from February 24, 2018.
This is a
Nederlog of Saturday,
This is a crisis
log but it is a bit different from how it was the last five years:
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.
Section 2. Crisis Files
are five crisis files that are all well worth reading:
Selections from February 24, 2018
are five crisis files that are all well worth reading:
1. Oxycontin Maker Quietly Worked to Weaken Legal Doctrine
Lead to Jail Time for
2. Russiagate Has Become a Conspiracy Trap Obscuring How
3. What Essential Social Program Will the Trump Mob Try to
4. The 9/11 Hijackers Were Iraqis, Right?
5. Higher Education Is Drowning in BS
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:
Maker Quietly Worked to Weaken Legal Doctrine That Could Lead to Jail
Time for Executives
This article is by Lee Fang on The Intercept.
It starts as follows (and - in a sense - continues an article I reviewed yesterday):
Purdue Pharma, the maker of
Oxycontin, revolutionized the opioid industry through aggressive
marketing tactics that encouraged the widespread use of prescription
That part, by now, is well
known, as an out-of-control opioid epidemic ravages a generation of
young people with such potency that it has dragged down the overall
life expectancy of the American people. What has not
been previously revealed is that as the death toll mounted,
officials at the company attempted to work behind-the-scenes to make it
less likely that they could ever be successfully prosecuted for the
carnage opioids were unleashing.
Executives in multiple
industries have long been kept up at night by knowledge of the looming
power of the Responsible Corporate Office, or RCO doctrine, also known
as the Park doctrine, a legal liability standard used largely to
prosecute executives at companies responsible for affecting public
health and safety. Under the Park doctrine, federal prosecutors could
target senior executives and board members of opioid pharmaceutical
companies for their role in the sprawling epidemic if violations of
criminal law were proved true, regardless of whether they could prove
knowledge or motivation.
Purdue helped to quietly
finance an effort to unravel that doctrine, according to people with
knowledge of the company’s activity.
I think that is all
true, but I also think the real story is considerably worse.
story starts from the fact that Purdue has been investing a lot of
money into Oxycontin since 1996 - and I quote myself from
yesterday, that starts with a quotation:
bankrolled widely circulated
research that testified to OxyContin’s safety and urged physicians to
prescribe the drug for all sorts of conditions.¨
And all of these testimonies were major lies: OxyContin
is and was extremely
addictive, and this has caused ¨hundreds of thousands
of deaths¨, for people who were
treated for pain found out after their treatment that they were also
Second, Purdue mostly tried
to convince medical doctors to subscribe this extremely addictive
substance, and it has succeeded in doing that for more than
Third, all of the
convinced (for a value of many billions of dollars) knew that
is very addictive, but prescribed this very close analogue
Fourth, I think the vast
majority of the American medics who prescribed Oxycontin knew they were
- very probably: it is a matter of quite basic and rather simple
biochemistry - prescribing strongly addictive drugs, but were
by Purdue's propaganda they could get away with it (and they were correct,
the last 22 years).
Back to this article:
Executives at Purdue were
using the corporate office doctrine in 2007, in a case that found that
the company had “misbranded” its drugs as less likely to be abused than
other narcotics. The company agreed to pay a settlement of $634.5
million. A growing number of state and local prosecutors, however,
believe that the company simply shifted tactics after the
settlement, and could again face liability for continuing to
downplay the dangers of its opioid products using sophisticated
marketing campaigns that targeted the medical community and patient
As to the settlement of
$634.5 million: It
is likely Purdue turned over about as much as it did in 2012 ($8
billion) and with a similar profit: $3.1 billion. Minus $634.5
million "settlement" leaves them still with a profit of $3 billion. In
a single year.
Here is the last bit that I
quote from this article:
Since 1996, when Purdue
released Oxycontin, the firm has fueled rising opioid sales through a
marketing campaign focused on increasing prescribing of opioids.
in recent years how Purdue Pharma and other opioid companies financed
physician training programs, prescribing guidelines, patient advocacy
groups, and other nonprofits designed to encourage the widespread use
of opioids painkillers.
The resulting market has
generously enriched pharmaceutical companies. In 2012, drug companies
generated $8 billion in revenue from opioids. That year, Purdue Pharma
reportedly earned over $3.1 billion from Oxycontin-related sales alone.
The incredibly high rates
of opioid drug use in America is one testament to the industry’s
outreach efforts. Americans consume about
81 percent of the global supply of oxycodone products, the active
ingredient in OxyContin, and nearly 100 percent of hydrocodone, the
active ingredient used in brands such as Vicodin.
If the yearly profits
of Purdue are on average $3 billion a year, their total
selling a close and very addictive analogue of heroin was $66
And from those profits
you can easily finance "physician
training programs" that essentially
told physicians they could safely prescribe
because some more famous physicians had been (also) bought by them and
had said it was not dangerous - which was an absolute lie each and
every physican could and should (and probably did) see through.
The American doctors
prescribed it because they assumed that American doctors could
prescibe it and would not have to appear in court.
At least that is what I
think is the truth. There is considerably more in the article, which is
recommended (but that does not make my point that most doctors
quite well they were
prescribing the equivalents of heroin to their patients).
Has Become a Conspiracy Trap Obscuring How Trump Is Damaging Nation
article is by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! It starts with the
Yes indeed - and I have
reviewed several of Masha Gessen's articles in Nederlog. Here is more:
Masha Gessen talks about how President Trump has benefited from what
she calls the “conspiracy trap” around Russia’s role in the 2016
election. She wrote last year, “Russiagate is helping him—both by
distracting from real, documentable, and documented issues, and by
promoting a xenophobic conspiracy theory in the cause of removing a
xenophobic conspiracy theorist from office.”
Yes indeed and I quite
agree, except on the minor point that I think Gessen should
instead of "Russiagate is
helping [Trump]" (bolding
added) "Russiagate is mostly
false and is helping [Trump] …
by distracting from real, documentable, and documented issues, and by
promoting a xenophobic conspiracy theory in the cause of removing a
xenophobic conspiracy theorist from office.”
GOODMAN: I wanted to ask
you about a piece
you wrote last year in The New York Review of Books called
“Russia: The Conspiracy Trap,” in which you wrote, “Russiagate is
helping [Trump] … by distracting from real, documentable, and
documented issues, and by promoting a xenophobic conspiracy theory in
the cause of removing a xenophobic conspiracy theorist from office.”
GESSEN: I couldn’t have
said it better myself. But yeah, I mean, look, he is doing unspeakable
damage to our political culture, to American institutions, to politics
as we have known it, which hasn’t been perfect, but it’s certainly—you
know, it’s being badly damaged. And I think I’m really worried that
it’s been damaged in ways that will make it extremely difficult to
recover. And we don’t have endless bandwidth. We don’t have endless
column inches available, even on the internet, right? And every time
that we talk about Russiagate, we are not talking about immigration.
Every time we talk about Russiagate, we’re not talking about the
decimation of the State Department. Every time we talk about
Russiagate, we’re not talking about deregulation.
I think that is correct. Here is more:
(..) This president is putting every person in the world at risk of
dying in a nuclear holocaust. This president is putting every person in
the world at risk of living on a planet where irreversible damage has
been done to the climate. And so, to say that the world has no business
in—has no stake in the outcome of the American election is actually
irresponsible and wrong and also xenophobic, right? I mean, it’s very
Trumpian to sort of say, “You know, we’ll do whatever we want here,
because we’ve got our sovereignty.” Think about that. Right? And then
make a reasoned argument for keeping Russians out of the American
public sphere, because they are so disruptive, misleading, bad-faith,
etc. But it has to be a good, reasoned argument and not just this
Yes, I quite agree,
indeed also because I am not American but Dutch, which means in
effect that I
am automatically dealt the sub-human status of someone whose everything
may be stolen wholly unproblematically from my computer. (If you
"sub-human" is too strong, please realize this concerns all
privacies, all the values, all the ideas, and all
the private mails I
once had and now have lost.)
Here is the last bit I quote from this fine interview:
(..) First of all, I mean, there is the issue of sanctions being
required by law and the Trump administration missing its deadline for
imposing those sanctions. And that’s a problem, right? I mean, that’s a
problem regardless of the substance of these sanctions and how useful
they might be and whether we think they’re justified, right? I think
that that’s the problem not so much of Trump—we should be focused less
on the problem of Trump not imposing sanctions on Russia, and more on
the problem of having a president who can just dismiss a law passed by
Congress, just ignore it. I mean, that, in the long run, is much more
damaging to our political system than whether it’s Russia or not, right?
Yes, I agree again: A
president who can choose whether to apply or to dismiss
laws, and who does so, is not a legal president, for presidents
supposed to maintain the accepted laws, but is more like a dictator or
an autocrat. And
this is a recommended article.
Essential Social Program Will the Trump Mob Try to Kill Next?
This article is by Jim Hightower on AlterNet. It starts as follows:
Breaking news: Trump &
Company are a murderous mob!
From the start of his White
House tenure, the Trumpsters have plotted, stalked and serially killed
vibrant members of the English Language.
The word "Fact" was the
first to go. Robust and universally respected, Fact was assassinated
last year when one of Trump's hired killers poisoned it with an unknown
substance nicknamed: "Alternative Fact."
Their latest victim was a
much-honored word that has produced a whole family of world literature:
"Satire." This powerful noun embodied the use of sarcasm and ridicule
to expose the vanity and vice of public figures, but Trump himself
killed satire by starving it of any meaning. How can anyone satirize a
presidency that is, in reality, nothing but a fully-staged satire of
vanity and vice? Satire involves exaggerating the flaws, mannerisms,
oddities, etc. of various characters to convey how corrupt and
contemptible they are -- but it's impossible to exaggerate the
awfulness of an administration that gleefully flaunts its awfulness
Well... this appears to
me a bit of an exaggeration: You can't kill words, for one
it also is not so much that Trump and the GOP do propose new words
(like "alternative facts" for "intentional lies", and "fake
abbreviates the same, but with a negative slant) as that much of
American mainstream media has been bought by the few rich, and offer
that suits the interests of the rich (and simply do not treat most
Then again, it may
that the initial statement - "Trump & Company are a murderous mob!" - in fact does not so much
apply to their linguistic tastes and habits, as to the
Take Trump's proposed
budget... please! Delivered just in time for Valentine's Day, it's a
nasty piece of work. For example, it would intentionally increase
poverty and hunger across our country. It would slash programs
providing essential food, housing, and even heating assistance for
about 50 million Americans -- mostly children, old folks, poverty-wage
worker, and disabled people.
Then there are the vital
Medicare and Medicaid programs that most working class Americans count
on. Candidate Trump promised us that "there will be no cuts" in funding
for these programs. But now he has sent his Valentine budget to us,
featuring -- guess what? -- hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to
Medicare and Medicaid. Not only has his cynicism killed satire, but his
cynical health care cuts could kill you.
I quite agree
Trump's "cynical health
care cuts could kill" many
Americans, but by now it would have been nice to get some
about how many American citizens are going ti be killed (probably: be
driven to suicide) by Trump's budget plans and his enoromous cuts
hundreds of billions of dollars to Medicare and Medicaid.
How many of the "about
50 million Americans" are
going to die in the
next three years? With top and bottom estimates?!
I have no
idea, but I am not optimistic.
9/11 Hijackers Were Iraqis, Right?
This article is by Rebecca Gordon on Common Dreams. This is
from near the beginning:
I’ll only have a
few chances to convince a new crop of students that they really do want
to examine their deepest values -- the things they care most about --
and even talk about them in front of their peers.
In fact, most of them do
care deeply and about important things, too, like how they should treat
their friends, their parents, and their sexual and/or romantic
partners. They care about their friends who drink and drug too much and
appreciate the friends who get them home safe when they do the same.
They care about economic inequality, especially when they’re trying to
find a place they can afford to rent in this city of soaring prices,
San Francisco, or when contemplating the massive
debt most of them will be carrying for years, if not a lifetime,
after they graduate.
Well... I suppose I am
expected to feel glad about the fact that some young Americans
(bolding added) "even
talk about [the things they care
most about] in front of their
peers" - and also see the next article) but in fact I do not.
Here is my main reason:
Yes indeed - and I did
get history in the lower school (between 6 and 12) and also
(forced, not chosen) in high school, and I am quite certain I
knew the above were simply ignorant falsities by the time I was 12,
at the latest.
They care about so much,
but there’s a lot they just
Don’t Know Much
The first hint I got about
the gaps in my students’ background knowledge came early on in my
teaching career. In a homework assignment a student wrote that
Aristotle had quoted Shakespeare. Another thought that when that Greek
philosopher mentioned a theater, he was talking about going to the
I wasn’t surprised that those
students knew little about ancient Athens; there’s no reason to expect
them to arrive at college versed in Greek philosophy. But something far
more basic was missing: a sense of the sweep of what Americans call
“western” history -- a chronological grid on which to pin the key
movements and events that shape today’s world.
Then again, since then history has become "facultative" in Holland: one
is free to choose it or not (as are 8 of the other subjects I did get
on the classical high school I went to, before 1966).
Here is more on the utter and complete ignorance of
most Americans about anything that happened beyond their lives,
and most things that happen outside of the USA:
I’m certainly not the first
person to discover that, for new generations, foundational events in
her own life -- the Civil Rights movement, the Vietnam War, the women’s
liberation movement, even the first Gulf War -- are, to the young,
history almost as ancient as the Civil War. Why should they know about
such things? They weren’t even born yet.
But here’s a surprising
development -- surprising because this last decade and a half seems to
have flown past so quickly. I’m now encountering students who have no
memory of an event that has shaped their lives, this country, and much
of the world for the last 16 years: the 9/11 attacks.
I am sorry, but while I
believe it (largely because of the equally shocking total
demise of all decent education I lived through in Holland, in the
last 50 years) I also think that people who do not know
anything of the world or history before 2005 or so should not be in
college or university: They have a level of ignorance at 18 I had behind me (like nearly all
Dutchmen of my age) when I was 12.
Here is the last bit
that I quote on the vast ignorance that seems to characterize most
These days, my students
live in a country that has been at war almost since they were born, and
yet, as is true with most of their fellow citizens, the fighting could
be happening on Mars for all the impact it has on them. Most of them no
longer know people directly affected. Their friends and family, of
course, aren't among the tens of millions of Iraqis, Syrians, Afghans,
or Yemenis made refugees by those American wars and their consequences.
Most of them haven’t yet
realized that, if their government hadn’t spent $5.6
trillion and counting on those very wars, there might have
been federal money available to relieve them of the school debt they
will carry for decades.
And again I believe this
because I have seen education collapse spectacularly in Holland in the
last 50 years, while very few as much as wrote
about it, and especially not about university "education". This
is a recommended article, as is the next:
Education Is Drowning in BS
This article is by Christian Smith on The Chronicle of
Higher Education. It starts as follows:
I have had nearly
enough bullshit. The manure has piled up so deep in the hallways,
classrooms, and administration buildings of American higher education
that I am not sure how much longer I can wade through it and retain my
sanity and integrity.
Even worse, the accumulated
effects of all the academic BS are contributing to this country’s
disastrous political condition and, ultimately, putting at risk the
very viability and character of decent civilization.
Yes indeed: I quite
agree. But I should add three points before going on (and this
a very good article):
The first point is that
Smith (?) is almost certainly considerably younger than my 67 years,
but that I in fact had thoughts like he had for the first
time in 1966 or 1967, which is
more than fifty years ago.
My reason is that in
1965 the - quite good - preparatory education for university
(corresponding to high school), which included three foreign languages
(or five, for those who took the grammar school) and fourteen subjects
that were mostly examined in writing, and that had been instituted in 1865
(and produced at least one excellent mathematician - Brouwer - and
several Nobel Prizes for Dutch physicists) was to be completely
terminated and to be replaced by a system (that started to
come into place in 1966) where one was examined in writing
in four or five subjects, where one had to do only one foreign
language, and were much of what had been taught and learmed
in the previous hundred years to people preparing for a university
education simply disappeared or were made a matter of personal
choice (history, geography, other foreign languages and much
In fact, almost all of the above had happened by
1973, and since then few Dutchmen learned three or five
foreign languages, while in fact by 2008, when all
university studies had been both halved and made very expensive to the
students, and one had to make a B.A. in engineering etc. within
three years, it was found most students of engineering lacked
mathematical understandings I had acquired by age 15 (in the old
system), and had to be pre-schooled a half year (taken from
their B.A.s) to get to the point I had reached at 15.
And the third fact
(about Holland) is that there has been some journalistic
writing about this but in fact not much, in part because the
high school was a minority affair (the old Dutch high schools required
an IQ of around 125 to succeed; the new one between 105 and 115), and
in part because very little is written about the real
goings on inside the Dutch universities in the daily papers, which has
been the case for over 50 years as well, although this also grew worse
Finally, my own
opinion - after I tried to reform the Dutch universities, and was
in thanks denied the right to do my (excellent) M.A. in philosophy
- the Dutch "universities" ceased to be real universities
by 1980, and since then are Blatcherist
quasi-universities, where everyone who is willing to pay an
enormous study loan and has an IQ of 100 or more can get some
Then again, very few
Dutch academics (all of whom have an enormous financial
interest in their own positions) will agree with me (and most will
insist I am an elitarian even for mentioning IQs).
Here is the second bit
that I quote from this excellent article:
In case you think this is all
that starts with "BS is", you are quite mistaken: There is as
much more, but I leave that to your interests.
What do I mean by
BS is the university’s loss
of capacity to grapple with life’s Big Questions, because of our crisis
of faith in truth, reality, reason, evidence, argument, civility, and
our common humanity.
BS is the farce of what are
actually "fragmentversities" claiming to be universities, of
hyperspecialization and academic disciplines unable to talk with each
other about obvious shared concerns.
BS is the expectation that
a good education can be provided by institutions modeled
organizationally on factories, state bureaucracies, and shopping malls
— that is, by enormous universities processing hordes of students as if
they were livestock, numbers waiting in line, and shopping consumers.
BS is universities hijacked
by the relentless pursuit of money and prestige, including chasing
rankings that they know are deeply flawed, at the expense of genuine
educational excellence (to be distinguished from the vacuous
"excellence" peddled by recruitment and "advancement" offices in every
BS is the ideologically
infused jargon deployed by various fields to stake out in-group
self-importance and insulate them from accountability to those not
fluent in such solipsistic language games.
BS is a tenure system that
provides guaranteed lifetime employment to faculty who are lousy
teachers and inactive scholars, not because they espouse unpopular
viewpoints that need the protection of "academic freedom," but only
because years ago they somehow were granted tenure.
Meanwhile, what is said above all was true of the Dutch
universities from 1980 onwards - but at most 5% of the students
cared, and at most 1% of the academic staff cared:
Everybody else pretended nothing had really changed.
Most students did not protest at all because their courses had
been made much more simple, which made it a lot easier to get their
M.A.s; most academics did not protest because they had a
very good income and high status being academics. (And almost
all Dutch academics I have known were pure geniuses in lying, I admit,
and indeed in absolutely nothing else: I got - for one example - in
three full studies only one series of lessons by one
person that was any good.)
Here is more from the article:
I could continue to
list much more BS that has piled up in higher education, but I have
shoveled through enough already to make the point. Lest readers think
this is only sour grapes, let me clarify a few facts. I absolutely love
scholarly research. I am a fortunate winner in the research university
system. I know it takes money to achieve excellence. I have worked to
help raise and sustain my universities’ program rankings and
institutional status. I have taught classes of more than 300 students.
And I really love college sports, especially football, volleyball,
basketball, and soccer.
Well... I don't
see what "football,
basketball, and soccer"
have to do with any (real) university, but I grant that in my time and
before 2000 they were not part of the Dutch "university" system.
Apart from that I mostly agree: I was an extremely good
student (straight As always); I could do three studies (while
ill) while the norm is one study, which about half fail; I was very
strongly disposed towards real science, but I learned almost
nobody cared - and one big difference between Smith and
myself is that I have not made a single cent through studying,
which indeed also makes me virtually unique in Holland.
And what I found in Holland, between 1977 and 1995, was an extremely
sick quasi-university, where the average IQ in 1984 was
115 (it is lower now) and
where most students pretended to be Marxists (and
and most academics pretended to be much interested in Marx, all because between
1971 and 1995 the students had the effective power in the Dutch
universities, and most students were very "leftist" (in verbal
pretenses, mostly) or members of the Dutch Communist Party (at least in
Amsterdam and Nijmegen), and most academics agreed to their
pretenses because they wanted to keep their
high paying high status jobs (also with exceedingly few
Back to 2018 and the USA:
Ultimately, we must
grasp the more dreadful reality that all of this BS in the academy is
mortally corrosive of our larger culture and politics.
agree, and for me Holland is in a very similar situation as the
USA (and yes, I know: Most Dutchmen, especially academically
employed rich Dutchmen, will deny this - but they did not
do anything in the last 50 years to stop it, and lied and lied and lied to become academics, for that requires
a lot of lying in Holland).
Ideas and their
accompanying practices have consequences. What is formed in colleges
and universities over decades shows up for better or worse in the
character and quality of our public servants, political campaigns,
public-policy debates, citizen participation, social capital, media
programming, lower school education, consumer preferences, business
ethics, entertainments, and much more. And the long-term corrosive
effects on politics and culture can also be repaired only over the long
term, if ever. There are no quick fixes here. So I do not speak in
hyperbole by saying that our accumulated academic BS puts at risk
decent civilization itself.
And I quote the following statement because it mentions quite a few
things I have been fascinated by as well (not necessarily in a
positive way), and I provide the links in it:
The world is always
being overrun by political,
and social unreason,
and domination through sheer power.
Here is more on the
current state of American "education":
accumulated weight of the mounds of BS, the island has been swamped,
the reserve polluted, by many of the destructive outside forces that
the academy exists to hold in check and correct. Much of American
higher education now embodies the problems it was intended to transcend
and transform: unreason, duplicity, refusals of accountability,
incapacities to grasp complexity and see the big picture, and resorts
to semi-masked forms of coercion.
Precisely - and in my
experience the Dutch system of education has been destroyed in 1965
and has been rotting more and more and more ever since.
The most disturbing
consequences of this long-term corruption are now playing out in our
national political culture and institutions.
polarization, fake news, legislative paralysis, torrents of blatant
lies told with impunity, violent radicals in our city streets,
scandalous ignorance of large swaths of Americans about the basic facts
of our most pressing national problems, some top officials boasting
about their sexual harassments and assaults without consequence,
international diplomacy conducted through schoolyard taunting and
self-contradictory tweets, and the growing frustration and increasingly
desperate rage of large sectors of ordinary Americans: These are
exactly what develop when even the "educated" citizens of a country are
for too many decades not educated well, and when the institutional
centers of enlightened learning and debate become havens of ideology,
intimidation, and mission drift. With academe in this condition, what
hope can we have for the exercise of important social virtues in
politics, law, diplomacy, the media, and the marketplace?
Here is the final bit that I quote from this excellent article:
I have given
up (a long time ago, also) on both Holland and the Dutch
"education"-system. My two reasons are these:
Many thoughtful people in
higher education today are well aware of different piles of BS around
them. Fewer seem to recognize the magnitude of the mounds of it that
have accumulated and how badly they defile us. Most people involved
also feel helpless to fight it, don’t want to risk careers that benefit
from the status quo, or are professional boosters of the existing
system and so are obliged to yammer on about how great everything is.
I too feel helpless.
First I know that almost every Dutch academic (of 40 or
older) knows a considerable part
of what I know, but pretend they
do not simply because they got the best paid and the best
pensioned job they would ever get, and they are nearly all prepared
to lie, mislead
And second, I also know that I am more intelligent than 99% of
them, while I have tried everything I could do to save the
scientific education that was the rule between 1865 and 1965,
and I know that very few
Dutch academics are really
interested in anything but the money the make, and the high
status they have.  It very probably is the
same in the USA.
I am completely helpless to do anything about it. And this is a
strongly recommended article.
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 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 (!!).
 I am sorry, but I knew the
"University" of Amsterdam extremely
well between 1977 and 1993, and tolerably well between 1994
and 2004. (And I did three full studies there.)
in Holland the situation from 1971 till 1995 was radically
different from that of any university outside Holland. But - I am quite
sorry - to understand that you need to read Dutch. It is well
explained, in Dutch, in ME
in Amsterdam (that has been on line since 2002, and is known to
both the City and the "University" of Amsterdam, but none of
its leaders ever answered anything since 1988 or since
 And incidentally:
Most Dutch academics are second-raters at best, for if they would have
been first-raters, they would have gotten work outside Holland.