from June 27, 2018
This is a
Nederlog of Wednesday,
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 June 27, 2018:
1. Google and Facebook Are Quietly Fighting California’s
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. Bigoted and Feckless, the Travel Ban Is Pure Trump
3. Psychologist: Separating Children at the Border Creates
Down Through Generations
4. Look Who's Making a Killing on Killing
5. Lessons From the Healthcare Wars: or Why Democrats Will Be
Disappointed in 2018
and Facebook Are Quietly Fighting California’s Privacy Rights Initiative
This article is by Lee Fang on The Intercept. It starts as follows:
Well... I do not
know the California Consumer Privacy Act, but it sounds decent. Also,
if I know that neofascist
corporations like Facebook and Google object to it, as is the case, I
am more for it.
Lobbyists for the
largest technology and telecommunications firms have only three
days to prevent the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, a ballot
initiative that would usher in the strongest consumer privacy standards
in the country, from going before state voters this November.
The initiative allows
consumers to opt out of the sale and collection of their personal data,
and vastly expands the definition of personal information to include
geolocation, biometrics, and browsing history. The initiative also
allows consumers to pursue legal action for violations of the law.
The idea that Californians
might gain sweeping new privacy rights has spooked Silicon Valley,
internet service providers, and other industries that increasingly rely
on data collection, leading to a lobbying push to defeat the initiative
before it gains traction. Their best hope may be to convince the
sponsors of the initiative, including San Francisco real estate
developer Alastair Mactaggart, to
pull the proposal in exchange for compromise privacy legislation, AB
375, which would achieve some of the same goals of the initiative.
Here is some more - and ¨her¨ = Deveau, mentioned a little later in the
In her update, she
listed a vast array of changes lobbyists are still seeking, including a
rewrite of the privacy law’s description of what counts as personal
information, changes to the conditions under which a consumer can seek
legal action, the preservation of arbitration clauses in consumer
contracts, and the removal of the mandate that firms display a button
on their homepage giving consumers a clear way of opting out of data
collection, among other changes.
There is also this, on the
Over the last few days, Deveau
has continued to update a coalition of Sacramento lobbyists of her
team’s efforts to ensure that if AB 375 passes, the bill provides
significant changes compared to the original CCPA.
The inclusion of a
Facebook representative is notable, given the company’s well-publicized
announcement earlier this year that it would end its opposition to the
initiative. In February, the company provided $200,000 to an account
set up by the California Chamber of Commerce designed to defeat the
CCPA initiative. But in April, following revelations about the extent
to which British consulting firm Cambridge Analytica
provided the Donald Trump campaign with illicit access to Facebook
user data, Facebook announced that it would withdraw its opposition to
CCPA and not provide additional funding to the Chamber account.
But no: As usual Facebook
was lying. Here is
the last bit that I quote from this article:
In addition to
Facebook, Google, AT&T, Microsoft, Amazon, Verizon, and the
California New Car Dealers Association have each contributed six figure
donations to the Chamber account set up to defeat CCPA. Uber, the
Data & Marketing Association, Cox Communications, and the
Interactive Advertising Bureau have each contributed $50,000 to the
account, according to disclosures.
I strongly hope
corporations - please check my definition if you did not already
- ¨Facebook, Google,
AT&T, Microsoft, Amazon [and] Verizon¨ - all will loose.
and Feckless, the Travel Ban Is Pure Trump
This article is by
The Editorial Board on The New York Times. It starts as follows:
Yes, indeed. Also, while
there is the fact that ¨Trump’s
best efforts to convince [the Supreme Court], and the country, that its
real purpose was to discriminate on the basis of religion¨ in fact these efforts were illegal:
Tuesday morning the five conservative justices of the Supreme Court —
including the one who got the job only because Senate Republicans stole
a seat and held it open for him — voted to uphold President Trump’s travel ban,
which indefinitely bars most people from five majority-Muslim
countries, and certain citizens from two other countries, from entering
the United States.
conservatives said the ban, Mr. Trump’s
third version after the first two were struck down by lower federal
courts, was a lawful exercise of presidential authority. They reached
this conclusion despite Mr. Trump’s best efforts to convince them, and
the country, that its real purpose was to discriminate on the basis of
Remember his call for a “total and
complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”? That came in
December 2015, when he was still a candidate. But the sentiments didn’t
stop when he became president.
All this looks a lot
like a government official acting on religious animus, which is barred
by the First Amendment and which, one would think, would especially
offend the conservative justices.
Yes and no. I agree
on what is being said here, but I also would like to point out that the
First Amendment has been used by the Supreme Court´s majority
to mean the absolute counterpart of
what it originally meant. For more, see here: Citizens United
(and following decisions).
The conservative justices
surely believed then that, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent from the travel ban
decision, “Our Constitution demands, and our country deserves, a
Judiciary willing to hold the coordinate branches to account when they
defy our most sacred legal commitments.” But the principle failed to
carry over into Tuesday’s ruling, even though the government actor was
not a state commissioner but the president, and the target of his
remarks was not a single shopkeeper but millions of Muslims around the
Here is the ending of this article:
Namely, that these days
both the president of the USA and the majority of its Supreme Court
decide that Muslims from many countries are not allowed entry
or immigration in the USA - which means, as dissenting Supreme Court
judge Sotomayor said, that the majority of the Supreme Court now (and
probably in the future) does not ¨hold the coordinate branches to account when
they defy our most sacred legal commitments¨.
racial fear has always been at the core of Mr. Trump’s worldview.
What’s so dangerous about Tuesday’s ruling is that the Supreme Court
has now implicitly blessed his use of this strategy as a political
organizing tool and as a governing philosophy.
Jan. 27, 2017, as Mr. Trump signed the first version of the travel ban,
he read out its official title, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign
Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” then looked up and said, “We all know
what that means.”
we do, even if five Supreme Court justices refuse to admit it.
Separating Children at the Border Creates Trauma Passed Down Through
This article is by
Amy Goodman and Juan González on Democracy Now! It starts with the
More than 2,000
migrant children remain separated from their parents, jailed in
detention centers across the country. The Washington Post reports that
U.S. authorities are collecting mug shots of the detained minors, some
showing the children in tears. Immigrant children jailed in a converted
Walmart in Texas are being forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in
English each morning. At some of the facilities, the children are
counted in “prison-style” head counts. In some cases, parents have
already been deported, while their children remain in United States
custody. For more, we speak with Dr. Dana Sinopoli, a psychologist who
penned an open letter condemning the Trump administration’s practice of
separating children from their parents at the border.
Well... I think the separation
of children from their parents was intentional sadism thay
should be completely illegal, and I think that ¨U.S.
authorities¨ often do not know who the parents of these - often
very young - children are, which makes this an extremely cruel case
of kidnapping by the U.S. government, but - because I am
a psychologist - I fear I do not agree with ¨Dr. Dana Sinopoli¨, who supports my ethical judgements, but wants
to impose a further psychologized - as in: ¨medicalized¨ - explanation
Specifically, at least from the title, what Sinopoli is suggesting that
the children of the the children who now are separated from
their parents will also be traumatized.
I deny there is much evidence for
this, and I do so because I have seen a similar situation in Holland,
but there about the children and the children of the children of former
concentration camp prisoners.
First, that was utter rot in my case, but it was furthered by making a
rather (in)famous film about one of the worst struck former
concentration camp prisoner; by next suggesting he and his family
were like all families of former concentration camp prisoners, which I knew to be a lie because I knew
the man and his family personally; and finally by refusing
to help me with even the least amount of help ever since 1966,
although my father survived more than three years and nine months of
four German concentration camps, and my grandfather was murdered in a
German concentration camp.
That is: According to - many, Dutch - psychologists and psychiatrists I
am supposed to be crazy, not
because they have any knowledge of
me, but because of what happened to my father, but then it turned out
that I have no right on getting any help whatsoever
precisely because I am crazy,
according to these psychologists and psychiatrists: That is how
psychology and psychiatry often work.
And this was precisely the same game
as kept my ex (who also has ME/CFS, and had no family in any
resistance) and myself for forty years
from getting any help whatsoever
in Holland, while we had and have ¨a serious chronic disease¨ (it is
now admitted, since 2018).
My own suggestion is that psychologists and psychiatrists who
make such quite unscientific and utterly
evidenceless extremely general
judgements (about the children of the small children who
now have been sadistically and cruelly locked up by the American
government) are not so much
interested in helping the unborn children of these children, but are much
more likely to insist on their own
importance, and the status of
their supposed science.
Then again, I found that (at least) half of the interview with Sinopoli
is not yet available on Democracy Now! so I end this article
with just one more quotation:
Well, for more, we’re joined by Dr. Dana Sinopoli, a psychologist who
penned an open
letter condemning the Trump administration’s practice of separating
children from their parents at the border. The letter has been signed
by well over 12,600 mental health professionals. The letter states
“children may develop post traumatic responses following separation
from their parents and specifically lists immigration and parental
deportation as situations of potentially traumatic separation. To
pretend that separated children do not grow up with the shrapnel of
this traumatic experience embedded in their minds is to disregard
everything we know about child development, the brain, and trauma.”
I am sorry, but this is
mostly utter baloney,
and it would have been much more
credible if these ¨mental health professionals¨ would have
subscribed to my judgements that these children are
intentionally and sadistically abused, and have been kidnapped
by the American government, which indeed may lead to later
problems for these children.
But - I take it - they did not want to sign anything which
spoke of sadism
and kidnapping, and instead signed baloney, for what they claim
about ¨child development¨ and ¨the brain¨ is far too little to
support their judgements, whereas ¨trauma passed on through the
generations¨ is - I am sorry - bullshit with
Who's Making a Killing on Killing
article is by Jodie Evans and Andrew Behar on AlterNet and originally
on the Independent Media Institute. This is from near its beginning:
The U.S. is
engaged in endless wars around the world. For 17 years, we have been
fighting in the Middle East, leading us into seven active conflict
zones and countless other proxy wars. We are still fighting an
invisible war on drugs that takes the war zone from Afghanistan to
Mexico. Most Americans have no idea that the U.S. maintains nearly 800
military bases around the world, or that the U.S. supplies the weapons
that wreak havoc on innocent civilians and children in Yemen, Syria,
Pakistan, and more.
So why the
constant drive to fuel more and additional conflict? As the saying
goes, follow the money: who profits from all this death and devastation?
The merchants of
war who have shaped U.S. foreign policy since the end of WWII have a
foothold so strong, the act of extracting ourselves from the war
economy has become incredibly complex. In 2017, the U.S. gave more than
$750 billion to the Pentagon, which turned around and handed $350
billion of that to weapons manufacturers—companies like Boeing,
Lockheed, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman, some of
whom are also currently profiting
from the construction of immigrant detention facilities. The CEOs of
those companies took home a combined
salary of $96 million. Meanwhile, a U.S. worker on minimum wage
cannot afford a
standard two-bedroom apartment, working 40 hours a week.
and this is an excellent introduction, precisely because it
stresses where one should look if one searches for political
explanations: At those who profit in money or in power - which
are, in the present world, the same.
Here is some more:
are scrambling to find resources to pay for basic services. There’s
still no power in Puerto
Rico. Flint, Michigan, doesn’t have clean
water. Our infrastructure
is crumbling. Congress and the White House deal blow after blow to
people and communities, slashing
funding for SNAP, raising
rent for those on Section 8 housing, and rolling
back protections for LGBTQ+ students. Washington is simultaneously
sowing instability, destruction, and poverty overseas and in our own
military-industrial complex rewards Congress’s continued cooperation
with a constant
stream of campaign contributions, ensuring an endless cycle of tax
dollars to fund their activities—a deadly revolving door that has
cornered nearly all of our elected officials on the state and federal
This is also quite
good (because I think it is quite true). Here is a conclusion of this
This is why As You Sow and CODEPINK have collaborated on Weapon Free Funds to allow
individuals, communities, universities, foundations, faith-based
institutions and others to search 3,000 commonly held mutual funds and
ETFs to determine if they are invested in weapons and war, and if so,
to find cleaner options.
While we continue
to hold Washington accountable for its excess, we also encourage and
celebrate the power of individuals, communities, and institutions to
shift the conversation when they invest with their values.
I think this is a fine
idea and this is a recommended article.
From the Healthcare Wars: or Why Democrats Will Be Disappointed in 2018
is by John Atcheson on Common Dreams. It starts as follows:
One of the things that came
as a complete surprise to the establishment media and the punditocracy
was the speed with which the attempt to repeal Obamacare mobilized
support for it as well as for a single payer, Medicare for all approach
to health care. A recent poll found that a slim
majority now favors single payer or protecting Obamacare, but the
trend is clearly upward on both, and that’s without a coherent and
unified push from either party.
There’s a lot to learn from
understanding why and how this transformation occurred, and if
Democrats don’t learn those lessons, 2018 is likely to be disappointing
and they could even lose to Trump in 2020. Oh, they’ll pick up some
seats in the House in the midterms – maybe even enough to have a
majority. But unless Trump completely self-destructs and takes
his party down with him, there ain’t gonna be no blue wave, let alone a
tsunami if Dems don’t get smart. So far, there’s no signs of that
So let’s review the lessons
being ignored by the neoliberals in charge of the party.
Yes, I think this
introduction is quite correct, and the basic problem with
the Democrats - that is: especially those which are chosen as
Congressmen or as Senators - is that there seem to be 100 lobbyists
for each of them, who all try to buy them, and who generally succeed.
And I should add, I
think, that it seems to me as if personal financial corruption is much
more rewarding for most of these elected Democrats than is
doing their duty. In fact, it seems as if Hilary Clinton + her husband
managed to ¨earn¨ some $120 million dollars from contributions by rich
bankers (and selling their autobiographies).
But lets review the
lessons John Atcheson mentions. In fact, I will quote them, but mostly
without any supporting text. (If you want to read all of that, go to
Here are the first three lessons:
Lesson One – If you
try to meet them in the middle, they’ll drag you to the right. (...)
Lesson Two – If you want people to show up
at the polls you have to be an advocate for their values. (...)
Lesson Three: Not showing up for the
national debate translates into losing elections
This refusal to actually
stand for something, while relying on poll-driven, spin doctored
split-the-difference politics, is one of the major reasons the
Democrats have been losing elections and the support of the people for
more three decades now. It explains why fewer then 35 percent of
eligible voters believe the Democrats stand for anything.
I did include part of
the text for Lesson Three, but this is mostly for clarification. I agree
with all three lessons (but I expect they will not be heeded:
it is much nicer to get personally
rich from corrupt payments than doing your duty and getting no money
Here is the last bit I
quote from this article:
Embracing a progressive brand is the only way for Democrats to win.
Indeed, thanks to the failure of the neoliberal
establishment controlling the Democratic Party, Republicans are only one
state away from being able to call a constitutional
convention – something that should strike fear into the heart of any
American who values science, reason, freedom and reality, and something
brothers and other oligarchs are salivating over. But even if
Republicans aren’t able to muster the 38 states needed to approve
constitutional amendments, they will control redistricting in a
majority of states, making fair elections even rarer than they are
In the face of these grim
prospects, we see the neoliberal establishment and their corporate
benefactors doing everything they can to retain control of the party.
Talk about fiddling while the Titanic goes down – these folks would
rather risk a government completely controlled by Republicans than
relinquish their own privileged positions.
I agree, but as
I said above: Most elected Democrats seem to feel that it is much nicer to get
personally rich from corrupt payments, than doing your duty and getting
no money for that.
And while I agree with Atcheson, that is what I expect (as he seems to
do as well). This is a strongly recommended article.
 I have
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 (!!).