Search without digging so deep you get stuck
Hurry along without fleeing or running away
Shake things up without destroying them
Enjoy without becoming a craving empty soul
Look back gently without staring
Plant flowers along your path
They’ll reseed and guide your memory
dinsdag 20 maart 2012
dinsdag 22 maart 2011
Libya: let`s bomb them to post-Kadafi
So the question is (and I know it`s very hard to keep up with all the questions in the modern world): why are we deploying military power in Libya right now? Well why exactly? Is it to defend the "rebels"? Is it to oppose Kadhafi`s dictatorship? Is it because he`s attacking his own people? Human rights? UN Security Council Resolution 1973? I`m not sure. As a matter of fact the international community is not sure about why they are flexing their muscles either, except for the fact that they "kind of got tired" of a dictator they supported for 40 years. That includes 40 years of invitations to summits of heads of state, 40 years of shaking hands between the leaders of Europe and Kadhafi in the diplomatic airport salons and at exclusive summit luncheons, 40 years of taking this guy seriously and actually supporting him and his authoritarian government, 40 years of arms deals between Kadhafi and the West.
But you have to admit: "getting kind of tired" of a dictator you`ve supported for 40 years hardly gives you the right to start a military operation of this scale, especially not if UNSCR 1973 demands "an immediate cease-fire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians". Strangely enough (but this irony is a flip-coin to the western hypocrisy) the resolution should bring peace, but it brings more military violence. As with most of these conflicts in oil-producing countries the western "humanitarian" concern will soon make place for a sort of boredom and a superiority complex calling out that "they will never learn". And then the world will move on to other things, while the oil of Libya is under definite Western control again. So let`s bomb them (whoever they may be) to post-Kadhafi, even though we don`t have to look too deep to see that we really don`t know what that is supposed to mean.
Obama bullshit
There`s a courageous girl from South Florida University asking a direct question to President Obama about human rights violations against the Palestinians. I watched this debate hoping/praying for Obama to come up with a straightforward answer about the US`s foreign policy on the matter, with a suggestion towards something akin to what was agreed at at the Taba Summit. Instead I see a President mainly defending Israel`s right to security in a hostile region. This is very obvious when one looks at Obama`s speech from a rhetorical point of view. Just look at what he prioritizes and what he puts in second position. Obama says that FIRST the Palestinians have to unequivocally renounce violence and recognize Israel. So this immediately puts the whole discussion in a context of Palestinian violence against Israel, when the truth is the opposite. Obama then goes on to applaud Netanyahu`s efforts to come to a solution despite the resistance of his coalition, while lamenting the PLO`s political ability (Abbas) to come to a solution taking into account Hammas. After watching this, you just have to watch Obama`s speech at AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and you`ll deduce the rest: this US administration is continuing the policy of previous administrations, that is to say: side with Israel first (because of the money) and deal with the Palestinians only rhetorically. If you want my definition of bullshit: this is it.
vrijdag 26 juni 2009
In memoriam: Michael Jackson
The Jackson 5 landed their contract with Motown Records the year I was born. When I was four years old MJ had his first solo-hit, a song about a friendship between a young boy and a rat (Ben). There would be many rats in MJ's life. In 1977 I watched the Wizard of Oz, in which MJ played the scarecrow. In 1979 the dutch tv-show "Avro's Toppop" (with Ad Visser) played "Don't stop 'til you get enough".
In 1982 the world was hit by "Thriller". Admit it, we ALL wanted more of that! But MJ was a perfectionist and he took his time to select the right songs for his new albums. Maybe he should have published all the songs (hundreds of them) he wrote between albums, even if they were sub-MJ-standard. Undoubtedly, they still would have been better than alot of the crap that made it into the hitparades in the eighties. Instead, he waited until his work of art was goddamn ready. That was in 1987, with Bad. Five number one hits all over the world. Bam! We wanted more of that too!
But the King took his time again and the nineties had started, with it's more and more hectic market dynamics in music. If a band didn't put out at least one great album every year they were forgotten. Impatience lead to speculation. Bored fans and bored press were shouting: here we are now, entertain us!! MJ was never ready for this nihilistic entertainement-consumption-oriented generation. He had been around too long to give in to the demand for cheap entertainment. Yet that is what the market wanted. The albums MJ made in the nineties were still popular, but the crowd had moved on to other things. I have to admit, so did I. When I think about the nineties I think about The Smashing Pumpkins, The Breeders, Porno for Pyros, Jeff Buckley, not MJ.
But I never forgot the King of Pop. He was the King of Pop. And don't you ever forget that!
In 1982 the world was hit by "Thriller". Admit it, we ALL wanted more of that! But MJ was a perfectionist and he took his time to select the right songs for his new albums. Maybe he should have published all the songs (hundreds of them) he wrote between albums, even if they were sub-MJ-standard. Undoubtedly, they still would have been better than alot of the crap that made it into the hitparades in the eighties. Instead, he waited until his work of art was goddamn ready. That was in 1987, with Bad. Five number one hits all over the world. Bam! We wanted more of that too!
But the King took his time again and the nineties had started, with it's more and more hectic market dynamics in music. If a band didn't put out at least one great album every year they were forgotten. Impatience lead to speculation. Bored fans and bored press were shouting: here we are now, entertain us!! MJ was never ready for this nihilistic entertainement-consumption-oriented generation. He had been around too long to give in to the demand for cheap entertainment. Yet that is what the market wanted. The albums MJ made in the nineties were still popular, but the crowd had moved on to other things. I have to admit, so did I. When I think about the nineties I think about The Smashing Pumpkins, The Breeders, Porno for Pyros, Jeff Buckley, not MJ.
But I never forgot the King of Pop. He was the King of Pop. And don't you ever forget that!
woensdag 18 maart 2009
The role of the State
Mikhail Gorbachev in the International Herald Tribune
As the global financial and economic crisis grows deeper and more severe, we must all rethink some key issues, including the role of the state. One can already predict that the approach to the role of the government that has prevailed over the past few decades will be reversed.
The assault on the state was launched over 30 years ago, with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan firing the first shots. Economists, businesspeople and politicians pointed their fingers at the government as the source of just about every problem in the economy.
True, there was much to criticize about the way government functioned. At that time, voters had good reasons to support politicians who promised to limit the role of government bureaucracy and to give business more freedom to grow.
Yet there was something else behind the criticism of government. The hidden agenda reflected the interests of those who, while promising that "the rising tide would lift all boats," were more concerned with giving free rein to big corporations, releasing them from important obligations to society and dismantling the social safety net that protected workers.
Globalization ushered in a new phase in the assault on the state, sharpening competition in the markets of goods, services and labor. The principles of monetarism, of social and environmental irresponsibility, and of over-consumption and hyperprofits as engines of the economy and society were positioned as an international standard. The so-called Washington Consensus, which reflected those principles, was force-fed to the world.
Increasingly, the state was squeezed out of various spheres of business and finance, leaving them with practically no oversight. One after another, bubbles were blown and, sooner or later, popped — the digital bubble, the stock market and the mortgage bubbles.
Eventually, global finance as a whole became one huge bubble. In the process, small groups of people created fabulous wealth for themselves while living standards for most people remained stagnant at best. As for the world's poor, commitments to help them were largely forgotten.
This weakening of the state allowed the wild wave of financial fraud and corruption to rise. It was responsible for the invasion of organized crime into the economies of numerous countries and for the disproportionate influence of corporate lobbies, which have grown into gigantic nongovernmental bureaucracies with enormous funds and political leverage. This has distorted the democratic process and severely damaged the social fabric.
September 2008 saw the beginning of a catastrophic collapse of the entire structure. This collapse is burying people's savings under the rubble, bringing down production at an unprecedented rate and leaving millions jobless. It is no exaggeration to say that the economy of every country in the world is now threatened.
Even so, we keep hearing from those who still believe in the magic curative powers of unregulated markets. But today, people are no longer looking to them for solutions. They expect their elected leaders to act. Those leaders must use the tools of government intervention; no other tools are available.
At a time when the economic tsunami is threatening the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people, we must reconsider the state's responsibility for the security and safety of its citizens. We have heard arguments against the "nanny state" and against "cradle-to-grave security." Indeed, government cannot be all things to all people. But it must at least protect people from financial highway robbery of the kind that it has allowed.
Governments have now assumed the responsibility for rescuing the economy. In meeting this challenge they must not allow huge sums of taxpayers' money to be spent without control. The money must not end up in the hands and pockets of those who always want to "privatize the profits and nationalize the losses."
In a global world, we need to simultaneously clean up the messes in individual countries while building structures for longer-term governance at the international level. The first summit meeting of the Group of 20, held last November in Washington, was a beginning. The composition of the group showed a new awareness of the need for an unprecedented joining of forces.
I want to hope that government leaders — like those in the G-20 who will meet in London in April to discuss the financial crisis — will solve the pressing issues while also laying the groundwork that could stand for decades to come.
The challenges are truly awesome: to define a new role for governments and the international bodies in regulating the economy, to start building economies that are less militarized and do not run on over-consumption and hyperprofits, to harmonize moral and environmental concerns with economic growth.
The task is equal in magnitude to the challenge of warding off the threat of nuclear catastrophe that we faced in the late 1980's. That challenge was met through unprecedented international cooperation and collective leadership that transcended outdated stereotypes and put common interests first.
As the global financial and economic crisis grows deeper and more severe, we must all rethink some key issues, including the role of the state. One can already predict that the approach to the role of the government that has prevailed over the past few decades will be reversed.
The assault on the state was launched over 30 years ago, with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan firing the first shots. Economists, businesspeople and politicians pointed their fingers at the government as the source of just about every problem in the economy.
True, there was much to criticize about the way government functioned. At that time, voters had good reasons to support politicians who promised to limit the role of government bureaucracy and to give business more freedom to grow.
Yet there was something else behind the criticism of government. The hidden agenda reflected the interests of those who, while promising that "the rising tide would lift all boats," were more concerned with giving free rein to big corporations, releasing them from important obligations to society and dismantling the social safety net that protected workers.
Globalization ushered in a new phase in the assault on the state, sharpening competition in the markets of goods, services and labor. The principles of monetarism, of social and environmental irresponsibility, and of over-consumption and hyperprofits as engines of the economy and society were positioned as an international standard. The so-called Washington Consensus, which reflected those principles, was force-fed to the world.
Increasingly, the state was squeezed out of various spheres of business and finance, leaving them with practically no oversight. One after another, bubbles were blown and, sooner or later, popped — the digital bubble, the stock market and the mortgage bubbles.
Eventually, global finance as a whole became one huge bubble. In the process, small groups of people created fabulous wealth for themselves while living standards for most people remained stagnant at best. As for the world's poor, commitments to help them were largely forgotten.
This weakening of the state allowed the wild wave of financial fraud and corruption to rise. It was responsible for the invasion of organized crime into the economies of numerous countries and for the disproportionate influence of corporate lobbies, which have grown into gigantic nongovernmental bureaucracies with enormous funds and political leverage. This has distorted the democratic process and severely damaged the social fabric.
September 2008 saw the beginning of a catastrophic collapse of the entire structure. This collapse is burying people's savings under the rubble, bringing down production at an unprecedented rate and leaving millions jobless. It is no exaggeration to say that the economy of every country in the world is now threatened.
Even so, we keep hearing from those who still believe in the magic curative powers of unregulated markets. But today, people are no longer looking to them for solutions. They expect their elected leaders to act. Those leaders must use the tools of government intervention; no other tools are available.
At a time when the economic tsunami is threatening the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people, we must reconsider the state's responsibility for the security and safety of its citizens. We have heard arguments against the "nanny state" and against "cradle-to-grave security." Indeed, government cannot be all things to all people. But it must at least protect people from financial highway robbery of the kind that it has allowed.
Governments have now assumed the responsibility for rescuing the economy. In meeting this challenge they must not allow huge sums of taxpayers' money to be spent without control. The money must not end up in the hands and pockets of those who always want to "privatize the profits and nationalize the losses."
In a global world, we need to simultaneously clean up the messes in individual countries while building structures for longer-term governance at the international level. The first summit meeting of the Group of 20, held last November in Washington, was a beginning. The composition of the group showed a new awareness of the need for an unprecedented joining of forces.
I want to hope that government leaders — like those in the G-20 who will meet in London in April to discuss the financial crisis — will solve the pressing issues while also laying the groundwork that could stand for decades to come.
The challenges are truly awesome: to define a new role for governments and the international bodies in regulating the economy, to start building economies that are less militarized and do not run on over-consumption and hyperprofits, to harmonize moral and environmental concerns with economic growth.
The task is equal in magnitude to the challenge of warding off the threat of nuclear catastrophe that we faced in the late 1980's. That challenge was met through unprecedented international cooperation and collective leadership that transcended outdated stereotypes and put common interests first.
vrijdag 27 februari 2009
Let's go for a curry!
I'm always looking for perfection in cooking. Most of my cooking is "very good" to "excellent", but I'm always striving for "perfect". It's the only way to pay hommage to the ingredients, which are a gift from nature and earth, and a symbol of the tender care of the farmer. I really believe that treating perfect ingredients with less than the utmost respect, should be listed as a mortal sin. I don't care if you've just bought your first Jamie Oliver book or if you were top of your class at the California Culinary Academy.
A few times in my life I have cooked something that was absolutely perfect. For example a sauteed gooseliver with leek, acacia-honey and balsamic vinegar, served as a little "spoon-appetizer". A pity it was only a mouthful! I started with the perfect ingredients: a homemade veal-stock, the best gooseliver from the Périgord-region in France, organic leeks, delicious acacia-honey and great balsamic vinegar. Given the quality of the ingredients, there wasn't a whole lot that could go wrong, but since I was cooking for my best friends I added the mysterious seventh ingredient: love. I tried to make this dish again, two years later, but then I added too much of the eighth ingredient: routine, and it just wasn't the same. Still very good, but not perfect.
One of the things I want to try to perfect is a curry. Even though many may not consider this "high cuisine", there is just something about the perfect blend of spices, the perfect texture and Indian taste that is mesmerizing. Of course there are many different kinds of curries, but if they are perfectly made, they are like expensive perfumes: complex, layered, mysterious, enticing, sexy.
Even though I'm no expert, I believe that the perfect curry should consist of different layers of taste. There should be a base of ground spices, with which one makes a paste or a "masala". This paste is fried in oil, to release the etherical oils. The oil should not be too hot, otherwise these precious oils will burn. I think one should use a neutral tasting oil or even butter. Olive oil, with its complex tastes of its own, should not be used in this case. After the main ingredients (meat, vegetables) have been added and coated with the masala, one should add a second layer of herbs: the non-crushed and non-grinded ones: star-anise, cinamon, cardamom-seeds, cloves, coriander-seeds, chili's, etcetera. And only at the last moment should one add fresh herbs, such as coriander or basil. I like to tear these fresh herbs with my fingers, instead of cutting them on a board.
The perfect curry is so perfect, that you would want to eat it forever. It is the ambrosia of the Gods!
A few times in my life I have cooked something that was absolutely perfect. For example a sauteed gooseliver with leek, acacia-honey and balsamic vinegar, served as a little "spoon-appetizer". A pity it was only a mouthful! I started with the perfect ingredients: a homemade veal-stock, the best gooseliver from the Périgord-region in France, organic leeks, delicious acacia-honey and great balsamic vinegar. Given the quality of the ingredients, there wasn't a whole lot that could go wrong, but since I was cooking for my best friends I added the mysterious seventh ingredient: love. I tried to make this dish again, two years later, but then I added too much of the eighth ingredient: routine, and it just wasn't the same. Still very good, but not perfect.
One of the things I want to try to perfect is a curry. Even though many may not consider this "high cuisine", there is just something about the perfect blend of spices, the perfect texture and Indian taste that is mesmerizing. Of course there are many different kinds of curries, but if they are perfectly made, they are like expensive perfumes: complex, layered, mysterious, enticing, sexy.
Even though I'm no expert, I believe that the perfect curry should consist of different layers of taste. There should be a base of ground spices, with which one makes a paste or a "masala". This paste is fried in oil, to release the etherical oils. The oil should not be too hot, otherwise these precious oils will burn. I think one should use a neutral tasting oil or even butter. Olive oil, with its complex tastes of its own, should not be used in this case. After the main ingredients (meat, vegetables) have been added and coated with the masala, one should add a second layer of herbs: the non-crushed and non-grinded ones: star-anise, cinamon, cardamom-seeds, cloves, coriander-seeds, chili's, etcetera. And only at the last moment should one add fresh herbs, such as coriander or basil. I like to tear these fresh herbs with my fingers, instead of cutting them on a board.
The perfect curry is so perfect, that you would want to eat it forever. It is the ambrosia of the Gods!
dinsdag 24 februari 2009
The poets
What inspires us to build these fences
To hide the mouse underneath the bed
The tiresome lengths we'll go to
To see to it that noone sees
Hiding what we really are:
A shifting, fleeting thing, fragile,
Scurrying in need of tenderness
The unforgiving lack of imagining in others..
Is why there are so rarely poets
On the pillow beside us.
To hide the mouse underneath the bed
The tiresome lengths we'll go to
To see to it that noone sees
Hiding what we really are:
A shifting, fleeting thing, fragile,
Scurrying in need of tenderness
The unforgiving lack of imagining in others..
Is why there are so rarely poets
On the pillow beside us.
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)
