from November 26, 2018
This is a
Nederlog of Monday,
This is a crisis
log but it is a bit different from how it was until 2013:
I have been
writing about the crisis since September
1, 2008 (in Dutch, but
since 2010 in English) 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 more than two years
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
I shall continue.
2. Crisis Files
five crisis files
that are mostly well worth reading:
A. Selections from November 26, 2018:
1. The Top 10 Trump Lies and Why They Matter (With Daniel Dale)
The 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:
2. How U.S. Politics Have Become Paramilitarized
3. What Happens If Julian Assange Is Tried in the US?
4. UK Seizes Thousands of 'Potentially Explosive' Documents
Has Tried to Keep Secret
5. Why Democrats must embrace Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal”
Top 10 Trump Lies and Why They Matter (With Daniel Dale)
This article is by
Mehdi Hasan on The Intercept. This article starts as follows:
lies. We know that. He lies in the
morning, he lies in the afternoon, he lies in the evening and at night.
He even gets up in the middle of the night to tweet, and that tweet
almost always turns out to be a lie. A lie is produced each time his
lips move. And this
astonishing, serial, non-stop, 24/7, pathological lying is not just
weird, pathetic, and immoral, it’s a danger to democracy. Because
Trump, in classic autocrat fashion, wants us to just accept that the
only truth we need worry our little heads about is the truth that comes
straight from his mouth. Daniel Dale, the Toronto Star’s Washington
correspondent, joins Mehdi Hasan to discuss Trump’s top ten lies and
his totalitarian obsession with controlling what his supporters in
particular define as true or false — and why this is all matters.
Yes indeed, this is more or less correct. In
fact, I shall only deal with parts of this long article simply
because it is too long to properly excerpt.
Also, since I am a psychologist I do
want to add something to the above: I quite agree that Donald Trump is
serial (..) pathological liar", but I also have - together with thousands
of psychologists and psychiatrists, a decent explanation
for Trump's interminable lying: Trump is insane.
In fact, I reached that conclusion myself
nearly three years ago, but then I am a psychologist. And I
merely remark it here, because I have already spent a lot of attention
to it in the past nearly three years.
Here is more from the article:
Dale: I think the U.S. media is heavily complicit in
amplifying his lies in that way, in allowing him air-time to lie
unfettered, and again to not treat the lying as an important story that
needs to be told.
MH: (..) In fact, the President of the United States
has lied almost every day since those elections. That probably doesn’t
surprise you very much, but it should. After nearly two years of this
routine, we’ve kind of lost our national capacity to be shocked by
brazen presidential mendacity.
Well, today on
the show I want to try and help us get back that shock factor.
Because the lying matters. It really does. My guest is the brilliant,
the one and only Daniel Dale of the Toronto Star who literally monitors
Trump’s lies for a living.
2017, it was 2.9 false claims per day. During the run-up to the
midterms, during the month and a half leading up to it, it was 26 per
and I are going to count down what we consider to be the most
egregious, despicable, or just downright weird falsehoods that have
ever left the Commander-in-Chief’s lips. Today on Deconstructed: Donald
Trump’s top 10 lies and why they matter.
Yes indeed. In fact, I shall not
report on the top ten lies, but they are all reported in the
Here is more (put together from various
quotes bty various persons):
Maxwell: Donald Trump is someone who lies constantly about
little things and big things.
Trevor Noah: Trump
lies about things we can see: the size of his crowds, the margin of his
Schmidt: Trump lied 6,000 times this year.
Anchor: Trump lies once every three minutes, 15 seconds.
Colbert: On the plus side, you can use Trump’s lies to tell if
your microwave popcorn is done.
Meyers: Trump lied, got laughed at, and then lied
about getting laughed at, and then Fox News lied about Trump’s lie
about how we got laughed at for lying.
Trump lies. We know that. He lies in the morning. He lies in the
afternoon. He lies in the evening and at night. He even gets up in the
middle of the night to tweet, and that tweet almost always turns out to
be a lie.
There’s an old
line about politicians. How do you know if they’re lying? Their lips
are moving. Well, that literally applies in the case of President
Trump. His lips move, and a lie is produced. In fact, there has never
been a president, a U.S. politician, I would argue, who is so utterly
unwilling, incapable of, allergic to telling the truth.
He lies about
things big and small. He lies about things in front of our eyes. He
lies about people, places, policies, and this astonishing, serial,
non-stop, 24/7, pathological lying is not just weird. It’s not just
pathetic. It’s not just immoral. It’s a danger to democracy because
Trump in classic autocrat fashion wants us to just accept that the only
truth we need to worry our little heads about is the so-called truth
that comes straight from his mouth.
Yes indeed -
but once again, while I quite agree that Trump's "pathological lying is not just weird. It’s
not just pathetic. It’s not just immoral. It’s a danger to democracy" I once again insist that
Trump's lying also is special not only because he lies so much
and so obviously, but also because Trump is insane (and I do not know any
other American president who was insane, although I know of quite a few
Here is some
more on the article and the interviewee:
so, today’s show is going to explore Trump’s lies, his war on truth,
and why it matters so much. And I couldn’t possibly ask for a better
guest to discuss all this then Daniel Dale, Washington DC bureau chief
for the Toronto Star. Daniel’s become kind of famous as the journalist
who not only fact checks in real time on Twitter everything Trump says
live at his rallies or in his TV interviews, but he also keeps a
running tally of all Donald Trump’s false claims since coming to
and here is a bit by Daniel Dale:
At first, at the beginning of his presidency, you know, he was
averaging for a while, through 2017, it was it was 2.9 false claims per
day. And so, that’s 21 a week. That’s not a huge amount of time to
fact-check. But now in 2018, he’s averaging nine per day. During the
run-up to the midterms during the month and a half leading up to it, it
was 26 per day.
I say (and yes, I trust
Dale). Here is more:
do you know of anyone who ever lied so
much? I do not (and this is one of many reasons I think Trump is insane).
as of Sunday November 11th, which is my last online update, it’s 3,749
false claims as President. Another update for last week, which has not
been posted yet has at least another 50 more and we’ve had more even
today. So, it’s above you know, it’s around 3,800.
so 3,800 lies and false statements.
Here is the last bit that I quote from this long article:
MH: There’s no
objective reality. That is a very, very scary implication. How much is
the U.S. media complicit in Trump’s serial dishonesty? Because until
very recently, you had media organizations unwilling to even say the
L-word. Now, a few of them are gingerly heading in that direction
saying this is a lie. Anderson Cooper occasionally on CNN
will say it. The New York Times would occasionally say it in a
headline. But even now you see The New York Times, and ABC News, and
others just putting up tweets with Trump’s falsehoods with no
fact-check and just running it. Even now, even two years in.
Yes, quite so - which
shows that "the media", and specifically the
mainstream/corporatist media, are helping Trump to lie, and lie and
lie. There is a whole lot more in this article, that is
U.S. Politics Have Become Paramilitarized
is by Jeremy Scahill on The Intercept. It starts as follows:
Donald Trump ran a campaign
promising to refill the notorious Guantanamo Bay prison, to “bring back
a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding,” to “take out” the families
of suspected terrorists, to ban Muslims from entering this country, and
to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Yet these policies didn’t
start with Trump: Torture, indefinite detention, extraordinary
renditions, record numbers of deportations, anti-Muslim sentiment, mass
foreign and domestic surveillance, and even the killing of innocent
family members of suspected terrorists all have a recent historical
Trump’s predecessor, Barack
Obama, continued some of the worst policies of the George W. Bush
administration. He expanded the global battlefield post-9/11 into at
least seven countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan,
Yemen, and Syria. At the end of Obama’s second term, a report
by Council of Foreign Relations found that in 2016, Obama dropped
an average of 72 bombs a day. He used drone strikes as a liberal
panacea for fighting those “terrorists” while keeping boots off the
ground. But he also expanded the number of troops deployed in
Afghanistan. Immigrants were deported in such record numbers under
Obama that immigration activists called him the “deporter-in-chief.”
And then there were the “Terror Tuesday” meetings, where Obama national
security officials would order pizza and drink Coke and review the list
of potential targets on their secret assassination list.
Precisely, and these
also are some of the reasons why I detest Obama, although I
grant that he is both intelligent and not insane at all.
Here is more on
Bush Jr. and the Democrats who helped him:
Bush, before him, in the
aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, took a hatchet to civil liberties: He
expanded National Security Agency surveillance on overseas
communications and created a system for unprecedented levels of
surveilled communications of U.S. citizens. Much of this happened with
the support of leading Democrats. Mosques across the country and in New
York City were spied on. The authorization for the use of military
force was passed in 2001 with the full backing of every lawmaker except
Barbara Lee, D-Calif. The bill created the justification for the
forever wars that still rage on 17 years later.
Here is more, that
includes a brief introduction to the interviewee in this
And steadily, all of the
counterinsurgency tactics of these foreign wars have crept back home,
Bernard Harcourt argues in a recent book. Called “The
Counterrevolution: How Our Government Went to War Against Its Own
Citizens” and it makes the argument that through NSA spying; Trump’s
constant, daily distractions; and paramilitarized police forces or
private security companies, the same counterinsurgency paradigm of
warfare used against post-9/11 enemies has now come to U.S. soil as the
effective governing strategy.
We are in the middle
of an unprecedented paramilitarization of state and local law
enforcement agencies in this country. Police at protests and
demonstrations often look like they’re SEAL Team 6 getting ready to
raid Osama bin Laden’s compound. Many agencies have received military
equipment through a Defense Department program that allows police to
obtain military equipment after it’s been used in foreign war zones.
I quite agree, and this
paramilitarization is quite important, and does also seem to me to be unconstitutional.
Here is the last bit
that I quote from this long article, which is about drones:
Heralded as “precise” or
“surgical,” the drone strike won the public’s favor under Obama. Any
public debate surrounding the use of drones as a legitimate replacement
for boots-on-the-ground arguably ended in 2011, with the drone
assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki and, subsequently, the strike that
killed his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman. Instead of an arrest, trial,
and verdict for these U.S. citizens, an execution by strike from the
sky was authorized. A Gallup poll reported in 2013 that 65
percent of the American public supported drone strikes against
overseas targets even after the killing of its own citizens. Harcourt
writes, “[Drones] make killing even U.S. citizens abroad far more
tolerable. And this tolerance is precisely what ends up eroding the
boundaries between foreign policy and domestic governance.”
We spoke to Harcourt about his
latest book, what makes the Trump presidency unique, and why we aren’t
talking about drones anymore on the Intercepted podcast.
Quite so, and in fact, I only
copied from the beginning of this article, and nothing from the
long interview that follows the above. It is all strongly recommended.
Happens If Julian Assange Is Tried in the US?
This article is by Srecko Horvat
on Common Dreams and originally on Al-Jazeera English. It starts as
Last week it became clear
that what WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and his
lawyers have been warning for seven years has already happened:
been charged in a criminal case in the United States. The fear
of being extradited and tried in the US has forced him to seek refuge
at the Ecuadorian embassy in London since 2012.
This news hardly came
as a surprise to those of us who have been following his case or have
been convinced that Assange's fate is of profound and historical
importance and could define the future of the freedom of the press.
Yes, that is basically
correct. Here is more:
if Assange is tried in US
There are some in the
West who are fully convinced that Assange deserves to be tried and
thrown in jail for "threatening" US national security and "undermining"
its democratic processes. Former US presidential candidate Hillary
Clinton and former Vice President Joe Biden have called him a
"terrorist", US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, then the
director of the CIA, has described WikiLeaks as a "non-state
hostile intelligence service" and US Attorney
General Jeff Sessions has said prosecuting Assange is a "priority" for
Many have also come to see
him as a political player who purposefully sought to influence the
outcome of the 2016 US presidential elections, while others consider
him a stooge of Russian President Vladimir Putin, although no
evidence for this was ever found. It is more likely that Assange's
indictment is coming not as part of Special Counsel Robert
Mueller's investigation into
Russia's role in the 2016 US election, but in response to WikiLeaks
publishing the biggest leak in the history of the CIA called #Vault7.
political leanings or views, his case is not about whether you
like him or not, but about freedom of the press. As Edward
Snowden rightly said: "You can
despise WikiLeaks and everything it stands for. You can think
Assange is an evil spirit reanimated by Putin himself, but you cannot
support the prosecution of a publisher for publishing without narrowing
the basic rights every newspaper relies on."
Well, first of all I do
not think that Assange is ""threatening" US national security"; I also do not think that he
its democratic processes"; I think Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden were both lying
(quite consciously so, also) when they called him a "terrorist", and I
think Pompeo also was lying (again quite consciously so) when he called Wikileaks a "non-state
hostile intelligence service".
Besides, I quite
that Assange's "case is
not about whether you like him or not, but about freedom of
the press" and I also agree
with Snowden. Besides, I do not know what "Assange's political leanings or views" are, and I doubt almost anyone who
him has objective grounds for it.
Here is more from the
If Assange is eventually
arrested, extradited to the US and stands trial there, he is almost
certainly going to be found guilty - just as Chelsea Manning was - and
he would probably end up in a Guantanamo-like prison. His prosecution
and jailing would have global repercussions for whistle-blowers,
publishers and journalists.
According to US lawyer and
civil liberties advocate Ben
Wizner at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU): "Any
prosecution of Mr Assange for WikiLeaks' publishing operations would be
unprecedented and unconstitutional, and would open the door to criminal
investigations of other news organizations".
In other words, a lawsuit
that tries to make it illegal or a form of "espionage" to publish
documents would set a dangerous precedent for publishers and
journalists who routinely violate foreign secrecy laws to deliver
information vital to the public's interest. It would endanger the very
foundation of free press.
Ben Wizner. Here is te last bit that I quote from this long article:
Why this is
important for all of us
We already live in a
world in which politics and distribution of information are being
profoundly transformed. Not only do dangerous populists and
authoritarian leaders come to power by "manufacturing consent", backed
by the use of "perception
management" methods by tech companies or organised
fake news campaigns, but they also come to power by openly
spreading misinformation and concealing information of public interest.
While it became
"natural" for politicians to employ such questionable
methods to reach power, it is the job of journalists, the media and
whistle-blowers to keep such behaviour in check. Punishing them for
doing their job - uncovering uncomfortable truths that those in power
would like to keep away from the public - means removing one of the
most important checks on executive political power.
Precisely. And there is
a whole lot more in this long article, all of which is strongly
Seizes Thousands of 'Potentially Explosive' Documents Facebook Has
Tried to Keep Secret
is by Jake Johnson on Common Dreams. It starts as follows:
After Facebook CEO
Mark Zuckerberg refused
to testify at a joint hearing with lawmakers from seven nations over
his company's invasive privacy practices, the U.K. Parliament on
Saturday legally seized thousands
of secret and "potentially
explosive" Facebook documents in what was described as an
extraordinary move to uncover information about the company's role in
Analytica data-mining scandal.
I say! And no, I did not
know this, but I think this is good news. Here is a bit more:
to the Guardian, the documents were initially obtained
during a legal discovery process by the now-defunct U.S. software
company Six4Three, which is currently suing Facebook.
Conservative MP Damian
Collins, the Guardian reports, then "invoked a rare
parliamentary mechanism" that compelled Six4Three's founder—who was on
a business trip in London—to hand over the documents, which reportedly
"contain significant revelations about Facebook decisions on data and
privacy controls that led to the Cambridge Analytica scandal. It is
claimed they include confidential emails between senior executives, and
correspondence with Zuckerberg."
"This week Facebook
is going to learn the hard way that it is not above the law. In
ignoring the inquiries of seven national parliaments, Mark Zuckerberg
brought this escalation upon himself, as there was no other way to get
this critical information," wrote Christopher Wylie, a whistleblower
who was previously the director of research at Cambridge Analytica.
Well... I don't know what is in
the documents that the U.K. Parliament seized, and I also doubt very
much whether it will finish Facebook or Zuckerberg, but I despise both
Facebook and Zuckerberg, and almost anything that hits either of these
criminal twins is welcomed by me.
Democrats must embrace Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal” proposal
is by Paul Rosenberg on Salon. This is from near its start:
“We need a Green New Deal and we need to
get to 100 percent renewables because our lives depend on it,”
Rep.-elect Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez told reporters, as 51 protesters with the Sunrise Movement were arrested (and later released). Since
then 13 members of Congress have signed on to support her proposal to establish a select committee tasked with developing a plan to
transition to a carbon-neutral economy and beyond, with the ultimate
goal of “economic and environmental justice and equality.”
I have written before about the Green New Deal
(and the last link gives some information, although this is older than
the above Green
New Deal, which you will find under the last link).
Here is a bit on the background of the above Green New Deal:
I think that is basically
correct but not very specific. Here is more:
And it’s not just wildfires. A paper published Nov. 19 in
Nature Climate Change found
a broad threat to humanity from the cumulative impacts of global
We found traceable evidence for 467 pathways
by which human health, water, food, economy, infrastructure and
security have been recently impacted by climate hazards such as
warming, heatwaves, precipitation, drought, floods, fires, storms,
sea-level rise and changes in natural land cover and ocean chemistry.
The basic idea of a New Green Deal is wildly
popular. There was 70 percent support for “Green New Deal — Millions Of
Clean-Energy Jobs” in the “Big Ideas” poll commissioned by the Progressive Change
Institute in January 2015. This year, Data for Progress advanced its
own, more detailed Green New Deal Plan, with polling showing related political
appeal: In Pennsylvania,
Michigan and Wisconsin — key to Trump’s 2016 election — voters were
more, rather than less, likely to support a candidate "who supports
moving the United States to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030" (..)
the popularity was mainly with those who were not elected, for
I do not
think that "13 members of Congress" (who are said to support it) is a
Here is the last bit I quote from this article:
think this is a decent idea, for the simple reason that until 2020
there will certainly not be enough votes in the House and the
Senate to implement it, or even a part of it. And this is a recommended
Ocasio-Cortez may have been a bartender
before running for Congress, but she’s not ignorant of how Congress
works. Her select committee proposal is a detailed blueprint for
getting something truly massive done, with the full knowledge that
Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump would never
sign off on it. It’s intended to guide the development of fully-fleshed
out legislation to be ready to go in the first months of the next administration, with the plan completed by
Jan. 1, 2020.
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 2 years
as if they are the
eagerly willing instruments of the US's secret services, which I
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 (!!).