, clearly
he is a rich man who is for rich men.
And if you read through my definition of neofascism, that was prepared
without any thought about Trump, it seems you must agree he
seems to be described there point by point by point. And this also
explains his picks for his cabinet, it seems to me.
2. A ‘Jaw-Dropping’ Assessment on Arctic Warming
The second item is by Andrea Germanos on Truthdig and originally on
This has the following bit in it,
which indeed is fairly jaw-dropping:
Here is one other bit:
The report’s main findings, as noted by
- Warmer air temperature:
Average annual air temperature over land areas was the highest in the
observational record, representing a 6.3 degree Fahrenheit (3.5 degree
Celsius) increase since 1900. Arctic temperatures continue to increase
at double the rate of the global temperature increase.
- Record low snow cover:
Spring snow cover set a record low in the North American Arctic, where
the May snow cover extent fell below 1.5 million square miles (4
million square kilometers) for the first time since satellite
observations began in 1967.
- Smaller Greenland ice sheet: The
Greenland ice sheet continued to lose mass in 2016, as it has since
2002 when satellite-based measurement began. The start of melting on
the Greenland ice sheet was the second earliest in the 37-year record
of observations, close to the record set in 2012.
- Record low sea ice:
The Arctic sea ice minimum extent from mid-October 2016 to late
November 2016 was the lowest since the satellite record began in 1979
and 28 percent less than the average for 1981-2010 in October. Arctic
ice is thinning, with multi-year ice now comprising 22 percent of the
ice cover as compared to 78 percent for the more fragile first-year
ice. By comparison, multi-year ice made up 45 percent of ice cover in
- Above-average Arctic Ocean
temperature: Sea surface temperature in August 2016 was 9
degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees Celsius) above the average for 1982-2010
in the Barents and Chukchi seas and off the east and west coasts of
- Arctic Ocean productivity:
Springtime melting and retreating sea ice allowed for more sunlight to
reach the upper layers of the ocean, stimulating widespread blooms of
algae and other tiny marine plants which form the base of the marine
food chain, another sign of the rapid changes occurring in a warming
As I have indicated several times, I think
there are far too many people alive on earth (nearly three
times as many as there were when I was born); I think since 1972
to Brenda Ekwurzel, a senior climate scientist and the director of
climate science at the Union of Concerned Scientists, the
“jaw-dropping” assessment from NOAA “is remarkable for two reasons.”
First, so many records were broken or
ranked second in each respective observational period (see Table). The
second reason is that change is happening so fast and with such great
magnitude that NOAA included an addendum to log changes leading up to
the report release.
The report, said
Margaret Williams, managing director for U.S. Arctic programs at World
Wildlife Fund (WWF), is “a red flashing light.”
that far too little has been done against that; and I think
this will collapse the present world and the present world
order if that has not been blown up in an atomic war before
I am sorry to be pessimistic, but I am so - about this topic - since
and have been growing more and more pessimistic ever since, simply
because the world population kept growing and growing and growing.
This is a recommended article.
3. 100 CEOs Have as Much
Retirement Savings as 116 Million Americans
The third item is also by Andrea Germanos on
This starts as follows (and in fact is
This also means - to add a bit of personal
detail - that each of these 100 sick and sickening degenerates
gets in two months of pension more money than I got in my
whole life of 66 years. And wholly apart from that - and yes, I
have been ill since I am 28 - I think this is extremely sickening, and it
shows that the present American society is very unfair to at
least 78% of its people. (For 41%+37%=78%).
While many Americans are facing a "frightening
retirement reality," 100 CEOs are looking at "colossal nest eggs"
and can look forward to monthly retirement checks of over $250,000 for
the rest of their lives.
The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS)
puts a spotlight on this massive savings gap in its new report
(pdf), "A Tale of Two Retirements."
"While slashing jobs and benefits for
ordinary workers, CEOs of large companies have been feathering their
own nests," stated Sarah Anderson, report co-author and director of the
IPS Global Economy Project. "It's no wonder so many American workers
are concerned about whether their golden years will be tarnished by
In fact, these 100 CEOs have retirement
funds that total $4.7 billion. That's as much as the retirement savings
of the 41 percent of U.S. families with the smallest nest eggs—that's
116 million people. The report also notes that 37 percent of U.S.
families have no retirement wealth at all.
And this is about the extra-ordinarily rich merry few who are going to
improve the incomes of the rich few by a lot more:
The new IPS report comes on the
heels of an analysis by Quartz finding
that Trump's 17 cabinet-level pics have more wealth than one-third of
U.S. households combined.
I say. And this
is a recommended article.
4. Beyond Resistance: The
Story of 2016
The fourth item is by Richard Eskow on Common Dreams:
This is from near the beginning and is the
only thing I'll quote from this article:
Here’s a macro-trend: According to a recent
paper by Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman,
“… the bottom half of the income
distribution in the United States has been completely shut off from
economic growth since the 1970s … In contrast, income skyrocketed at
the top of the income distribution, rising 121 percent for the top 10
percent, 205 percent for the top 1 percent, and 636 percent for the top
0.001 percent.” (emphases mine)
Here’s another: According to the Equality of Opportunity
Project, the percentage of Americans who grow up to have a better
income than their parents has fallen from roughly 90 percent for
children born in 1940 to only 50 percent – a coin toss – for children
born in the 1980s. The largest declines occurred for families in the
Here’s a third: The top 0.1
percent of Americans now holds as much wealth as the bottom 90
percent. It hasn’t been that bad since the 1930s.
I say, again. And this may be interpreted
as another warning that incomes are extremely askew in the
Suppose the Pope Condemned Health Care Corruption - and Hardly Anyone
Let me start with saying that the present
article - which is from an American site about health care - is
relevant to everyone, and not only in the USA, simply
because health care
The fifth and last item today is by Roy M. Poses MD on Health Care
has been corrupted quite massively everywhere (also in Holland ), and continue with a brief explanation why I
read Health Care Renewal.
I read Health Care Renewal firstly because I am ill for nearly 38
years now and secondly because it is a good site run by
(responsible and intelligent) medical doctors, that indeed
seems to be so good that it is always the last
thing to load in the long list of internet magazines I check every day,
which seems to happen because it is slowed down on purpose (but this is
Then again, I normally avoid mentioning health matters in my crisis reports, and most of what I write these days on my site are
crisis reports. But this is quite relevant to everyone and
it begins as follows:
We have frequently discussed
in health care as one of the most important causes of health care
dysfunction. Transparency International (TI) defines corruption as
One of the main reasons health care
corruption - which is extremely massive in the USA - "has been nearly a taboo topic in the US"
is that the pharmaceutical corporations, who earn billions by
these corruptions, also spend millions of those billions on preventing
that almost anyone mentions health care corruption (in the USA).
entrusted power for private gain
In 2006, TI
published a report on health care corruption, which asserted that
corruption is widespread throughout the world, serious, and causes
severe harm to patients and society.
the scale of
corruption is vast in both rich and poor countries.
might mean the difference between life and death for those in need
of urgent care. It is invariably the poor in society who are affected
most by corruption because they often cannot afford bribes or private
health care. But corruption in the richest parts of the world also has
The report did not get much
attention. Since then, health
care corruption has been nearly a taboo topic in the US.
And in fact, here is an excellent bit of evidence that
this is so, that indeed also is an excellent bit of evidence
that the mainstream media (in the USA, but not only there) have
been thoroughly corrupted, and do not bring most of the
real news anymore (but instead have endless stories meant to amuse
Yesterday, this story appeared in
the Catholic News Service. It opened with:
I think this is indeed quite
stunning, simply because the pope heads more than one billion
Catholics, and he said something that is quite true
in my (non-US) experiences, for after 38 years of illness
I am still not considered ill by all bureaucrats and most
medical doctors, in spite of the fact that my ex and I both fell ill in
the first year of our studies, which we also both finished with excellent
M.A.s, but that we never could make a single cent with
these degrees because we both are ill for 38 years now - but not
according to 95% of the utterly incompetent medics we saw, and not
according to the sick, degenerate and extra-ordinarily stupid and
uncivilized bureaucrats we met in Holland.
(CNS) -- Corrupt business practices that seek to profit from the
sick and the dying are a cancer to hospitals entrusted with the care of
the most vulnerable, especially children, Pope Francis said.
One might think that this condemnation of
health care corruption by the leader of a huge Christian religious
group would get considerable attention, but one would be wrong. The
only other coverage of the Pope's message was an extremely brief (6
sentences) item by the AP (see here
via Business Insider.)
Doctors, nurses and those who work in the field of health care must be
defined by their ability to help their patients and be on guard
against falling down the slippery slope of corruption that begins with
special favors, tips and bribes, the pope told staff and patients
of Rome's 'Bambino Gesu' children's hospital Dec. 15.
'The worst cancer in a hospital like this is corruption,' he
said. 'In this world where there is so much business involved in
health care, so many people are tricked by the sickness industry,
'Bambino Gesu' hospital must learn to say no. Yes, we all are sinners. Corrupt,
Anyway... if you meet a medical doctor these days, prepare to be
frauded, if it is not by
being prescribed extremely expensive medicines, then by utter baloney
as soon as they see they can't explain your complaints: Then 95 out of
a 100 Dutch medics will say you are insane and make it
up ("you are psychosomatic"), for they care much more for their
own incomes than for your health, your
rights, or your income. (For they are only human, after all,
and neither moral heroes nor particularly honest.)
I know, for I have been thus abused for 38 years now. 
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
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
 The brief explanation is that people
work for money, and the same applies to the Clintons and to
Obama. These were very successful political people, so they
also got a great lot of power, but presidents (until Trump) could not
earn really very much while they were presidents. And therefore
to get really rich (multi-millionaires, which is what the
Clintons now are, indeed like Tony Blair) they needed to help
those who made enough to make them millionaires. And this they did.
(Yes, I do
think it is as simple as this: Who else could pay $250,000 per speech
than bankers? Who else would do so if they weren't helped by those in
power? Who can deny that the Clintons and Obama followed policies with
the bankers which allowed them to make billions?)
 O yes!
But the pattern in Holland and in Europe is different
from the pattern in the USA. In the USA, there is massive corruption in
the health industry on at least two fronts: First, the prescriptions of
very expensive patented pills; and second, the manipulation of very
many pharmaceutical investigations into drugs, that help the
pharmaceutical corporations to get even richer than they are.
In Holland, at least the first corruption is less on the moment, and I
do not know about the second corruption, but the vast majority
of doctors knows much
less than they pretend to know, and tend to call anything they don't
know medically (which is in fact a great lot, which is understandable
since medicine is a real science for less than 150 years)
"psycho- somatic", i.e. they blame their patients for their own
ignorance, and in fact accuse them of being insane.
My ex and I, who both got ill in January 1979 (!!) have seen at
least 30 medical doctors of whom no one even knew what M.E. is
(which was first medically described, and quite well also, in 1965),
but 90-95% asserted they knew what ailed us: We were insane.
For me this means that 90-95% of the Dutch doctors my ex and I met were
in fact degenerate and immoral frauds. Also, see the next note.
 Because almost none of the 30
or so medical doctors I saw was intellectually and morally competent, I
am still not officially ill, after 38 years of suffering,
illness, pains and extremely little money (while I got a
psychology M.A. with an average of 9,3 out of 10, which is extremely
I am sorry, but only 2 out of the 30 medical doctors my ex and I saw
a fraud. The rest didn't know anything about our disease (which is OK
with me: I also don't know many things I would love to know), nor did
they know anything about my ex and I (except that we were both quite
polite and quite intelligent), but nevertheless accused us that we are
insane and made up our complaints from thin air: Because they had no
idea, they said we were "psychosomatic" (which anyway is a fraudulent
non-medical concept, I say as a psychologist: in real medicine
there are not both a body (soma) and a mind (psyche):
there only is a body).
I have had one piece of great luck the last 38 years, and that
was meeting dr. Helen van Proosdij-Fertigova, who was an excellent
G.P. for me between 1986 and 1999 (when she stopped working as a
medical doctor), and to whom I very probably owe my life:
She was a really excellent doctor (who also was not
Dutch, but originally from Checho- slovakia, whence she fled in 1968,
which may not be accidental, as the one other doctor who was
scientific and decent was from Java: all the purely Dutch
medical doctors I met professionally dressed
- in medical white, often with stethoscopes draped around their necks
to make clear their effective superhumanity to anyone who had not
studied medicine - and behaved as frauds, for they did not
know what ailed us, and did not know shit about our lives or
our persons, but nevertheless accused us of being insane. I
think you only do that - about quite intelligent, quite polite
persons like my ex and I - if you are a real fraud.)
The reason why I very probably owe my life to dr.
Helen van Proosdij-Fertigova is that she
believed me (and talked much more with me than any other doctor did:
she knew whom she was judging; the others did not) and
that I had to survive between 1988 and 1992 nearly four years of
non-sleeping, murder threats, and an attempt to gas me (literally,
and it almost succeeded) from the degenerate illegal
drugsdealers that the sick and degenerate mayor of Amsterdam Ed van
Thijn had given his "personal permission" (in writing: I saw the
letter) to deal illegal drugs from the bottom floor of the
house where I lived. (I do not know how many millions he
meanwhile earned this way, but they may be extremely many, in
part because he also succeeded in getting all of Holland to deal in the
same illegal way with soft drugs: Since 1988 something like 28
* 20 billion dollars = 460 billion dollars have been turned
over in Holland in this grossly illegal way that was started
by Van Thijn.)
For much more, you need to read Dutch: See ME in Amsterdam.