A. Selections from
November 4, 2017
This is a Nederlog of Saturday November 4,
This is a crisis
log but it is a bit different from how it was the last four years:
I have been writing about the crisis since September 1, 2008 (in Dutch) and about
the enormous dangers of surveillance (by secret services and
by many rich commercial entities) since June 10, 2013, and I will
continue with it.
moment and since nearly two years (!!!!) I have
problems with the company that is
supposed to take care that my site is visible 
and with my health, but I am still writing a Nederlog every day and
2. Crisis Files
are five crisis files that are all well worth reading:
Selections from November 4, 2017
1. ‘Very Frustrated’
Trump Becomes Top Critic of
2. U.S. Report Says
Humans Cause Climate Change,
Contradicting Top Trump
3. U.S. Domestic
Surveillance Papers Raise Rights
4. Recycled GOP Promises of ‘Trickle Down’
5. We Need New Rules for the Internet Economy
items 1 - 5 are today's selections from the 35 sites that I look at
every morning. The indented text under each link is quoted from the
link that starts the item. Unindented text is by me:
Frustrated’ Trump Becomes Top Critic of Law Enforcement
This article is by
Peter Baker on The New York Times.
this article here is first a quotation from "Executive
(<-Wikipedia) that makes a point I learned at or before the age
and under the term "trias politica",
which - I take it - was all
lost to president Trump:
In political systems based on the principle
of separation of powers, authority
is distributed among several branches (executive, legislative,
judicial) — an attempt to prevent the
concentration of power in the hands of a small group of people. In such
a system, the executive does not pass laws (the role of the
legislature) or interpret them (the role of the judiciary). Instead,
the executive enforces the law as written by the legislature and
interpreted by the judiciary.
In case you are
nearly as dumb as president Trump: The USA is based on the trias
politica a.k.a. the separation of powers.
But president Trump
(who may never have heard of it) doesn't like it at all:
One of President
Trump’s biggest disappointments in office, by his own account, was
discovering that he is not supposed to personally direct law
enforcement decisions by the Justice Department and the F.B.I. So,
instead, he has made himself into perhaps the most vocal critic of
America’s system of justice ever to occupy the Oval Office.
Just this week, he denounced
the criminal justice system as “a joke” and “a laughingstock.” He demanded
that the suspect in the New
York terrorist attack be executed. He spent Friday berating the
Justice Department and F.B.I. for not investigating his political
opponents. He then turned to the military justice system and called a
court-martial decision “a complete and total disgrace.”
indeed. Here is some more:
The repeated assaults on law enforcement cross lines that
presidents have largely observed since the Watergate era, raising
questions about the separation of politics and the law. But as
extraordinary as Mr. Trump’s broadsides are, perhaps more striking is
that investigators and prosecutors are so far ignoring the head of the
executive branch in which they serve while military judges and juries
are for the most part disregarding the opinions of their commander in
“You know, the saddest thing is that because I’m the
president of the United States, I am not supposed to be involved with
the Justice Department,” Mr. Trump said in a radio interview on
Thursday on the “Larry
O’Connor Show.” “I am not supposed to be involved with the F.B.I.
I’m not supposed to be doing the kind of things that I would love to be
doing. And I’m very frustrated by it.”
also why I said that I much doubt that president Trump has ever
about the trias politica (but I know Trump lies whenever this seems
convenient to him).
were several responses, but the most impertinent was by the service
of the rich bankers, the
corrupt fraud Eric Holder:
That is, Eric Holder
criticizes Donald Trump for doing what Holder excelled in, when
to illegally protecting his friends, the very rich bankers.
The president’s Twitter posts and comments drew rebukes from
Democrats and some Republicans. Former Attorney General Eric H. Holder
Jr., who served for six years under President Barack Obama, said Mr.
Trump’s comments make the job of law enforcement officials more
“Combined with his improper attempts to influence Department
of Justice actions, this demonstrates that he is a president who is
willing to flout those norms that protect the rule of law,” Mr. Holder
said in an interview.
Incidentally, while this article is not bad, it can be
done a lot
better. Here is a part of the
treatment Kevin Drum gave to the same question, on Mother Jones:
Donald Trump does not
like the civilian
“What we have right now
is a joke and it’s a laughingstock.”
Trump also does not like
the military justice system:
And he’s also unhappy
with his own Justice Department:
Yesterday he wrapped this
all up and explained to WMAL host Larry O’Connor just
how unhappy he is:
“The saddest thing is
that because I’m the President of the United States, I am not
supposed to be involved with the Justice Department,” Trump
said. “I am not supposed to be involved with the FBI.”
Yes indeed. And
it seems (again) as if the president of the USA doesn't have any
about the - legal, constitutional - limitations on his power.
articles I mentioned are recommended.
Report Says Humans Cause Climate Change, Contradicting Top Trump
This article is by
Lisa Friedman and Glenn Trush on The New York Times. It starts as
follows (and is a bit surprising giving the
much of the Trump administration’s position on climate change, 13
federal agencies unveiled an exhaustive scientific
report on Friday that says humans are the dominant cause of the
global temperature rise that has created the warmest period in the
history of civilization.
Over the past 115 years global average temperatures have
increased 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, leading to record-breaking weather
events and temperature extremes, the report says. The global, long-term
warming trend is “unambiguous,” it says, and there is “no convincing
alternative explanation” that anything other than humans — the cars we
drive, the power plants we operate, the forests we destroy — are to
indeed, though in fact it is not so much about "the cars", "the power
plants" or "the forests" "we" (which "we"?!? I never owned a
car, a power plant or a forest) "destroy", but it is simply about the
number of human beings.
Here is the most melancholic chart I know, once
sketches the outcomes
Limits to Growth" (and many related publications), that I
read in 1972 (when there were half as many human beings as
there are now, a mere 45 years later):
graphic also shows "the enormous influence" of climate scientists and
activists over the last 45 years: None
that can be noticed in
the above graph.
the last bit that I quote from this article:
“This report has some very powerful, hard-hitting statements
that are totally at odds with senior administration folks and at odds
with their policies,” said Philip B. Duffy, president of the Woods Hole
Research Center. “It begs the question, where are members of the
administration getting their information from? They’re obviously not
getting it from their own scientists.”
evidently so. And the answer to the question is also simple: They get
their information from their
wishful thinking and their private
interests, and these are, in their uneducated or greedily egoistic
opinions, much more
worth than any data any climate scientist gathered since
1972 - as you
can see by the net
effects on the policies these reports had: None
whatsoever, by the
Domestic Surveillance Papers Raise Rights Concerns
This article is by
Emily Wells on Truthdig. It starts as follows:
New documents obtained by
Human Rights Watch reveal a Department of Defense policy that seems to
allow monitoring of U.S. citizens and green card holders deemed by the
executive branch to be “homegrown violent extremists”—even when they
have “no specific connection to foreign terrorist(s).”
The organization says that
the documents, obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request,
raise concerns about the government’s ability to gather data on
citizens without obtaining a warrant. The group is especially concerned
that “people who are exercising their legitimate, free-expression
rights will be targeted for monitoring in a discriminatory or arbitrary
can give you my
opinion on who are the "homegrown violent extremists" that president Trump and his amazing team are
protecting the USA from: They are anybody whose opinions differ from
You may doubt this but I, who was taught
40 years ago today, at the
"University" of Amsterdam, the fundamentally fascistic lie
to Hannah Arendt)
knows that truth does NOT exist"
maintained all these 40 years as THE principle on which
"University" of Amsterdam is founded, as well as the fundamental
principle on which Dutch democracy is founded - for the Dutch have
been implementing since thirty years
the political and
legal protection of ALL Dutch illegal
drugsdealers who are rich
enough to become "personally protected" by some Dutch mayor:
You can deal in illegal
drugs all you please, but a
percentage must go to the Dutch politicians who have been
you excellent Dutch illegal drugs dealers.
the Duch illegal drugs dealers have been dealing illegal drugs
kinds all over Europe during the last thirty years, in which
illegal but "personally protected" drugs dealers turned over 300
billion euroos just in soft drugs, and probably double that - 600
billions, in thirty years - if you add hard drugs:
Illegal drugs are to
Holland what extremely low taxes are to Luxembourg: A way to gain enormous
profits for the corrupt politicians, lawyers and judges, and indeed
also for the illegal dealers, planters etc.
At least: That
is the principle I deduce from the facts that I have been 3
1/2 years threatened with murder by Amsterdam's mayor
Van Thijn's personal friends, who were dealers in soft and in hard
drugs, who were allowed to threaten me
with murder and destroy my health for 3 1/2 years,
after Van Thijn had given his personal friends
his "personal permission", in writing, to deal in illegal drugs
(both soft drugs and hard drugs) from the
bottom floor of the house where I lived
(instead of Van Thijn or any of his criminal lawyers or his personal
criminal political friends).
For I could get no protection whatsoever against murder
threats from absolutely everyone I asked who worked for the City of
Amsterdam while these things happened to me for 3 1/2 years, while I could get no reply whatsoever from the drugsfascistic
terrorists that worked in the City of Amsterdam who have been protecting these drugsfascistic terrorists
for THIRTY years now.
And I do not return to the article and the “homegrown violent
extremists”: I ask why?
I have not
received any answer whatsoever since 1991, when the
answers I received amounted to: We don't do anything whatsoever for
die if you can, for we, the Amsterdam authorities, protect the
interests of the illegal drugs dealers we gave permission to deal illegal
drugs - soft AND hard drugs - from the bottom floor of the
house where I had to live.
GOP Promises of ‘Trickle Down’
This article is by
J.P. Sotille on Consortiumnews. It starts as follows:
It is really important
that the Republican Party decorated its Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act with the word “Jobs” because the GOP is
going to sell this to their base using the magical thinking that giving
a big tax cut to corporations is giving a big raise to workers. The
idea is that you give more money to big businesses. The executives, in
turn, will take that excess money and trickle it down onto their
employees in the form of raises.
This wishful thinking is
predicated on the people at the top suddenly feeling compelled to share
this new windfall when they’ve refused to share all the windfalls of
the past. For some reason, that didn’t happen with the previous two big
tax cuts (Reagan/BushII) and, of course, GOP supporters of this deal
say “middle class hasn’t gotten a raise in decades,” without pointing
out that the severe wage/income gap began with the coming of Ronald
Reagan’s tax cut (the graphed
data is stark) and it has continued unabated, George W. Bush’s tax
cuts be damned.
Yes indeed, although
the previous two paragraphs are quite weak compared to this one:
You see, the average pay
for an S&P 500 CEO is 271
times the pay of their average worker. And it’s 819 times workers
making minimum wage. Amazingly, in 1965, the ratio was 20-to-1; by
1989, after the Reagan tax cuts, that ratio had widened to 59-to-1.
Those dates – 1965 and 1989 – coincide with the high point of the
Middle Class (1965) and the beginning of the end of the Middle Class
(1989) as a mass phenomenon or what we called The American Dream.
This means that in
thirty or forty years the incomes of the richest (on average) was over 13 times higher than it was in
1965, which together made it 271 times the
pay of the average worker.
There also is another
difference (entailed by deregulating
the economy ever since Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin allowed
And 1989 was a point of
acceleration for the financialization
of the economy, which brings me to the point: this economy is a
hoarding economy, not a productive economy. Hoarding is rewarded over
production. Inflating stock prices with buy-backs is rewarded. Inflated
valuations and speculation are rewarded. Exotic financial devices that
repackage and sell debt are rewarded. Cutting the cost of labor is
rewarded. And the people at the top are rewarded for stoking stock
prices, no matter the P/E ratio. And shorting your own bad decisions is
rewarded … and your simple greed is bailed-out if your bottom line was
That’s because this economy
is a rigged game rooted in speculation and salesmanship and vaporware.
I agree and there is more
in the article, that is recommended.
Need New Rules for the Internet Economy
This article is by Armin Mahler on Spiegel International.
It starts as follows:
There are still people
out there who think that Amazon is nothing more than an online version
of a department store. But it's much more than that: It is a rapidly
growing, global internet giant that is changing the way we shop,
conquering more and more markets, using Alexa to suck up our personal
data straight out of our living rooms and currently seeking access to
our front door keys so it can deliver packages even when nobody's home.
Facebook has also long
since become much more than a social network for chatting with friends.
It is a media company that earns billions in advertising by
disseminating content without checking it first.
The list could go on -
with Google, or Alphabet, as the company now calls itself, and others.
What they all have in common are growth rates that would be impossible
in the analog economy. And that they have amassed a dangerous amount of
power - which is why they are increasingly facing political pushback.
I am not saying "No"
at this point, but I am saying that all of this - in
principle - was known to me by 1996, when I got internet
fact, that is also the reason, together with the fact
that my life was repeatedly threatened with murder by illegal
drugsdealers that were "personally protected" by Mayor Van Thijn (see item 3), that I have always taken care that my real
name only very rarely is used on internet.
Here is more from the
article (and from this quote onwards it starts to get objectionable):
As diverse as the
appraisals of the critics might be, they are right. There are, of
course, plenty of advantages associated with digitalization, but
digital capitalism badly needs new rules - because the old laws are no
longer effective. They were made for an economy that traded in real
goods and for which price was an important factor. That could all be
taxed, controlled and, if need be, adjusted.
The digital economy, by
contrast, is based on algorithms and its most powerful companies don't
produce any physical products.
In fact, what are
the "plenty of advantages
associated with digitalization"?!
there are some, but this is so vague as to be utter bullshit. And
indeed I also can see very few advantages of a technique
that allows all the spying agencies anywhere to tap all
internet traffic they can
get, and use it for their own ends (in fact making everyone with
internet connection in principle a fully owned digital slave) nor can I
see very many advantages of allowing the big internet corporations
do the same, for their own economical ends, again
treating all their private users as totally non-private human shit.
Here is the last bit
that I quote from this article:
Here are my comments:
That is why, first of
all, the power of a company, and the abuse of that power, must be
redefined. We cannot allow a situation in which these extremely large
companies can swallow up potential rivals before they can even begin to
Second, it must be determined who owns the data collected - whether,
for example, it should also be made available to competitors or whether
consumers should receive more in exchange than simply free internet
disseminating content cannot be allowed to reject responsibility for
that content. Demonstrably false claims and expressions of hate should
not be tolerated.
And finally, those who earn
lots of money must also pay lots of taxes - and not just back home but
in all the countries where they do business
principle: Overdue by at least 20 years, and - in my
opinion - quite impossible by now. Besides, judges mostly
follow the political lines, and why should I worry about the
fact that (bolding added) "these
companies can swallow up potential rivals before they can even
develop"? For the point is not
really owning a lot of money, but using those extreme amounts of
money for many kinds of illegal
ends (and these illegal uses of extreme amounts of money have been
going on ever since
Lewis Powell Jr. attended the rich to these possibilities in 1972).
Second princple: No, this is -
I think - intentionally misleading. The point
is not (bolding added) "who owns the data collected" but who permitted their collection in the first place,
for nearly all this data collection was unfair, illegal and in contradiction with the
Constitution of the United States, and also with the
understandings of law and morality elsewhere. (Private data ought
to remain totally private, except for special legal ends. Currently, private
data are gathered by all who have money without any real
Third principle: Utter totalitarian
If I can express my likes, I ought to be able to
express my dislikes (but not on Facebook), while the
protest against "expressions of hate" is political
correctness, that is both totalitarian and hardly sane. Besides,
what is a "demonstrably false claim"? Who is supposed to demonstrate that? The secret services
or the unknown "algorithms" of Facebook or Google? And
aren't people allowed to lie anymore? Not even in their own
interests? And again: Who is supposed to test whether people lie? 
Fourth principle: I agree with the (implied) statement that those who
earn the most should pay the most taxes.
Anyway... these are the current opinions of Spiegel International.
I have now been saying since
end of 2015 that
xs4all.nl is systematically
ruining my site by NOT updating it within a few seconds,
as it did between 1996 and 2015, but by updating it between
two to seven days later, that is, if I am lucky.
claimed that my site was wrongly named in html: A lie.
They have claimed that my operating system was out of date: A lie.
just don't care for my site, my interests, my values or my
ideas. They have behaved now for 1 1/2 years as if they are the
eagerly willing instruments of the US's secret services, which I will
from now on suppose they are (for truth is dead in Holland).
two reasons I remain with xs4all is that my site has been
there since 1996, and I have no reasons whatsoever to suppose that any
other Dutch provider is any better (!!).
 These are important questions as well,
for everyone I have ever known was quite dishonest each and every day,
and indeed so was I: I have lied to the police, to civil servants and
to others, and I did so mostly because this served my own
And my points (summarily) are these: (i) everybody I know often
lies, simply to defend his or her own private interests (ii) nobody
I know is a billionaire with many rich lawyers (iii) rich billionaires
and their lawyers can lie all they please, and probably will never
be punished for anything they did but (iv) non-rich people who
lie (about anything whatsoever) - probably - may be treated as anyone
with a gram of marijuana is - still - in many US states: They may be
imprisoned for five or ten years, if not more. (Or so I fear.)