Democratie in #ned Dutch elections 2010

Een keer wat anders. Ditmaal een typisch Nederlands onderwerp in de taal van mijn land: de verkiezingen die in Nederland op 8 Juni 2010 zijn gehouden. Afgelopen maandagavond had ik mijn beste vriend aan de telefoon. Toevallig (?) hebben we ook kort gesproken over de uitslagen en hoe we de ontwikkelingen met betrekking tot de PVV moeten duiden. We waren het er al snel over eens. Het gaat in Nederland nergens over! Zelfs de extreme partijen, aan de linker- en rechterkant van het politieke spectrum, zijn braaf en democratisch. Een echt gevaar voor de democratie is de PVV niet. Democratie in Nederland is kniezen voor kneuzen en geneuzel op de vierkante centimeter. Niet omdat een democraat een kneus is maar omdat het bij ons allemaal zo goed geregeld is. In Nederland werkt democratie. (Merk op dat 'werken' een werkwoord is.) Bij ons hoeft er niet gevochten te worden op leven of dood om onze democratische rechten te halen. Bij ons regeert routine, kniezen en verveling. Verveling!

Ben ik een democraat? Om heel eerlijk te zijn. Alleen tegen beter weten in. Ik leun altijd op Churchill's (1874-1965) visie op democratie (bron): “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” Voor democratie geldt hetzelfde als voor een goed huwelijk. Met vrouw is het nixs enne ...  zonder ook niet.

De verkiezingen in Nederland gingen wat mij betreft nergens over. Hypotheekrenteaftrek laten vervallen? Ze doen maar ik zal er geen last meer van hebben. Uiteindelijk zal er toch gekozen worden voor een geleidelijke afbouw (over 20 jaar of later) omdat anders de huizenmarkt in Nederland in zal storten. En in zijn kielzog de hele economie. Dat wil niemand. Kinderbijslag en ziektekostenverzekering inkomensafhankelijk? Ze doen maar. Burgemeester mogen kiezen? Het zal me worst wezen. Kerncentrales wel of niet erbij? Ze bouwen maar. Of het nu links- om rechtsom gaat en of de "grote uitdagingen" nu wel of niet doorgevoerd worden. Uiteindelijk is iedere keuze acceptabel voor mij.

De verkiezingen in Nederland in zijn algemeenheid gaan nergens over. Alles is goed geregeld. De democratie werkt. "Het volk" (het waren er maar 1,5 miljoen, dit is 15%) heeft ditmaal gekozen voor de PVV omdat ze stevigheid beloven in deze tijden van onzekerheid. Het is een leugen. Angst en lust zijn slechte raadgevers. Laat de PVV maar in de regering komen. Laat ze maar vuile handen maken. Wellicht profiteren ze nog  een of twee keer bij verkiezingen die in de toekomst uitgeschreven zullen worden. Uiteindelijk zal "het volk" ook inzien dat ook zij maar verkopers van lucht zijn geformuleerd in een taal van stevigheid en fermheid. Onzekerheid is van alle tijden en niets blijft ooit hetzelfde.

De democratie in Nederland werkt. Bij ons gelukkig alleen nog maar geneuzel over details die er eigenlijk niet toe doen. Dat is in de meeste landen op 'planet Earth' wel anders die in naam ook democratisch zijn maar die in de praktijk gebukt gaan onder machtsmisbruik, corruptie en intrige.

P.s. I'm sorry that this blog is written in Dutch. It's a typical Dutch subject. Hardly possible to translate.

Summary in English: Democracy in The Netherlands works. The good results in the last elections of the PVV is not a treat for the system. In my country we talk about minor and boring details. Dutch are bored to death.

History of castles. Development in 4 pictures

Castles! What about castles in western Europe? According to Van Dale dictionary a 'castle' (dutch 'kasteel') is: 1 reinforced building 2 large and beautiful house. In a nutshell it tells it all. One thing missing: it's historical development.

Phase 1. Safe home in times of endemic wars

Starting in the 9th century feudal lords built private fortress-residences for defence. Wars were endemic in those times. The fortress was built on a defensible height. Surrounded by a dry ditch and surrounded by a wooden palisade.

Phase 2. Siegproof

Castles and outer walls were made out of stone. Walls get thicker. Sophisticated circuits of curving outer walls and towers to defend all sections of the wall. Never ending arms race of siegers and defenders.

Phase 3. Military importance lost AND residence of landowner

With the use of gunpowder  and artillery the castle lost its military importance around the 15th century.  The thick stone walls no longer withstand bombardments with cannonballs. New and bigger windows. Gardens. House of a rich landowner of noble origin.

Phase 4. Make it profitable

Taxes on inheritance and costs of materials and personnel make most castles too expensive to live in since the 20th century.  Castles no longer belong to the same family who lived there for centuries (generation after generation). 3 D's that causes selling castles: death, debts and divorce. Castles have to be profitable. Selling home made country products. Museum. Zoo. Country garden. Bed and breakfast. Restaurant. Hotel. 

Details. (1) model (2) Krak des Chevaliers (3) Château de Chenonceau (4) Huis Bloemendal

Bouquet of prunier and chocolate

Next week I'll buy a couple of bottles 'vieille réserve' from Paul Giraud - I found a winery nearby where I can buy his products. It's cognac. Two years ago I drank for the last time a glass of his cognac. Since then my stock is empty.

Last week I found by accident a 20 year old advertising brochure of Paul Giraud. I watched the pics. Read a few lines. Good memories. The need of taste and above all smell it's bouquet of prunier and chocolate.

My favourite? Fall. It's cold outside. In a warm hot bath. A glass of Paul Giraud's vieille réserve. Slowy my nose and bathroom is filled with the smell of prunier and chocolate. The taste of cognac. Slowly getting drunk and sleepy.  

P.s. My smell favorites.

Some basics on dreams and travels

#Dream #Travel What about you? Where do you want to go to?

Sometimes I think it works like this on planet Earth. Or am I too biased as spoiled Dutchman? People who live in North-Korea dream of fleeing to South-Korea. People who live under a dictator regime dream of living in the "free world". What do you dream of if having good contacts (including nothing comes for free) or go with the flow of corruption is the only way to survive? Do you dream of  Western Europe or USA?

Where do people living in Western Europe dream of? They can't flee - they are already there. People of Northern Europe dream of living around the Mediterranean: an easy and simple life under a warm sun. Where do rich, intelligent and free people around the Mediterranean dream of? For them there is no place they can flee to or dream of. They can only flee to an inner invisible world, to an inner spiritual world or to an imaginary elsewhere.

Seneca (Moral letters to Lucilius/ Letter 104, 8): "O what a blessing it would be for some men to wander away from themselves! As it is, they cause themselves vexation, worry, demoralization, and fear! What profit is there in crossing the sea and in going from one city to another? If you would escape your troubles, you need not another place but another personality."

In 100 years software is something like electricity now. On wires and sockets

Imagine 100 years from now. How will they (I guess all of us are dead) look back at our time and age? Will they ever understand all the fuzz about iPad,  web 3.0, Google WAVE,  HP, Microsoft etc? All the buzz about hard- and software we are using today. Right now it seems important 'what' and 'how' we use all the hard- and software. It seems irrelevant 'why' we use this technology.

In 100 years software is something like electricity now. It's there! (Or not when the power is down.) I know nothing about the hard- and software of electricity. Do you? I don't read magazines, tweets and blogs on wires and sockets. About their colours, useability, the companies that deliver them and the CEO's  (who are treated like sexy popstars) of the companies that make them.

Imagine 100 years from now! What do you see?

Fade away

They say "Old soldiers never die, they just fade away". Is it a coincidence that this can be applied to soldiers and lovers?

Life is more

To be honest. I don't feel like blogging anymore. In a way I lost my appetite. The urgency is gone. Next to that nobody really seems to care. Nobody seems to wait for what I'll write next. Last few weeks I'm making up my mind about my wins. More and more the feeling grows in me to commit web suicide. Life is more than Twitter, BlipFM and Blogging. How strange to be back on Ana Carolina's song 'Mais que isso'. It's the image of my first 'Live Life!' blog.

Question: Is my concept of 'win win' wrong? What image fits better?

Birthday. Almost 1 year old

Yesterday I was not happy with my blog 'On Cincinnatus and Julius Caesar. Do selfish genes feel by definition: the chosen ones?'. For me it was a good blog: informative, personal and to the point. I do not really know why I was discontent. In a way my final blog didn't meet the unwritten expectations I had before I wrote one sentence. All I wanted was write about Cincinnatus. And end with the remark that this modest role model male from old Rome is rare is history. After written the first paragraph I was puzzling on the reason why Cincinnatus behaviour is rare in history. Why is power over others addictive and tempting? Why  do we want to stay on the top and is it difficult to give power back? To be honest I don't really know. I entered a world full of fat words: groups, aggression and power. I entered a world I not always want to enter: what is a human being? why do we do what we do? how to live my life?

In a couple of weeks I'll be blogging for 1 year. I started blogging after I realized that Twitter's format of 140 characters is too oppressive for me sometimes. In retrospect my main unconscious target past year was: being honest to myself about all the facts, dreams, illusions of life in order to being able to live life. In a way I'm trying to define "life". For me my blog is a mirror. My mirror. My public mirror. 

Question: Is my public mirror worth reading? If yes or no: 'why? What blinkers do I have? You can comment on this blog in public or send me a private e-mail.

On Cincinnatus and Julius Caesar. Do selfish genes feel by definition: the chosen ones?

He was a model of Roman virtue in early Rome. He was a role model for the Founding Fathers. George Washington felt honored if people would call him Cincinnatus. I'm talking about L.Q. Cincinnatus (519 BC - 430 BC?). Who? A Roman male who lived a couple of centuries before Year 0. A farmer who was called to serve Rome as dictator. Who defeated the Aequians, Sabinians and Volscians and immediately gave up his absolute power as dictator at the end of the crisis. He was nominated dictator ('Master of the People') for 6 months. After 16 days he gave up his absolute power after having conquered the Aequi. And returned to his farm. He was regarded a hero because of his outstanding leadership, service to the greater good, civic virtue and modesty. Cincinnatus is rare is history.

Why is he rare? Why is the species 'homo sapiens' so fascinated by honor and glory? Is it typical of our species? Is it typically male? Is it typical of Western civilization? If we look back in history we find out that emperors, kings and popes founded their power base on the blood of the conquered others. Once on the top most of them wanted to stay in power till "eternity". Giving up power is mostly regarded as weakness and act of stupidness. Why? Why do we want power? Why do males want to be on the top and stay there? Why are we not satisfied with living with our family on a farm?

Why am I telling you all this? I'm always puzzling and wondering why Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon and wanted to stay at the top in old Rome and was not satisfied that his consulship finally  ended. After Julius more than 4 centruries of emperors of whom most not died in their bed.

Look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs - mark the 'pyramide' is an image you can read it as a 'beehive' too. Why was Julius so afraid of being politically marginalised? Julius was save. He was respected and rich after defeating the Gauls. Why was he not satisfied?  Did he not love others? Did he only love himselves? Was there something wrong with his procreation? Was he bullied or humiliated in his youth? For me there is only one thing that explains it all: Julius felt he was The Chosen or Messiah. (Mark that there is no religious or bodhi dimension in Maslow's hierarchy of needs.)

Once again, why am I telling all this to you? It's not about Cincinnatus. Allthough I admire his modesty. It's not about Julius Caesar. Allthough I admire his art of war. It's about me. I try to define what living my life means.

What do you think? Why do we want to reach the top and stay there? Is it all about selfish genes? Do selfish genes feel by definition: the chosen ones? For me it feels that modest people gain more advantage in evolution than people at the top.

Hungry as well

There once was a little mouse walking around for something to eat. No guts no glory.

There was an owl - hungry as well - and that's the end of this little mouse' story.