1. The FBI Is Building A National Watchlist That Gives Companies
Real Time Updates on Employees
2. Only True Populism Can Save Us From Donald Trump's Cheap
3. Elizabeth Warren To Democrats: Only an 'Opposition Party'
Can Defeat Trump
4. Ready... Fire... Aim: How an Unhinged Trump Is Threatening
US National Security
5. Don't Call Trump "Crazy": The Dangers of Pathologizing Bad
This is a Nederlog of Sunday, February 5, 2017.
Summary: This is
a crisis log with 5 files and 5 dotted links: Item 1 is about the FBI, that us compiling watchlists on extremely many Americans (in secret); item 2 is about an - I think - far too optimistic article about the Democratic Party and populism; item 3 is about Elizabeth Warren, who also does not honestly face the Democratic Party's corruption since Bill Clinton; item 4 is about a not very good article about Trump (I agree mostly with the writer's values, but these are personal); and item 5 is a fairly mad article that seeks to prove that Trump is not insane, but that is - as stated in this article - bullshit.
As for today
(February 5, 2017): I have changed my site on February 1, 2017 to make
that it might be read,
because it now happened for most
of last year that both of my sites are not uploaded
1. The FBI Is Building A National Watchlist That Gives Companies Real Time Updates on Employees
On xs4all.nl it may be days, weeks or months behind to show the proper
last date and the proper last files (in the last 4 years always
date it was that day) and of course it was yesterday already not uploading; on one.com it may be shown as
December 31, 2015
often was!!!) but it was OK yesterday; and indeed I am sick of being systematically made
unreadable and therefore changed
the site to allow most readers of reading it more easily.
For more explanations, see here - and no:
with two different sites in two different countries
with two different providers,
where this has been
happening for a year (and not over 20 and over 12 years
before) now I'm absolutely certain that
this happens and that it's not due to me.
The first item today is by Ava Kofman on The Intercept:
This starts as follows:
The FBI’s Rap Back program is quietly transforming the way
employers conduct background checks. While routine background checks
provide employers with a one-time “snapshot” of their employee’s past
criminal history, employers enrolled in federal and state Rap Back
programs receive ongoing, real-time notifications and updates about
their employees’ run-ins with law enforcement, including arrests at
protests and charges that do not end up in convictions. (“Rap” is an
acronym for Record of Arrest and Prosecution; ”Back” is short for
before Congress about the program in 2015, FBI Director James Comey
explained some limits of regular background checks: “People are clean
when they first go in, then they get in trouble five years down the road
[and] never tell the daycare about this.”
Probably yes, for you cannot trust people.
Then again, if you cannot trust people, you cannot trust Comey nor the
FBI, and indeed these are far less deserving of trust than ordinary
people because they know very much more about very many people than the
people know themselves; because their knowledge is mostly built in
secret; and because their knowledge serves their own control and those
of the people they serve, who are the rich employers.
Here is some more on this "Rap Back" schema:
A majority of states already have their own databases that they use for
background checks and have accessed in-state Rap Back programs since at
least 2007; states and agencies now partnering with the federal
government will be entering their data into the FBI’s Next Generation Identification
(NGI) database. The NGI database, widely considered to be the world’s
largest biometric database, allows federal and state agencies to search
more than 70 million civil fingerprints submitted for background checks
alongside over 50 million prints submitted for criminal purposes.
This means in fact that the FBI has the means - the finger prints - to unlock the computers of over a 100 million Americans.
Here is more on the propaganda that is used to propagandize "Rap Back" plus what it really does:
Rap Back has been advertised by the FBI as an effort to target
individuals in “positions of trust,” such as those who work with
children, the elderly, and the disabled. According to a Rap Back
spokesperson, however, there are no formal limits as to “which
populations of individuals can be enrolled in the Rap Back Service.”
Civil liberties advocates fear that under Trump’s administration the
program will grow with serious consequences for employee privacy,
accuracy of records, and fair employment practices.
Here is more on the fingerprints and on the fact that employees have no power whatsoever:
The FBI has the license to retain all submitted fingerprints
indefinitely — even after notice of death. Employers are even offered
the option to purchase lifetime subscriptions to the program for the
cost of $13 per person. The decision to participate in Rap Back is at
employers’ discretion. Employees have no choice in the matter.
Precisely, as I pointed out above. Here is
another fact: "Rap Back" collects vastly more that from civil settings
than from criminal justice purposes:
“This type of infrastructure always tends to undergo mission creep,”
explained the ACLU’s Jay Stanley, referring to how agencies often find
secondary uses for data beyond its original function.
There are no laws preventing the FBI from using the data it collects
for other purposes, said Jeramie Scott, an attorney with the Electronic
Privacy Information Center. A massive trove of digital fingerprints
collected by the FBI, he noted, could be used to open up devices like
smart phones without the owner’s consent.
Fact sheets from January 2015 through August 2016 show the database
growing at a much higher rate from its collection of data from civil
settings than from criminal justice purposes. During that period, civil
submission rates constituted nearly 70 percent of new submissions. “Through
the Rap Back program the FBI is collecting biographical and biometric
data on potentially millions of civilians for purposes not associated
with criminal justice,” Scott said.
The article ends as follows (after a lot more that I leave to your interests):
Jay Stanley, of the ACLU, views the Rap Back program as part of a larger
trend toward the monitoring and policing of everyday life. “The whole
purpose of program,” he said, “is for people to be fired.”
Yes, but I think the purpose is wider: It is "the monitoring and policing of everyday life"
indeed to the extent that people will be employed only if they are
approved by the FBI, which again will tend to only approve those whose political records it approves.
2. Only True Populism Can Save Us From Donald Trump's Cheap Knockoff Version
The second item is by Conor Lynch on AlterNet and originally on Salon:
is from near the beginning, and comes after a summary of some of
Trump's delusions (about the size of the crowd at Trump's inauguration):
Yes, this seems more or less correct (but not according to psychiatrist Allen Frances, below: He says the president is not insane, and that not
because Trump fits Frances definition of Narcissistic Personality
Disorder to a t, according to thousands of of psychologists and
psychiatrists but because ... he "doesn't show clinically significant
It is not surprising, then, that the Trump administration, so
detached from reality, is now wildly overestimating the president’s
popularity and public support. In this respect, Trump actually has broken some records — but not in the way he had hoped. According to Gallup polls, Trump
already has a negative approval rating after two weeks in office,
which took years for any of his predecessors — going back to Ronald
Reagan — to achieve. The president has also prompted massive, relentless
protests and demonstrations since he entered office, unlike any other
president (including Nixon).
In other words, Trump is already the
most unpopular and divisive president in modern history (which is truly
something, considering George W. Bush was president not too long ago).
Yet he and his team are currently acting as if they have a massive
popular mandate. The White House has become a giant safe space for
delusional right-wingers, where only “alternative facts” that the
president reads on Infowars and Breitbart are permitted.
Then there is this on Trump's voters:
I think this is mostly misleading, because it
seems to attribute more rationality and more knowledge to most voters
than they really have, as indeed is illustrated by the "20 percent of those who voted for Trump did not think
he had the “temperament to serve effectively as president”": If you think that, you should not have voted for him - if you had been rational.
The 2016 election was a repudiation of neoliberalism and the
political establishment, not an endorsement of Trump or the Republican
Party’s far-right agenda. Indeed, on economics in particular, Americans
overwhelmingly reject the
GOP’s reactionary platform and tend to agree with Sen. Bernie Sanders’
social democratic policies. Luckily for Trump, no one symbolized
neoliberalism and establishment politics more than Clinton — and he won
because just enough voters reluctantly gave him their vote.
This reality is evinced by exit polls,
which reveal that 20 percent of those who voted for Trump did not think
he had the “temperament to serve effectively as president,” and a
whopping 51 percent only voted for him because they “disliked the other
Then there is this:
Though the populist right is now in control of Washington, polls make it
clear that a majority of Americans reject President Trump and his
overall agenda. By contrast, Americans broadly support Sanders’
progressive platform, and the Vermont senator has been consistently
ranked as the most popular politician in America. It
seems obvious, then, that the way to defeat Trump and his reactionary
movement is for the Democratic Party to embrace its populist wing and
reject the “third way” centrism that it came to represent during the
This seems to be a program that - it seems to
me - is bound to fail as long as the Democratic Party is led by
Clintonites, as it is now: These depend on the support of the rich
bankers whom they have to repay in deregulations for the money they
This article ends as follows:
The populist explosion isn’t going away. What is needed now more than
ever is a popular movement on the left to combat the destructive
populism of Trump, as well as the destructive force of neoliberalism.
Only time will tell whether the Democratic Party is ready to face this
reality head on.
No, that seems far too optimistic to me: The Democratic Party has been the party of the rich bankers ever since Bill Clinton became president of the USA, and it will be the party of the rich bankers until the Democrats decide to stop receiving millions from the rich bankers whose desires are enacted by the Democrats - which the Clintonites, who are in power, never will really do.
There is more on the Democrats in the next article:
3. Elizabeth Warren To Democrats: Only an 'Opposition Party' Can Defeat Trump
The third item is by Jon Queally on Common Dreams:
This starts as follows:
Hm. In fact the Democratic Party has been
sold to the rich bankers by the Clintonites (and Bill and Hillary
Clinton also made something like $150 million dollars that way) - which
means that the Democratic Party, indeed including Obama, who was a
Clintonite, has been corrupted now for close to thirty years now.
Speaking to members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus on
Saturday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) delivered a searing critique by
telling her fellow Democrats that the party should not let themselves
"off the hook" when it comes to explaining horrific reality of President
Donald J. Trump.
In order to defeat Trump and take on the Republicans, she said,
Democrats can no longer play it safe or cozy up to powerful interests
at the expense of everyday concerns and the needs of working people.
"Our moment of crisis didn’t begin with the election of Donald
Trump," Warren told CPC members gathered at their annual retreat in
Baltimore, Maryland. "We were already in crisis. We were already in
crisis because for years and years and years, Washington has worked just
great for the rich and the powerful, but far too often, it hasn’t
worked for anyone else."
But this is not clearly said by Warren. Here is more of what she did say:
I am sorry but these are mere words, that seem bullshit to me, for the Democrats will claim verbally that they "resist every single effort" to any badness whatsoever, while they keep being funded by the millions from the bankers they helped to make billionaires.
Though one of Trump's most aggressive critics anywhere, Warren said
that she recognizes, and understands, why many hard-hit and
working-class voters who once voted Democratic cast their ballot last
year for a billionaire reality television star who vowed to shake up the
"People don’t just wake up one day," she said, "and elect leaders
like Donald Trump because 'Hey, everything is awesome, but what the
hell, let's roll the dice and make life interesting.'"
As the Republicans pushed further and further to right in recent
decades, Warren continued, it must be admitted that Democrats "have been
unwilling to get out there and fight."
But those days, Warren said, must now be over.
"We are not the minority party," declared Warren. "We are the opposition party."
She concluded: "We will resist every single effort to make America
into a small and spiteful place. We will resist every injustice. We will
resist every effort to divide us. We will resist every effort to
disgrace our Constitution. We will resist every single step toward the
takeover of our government by billionaires, bankers and bigots."
As long as the hundreds of millions by the rich bankers are not rejected by the Democrats, the Democrats will mostly do as the rich bankers want them to do, and as the Democrats have been doing
ever since Bill Clinton was president and started his serious
deregulation programs that gave the rich bankers almost all they wanted.
4. Ready... Fire... Aim: How an Unhinged Trump Is Threatening US National Security
The fourth item is by John Atcheson on Common Dreams:
This is from near the beginning (that explains how Trump's first Yemini strike misfired):
How did Trump make the decision? Over dinner, with a
collection of advisors that included foreign policy "experts" like his
son-in-law Jared Kushner and former Breitbart whack-job Steven Bannon.
Oh, thank god they were there. Reports suggest that the
intelligence for the raid was inadequate and filled with uncertainties.
And White House spokesman Sean Spicer's claim that the raid had already
been approved by the Obama administration turned out to be false—you
know, what we call a lie.
But this is vintage Trump. He declined to meet with
intelligence officials for briefings every other President has
considered vital, he wants to simplify the process for deciding when to
conduct such strikes … on and on the madness goes. And when it blows up
in his face, he calls it a "success." The buck stops … well … not here …
somewhere else. Anywhere.
Yes, indeed. (But professor Allen Frances insists Donald Trump is sane and bad, and not
insane: see item 5. Presumably you can lie 70% of the time during a
year; say you can grab all the pussy you want; scold all your opponents
interminably; and say you can shoot someone and still be popular but - if you are rich and powerful enough - rich and powerful psychiatrists will cover for you.).
Here is some more on Trump's ban:
Many of the people who had cleared vetting and were
scheduled to immigrate to the US, had been interpreters, intelligence
operatives, or had otherwise supported the US efforts in Iraq, Syria,
Yemen, and the Sudan, and they were in danger because of it. Aside from
the grotesque immorality of leaving these people to suffer at the hands
of brutal extremists, there’s a practical issue here that could
seriously compromise US security now and in the future.
How successful will we be if we need to recruit
support from populations in countries we might engage militarily
with—whether covertly or in an open war—in the future, given this kind
of track record? Not very. And with troops in over 150 countries
across the world—many of them in small, covert roles that rely directly
on the goodwill and support of the people living there—we need to
demonstrate that we keep our word and protect those who help us.
Bottom line? Trump’s ill-conceived and poorly
executed ban on immigration, just increased the risk to our military
troops overseas, and made it more difficult for us to recruit support in
any future misadventures. Even on its own imperialist terms, the
decision was a disaster.
Hm. Let me put it thus: While I agree that Trump's "decision was a disaster",
Trump and the Trumpians totally disagree - which means this is, in
considerable part, at least, a matter of one's values - and one's own values are not facts (outside one's own mind).
Here is Atcheson's ending:
Bottom line: Functionally, Trump's decision-making is straight out of
Lord of the Flies: adolescent, violent, cliquish, competitive, and
I more or less agree, but my agreement is
mostly based on my values. And my values must be incorrect, according
to psychiatrist Allen Frances, because I have M.E. (like some 17 million others) all of whom are insane according to some leading psychiatrists (which implies that my ex and I now are 38 years insane, albeit we never did anything criminal or wrong all these years, while we both also got excellent M.A. degrees in psychology while being ill - or "ill" - all the time):
5. Don't Call Trump "Crazy": The Dangers of Pathologizing Bad Politics
The fifth item today is by Kelly Hayes on Truthout:
This starts as follows:
The word "crazy" is deployed in many contexts in our society, often in a
manner that implies abhorrent behavior must be linked to mental
illness. Throughout Donald Trump's presidential campaign, and the early
weeks of his presidency, it has proven nearly impossible to traverse
social media -- or press coverage of the president -- without
encountering language that describes Trump as "insane," a "lunatic" or
clinically narcissistic. Some have even argued that it's "okay" to assess a public figure's mental health from a distance,
despite longstanding psychiatric standards that prohibit such
speculative diagnoses. The ethics that prohibit such diagnoses have,
however, had little effect on public narratives that depict Trump as
First let me say I have no idea who Kelly Hayes is, nor what she does (she is - according to Truthout "a direct action trainer and a cofounder of The Chicago Light Brigade
and the direct action collective Lifted Voices. She is community
relations associate" and she also is "an organizer against state violence" and she seems to make money from these nearly totally incomprehensible functions (?)).
Second, I do not "traverse
social media", but I am a psychologist who agrees with many psychologists and many psychiatrists that Trump is not sane. Miss Hayes is no psychologist, but she thinks - it seems - that psychologists like John Gartner, and some tenthousand others, must be not sane for saying things like this:
Psychologist John Gartner, a part-time assistant professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University Medical School, has publicly stated
that Trump has "a serious mental illness that renders him
psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of
President of the United States," diagnosing him with "malignant
narcissism." Gartner has gone so far as to create a petition, which
encourages mental health care professionals to cosign his assessment,
and demand Trump's removal on the basis of his supposed mental health
problems. The petition has accrued 17,479 signatures, though it's
unclear which of these individuals are mental health care professionals,
since many did not fulfill Gartner's request that all signatories list
their psychiatric credentials.
I am much in favor of John Gartner's initiative, as are - it seems - at least tenthousand other psychologists and psychiatrists (and psychologists do not have "psychiatric credentials", though they all have psychological credentials of some sort).
But Allen Frances sees it quite differently, and tweets firmly against them. Here is some about Frances:
However, not all psychiatrists are jumping on board with the narcissism
diagnosis. One such skeptic is Dr. Allen Frances, who wrote the clinical
criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Frances was the chair
of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) IV
Task Force and of the department of psychiatry at Duke University School
of Medicine, in Durham, North Carolina. He is currently a professor
emeritus at Duke University. Frances, whose criteria for narcissism are
still used today, has stated that Trump does not meet those criteria,
and has been outspoken in his critiques of efforts to pathologize Trump
from a distance. After firing off a series of tweets
that once again stirred attention around his arguments, Frances agreed
to talk with Truthout about the controversy, and why characterizing
Trump as mentally ill is downright dangerous.
It so happens that I know of Frances since late 2010, when I first read
which taught me (among other things, and I am
adding some that I learned later, for I did read rather a lot of
psychiatry between 2010 and 2013 ):
There is a lot more I could tell about pyschiatry - and see my DSM-5: Question 1 of "The six
most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis" of 2012, that is a long but well-founded criticism of modern psychiatry - but these are some of the facts that
- that Allen Frances can't define madness, but he is a specialist on it;
- that psychiatry was not a science till 1980 - see e.g. The Past of A Delusion - when Robert Spitzer (<-Wikipedia) almost singlehandedly transformed it by writing the DSM-III mostly by himself and made it a real science ;
- that the DSMs are all the private initiative and the private property of the American Psychiatric Association, that earned at least a hundred million dollars selling - very expensive - copies of them;
- that the process of compiling the DSMs is totally private and depends on the decisions of the APA, many of which are secret;
- that since then the number of "psychiatric disorders" has risen from between 40 and 50 in 1952 till over 400 (!!!) in the DSM 5 (and the DSM IV) ;
- that the APA's professionals together with the pharmaceutical corporations made
many billions of dollars prescribing "psychiatric medicines" ; and
- that I, my ex, and 17 million of others with M.E. are not physically ill with some unknown disease, but are insane according to the vast majority of psychiatrists, and namely because we do not have a disease that current medical science - that exists at most 150 years - can find: Those without an identifiable disease all are insane according to the majority of all psychiatrists , and also that
- according to the psychiatry of the DSM-IV 78% of all the British are not sane.
convinced me that psychiatry never was a real science, and still is not a real science at all. 
Here is Kelly Hayes (opening up - a very small bit - about her own neuroses ) with Allen Frances:
As a writer who's been open about my own struggles with
mental illness, I've always found characterizations of Trump as being
"crazy" or "narcissistic" troubling. But those of us who've objected
have found it nearly impossible to interrupt the "insanity" narrative.
Can you talk about why you've chosen to be outspoken on the subject?
It's an insult to people who have real mental illness to be lumped
with Trump. Most people with mental illness are well-meaning,
well-mannered and well-behaved. And Trump is none of these. Trump is
bad, not mad. And when bad people are labelled mentally ill, it
stigmatizes mental illness.
First about Kelly Hayes: She is bullshitting if she is speaking about the media or the press (and I am not stupid enough to read the asocial media), for I found almost nothing in them about Trump's insanity, and I am reading 35 magazines and papers every day and since close to 4 years.
Also, I see no reason at all why a neurotic would find "characterizations of Trump as being
"crazy" or "narcissistic" troubling" - given the fact that Trump offended absolutely everyone who opposed him; he claimed he grabbed pussy and thinks he is entitled to do that (as a famous man); and given the fact that 70% of the things he said the last year have been found to be lies.
Then Allen Frances.
First, apparently I must feel insulted because I am supposed to have a real mental illness according to him (since a mere 38 years), namely because I believe I am physically ill while doctors find no evidence (and therefore I am crazy, according to Frances and his psychiatrists: Medical science knows everything there is to know about illness and therefore people who claim a disease for which there is no evidence are clearly insane ).
Second, he quotes bullshit: "Most people with mental illness are well-meaning,
well- mannered and well-behaved", which is bullshit because "mental illness" is totally ill- defined (there are 10 times more forms of supposed "mental illness" now as there were in 1952, which shows either that the APA's psychiatrists are extremely liberal in saying such-and-such is a mental illness, or else that they are and have been talking nonsense that favored their own financial interests).
Third he invokes an utterly arbitrary moral norm he invented: "bad people are labelled mentally ill, it
stigmatizes mental illness" - I assume because he assumes that "mentally ill" people are not stigmatized (which is an utter lie) and are not "bad" (which just is bullshit, for badness is a personal value and a personal judgement, and not a psychiatric jugdement).
Here is more bullshit by Frances:
Can you explain why Trump doesn't fit the criteria for narcissism?
In order to qualify for a mental disorder you not only have to have
the personality features, you also have to have clinically significant
distress or impairment caused by them. Trump causes distress, but there
is no evidence that he experiences it. And instead of being impaired by
his narcissistic behavior, he is rewarded for it, to the extent of being
elected president of the United States.
This is utter bullshit because Frances cannot deny that the criterions he himself formulated for a Narcissistic Personality Disorder do apply to Donald Trump - as I myself and tenthousand other psychologists and psychiatrists also inferred.
Now if you are a person without power and it turns out that tenthousand or more psychologists and psychiatrists agree that you have some form of insanity, then you - very probably - will be supposed to have that form of insanity. 
But not if you are a person with power. Then it becomes suddenly also necessary that you not only have all "the personality features" (which Trump has), but also a "clinically significant distress (..) caused by them".
is no evidence that he experiences it" (if only because he does not want to be investigated by psychiatrists or psychologists).
Therefore - according to Allen Frances - Trump is not mad (though Frances doesn't like Trump, and also does not disagree he satisfies all the criterions that Frances himself compiled as a diagnosis for having a Narcissistic Personality Disorder).
 This is utter bullshit in my eyes, but indeed that is also typical for most psychiatry I know of (not: all) : It really is not a science and never was one. For more see item 5 below.
following list is just a small set of the many things I learned about
psychiatry between 2010 and 2013, and if you are interested at all you
should not miss
the Battle to Define Mental Illness (although I also don't agree with all of that).
There is very much more to say about the DSM-5 and about psychiatry than I can do here, but here is a selection of 131 articles I wrote about the DSM-5
(mostly in connection with my disease M.E., which doesn't exist
according to psychiatrists, because medicine can't find it, and medicine knows everything there is to know about medicine.
Incidentally, that last statement - that medicine knows everything there is to know about medicine - is utterly
false (medicine exists at best for 150 years, and knows very much less
than there is to know), but you should not say so to most medics or
 Clearly, this is bullshit, but it is the bullshit that is believed by most psychiatrists (and Robert Spitzer did type most of the diagnosis in the DSM-III himself, and was a very dishonest man).
itself should make any rational person think: between 40 and 50 mental
disorders in 1952; over 400 in 2010 - and most of these disorders
connected to - very recent - "psychiatric medicines", which are fed to
tens of millions in the USA alone, for billions of dollars.
 And that is the real point of psychiatry and psychiatrists: Because they are also medical doctors (in the minimalistic sense of having passed a B.A. usually), psychiatrists (unlike psychologists) may prescribe medicines, and medicines are extremely profitable,
both to the pharmaceutical corporations and to psychiatrists who
prescribe them (and the more they prescribe, the more money they get).
 This is the very sad fact about M.E.: As long as the physical cause is not found nearly all psychiatrists and most medical people besides will insist that - because they know absolutely everything about every possible disease every person can get (except that they never honestly formulate this claim of absolute science of every disease) - everybody without a presently identifiable disease is insane.
That is the plainly idiotic prejudgement on which very much of modern psychiatry is founded (and which makes it very much money): Everything medical science cannot currently explain must be due to insanity (except if it concerns powerful and rich persons, for these are wholly different from ordinary people: see below).
 But I did study psychology; did
finish with a 9.3 average (out of 10 maximal); and am ill since I was
28, so I've never even earned a legal minimal income in Holland in the
last 38 years. (For more, reread note )
 I still
presume the old distinction between normal, neurotic and psychotic
persons, but the supposed science of psychiatry c.q. Robert Spitzer
himself deleted that as well from psychiatry in 1980.
case you did not notice: This is a prejudgement that may be compared to
the Catholic prejudgement that those who are not Catholics MUST go to
hell, for Catholics KNOW. That is: psychiatrists KNOW that whatever is not known to current medical science does not exist, and therefore everybody who claims an illness current medical science cannot find MUST be insane, for psychiatrists KNOW.
 This is true of everyone who has no power (like myself and 17 million people who are ill with M.E.). For people with power and money, the situation is - of course! - totally different, for the powerful and the rich simply cannot be mad (according to most psychiatrists and dr. Allen Frances, it seems).