Sections crisis index
1. David Crosby Quoted On Donald Trump
2. A Running List Of The Women Who've Accused Donald
Trump Of Sexual Assault
3. Noam Chomsky Unravels the Political Mechanics
Behind His Gradual Expulsion From Mainstream Media
4. Posting New Secret Trade Docs, Wikileaks Further
Exposes Corporate Plot
5. The Photos That Helped End Child Labor in the United
This is a Nederlog of Saturday, October 15, 2016.
A. This is a crisis log with 5 items and 7 dotted links: Item 1 is about a nice bit of conversation on Donald Trump by David Crosby (of Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young fame); item 2 is about a list of women who accused Donald Trump of sexual assault (indeed quite like he described it to Billy Bush): Twelve yesterday, fourteen this morning, and this is accompanied by a video with Bill Maher: The GOP = the Grab Our Pussies party; item 3 is about an interview Ralph Nader had with Noam Chomsky (who has been censored from and by the main media for something like forty years now); item 4 is about the secret (!!) trade deal that will bring neofascism everywhere if it is accepted (as it well may be - and yes, I explain it again); and item 5 is about photos that helped end child labor in the USA, and that was reviewed here also a year ago, but the photos are really quite impressive (and are about the cruel intentional abuse of children) and have been repeated on Mother Jones.
-- Constant part, for the moment --B. In case you visit my Dutch site: I do not know, but it may be you need to click/reload twice or more to see any changes I have made. This certainly held for me, but it is possible this was caused by the fact that I am also writing it from my computer.
In any case, I am now (again) updating the opening of my site with the last day it was updated. (And I am very sorry if you have to click/reload several times to see the last update: It is not what I wish, nor how it was. 
C. In case you visit my Danish site: It now works again (!), but I do not know how long it will keep working. (But not on October 13.) The Dutch site still is a mess.
I am very sorry, and none of it is due to me. I am simply doing the same things as I did for 20 or for 12 years, that also went well for 20 or for 12 years.
I will keep this introduction until I get three successive days (!!!) in which both providers work correctly. I have not seen that for many months now.
---1. David Crosby Quoted On Donald Trump
The first item today is a quote from David Crosby that I found on The Guardian. Because The Guardian insists that its journalists are all literary geniuses whose texts require protection for 72 years (it seems), I had to copy it manually :
Here is the quotation:
- David Crosby Quoted On Donald Trump
It's a very tough time in the United States, man. Donald Trump has pulled a scab off an ongoing infection in this country of racism and stupidity that is beyond belief. He's made it obvious that the big part of the bell curve of the intelligence distribution is at room temperature IQ. And there's a whole shitload of not very smart people out there who buy into Donald Trump. Trump is an obvious charlatan, an obvious liar, an obvious piece of shit. The only people who would believe him are dummies. People who are politically primitive. His and their world is laced with racism. The racism in this country is fully active and fully discouraging in how pervasive it is.I like the quotation and I have four comments on it, in the order they appear above, which I indicate by their bolded key terms
And frankly I have always wanted a woman president and Hillary is not who I would have picked. I think she's just a politician. I think under Hillary, nothing is going to change. It's the same game, same players. But I think that under Trump, we would get into wars and the country would come unglued completely. I love my country, man, it was a good idea when it was a democracy. But it's not a democracy now, it's a corporate-run place. The corporations have so much money and they throw it at congressional elections and then the Congress does what they tell them.
And that's a very discouraging fact.
Intelligence: I like it that David Crosby speaks of a "stupidity that is beyond belief", because that is also my initial reaction. Then again, there are two remarks to be made:
First, at least two more items are involved: stupidity, ignorance and egoism aka greed.
I think all are far more important than most people like to think, and I also think all are
very real facts. But there is one additional item that also should be mentioned:
Second, one important item in creating (far) more stupidity, ignorance and egoism than there would be without it is the propaganda in the mainstream media, which has been ever increasing since 1980 or so, and has been steeply increasing since 2001.
Trump: Yes indeed: "Trump is an obvious charlatan, an obvious liar, an obvious piece of shit. The only people who would believe him are dummies."
Then again, some of the dummies are dummies not because they lack native intelligence, but because they have had little education and have been propagandized a lot, whereas for this psychologist it is also obviously true that Trump is not merely or even predominantly a charlatan, a liar and a moral shit, but he is these things (also) because he is insane (mad, crazy).
Then again, I have to admit that far fewer psychologists, psychiatrists and medical people say so than think so, I suppose because most like their high incomes a lot better (and - I admit - also in some cases their personal safety) than giving public voice to some danger
their training allowed them to see. 
Hillary: I agree that "Hillary is not who I would have picked", but then I also have to admit that (i) I don't see much difference between female and male politicians anyway  and that (ii) my own guess is that electing a woman to be president is mostly of symbolic importance. Then again, I am not at all against a woman as president.
And I also agree with David Crosby that (probably) "nothing is going to change. It's the same game, same players" with Hillary as president. I do not think this will be much good, but I agree again that (probably) "under Trump, we would get into wars and the country would come unglued completely" (which is a lot more evil).
Democracy: Finally, I agree that the present-day USA is "not a democracy now, it's a corporate-run place". In fact, I don't know whether I would call the USA "a real democracy" at any time, and that basically for two reasons:
First, the original founders of the USA, in the 18th Century, did not want a democracy: what they wanted was a republic. I am not certain how influential that was and is, but I do know that is what the founders wanted, and that is also why there are not many laws that would guarantee some democratic government. Then again, I also agree that in some ways - such as progressive taxation and decent public schools - there was something like democracy in the USA in the 1960ies and 1970ies, when there also was a somewhat decent free press. (But both are no longer the case now.)
Second, another reason to doubt that there ever was a real democracy in the USA is that the rich always had very much more influence than the non-rich. This in fact is also the case in Europe, but always was considerably more so in the USA (which in part also explains the backwardness of the labor laws in the USA, compared with Europe).
But I am willing to agree that the evidence for and against a real democracy is mixed, if you agree with me that indeed there isn't much democracy (of the real kind) in the present USA: Ordinary people may vote, but they are rarely heard in public.
2. A Running List Of The Women Who've Accused Donald Trump Of Sexual Assault
The second item is by Catherine Pearson on Huffington Post, that also decided its journalists are geniuses whose texts may not be quoted for 72 years (or is it 78?)  I only list the article:
There are 12 women mentioned in the article. Meanwhile, there are two more.
- A Running List Of The Women Who've Accused Donald Trump Of Sexual Assault
And since I can't quote the Huffington Post directly anymore , here is something else:
This is from Bill Maher's "Real Time" that was aired yesterday. I like it, and it contains one of the new names for the GOP that these days still support Donald Trump: "Grab Our Pussies". (For that is what they allow their presidential candidate to do.)
- Monologue: The Great White Grope
3. Noam Chomsky Unravels the Political Mechanics Behind His Gradual Expulsion From Mainstream Media
The third item is by Alexandra Rosenmann on AlterNet:
- Noam Chomsky Unravels the Political Mechanics Behind His Gradual Expulsion From Mainstream Media
This starts as follows:
Ralph Nader and leading linguist Noam Chomsky engaged in a much anticipated discussion in early October on Ralph Nader Radio Hour. The two raised questions about changing the media narrative in a totalitarian-like state, and how Chomsky got dismissed from the mainstream altogether.
"How often have you been on the op-ed pages of the New York Times?" Nader asked Chomsky.
For Chomsky, the last time was over a decade ago.
Also, all in all it seems to have been two times. And the reasons that one of the best minds of his generation has been systematically denied access to the mainstream media are (1) he does not agree with the American leading ideology, and (2) he is an anarchist, while (3) he is very difficult to beat in a real and open discussion.
In fact, it isn't much better elsewhere:
The last link is to a 2003 (!!) program of Charlie Rose. Then there is this on the censorship on Noam Chomsky and his opinions in all the mainstream American media, for well over 40 years now:
"How about NPR and PBS, partially taxpayer-supported...more free-thinking and more tolerant [outlets]?" Nader wanted to know."I've been on 'Charlie Rose' two or three times," Chomsky told Nader (...)
Yes, precisely: The liars, frauds and cheats are dealt with as if they are extremely special persons with very special opinions and insights, whereas an extremely intelligent intellectual who is neither a liar, nor a fraud nor a cheat has been systematically excluded from reaching the American people.
The irony of Chomsky's media criticism being dismissed by the media is not lost on the former MIT professor, who remains in awe of America's level of censorship.
"Any one of the former Bush-Cheney warmongers like Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton and others have gotten far more press after they've left federal positions; in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post," Nader said.And unlike Chomsky, "They've been on television public television, NPR and they have a record of false statements; they have record of deception, they have record of pursuing policies are illegal under our Constitution, under international law and under federal statutes such as criminal invasion of Iraq and other adventures around the world," Nader pointed out.
And by now the few rich (probably in the end guided by Lewis Powell Jr.'s warnings (<- Wikipedia) are also manipulating and corrupting everything they can lay their hands on:
But the media problem permeates other industries, like education and government.
"Now, a society that operates in a way where propaganda is not only emanating from the major media but it gets into our schools, the kind of courses are taught, the content of the history, is a society that's not going to be mobilized for its own survival, much less the survival of other countries whose dictators we have for decades supported to oppress their people," explained Nader.
Incidentally, I agree with Ralph Nader, but I would not have called education and government "industries" (as the journalist seems to do): Neither is trying to get a maximal profit by making some commodity, as is the case for the things ordinarily called "industries".
If you want to know more, here is a link to the interview (which is radio):
- Ralph Nader Interviews Noam Chomsky
4. Posting New Secret Trade Docs, Wikileaks Further Exposes Corporate Plot
The fourth item today is by Jon Queally on Common Dreams:
This starts as follows:
- Posting New Secret Trade Docs, Wikileaks Further Exposes Corporate Plot
Even as it continued to post new batches of emails from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, Wikileaks on Friday also published new draft chapters of the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) which shed new light on the pending deal that critics say puts global economies at further risk from powerful banks, financial institutions, and corporate greed.Yes indeed, I quite agree that the TISA still is secret (apart from what was released on Wikileaks) and that it seeks to "shape the global economic and legal systems in favor of major corporations and elite interests".
The latest release follows a series of others by the pro-tranparency publication and comes just days ahead of the next round of TISA negotiations set to begin Monday in Washington, DC. The leaked documents included in Friday's release include three draft chapters from the agreement—covering "Financial Services," "Localization Provisions," and "Bilateral Market Access." The chapters are from June of this year and bring the number of documents related to the TISA negotiations published by Wikileaks up to 70 total.
Along with the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the TransAtlantic Trade and Investement Partnership (TTIP), TISA is actually the largest of the "Three Big T's" of pending international agreements that seek to further shape the global economic and legal systems in favor of major corporations and elite interests. TISA is the largest of the three deals, and according to World Bank figures cited by Wikileaks, services that would be covered by the massive agreement comprise around 75% of the EU economy, 80% of the US economy and the majority of economies of most countries.
But I go further than registering that the TISA is a secret "agreement" that "comprise[s] around 75% of the EU economy, 80% of the US economy and the majority of economies of most countries":
I say it is an extremely impertinent attempt by the very rich CEOs and their lawyers to give all powers, including all democratic powers, to the very rich CEOs and their lawyers, which simply is - quite classically also  - fascism or neofascism.
And here is why this is in fact fascism or neofascism :
According to one of the companion analyses by Wikileaks released alongside the TISA chapters, the current deal, if finalized, "would heighten risks of financial instability and handcuff governments’ ability to respond to a domestic or global financial crisis at a time when everyone (except the finance industry and its political allies) agree that we need more financial regulation, not less."
In response to the latest leaks on Friday, the leaders of organized labor unions said it was more clear than ever that TISA "is no more than a corporate power grab and that negotiations must be stopped."
I agree but add again that since the 1930ies (!!) "a corporate power grab" (on a world scale, moreover) = a (neo)fascist power grab. 
There is also this, and I agree with most of it:
Yes - except that I would not say that trying to squeeze through a secret neofastic plan to give all powers to the CEOs of multi-nationals is "deeply unsatisfactory". I call it - who has been called "a dirty fascist" and a "terrorist" for 11 years in the University of Amsterdam because I believe(d) in truth and science (!!!) - a fascist or neofascist plan. 
Fred van Leeuwen, General Secretary of Education International (EI), said that in addition to TISA's concerning contents, the secrecy surrounding how the deal is being negotiated remains troubling.
"These leaks give a clear indication of the dangerous direction of the TiSA negotiations," The fact that citizens and civil society are still obliged to rely on leaks for getting a sense of the direction of the negotiations is deeply unsatisfactory."
And Ron Oswald, General Secretary of the International Union of Food Workers (UIF), indicated that organized labor should really only have one set of demands at this point.
"It’s time to halt the negotiations, publish the secret texts and ensure the widest possible public debate to expose the full extent of the threat these treaties pose to democracy and the labour movement," Oswald said.
And as CEPR's James declared, "Globalization’s cheerleaders are all handwringing about the widespread opposition to trade pacts. But what they don’t acknowledge is that people around the world are not rejecting 'trade,' they are rejecting corporate control over our lives. People want to live in a democracy; they want quality, accessible public services; a well-regulated financial sector; and decent jobs for all ― the opposite agenda of the deregulation, locked-in privatization, and antidevelopment fundamentals of the secret proposed TISA, according to today’s explosive leak."
Anyway... that is the probable future, unless there is another major economical collapse. Here is some more on what the future (with more than 7 billion people) may bring back again (also in Europe):
5. The Photos That Helped End Child Labor in the United States
The fifth and last item today is by Mark Murrmann on Mother Jones:
I have reviewed this once before, but since Mother Jones shows it again, I review it again, because I think these photos are quite admirable, though the subject - child labor - is quite horrible.
- The Photos That Helped End Child Labor in the United States
Here is some more on the man who made the pictures:
In the early 1900s, Lewis Hine left his job as a schoolteacher to work as a photographer for the National Child Labor Committee, investigating and documenting child labor in the United States. As a sociologist, Hine was an early believer in the power of photography to document work conditions and help bring about change. He traveled the country, going to fields, factories, and mines—sometimes working undercover—to take pictures of kids as young as four years old being put to work.
Partly as a result of Hine's work (as well as that of Mary Harris Jones, who Mother Jones is named after), Congress passed the Keating-Owens Child Labor Act in 1916. It established child labor standards, including a a minimum age (14 years old for factories, and 16 years old for mines) and an eight-hour workday. It also barred kids under the age of 16 from working overnight. However, the Keating-Owens Act was later ruled unconstitutional, and lasting reform to federal child labor laws didn't come until the New Deal.
Clicking the image willl lead you to the site, where the pictures are 4 times larger And I copied the above picture and the following text from October 4, 2015:
The photography has the following text under it:Back on October 16, 2016: Yes indeed. And for me, at least, it makes sense to think that if I had been born a mere 50 years earlier and in the USA, I might have been one of these boys.
Workers at the end of the day in a Pennsylvania coal mine. The smallest boy near the far right, is a nipper. On his right is Arthur, a driver. Jo, on Arthur's right, is a nipper. Frank, the boy on the left end of the photo, is a nipper and works a mile underground from the shaft, which is 5,000 feet down.Note that the six children in front are around 10 or 12 years old; that they had worked a 10 hour day; and that this happened a mere 100 years ago in the USA ("Land of the free, home of the brave"), and was not really made better until the New Deal of the 1930ies.
There are many more similar pictures in the last dotted link: I found all of them quite fascinating, although in fact they are all about cruel and harsh child abuse.
Originally, I planned to give this item my own title: "What the rich want", but I did not, although that is what I think:
So here you have images of how it was, a mere hundred years ago (and indeed 85 years ago) and how it very well may be in 25 to 50 years from now, when there will be many more people, and it will be a lot warmer, and the rich may have divided the world into the few who have nearly everything and the many who have nearly nothing, and who will not eat if they don't work, regardless of their age, health or condition, even if they are four years old.
- I do not believe in any necessary course of moral improvement in history.
- I do believe that the few rich have nearly always nearly everywhere exploited as much as they could, for the simple reason that this was most profitable for them.
- I believe that if it is up to the - majority of the - rich, then these pictures may give a good view of the future of the American workers.
 Alas, this is precisely as I said it does, and it goes on for months now. I do not know who does it, and I refuse to call the liars of "xs4all" destroy (really: the KPN), simply because these have been lying to me from 2002-2009, and I do not trust anything they say I cannot control myself: They have treated me for seven years as a liar because "you complain about things other people do not complain about" (which is the perfect excuse never to do anything whatsoever for anyone).
 In fact, I think that the exclusions of my right to copy texts written by journalists, which is now the norm on The Guardian and on The Huffington Post is a sign that neofascism moves on and on.
I think it is a totally anti-democratic measure that serves just three classes of people: The very rich; the editors serving the very rich (whatever they pretend); and the journalists who are paid by the editors.
Whoever believes that journalists are geniuses whose texts deserve the copyright protections that literary writers have is out of his mind. The real facts for nearly all journalism are well caught by this question from the 1960ies (when it was literally true - for today you have to increase the price 20-fold):
"What costs 25 cents today, was worth millions yesterday, and is worth nothing tomorrow? Today's paper." Yes, for I am quite sure that if any medical, psychological or psychiatric person would get an outline of Trump's behavior and extremely many lies, threats, accusations and degradations of persons they would say that the best explanation is that a man who says and does things like that is very probably not sane.
The only reason I can think of that most do not (and look the other way, at least in public) is that it may be risky for their incomes.
 And for two reasons: First, I do not see much relevant difference between males and females. And second, I do see considerable differences between the very few who become politicians and the rest: Those who become politicians tend to excel in precisely one respect from most others: They are great liars.
 To repeat a note:
By "fascism" I mean what the American Heritage Dictionary defines as follows:
"fascism" is defined as "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."By neo-fascism I mean - here - a fascism that does not occur through "the merging of state and business leadership" but that occurs through the subjection of state leadership to (external) business leadership, e.g. as foreseen by the TTIP's ISDSs.
Also, the first definition goes back to the 1930ies.
 In case you need comment: See the previous note.
 As I have been pointing out, I am not saying anything unreasonable. But by now I think the vast majority who can see what I can see don't say what I say because they fear beinbg politically incorrect: You should not speak the truth if the truth sounds ugly.
Well.. my grandfather got murdered as a "political terrorist" in a German concentration camp (he was a communist who resisted the Nazis); my father has survived more than 3 years and 9 months of German concentration camps as a "political terrorist" (he was a communist who resisted the Nazis), and indeed was the only communist who was knighted during the existence of the Communist Party; whereas I have been merely called "a dirty fascist" and a "terrorist" in the University of Amsterdam for 11 years because I believed in truth and in science (which hardly anyone did in Dutch universities between 1971 and 1995, because these were all in the power of first quasi-"communist" students and later postmodernistic students, simply because the minister of education got parliamentary majority in 1971 to hand over the universities to the students (in whose hands the power remained until 1995).
These same students were nearly all quasi-"communists" in the late 70ies and early 80ies because my father and mother were real communists (and a lot more intelligent than any of the "communist" students I met) who both resisted the Nazis, whereas the quasi-"communists" I met in the University of Amsterdam were all sons or daughters of rich parents who drifted with the fashionable flow in the university because that was the majority then and there, and not because they had any personal conviction other than their entitlement to everything. (Meanwhile, all these ex-"communists" have converted to some form of neoconservatism. They also all earned some 10 to 20 times more than I did (because I never got healthy since I was 28).)
They were all genuine Stalinists, though: Totalitarian minds, quite capable of terrorism, namely against persons like me, who merely said (politely also) that I was not a Marxist and believed in truth and science.