November 30, 2017
3. Extras: Two interesting older articles
This is a Nederlog of Thursday, November 30,
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
Section 2. Crisis Files
are five crisis files that are all well worth reading:
Selections from November 30, 2017
Graduate Students Plan Nationwide Walkouts
“Assault” On Post-Secondary Education
of the Deal' Ghostwriter Expresses Grave Concern for
Trump's Mental Stability
3. Mulvaney’s In, Bankers Win, and Trump Shafts
4. Lawsuit Aims To Uncover How Government
Revolt Against Reason: Jonathan Freedland’s latest polemic
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:
1. Graduate Students Plan Nationwide
Walkouts Against GOP “Assault” On Post-Secondary Education
This article is by Amy Goodman and Juan González on Democracy Now! It
starts with the following introduction:
More than 40
graduate student walkouts are planned across the country today to
protest a measure tucked into the budget bill that passed the House
earlier this month that amounts to a pay cut of thousands of dollars
for graduate students by reclassifying their tuition waivers as taxable
income. Opponents say the move could diminish the number of students
who will even consider graduate school and hurt the chances of
finishing for current students. We speak with Jenna Freudenburg, a
fourth-year graduate student in astronomy at Ohio State University and
an organizer with the Save Graduate Education movement.
Here is Jenna Freudenburg:
(...) Under these new provisions, the waivers and the reductions that
we receive in tuition would be taxed, and this would result in tax
increases of hundreds and hundreds of percent, even for public
university students. The situation is even more dire for students at
private universities where the tuition is higher.
I completely agree, and indeed
saw similar developments in Holland: In the 1970ies, when I started to
study, I had an interest free study loan that allowed me to live on it
(that since totally disappeared) and I had to pay yearly
tuition of 50 euros.
This is the particular
provision we are most concerned about. However, this is just one of a
number of troubling provisions in both the House and Senate versions of
the bill that target higher education. For example, under one of the
versions of the bill, we would no longer be able to deduct our student
loan interest payments from our taxes. The Lifetime Learning Credit is
going to be eliminated. And as you were discussing earlier, the state
and local tax deductions are going to be eliminated, which are a major
way that states are incentivized to provide funding for their public
higher education systems. So this really is an assault on higher
education, and it’s something that graduate students in particular are
finding very concerning.
By now, in the 2010s (and also before that) tuition in
medicine is 20,000 euros for a basic degree, and student loans
have mostly disappeared, which means that people who are not
rich and want to study must accept very great debts to study and also
have to live with their parents.
Here is some more by Heather McGhee:
I agree. And it seems as if in
the USA (at least), the rich have decided that only the rich
deserve a good university education, because otherwise I cannot
explain their making an academic education extremely expensive
for anybody who is not rich.
MCGHEE: We have seen over
the past decade, really, an increasing campaign by the right-wing media
to demonize higher education. And if you think about what are the
sources of progressive values and power, they are labor unions, they
are the government itself—the idea of a public good itself—and they are
education. Republicans know that as you get more educated, you are more
likely to hold progressive values and vote for a Democrat.
I think this is very
clearly part of a campaign to make college the enemy, to make higher
education no longer the route to upward mobility that it has been.
of the Deal'
Ghostwriter Expresses Grave Concern for Trump's Mental Stability
is by Chris Sosa on AlterNet. It starts as follows:
During an appearance
on MSNBC, The Art of the Deal ghostwriter Tony Schwartz told
host Ari Melber that President Donald Trump is showing symptoms of
untreated mental illness.
I think Tony Schwarz is quite
right, and I also think that the fact that I think so is
considerably more relevant (for those interested in truth) than the
opinions of others, simply because I am a psychologist (who thinks Trump is not sane for
nearly two years now - and no, I am Dutch and not American, and wasn't
interested in Trump before).
Then again, I have learned that truth doesn't
exist, which is an opinion I first heard expressed in the "University"
of Amsterdam in the form of this fascistic or neofascistic lie
(according to Hannah Arendt, and I agree) in
August of 1978:
knows that truth does NOT exist"
And this was the
of the quasi-marxist "University" of Amsterdam at least till 1995, and
it probably still is, albeit with quite a few changes, for the
"University" of Amsterdam was changed back in 1995 (by a
parliamentary withdrawal from a parliamentary decision of 1971) from a
university mostly owned by the students to a university firmly
owned by the authorities, who now demand e.g. 20,000 euros to get a
basic degree in medicine etc. etc. etc.
And these ideas - there is no truth: we can think and say what
we please, all anonymously - are now copied or else also imagined by
about a billion of anonymous members of Facebook...
Anyway. Back to the article:
I completely agree
and it doesn't amaze me at all: See this by professors of
psychology and psychiatry from 2016.
The author told Melber he
has observed deterioration of the president's mental health.
“There is a pretty dramatic
change. He is more limited in his vocabulary, he is further from, as I
said, this connection to what is factual and real. He is more
impulsive, he is more reactive,” Schwartz said. “This is a guy in deep
"We need to be really
bringing in psychiatrists because this is a man who is deeply mentally
ill and literally, I know that two different people from the White
House — or at least saying they were from the White House and it turned
out to be a White House number — who have called somebody I know in the
last several weeks to say we are deeply concerned about his mental
health,” he continued.
And I should add that unlike Tony Schwarz I do not know Trump
at all, and I am not following him closely, so I don't have the
evidence Schwarz quotes. But I believe him because I am a
psychologist, and this was predicted by psychologists and
psychiatrists back in 2016.
This is a recommended article.
3. Mulvaney’s In, Bankers
Win, and Trump Shafts Americans Again
This article is by Richard Eskow on Common Dreams. It starts as follows:
judge has issued his
ruling. Mick Mulvaney – the Tea Party Congressman turned Trump
apparatchik – will run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The political extremist who once said
the CFPB was “extremely frightening,” who called it “a joke… in a sick,
sad kind of way” and said he would “like to get rid of it,” is
now its Acting Director.
Yes indeed. Then again, I
should also point out that similar things - perhaps not quite
so bad as Trump, but guided by the same ideas - were practised
by Ronald Reagan.
Here is more:
Quite so (and see the
utter impertinence of Trump´s total lie that ¨[f]inancial Institutions have been devastated
and unable to properly serve the public¨.)
The Bad Banker’s Friend
Donald Trump was hostile to
the CFPB from the start, and he said this as he shoehorned Mulvaney
into the director’s chair (in a tweet, naturally):
“The Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, or CFPB, has been a total disaster as run by the
previous Administrations pick. Financial Institutions have been
devastated and unable to properly serve the public. We will bring it
back to life!”
Devastated? Wrong as usual,
Mr. President. The CFPB began operations on July 21, 2011. Over the
last five years, Bank of America stock has risen more than 180 percent. JPMorgan
Chase’s stock has risen more than
145 percent. Citigroup’s has gone up more than 109 percent.
Wells Fargo’s is up more than 67
percent. None of these too-big-to-fail banks has suffered
financially, despite committing the largest corporate crime wave in
And now, Trump and Mulvaney
plan to lift another burden from their shoulders. It’s good to be
kings … of fraud.
Here is Richard Eskow´s explanation:
Yes indeed. And this is a
Now that Team Trump has
succeeded in overriding the independence of this regulator, it’s
undoubtedly preparing to target others. The underlying problem is the
role of money in politics. As long as big campaign contributors call
the shots, reform is always going to be endangered by people like
Trump, McConnell, and Mulvaney. This is one battle in the
struggle to regain democratic control of the country’s democratic
4. Lawsuit Aims To Uncover How
Government Surveils Journalists
is by Trevor Timm on Common Dreams and originally on Columbia
Journalism Review. It starts as follows:
What, if anything,
is constraining the Trump Justice Department in its dangerous war on
leakers, whistleblowers, and journalists? The Knight First Amendment
Institute at Columbia University and Freedom of the Press Foundation,
where I’m executive director, are teaming up to find out.
On Wednesday, we
filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Justice
Department and several intelligence agencies, demanding records
revealing how the government collects information on journalists and
targets them with surveillance.
This is quite
good and very necessary, although I must add that I do not
know whether this lawsuit will succeed.
Here is more on the lawsuit:
Attorney General Jeff
Sessions has said criminal investigations into the sources of
up 800 percent. He’s vowed
to “revisit” the Justice Department’s media guidelines that
restrict how the US government can conduct surveillance on reporters.
President Trump reportedly
told ex-FBI director James Comey to “jail” journalists. And so far,
refused to rule out imprisoning reporters for doing their jobs.
Given these developments,
“it is urgent that the government disclose records clarifying the
precise limitations placed on its surveillance powers to protect the
freedoms of speech, association, and the press,” our lawsuit states.
“The public has a right to know those limitations and to know whether
the government is in fact complying with them.”
Quite so. Then there is this,
which seems to me typical Obama:
In 2013, after a
backlash against the Obama Justice Department’s surveillance of
journalists, the Justice Department unveiled new “media guidelines”
that supposedly restrict the government from surveilling reporters in
all but extreme cases.
It was seemingly a win for
press freedom, but quietly, Obama’s Justice Department exempted its use
of National Security Letters—secret surveillance demands from the FBI
for information like call records that do not require a judge’s sign
off—from its media guidelines, essentially allowing the government to
avoid the media guidelines altogether if it conducted investigations
under the guise of “national security” (which, in practice, would
encapsulate virtually all leak investigations anyways).
Precisely. Here is the
last bit that I quote from this fine article:
National Security Letters
and similar tools are now available to the Trump administration as it
ramps up Obama’s already historic level of leak prosecutions. Perhaps
worse, the Trump administration has also
hinted it wants to
change the media guidelines themselves. We still have no information
about what it plans on doing—or even if it is following the current
Quite so. And this is a
strongly recommended article.
5. The Revolt Against
Reason: Jonathan Freedland’s latest polemic broken down
is by Frank Lee on the OffGuardian. It starts as follows:
Notes on Nationalism
[see HERE] was a short essay written by
George Orwell in 1945. The title might have been a little misleading
since the term ‘nationalism’ as it is commonly understood, was not the
object of his investigation. His purpose was to explain and analyse a
type of mindset which has migrated to and colonized other areas of
mental and social life.
reference to HERE is a reference to a very
good Russian site with many of Orwell´s writings (that in England are
copyrighted until God knows when).
‘’By ‘nationalism’ I mean
first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified
like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of
people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’… But secondly – and
this is much more important – I mean the habit of identifying oneself
with a single nation or other unit placing it beyond good or evil and
recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. I am
only using the word ‘nationalism’ for lack of a better. Nationalism in
the extended sense in which I am using the word, includes inter alia
such movements and tendencies as Communism, political Catholicism,
Zionism, anti-Semitism, Trotskyism and pacifism.’’
As to ¨nationalism¨: I think myself that what Orwell wrote about is more
properly called totalitarianism.
That also applies to the following bit:
Suffice to say that
in recent times we have been subject to a prime example of
‘nationalism’ viz., a media tsunami of what can only be called
religious fundamentalism – a trend which seemed triggered by
Brexit-Gate and Russia-Gate. Pick up any newspaper, tune in to any news
channel, and it’s an even bet that one or both these topics will come
up. But these items are not news as such, they are political
constructions, or party lines, based upon a fabricated narrative, which
in turn is predicated on a specific world-view, a view which I would
define as liberal utopianism, with heavy neo-totalitarian overtones.
Yes indeed (and Lee ends
overtones¨). Then there is:
In fact, this comprises one of
my favorite quotes from Orwell, that I also use in my ¨On ¨The Logic
of Moral Discourse¨¨:
It is indeed very
impressive to see this double-think and double-standards at work. One
is humbled by its grandeur. Orwell describes this as follows:
All nationalists have the
power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A
British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in
India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or
bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them, and there
is almost no kind of outrage – torture, the use of hostages, forced
labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery,
assassination, the bombing of civilians – which does not change its
moral colour, when it is committed by ‘our’ side.
Actions are held to
be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them,
and there is almost no kind of outrage – torture, the use of hostages,
forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery,
assassination, the bombing of civilians – which does not change its
moral colour, when it is committed by ‘our’ side.
I quote it again (i) because I
think it is very good and (ii) because there is a fairly
full explanation of my own views about this quote here.
This is from the ending of the article:
I mostly agree, although I think
that (i) Orwell´s use of ¨clinical schizophrenia¨ may well be too
strong, while what he meant by it - back in the 1940ies - is probably
not what present psychologists understand by ¨schizophrenia¨ and that
(ii) not all neo-conservatives are ¨deranged¨: They are selfish,
greedy, egoistic and dishonest, but none of these means the same as
We no longer have a media
worthy of the name; we have a propaganda machine. A Ministry of Truth
stretching from the ‘’soundly conservative to utterly reactionary’’ to
use Ralph Miliband’s apt description. A daily scripted fog-horn ramping
up the population for war against Russia; and we have been brought to
this impasse by a cabal of fanatics ensconced in an ideological bubble
– the neo-conservatives – who are frankly deranged.
Some nationalists are not
far from clinical schizophrenia, living quite happily amid dreams of
power and conquest which have no connexion with the physical world. Orwell,
La Trahison des Clercs?
But I agree with the rest, and I also point out that ¨La Trahison des
Clercs¨ (= The Treason of the Intellectuals) is a reference to an important
book by Julien
I have explained before why
I mostly limit the number of articles I review to five a day:
It is mostly because I am ill for
almost 39 years now with ME/CFS. Then again, I do not know
of any other site that has reviewed over
1700 articles about the crisis.
And I should add two things.
The first is that I am a real intellectual (one with several
academic degrees) who does have quite explicit left and liberal
values but whose ideas on politics
are constrained by factual
I am more of a scientist than of a politician, at the very
least (unlike many journalists).
The second is that while I have reviewed mostly the good
articles I found, which I judge to be good on the basis of both
my values and my concern for the truth, and while I (more or less)
admire most of the journalists who wrote them, few of these
articles go very deep or are very long. Besides, almost all articles I
have reviewed on date X were from the last few days before X.
Here are two articles that are from 13 or 14 years ago that I
found recently, and that are quite good. Indeed, the first
article is a real essay of over 200 Kb, with footnotes and
This is by John
Walker, who is a quite interesting man, as shown by the
last link with an interesting and
large site that you probably will hear more about in later
This text is from the end of 2003 and I wish I had read it then
(in part also because this is by a real programmer who
made his fortune that way). It has the following subtitle:
It starts as
brother and big media can put
the Internet genie back in the bottle.
imprimatur 1. The
formula (=‘let it be printed’),
signed by an official licenser of the press, authorizing the
printing of a book; hence as sb. an official
license to print.
Oxford English Dictionary (2nd. ed.)
Quite so, although
I should explain why I did not feel any
¨unbound optimism¨ as I joined the internet in 1996, and indeed also
not much optimism:
Over the last two years I
have become deeply and increasingly pessimistic about the future of
liberty and freedom of speech,
particularly in regard to the Internet. This is a complete
reversal of the almost unbounded optimism I felt during the
1994–1999 period when public access to the Internet burgeoned
and innovative new forms of communication appeared in rapid
succession. In that epoch I was firmly convinced that
universal access to the Internet would provide a countervailing
force against the centralisation and concentration in
government and the mass media which act to constrain freedom of
expression and unrestricted access to information. Further,
the Internet, properly used, could actually roll back
government and corporate encroachment on individual freedom by
allowing information to flow past the barriers erected by
totalitarian or authoritarian governments and around the
gatekeepers of the mainstream media.
So convinced was I of the
potential of the Internet as
a means of global unregulated person-to-person
communication that I spent the better part of three
Speak Freely for
a free (public domain) Internet telephone with military-grade
encryption. Why did I do it? Because I believed that a world
in which anybody with Internet access could talk to anybody else
so equipped in total privacy and at a fraction of the cost of a
telephone call would be a better place to live than a
world without such communication.
Computers and the Internet,
like all technologies, are a
double-edged sword: whether they improve or degrade the human
condition depends on who controls them and how they're used.
My reasons are mostly personal and mostly involve the facts that (i) I
had learned since 1977 that almost anything I read in the press about
the Dutch universities were mostly massively uninformed or misinformed lies; that
(ii) I had been illegally removed from
the ¨University¨ of Amsterdam very briefly before taking my M.A. in
philosophy because I had
criticized my totally incompetent and parasitical ¨teachers¨ of
philosophy; while (iii) I had also been forced to live above
dealers in soft drugs who were protected by the mayor, the police and
all bureaucrats of Amsterdam, although they kept me from
sleeping and repeatedly (and credibly) had threatened to murder
me if I did ¨anything we don´t like¨ - since when I have only read lies about
soft drugs, dealings in soft drugs, the laws, and the gains from soft
drugs in every Dutch paper I read: It seemed and seems as if everybody
who writes about these things in the Dutch press is a liar.
And I saw no reason why the internet would differ in principle from the
many lies I read in the Dutch papers.
Then again, I do not know anybody else who has these
reasons. And when I joined the internet I also decided that I would try
to remain anonymous, not because I like to be but because
of the quite credible murder threats by drugsdealers who were also
allowed to deal in hard drugs by Amsterdam´s - utterly corrupted -
I also had some doubts about privacy in 1996, but at that time I did not
yet believe that
all e-mails anybody sends were lapped up by many secret
services and by many rich corporations as if they had every right
to break all privacy of anyone.
Next, I should explain why I cannot give a good or a full
review of this fine article: It is over 200 Kb of fairly
intricate but quite good text. I may return to this essay later, and
certainly will return to John Walker´s site, but for the purpose of
this review I concentrate on just one item: Anonymity.
Many of the problems
of the present-day Internet, which engender
numerous, mostly ill-considered, proposals for legal remedies, are
due to the fundamental lack of accountability on the
Internet. The Internet, as presently implemented, affords its
users a rather high degree of anonymity which permits them, if
so inclined, to engage in various kinds of mischief with relative
Providing, or rather restoring, accountability to
the Internet is the key technological foundation for
fixing a large majority of its current problems.
The present-day anonymity of the Internet wasn't
designed in—it is largely an accident of how the Internet
evolved in the 1990's; see Appendix 1
Quite so! I was
faced with this problem during the 4 months I was a member of Phoenix
Rising, which is a site for people with ME/CFS,
where almost everyone is totally anonymous.
What I learned there was that almost everybody that I saw as
intelligent and informed (not many) were hunted from that site
by hordes of anonymous idiots who could say almost anything they
pleased and who seemed to be moved by a burning hate of anyone who was
more intelligent than they were (who must have had an average IQ not
higher than 95 at most) or who did not share their usually utterly
I saw sadists
there (I am a psychologist). I saw psychopaths there
a psychologist). I saw many utterly anonymous idiots (I have a
very high IQ). And this fundamentally changed my attitudes
about anonymity and that for two reasons:
One: I could not hang out these sadists and these psychopaths
as sadists and psychopaths, simply because it would not hurt
them personally at all. And
Two: I think it is utterly ridiculous to communicate with
people you do not know anything about - not their sex
(¨gender¨ seems to be preferred these days); not their education; not
their age: Nothing whatsoever.
Indeed, I also do not read the ¨Comments¨ that appear under
most publications these days: I have far more interesting
things to read by people whose real names I know and whose education
Indeed there is this on anonymity by John Walker:
You have no
right, constitutional or otherwise, to
anonymity! As a citizen of a civil society, you are
responsible for your actions. Society mandates accountability
in numerous domains. You cannot drive on the highways without
displaying a number plate, nor without carrying a driver's
license and vehicle registration which you must present to law
enforcement on demand. You cannot block telephone caller ID
when calling emergency services numbers, and law enforcement
can obtain a list of numbers you've called and trace those
calling you pursuant to a court order. You cannot transmit on
the amateur radio bands without giving your government-assigned
call sign. You cannot open a bank account, obtain a credit
card, or buy or sell stock without providing your tax
identification number. Records of all of your financial
transactions may be subpoenaed or disclosed for law enforcement
purposes. None of these are recent innovations—all have been
true for decades, and none have occasioned public outcry or
serious challenges on constitutional grounds.
I agree. And this is a very
strongly recommended (long) essay.
finally there is this article, which is a review of a book:
article is by Ron Kaufman. It is from the beginning of 2004. It has a
I think I should start this
review by saying that I do not have a TV since 1970
(for 47 years now); that I never will have one; and that I have
watched very little TV since 1970. In fact, most of what I saw
in the 2000s dates back to 2001, when I did watch some of the
events around 9/11 in the house of a friend. (And that is probably the last
time I saw TV!)
turned a switch and the voice sank somewhat, though the words were
still distinguishable. The instrument (the telescreen, it was called)
could be dimmed, but there was no way of shutting it off completely . .
. Winston kept his back turned to the telescreen."
-- from 1984 by George
There are two fundamental reasons for this:
I hate and despise all propaganda and
ever since 1960 , while the programs on
TV comprehend enormous amounts of propaganda and
advertisements, and I also found out, in the middle of the 1960ies,
that I learned virtually nothing from TV.
So when I started to live by myself in 1970 I refused to buy a
TV, and since then my reasons have only grown stronger: I despise TV.
This article starts as follows - and goes back to 1977:
I fundamentally agree with
most of that (although I don't know about alpha waves), and I think it
is a great pity that I missed Mander's book in
Television is advertising.
It is a medium whose purpose is to
sell, to promote capitalism. In 1977, Jerry Mander, a former
advertising executive in San Francisco, published Four Arguments
For The Elimination Of Television. In the book, Mander reveals
how the television networks and advertisers use this pervasive video
medium for sales.
Four Arguments talks
about a lot more than just
advertising. Mander attacks not only the contents of the television
images, but the effects television has on the human mind and body.
His discussion includes: The induction of alpha waves, a hypnotizing
effect that a motionless mind enters. How viewers often regard what
they see on television as real even though the programs are
filled with quick camera switches, rapid image movement, computer
generated objects, computer generated morphing and other technical
events. The placement of artificial images into our mind's eye.
And the effects that large amounts of television viewing have on
children and the onset of attention deficit disorder.
However, at the heart of
Mander's arguments, lies advertising. In
the words of writer Charles Bukowski: "[America is] not a
free country -- everything is bought and sold and owned."
Sales, by definition, is the
process of convincing someone to
purchase what they don't need. Advertising tries to convince someone
that the solution to a problem or the fulfillment of a desire can
only be achieved through the purchase of a product.
"If we take the word need
to mean something basic to human
survival -- food, shelter, clothing; or basic to human contentment --
peace, love, safety, companionship, intimacy, a sense of fulfillment;
these will be sought and found by people whether or not there is
advertising," Mander writes.
Here is some more:
television, the viewer is not seeing the world as
it is. He or she is looking at a world created by advertising.
Television programs are put together with the conscious attitude of
promoting a consumer society.
I think that is all mostly
correct, though Dutch TV does differ in some respects
from American TV, notably as regards advertising. It is also possible
that in Holland the makers of TV may (sometimes) lack "the conscious attitude of
promoting a consumer society",
but then even so TV is promoting a consumer society (if only
because you passively sit and consume).
"If forty million people see a
commercial for a car, then forty
million people have a car commercial in their heads, all at the same
time," Mander says. "This is bound to have more beneficial effect on
the commodity system than if, at that moment, all those people were
thinking separate thoughts which, in some cases, might not be about
commodities at all."
And some more:
Some thinking has to be
done to understand TV, but I agree with Mander that nearly all TV seems to be directed
at an audience with an IQ of around 95 and very little or
no real knowledge of science, politics, education, reality or anything
else that is real and is not TV.
However, when you watch
television, the only way to escape the
images is to turn the machine off. The medium of television is
controlled by the sender, not the viewer. Images just flow, one
after the next.
"If you decide to watch
television, then there's no choice but to
accept the stream of electronic images as it comes," Mander says.
"Since there is no way to stop the images, one merely gives over to
them. More than this, one has to clear all channels of reception to
allow them in more cleanly. Thinking only gets in the
The article - that reviews a book that was published 26 years
before the review was written (!), in 2004 - ends thus:
I quite agree with Manders
inhibits your ability to think" although my reasons may not be quite the same
as his. My reasons I have stated above:
"Television offers neither
rest nor stimulation," Mander says.
"Television inhibits your ability to think, but it does not lead to
freedom of mind, relaxation or renewal. It leads to a more exhausted
mind. You may have time out from prior obsessive thought patterns,
but that's as far as television goes.
"The mind is never empty,
the mind is filled. What's worse, it is
filled with someone else's obsessive thoughts and images."
Why do you think they call
Mander goes into great detail
discussing the physical effects
television viewing has on the human body. His analysis is excellent.
I learned virtually nothing worthwile during the years I did
watch some TV (from 1963-1970), and the reason is that almost all
programs are directed
at an audience with an IQ of
around 95 and very little or no real knowledge of science,
education, reality or anything else.
It is a great pity I missed Mander´s book in 1977, but this seems a
good review and is strongly recommended: Stop
watching TV (if your IQ is considerably above 100)!!!!
 I have now been
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 (!!).
 Yes indeed, and in 1960 I was 10.
This came about as follows:
My parents were quite poor and I lived in a poor neighborhood where one
could see on Fridays (pay day then) quite a few drunk men in
the street who had drunk part of their pay. I did not like or
approve of this, and I noticed then also a fairly large advertisement
for Bols Gin that hung at a crossing, and started discussing this with
a friend of mine (also 10), from which we concluded that advertisements
for alcoholics should be forbidden.
I think this was quite rational, although indeed we both were 10 then,
and I quickly generalised this to most advertising, also when I was 10,
for the simple reason that most advertisements I saw were obvious lies