in all the world is more dangerous, than sincere ignorance and
-- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
from April 7, 2019
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 three 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 April 7, 2019:
1. U.S. Wants 2 Years to Find
Migrant Kids Separated From Families
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. Atheism has been part of many Asian
traditions for a millennia
3. Nuclear Power Is Not a Viable Solution for Green New Deal
4. Hyperbole and Outrage as Substitutes for Thought, Facts,
5. New York Sues Big Pharma for Opioid Crisis
Wants 2 Years to Find Migrant Kids Separated From Families
This article is by
Eliot Spagat on Truthdig and originally it appeared on The Associated
Press. It starts as follows:
The Trump administration
wants up to two years to find potentially thousands of children who
were separated from their families at the border before a judge halted
the practice last year, a task that it says is more laborious than
previous efforts because the children are no longer in government
The Justice Department said
in a court filing late Friday that it will take at least a year to
review about 47,000 cases of unaccompanied children taken into
government custody between July 1, 2017 and June 25, 2018 — the day
before U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw halted the general practice of
splitting families. The administration would begin by sifting through
names for traits most likely to signal separation — for example,
children under 5.
I say, and I start -
again - with the definition of "kidnapping"
that is on the Wikipedia, which starts as follows (and is much more
law, kidnapping is the unlawful carrying away (asportation) and confinement of a person
against his or her will. Thus, it is a composite crime. It can also be
defined as false imprisonment by means of abduction, both of which are
separate crimes that when committed simultaneously upon the same person
merge as the single crime of kidnapping.
Kidnapping of a child is also
known as child abduction, and these are sometimes
separate legal categories.
Kidnapping may be done to demand for ransom
in exchange for releasing the victim, or for other illegal purposes.
Kidnapping can be accompanied by bodily injury which elevates the crime
to aggravated kidnapping.
And I think that what
the Trump government did in this case simply was kidnapping,
but then I seem to be the only one (that I have read) who calls
it so. Then again, I can read and I can think, and for
me it is and
Here is some more on this:
The administration would
provide information on separated families on a rolling basis to the
American Civil Liberties Union, which sued to reunite families and
criticized the proposed timeline on Saturday.
“We strongly oppose a plan
that could take up to two years to locate these families,” said Lee
Gelernt, the ACLU’s lead attorney. “The government needs to make this a
Sabraw ordered last year
that more than 2,700 children in government care on June 26, 2018 be
reunited with their families, which has largely been accomplished.
Then, in January, the U.S. Health and Human Services Department’s
internal watchdog reported that thousands more children may have been
separated since the summer of 2017. The department’s inspector general
said the precise number was unknown.
So this started
2700 kids that were kidnapped, and then, half a year later, it
that there are 47,000 more, and that the U.S. Health and Human Services Department
fact does not know how many children have been kidnapped (of
without using that term) by the U.S. government. There
more in this article (but without the term "kidnapping") and it
has been part of many Asian traditions for a millennia
article is by Signe Cohen on AlterNet and originally on The
Conversation. This is from near its beginning:
Yes indeed - and you owe
my selection of the present article because I am a philosopher,
almost all to get an - excellent - M.A. in philosophy in the
"University" of Amsterdam, but who was thrown out of the faculty of
philosophy, as a student, briefly before taking my M.A., because I
criticized the lying frauds who "taught" me, and besides
opponent of the Marxism and postmodernism
that had ruled the
"University" of Amsterdam from 1971 till 1995.
To many, atheism – the lack
of belief in a personal god or gods – may appear an entirely modern
concept. After all, it would seem that it is religious traditions that
have dominated the world since the beginning of recorded history.
As a scholar of
Asian religions, however, I’m often struck by the prevalence of
atheism and agnosticism – the view that it is impossible to know
whether a god exists – in ancient Asian texts. Atheistic traditions
a significant part in Asian cultures for millennia.
I think I was the only Dutch student who was mistreated and
this horrible fashion, at least since 1945.
But that is my history, and I will not say more about it. Then
did study philosophy, and all I had to do was to hand in
my thesis in
philosophy, and then I was - also sick for 10 years then, and over 40
years now - kicked out as if I was a piece of filth, by the
"University" of Amsterdam in 1988.
I still think that the "philosophy" I was "taught" at the
of Amsterdam was almost completely utter bullshit
(and I know,
for I did - very seriously - study philosophy myself for 10
before starting to study it in the "university"), but
apart from that
fact it did agree with academic educations in philosophy that
were given in other Western universities in other
Western countries in
that philosophy was, in these Western universities, only done in the
West, at least as far as one could learn in Western universities.
And that was totally false as I
knew from the early 1970ies
onwards. But Cohen is quite right in what she says.
Here is some more:
Yes indeed. Then there is
While Buddhism is a
tradition focused on spiritual liberation, it is not a theistic
The Buddha himself rejected
the idea of a creator god, and Buddhist philosophers have even argued
that belief in an eternal god is nothing but a distraction for humans
While Buddhism does not
argue that gods don’t exist, gods are seen as completely irrelevant to
those who strive for enlightenment.
Yes indeed. Here is the
last part that I quote from this article:
A similar form of
functional atheism can also be found in the ancient Asian religion of Jainism,
a tradition that emphasizes non-violence toward all living beings,
non-attachment to worldly possessions and ascetic practice. While Jains
believe in an eternal soul or jiva, that can be reborn, they do not
believe in a divine creator.
According to Jainism, the
universe is eternal, and while gods may exist, they too must be reborn,
just like humans are. The gods play no role in spiritual liberation and
enlightenment; humans must find their own path to enlightenment with
the help of wise human teachers.
Again quite so. And this
is a recommended article, and there is very much more
philosophy in the
East, of which I and everbody else who was taught philosophy in
West was kept completely ignorant.
Around the same time when
Buddhism and Jainism arose in the sixth century B.C., there was also an
explicitly atheist school of thought in India called the Carvaka
school. Although none of their original texts have survived, Buddhist
and Hindu authors describe the Carvakas as firm atheists who believed
that nothing existed beyond the material world.
To the Carvakas, there was
no life after death, no soul apart from the body, no gods and no world
other than this one.
Power Is Not a Viable Solution for Green New Deal
This article is by
David Moglen on Common Dreams and originally on The Hill. It starts as
Yes indeed: I quite agree.
Incidentally, here is the Wikipedia on the Green New Deal.
The Green New Deal
is a bold and necessary path forward to tackle the climate crisis. To
be successful, it must leave nuclear power behind.
With just a decade left to
stop the worst effects of climate change, we must dramatically
transform how we produce, use and pay for energy. And as momentum
around the Green New Deal turns into concrete proposals, we must
recognize why nuclear power is a discredited and dishonest distraction,
not a solution.
To reduce global greenhouse
gas emissions by 40 to 60 percent by 2030, and down to zero by 2050, we
need cost-effective, proven energy generation technology that can be
scaled up to meet these benchmarks. Nuclear power does not and will not
ever meet these criteria.
Here is some more:
Yes, I mostly agree. Here
is the last bit that I quote from this article:
After 60 years, despite
massive subsidies, the nuclear industry is dying of its own accord.
Why? Because it’s too expensive, too dangerous and dirty, and takes too
long to deploy. Reactors are closing across the country, and major
corporations have declared bankruptcy.
For 60 years, nuclear power has posed a serious risk to people and our
planet. It will be the same for the next 10,000 years. Our children and
generations of their children will be forced to endure the radioactive
pollution and fallout from devastating accidents like 3 Mile Island,
Fukashima, and Chernobyl, and the permanent waste that no one can
safely store. The risks of nuclear proliferation and the spread of
dangerous weapons and technology only adds to this.
Yes, I agree and this is a
Nuclear power is too slow
scale up to our current challenge. Far too slow. In 1997, when the
historic Kyoto Protocol was signed, nuclear power’s share of
electricity generation globally was around 17 percent. Now, after two
decades, the aging fleet of reactors account for barely 10 percent of
global electricity generation and about 4.4 percent of global
commercial primary energy consumption. Even the nuclear industry’s
grandiose and preposterously expensive proposal to build two new
nuclear reactors a month, from now to 2050, would be far too little and
far too late.
and Outrage as Substitutes for Thought, Facts, Accuracy and Truth
This article is by
John Atcheson on Common Dreams. It starts as follows:
Yes indeed. And I mostly
agree with Atcheson, though I also have two points he does not
These days you can’t pick
up a paper or tune into the news without hearing someone expressing
their outrage about something or other and usually it is about as
newsworthy as the sun rising in the East. The reason it gets reported
is the outrage itself, not the topic. Trump is a master at faux outrage
– witness his oft repeated claim that the Mueller investigation was
“disgraceful,” “outrageous” or a “witch hunt.” Trying to
determine whether the Russians interfered with our election and whether
our President participated – given the various meetings and emails
between them – was anything but outrageous. In fact, it was and is
simply a prudent and necessary inquiry.
As for hyperbole, take
Congressman Bob Bishop’s (R Utah) comment that “… the ideas behind the
Green New Deal are tantamount to genocide.”
Genocide? Really? So taking
steps to ward off massive draughts, heat waves, wildfires, extreme
storms, social unrest and an explosion in the number of migrants and
terrorists and the hundreds of millions of deaths they would
collectively cause and the trillions it would cost the economy is
genocide? How is it that Bishop is not laughed out of Congress?
Instead, his comment got a fair amount of press.
The first point is that in any
large unsorted human group, the
average IQ is 100, which is so because it has been designed to be
This means that half of the people there are have an IQ below
100. And while I do not believe that the IQ is a good
indicator of human intelligence, it still is the best - or the least
bad - we have.
Also, in part since my IQ is much above 100, I do like to say that
intelligence does make a difference between people, and
I cannot take
people with an IQ below 100 very serious, at least where the use of
their rational intellect is concerned.
My second point is that thanks to Facebook (especially) and the
internet everybody who has a computer of any kind that is
the internet thereby is almost certainly in almost all cases
less fully known to (i) the secret services of any country and to (ii)
Facebook, Google, and a few others who like to know everything about
anyone in order to send them "personalized advertisements".
This means also that in the last 20 years the number of publishers has
increased from several tens of millions (mostly with access to
paper press) to several billions (with access to an internet
and this has spectacularly diminished
the average quality of
publications (which these days often happen by Tweets, i.e.
limited to a few hundred characters, which is enough to scream loud, to
offend, and to write cheap grandiosities, but not enough to
argue in a rational
Together, these two points seem to explain rather a lot of what
Atcheson is - quite correctly, in my view - complaining about.
Here is some more from the article:
I am quite willing
believe this, and my reasons are in my
explanation above. Here is some more:
And by the way, this is a
bipartisan affront to sanity. Go to any campus and you’ll see so-called
liberals in high dudgeon about some egregious comment someone made, or
demanding “safe rooms” because some comedian is coming who might
somehow injure them with a bit of humor at the expense of some sacred
cow or other – like maybe needing a safe room.
Again I am quite willing to
believe this - and point again to my explanation
Conservatives who employ
outrage are attempting to substitute emotional intensity for reality,
give weight to the weightless. But because the press responds as
if it were important that someone was outraged, or that someone reacted
hysterically to a minor provocation, their attempts are all too often
Liberals who exhibit
outrage might be trying to inject an element of social justice into the
national debate – to substitute outrage for the kind of collective
action that’s been missing from the progressive movement until
recently. More often, they are attempts to make other liberals
hew their line and accept their orthodoxy.
Here is one last bit that I quote from this article:
Yes, I agree, but I point again to my
explanation above. And this is a strongly recommended
It’s worth remembering that
not too long ago – through the 70’s, in fact -- the press and media
were barred from holding monopoly positions in news markets; they had
to present a variety of perspectives; and they had to provide an
opportunity for opposing viewpoints. We still had our share of yellow
journalism, but those standards kept it at a minimum, and assured that
counter-arguments were presented on outlets like Fox (which didn’t
exist until the Fairness Doctrine was abandoned). Faux outrage
stood little chance of gaining traction in such an environment.
Today, if you want to get a
headline – or get one kicked off the front page – you just need to
shout out something outrageous, or feign outrage
York Sues Big Pharma for Opioid Crisis
This article is
by Mark Steiner on Naked Capitalism, and originally on The Real News
Network. It starts as follows - o, and the "A.G."= the Attorney General:
Yes indeed (and here is
some more on Bill
STEINER: Not only do they manufacture the opioids,
and not only do they lie to physicians about their addictive nature,
they’ve also profited off of addiction treatment. And now, the New York
A.G. has them in her sights.
I’m Marc Steiner and
welcome to The Real News. Good to have you with us. We recently covered
the accusations against the Sackler family and their company Purdue
Pharma for their role in fueling the opioid addiction crisis. It has
only intensified since our last conversation. Now with New York
Attorney General Letitia James filing a complaint about systemic fraud
not only on the part of the Sacklers, eight of whom are named in the
complaint, but also a number of other companies that were in collusion
to push opioids, fueling the addiction crisis, and attempting to profit
off addiction recovery, as well
We’re joined once again by Bill Black, Associate Professor of Economics
and Law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, white-collar
criminologist, former financial regulator, author of the book The Best
Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One, and of course, a regular contributor
here at The Real News.
Here is some more that explains part of the concerns about opioids:
Yes indeed, that is true,
but it should have been added that Purdue and the Sacklers were
helped in this by the corruption of some leading physicians (now
NEWS CLIP: Opioids,
like oxycodone and hydrocodone, are highly addictive. Purdue changed
that perception through a devious but very effective marketing campaign
that attempted to persuade physicians of all specialties that this
hundred plus years of medical wisdom was just wrong.
STEINER: So his is where it all began, but this now
is really unfolding into being a much more complex case.
Here is more:
Yes indeed: I think
the above is all true - and loosing
70,000 lives each year to "overdoses" means that each year more
Americans die from overdoses than Americans died in the whole Vietnam
war (between 59,000 and 60,000).
So highly addictive substances that in small quantities can kill you,
are obviously something that should be treated with enormous care, and
should be prescribed only in unusual circumstances, and should be
extraordinarily closely monitored. But of course, you don’t make
anywhere near as much money as the drug manufacturer if that’s true. So
the drug manufacturers got together with the pain doctors, not all of
them but some entrepreneurs, and they tried to change that perception.
So one thing they ginned up was a fake study. It was not peer-reviewed.
It was not scientific in any way. They looked at about 30 folks and
they said look, we don’t see addiction. And so, they actually conned
the F.D.A. for a time into allowing a statement that says, “if used as
prescribed, is not addictive.” In fact, it was quite addictive when
used as prescribed. And of course, it’s often used not as prescribed
and it’s extraordinarily addictive in those circumstances. Pain doctors
started routinely asking you and they eventually trained general
physicians, internal medicine types, to tell me on a scale of 1 to 10
how much pain you’re in. And then it became normal to give you this
substance because after all, it wasn’t addictive. And it’s a very
powerful high that it delivers in those circumstances. And so, this
began the whole process of creating an addiction epidemic. And now,
many years later, it is a leading cause of death in the United States,
certainly preventable deaths. We get about 70,000 lives lost every year
due to overdoses and roughly 40,000 of them are in opioids.
Here is the attorney general from New York:
Very good, and also quite
true. Here is the last bit that I quote from this article:
an effort to address the very root of this crisis, today, my office
filed the nation’s most extensive lawsuit against the very companies
and the family behind them– those who make, distribute, and have misled
the American people about the true dangers of these drugs. The
following manufacturers of opioids: Purdue, Janssen, Mallinckrodt,
Endo, Teva, and Allergan, have grossly misled the public about the true
risks and dangers associated with opioids.
Yes, I quite agree and
this is a strongly recommended article.
BILL BLACK: Well
what should come is that they should bankrupt all of these companies,
get them out of the business, and sue the individuals to the ends of
the earth and make sure that they don’t end up with any of the
proceeds. As you say, if the documents are accurate, it’s one of the
most depraved and cynical means of literally profiting from killing
your customers. And remember, this is done all the time in tobacco. It
was established, it was proved that that was the tobacco strategy. So
why should we be surprised that it’s the strategy here?
STEINER: Right. So basically in one sense, if
capitalism itself is not kind of contained or regulated, it will maybe
destroy itself with the rest of us along with it.
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 3 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 (!!).