from September 30, 2018
This is a
Nederlog of Sunday,
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 September 30, 2018:
Nader: Kavanaugh Is a Corporation Masquerading as a Judge
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:
Trump Administration Has Resigned Itself to Climate Catastrophe
Demands FBI Investigate Whether Kavanaugh Committed
5. One Small Step for the Web…
Nader: Kavanaugh Is a Corporation Masquerading as a Judge
article is by Ralph Nader on Common Dreams. It starts as follows - and
this is also a repeat from September 7, indeed in part because
getting quite sick of hundreds upon hundreds of articles on
Kavanaugh by journalists I do not have any inkling of.
This article started as follows:
Observers say that
confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to become President Trump’s
second pick for a lifetime job on the Supreme Court will make the Court
more conservative. It is more accurate to say Kavanaugh will
make the Court more corporatist.
With Kavanaugh, it is all
about siding with corporations over workers, consumers, patients,
motorists, the poor, minority voters, and beleaguered communities.
judicial opinions put corporate interests ahead of the common
good—backing the powerful against the weak, the vulnerable, and the
Apart from his declared
views pouring power and immunity into the Presidency (which is why
Trump wants him), Kavanaugh could be the most corporate judge in modern
American history. Two meticulous reports on his judicial decisions, one
by the Alliance
for Justice (AFJ) and one by Public
Citizen demonstrate that for him it’s all about corporations
Yes, I think that is all
correct. Incidentally - but I admit blaming
lack of competence on
American journalists makes no difference - I took the point of "corporations uber alles" (which means: corporations above
everything) as the defining difference between fascism (which I
by listing 10 legal, social and political criterions) and neo-fascism
(likewise), and I mention this here because some rare lost soul might
inspect my definitions.
Well... I like
think they are important, but having read and reviewed over
articles on politics and having found completely zero with a
possible definition of "fascism" or "neofascism", I admit I
decided these concepts are too intricate for almost any journalist.
Anyway. Back to the
Here is AFJ’s summary:
Kavanaugh has repeatedly
ruled against efforts to combat climate change and the regulation of
greenhouse gases. He also repeatedly ruled against protections for
clean air. He has repeatedly sided with the wealthy and the powerful
over all Americans. He has fought consumer protections in the areas of
automobile safety, financial services, and a free and open internet.
Kavanaugh has also repeatedly ruled against workers, workplace
protections and safety regulations.
Do you want him
to be on the Supreme Court?
Kavanaugh is a corporate
supremacist to a fanatic level of protecting corporate cruelty and
greed. Giving him an unaccountable lifetime position on the Court will
weaken our democracy and empower the corporate state.
Yes. I entirely
and am also well aware my agreement is based on an agreement with
Nader's values. But that is no shortcoming.
Here is the last bit
that I quote from this article:
I agree again, and hope he
will not be elected a Supreme Court judge, though I have to
I doubt it. And this is a recommended article (and was first published
on September 6).
Watch out for a cruel man
with a folksy smile. Watch once again the Democratic Senators on the
Senate Judiciary Committee minimizing Kavanaugh’s bias for
corporations—except for Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).
Given the lives, injuries,
and sickness at stake; given the dictatorially approved taxpayer-funded
corporate welfare and bloated corporate contracts with governments
draining the peoples’ necessities, given Kavanaugh’s mindless support
for corporate dollars corruptly buying elections, maybe the motto
against this awful nomination should be “Kavana-ugh!”
Trump Administration Has Resigned Itself to Climate Catastrophe
article is by Jacob Sugarman on Truthdig. It starts as follows:
Well... yes and no: Yes, these
are predictions of what very well may be the case in
2100 (that is, in 82 years), and no, Trump's government does not
believe these predictions, indeed without offering a rational
argument why not.
If the earth’s temperature
climbs 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), sea levels are
expected to rise 40 centimeters and the availability of fresh water
could decrease as much as 9 percent, according
to a 2016 study from the scientific journal Earth
System Dynamics. An increase of 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) would
be catastrophic; whole swaths of Africa, South America and Asia would
see dramatic reductions in their crop yields, and 98 percent of the
planet’s coral reefs would be at risk.
By the Trump
administration’s latest estimations, the planet will warm as much as 4
degrees C (7.2 degrees F) by 2100—this despite the president’s claim
that global warming is a hoax perpetrated
by the Chinese government. But not only is it unwilling to address
this impending cataclysm, it appears eager to accelerate the earth’s
But 82 years is a long time and a lot may change in the mean
time, including technical advances that are at present quite unknown.
So I am not quite as pessimistic as Sugarman appears to be (and
talking about a time - 2100 - in which very few of those
presently alive will be alive).
Here is some more, and this is by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which is part of Trump's
"remain theoretical" or else Guterres is correct with his
assertion that “we face a
direct existential threat”, but not both, in my opinion.
The safety agency’s
findings are broadly consistent with recent studies indicating a global
climate crisis has increased the frequency of extreme
weather events, and that accelerated Arctic warming has prolonged
summer weather in North America, potentially leading to “very-extreme
extremes.” A report from the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences in August raised the possibility of a “Hothouse
Earth” in which warming oceans and climbing temperatures create a
feedback loop that endangers the very future of humanity. Such models
remain theoretical, but U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres recently
declared that “climate change is moving faster than we are” and
that “we face a direct existential threat.”
Here is the last bit that I quote from the present article:
distinguishes the NHTSA’s statement is its nihilism. “The amazing thing
they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of
carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society,”
Michael McCracken, a former scientist at the U.S. Global Change
Research Program, tells the Post. “And then they’re saying they’re not
going to do anything about it.”
Again, well... for it seems the
NHTSA is talking about 2100 (?) while McCracken is talking about the
present. And I think this article is too vague to take serious.
article is by Peter Dreier on Common Dreams. It starts as follows:
Some reporters, bloggers,
and pundits think that during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary
Committee on Thursday, Judge Brett Kavanaugh just “lost
it” and became "unhinged."
I disagree. I have no
doubt that he was angry and emotional, but he was not out-of-control.
Rather, his comments were very strategic and calculated. He was putting
on a performance -- the performance that Donald Trump insisted he put
on under threat of withdrawing his nomination.
Kavanaugh spent several
days huddled with White House officials preparing his testimony and
discussing their strategy for combatting the various accusations of
sexual assault, drunkenness, and violent behavior. It is well-known
that at Trump’s request, Kavanaugh appeared on Fox News to defend
himself and that Trump was unhappy with his performance, which he
thought was too timid and defensive. Kavanaugh's testimony was his last
chance to show Trump he was worthy.
In fact, there are three
claims in the quoted bit: First, Kavanaugh may have been
"unhinged". I agree with Dreier that this is quite unlikely.
fact, Kavanaugh was "putting on a performance". I think Dreier is
correct about this as well. And third, Kavanaugh acted
instruction by Trump to perform as he did. Here I say that Dreier may
be right, but he does not give enough evidence.
In any case, here is
In his testimony on
Thursday, Kavanaugh adopted Trump’s modus operandus when confronted
with accusations of misconduct and wrongdoing.
Attack. Never admit a mistake. Charge your
opponents with being part of a conspiracy. Lie if necessary.
Kavanaugh’s rant on Thursday, like Trump’s similar rants throughout his
presidency, demonstrate that both are unfit for public office.
I more or less agree
with this, and certainly with the last statement. Here is the
that I quote from this article:
In January 2017, more than
four million Americans took to the streets as part of the women’s march
to protest Donald Trump’s reactionary agenda. A key part of that agenda
was changing the composition of the Supreme Court to guarantee a
right-wing majority that will repeal Roe v Wade and same-sex
marriage, dismantle voting rights and environment protections, and
eviscerate the rights of miners, janitors, school teachers, and other
workers and their unions.
Putting Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court will guarantee that, even
if Trump is impeached, resigns, decides not to run for re-election, or
is defeated for re-election in 2020, his legacy will guaranteed in the
right-wing Supreme Court for the next three or four decades.
I more or less agree
with the first part of the above quote, although I do want to
point out that - as formulated - this was a political or moral
objection to "changing the
composition of the Supreme Court".
Meanwhile, I have
objections to the Supreme Court as is, namely that I think it
major weakness that its judges are nominated for life, which only
is the case in the USA and nowhere else, whereas I would say 10
to 15 years should be the limit, after which another judge
should be chosen.
And this objection of
mine is not concerned with Kavanaugh or with the political
color of the majority of the Supreme Court. This is a recommended
Demands FBI Investigate Whether Kavanaugh Committed Perjury
article is by Jake Johnson on Common Dreams. It starts as follows:
In a letter
to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on
Saturday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) demanded that the newly reopened
FBI investigation into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh examine
both the serious accusations of sexual assault against him and whether
he lied to Congress in his testimony.
"In order for this FBI
investigation regarding Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to be
complete," Sanders wrote, "it is imperative the bureau must not only
look into the accusations made by Dr. Ford, Deborah Ramirez, and Julie
Swetnick, it should also examine the veracity of his testimony before
the Judiciary Committee."
The Vermont senator went on
to call on the Senate to not "constrain" the FBI probe to one week,
arguing that a truly thorough probe could take longer.
I think all of this is quite
correct. Then there is this from Sanders'
full letter (that is fully quoted on Common Dreams):
In addition to
investigating the accusations made by multiple women, a thorough
investigation should include a review of Judge Kavanaugh’s numerous
untruthful statements in his previous testimony before Congress.
This is a good question.
there is this:
- In his previous
testimony before Congress, Judge Kavanaugh was asked more than 100
times if he knew about files stolen by Republican staffers from
Judiciary Committee Democrats. He said he knew nothing. Emails released
as part of these hearings show that these files were regularly shared
with Kavanaugh while he was on the White House staff.
This is another good
Then there is this:
- In 2004 Judge
Kavanaugh testified the nomination of William Pryor to the 11th Circuit
“was not one that I worked on personally.” Documents now contradict
that statement. Newly released documents also call into question
whether Judge Kavanaugh was truthful that the nomination of Charles
Pickering “was not one of the judicial nominees that I was primarily
Which is another good question. And there is
- Judge Kavanaugh
repeatedly told the committee he never drank to the point where he
didn’t remember something. He also denied ever becoming
aggressive when he drinks. However there have been many reports from
those Judge Kavanaugh attended high school, college and law school with
that contradict this assertion.
So he may have lied about
this as well. Here is the ending of Sanders' letter:
- Kavanaugh claimed he
did not drink on weeknights but an entry on his calendar for Thursday
July 1 states, “Go to Timmy’s for Skis w/ Judge, Tom, Pj, Bernie,
Squi.” Kavanaugh clarified to Sen. Booker that “Skis” referred to
Yes, I quite agree and this is
strongly recommended article.
the FBI can help answer is whether Judge Kavanaugh has been truthful
with the committee. This goes to the very heart of whether he should be
confirmed to the court. If a thorough investigation takes longer than a
week, so be it. First and foremost, we need the truth.
Small Step for the Web…
article is by Tim Berners-Lee on Common Dreams. It starts as follows:
I’ve always believed the
web is for everyone. That’s why I and others fight fiercely to protect
it. The changes we’ve managed to bring have created a better and more
connected world. But for all the good we’ve achieved, the web has
evolved into an engine of inequity and division; swayed by powerful
forces who use it for their own agendas.
Today, I believe we’ve reached a critical tipping point, and
that powerful change for the better is possible — and necessary.
This is why I have, over recent years, been working with a
few people at MIT and elsewhere to develop Solid, an open-source project to
restore the power and agency of individuals on the web.
changes the current model where users have to hand over personal data
to digital giants in exchange for perceived value. As we’ve all
discovered, this hasn’t been in our best interests. Solid is how we
evolve the web in order to restore balance — by giving every one of us
complete control over data, personal or not, in a revolutionary way.
like Tim Berners-Lee and I don't trust him, and my distrust goes back
to 1996, when I got an internet connection (with a very slow
modem, that remained in place till 2009, when I got fast internet,
since when I also have lost virtually all e-mails about my site).
specifically distrusted in 1996 were two things: First, why were
e-mails not coded?
second, having been threatened with murder and been literally -
physically, factually - gassed in 1988 by the drugsdealers that
Amsterdam's mayor Ed van Thijn had given his "personal permission" to
deal soft drugs from the bottom floor of the house where I lived
spite of all laws forbidding the dealing of any drugs, including soft
drugs): how do I prevent that I get more murder threats (for neither
the police of Amsterdam nor Van Thijn ever
answered any of the many written complaints I made).
got an answer to the first question; I tried to avoid the second
problem by virtually always refusing to use my real last name;
and I am
extremely frightened of the internet that Tim
precisely because he worked for DARPA; because he did not do
about coding e-mails and other personal stuff; because not
anything about coding was extremely much
in the service of the secret
services; and because it turned out that the internet is by far the
strongest reason to fear neofascism:
the internet allows the full
personal knowledge of anyone and everything on every
computer, and enables the secret services
of each and every state to
know everything there is to know
everything about anyone.
assure me Berners-Lee did not know this. I deny it: He worked
that was controlled (to an extent) by American security, which had as
early as the late 1960ies had stated
it wanted another kind of society - called: "a technotronic
society" in the late 1960ies - that would enable the security
forces to draw up a new society, which I call neofascism, that
is fully controlled by the rich and by the security forces, and that
knows everything about anyone.
from the late 1960ies:
that the technotronic society fills some
(in this respect the reactionaries and the
Mr Brezezinski does not expect that the Luddite
anarchy will seriously obstruct the new
'it will soon be possible to assert almost
surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-
containing even personal information
personal behaviour of the citizen, in
customary data.' Moreover it will be
and plan to meet any uprisings in the
will even be able to forecast crises before the
conscious of wanting them.
This has been realized
by Tim Berners-Lee and this works now, and indeed has made the
forces from anywhere know more about anyone
- tenthousands of times
more - than even the KGB and the Gestapo knew.
is more about Brzezinski, security and the internet here: Crisis: Propaganda
and Control: Brezezinski 1968 which lists some discoveries I
made in 2012.
In brief, I do not believe Berners-Lee. Also he
indulges in pure propaganda
Solid is guided by the principle of “personal empowerment
through data” which we believe is fundamental to the success of the
next era of the web. We believe data should empower each of us.
Imagine if all your current apps talked to each other,
collaborating and conceiving ways to enrich and streamline your
personal life and business objectives? That’s the kind of innovation,
intelligence and creativity Solid apps will generate.
With Solid, you will have far more personal agency over
data — you decide which apps can access it.
Sorry, but this just bullshit. Here
is more of the same
Together, Solid and inrupt will provide new experiences
benefitting every web user — and that are impossible on the web today.
Where individuals, developers and businesses create and find
innovative, life- and business-enriching, applications and services.
Where we all find trusted services for storing, securing and managing
I’m incredibly optimistic for this next era of the web.
And I totally distrust the maker of the present
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
have behaved now for 2 years
as if they are the
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 (!!.)