News sometimes trickles down kind of slow here in Holland, but this was a bit too good let it pass even though it happened a week ago. What is it that I would like to share here?
Well, on Friday Jan. 29th Obama visited a House Republican retreat in Baltimore to answer questions from republicans in, what The Huffington Post calls "The Lions Den".
At the end of the session there was a Q&A session that wasn't supposed to be broadcast, but the White House pressured the Republican party to bring the cameras in. And Obama got a sterling opportunity to defend his policies against a whole audience full of Republicans.
As The Huffington Post describes:
What resulted was what one Democratic strategist described as "amazing theater" -- certainly for cable news. Standing on a stage, looking down at his Republican questioners, Obama assumed the role of responsible adult to the GOP children, or, at the very least, of a college professor teaching and lecturing a room full of students.
The event was aired live - among others - by Fox News (known as "the voice of the republicans"). What is interesting about that, is that Fox News choose to cut off the live feed from the broadcast 20 minutes before it ended. I wonder why.
When people are talking about dictators, they usually live in countries far away like Africa or South-America. I'm talking about the likes of Hugo Chavez (Venezuela) and Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe). What a lot of people do not realize is, that right here and now, we have a dictator in Europe as well. A dictator that got elected democratically, just like Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe once were elected. But a dictator nevertheless. I'm talking about president Silvio Berlusconi (73yrs) of Italy.
Don't get me wrong: I believe strongly in he fact that most countries (not all) get the government they deserve. But let's face it: Berlusconi is one of the worst (or best) examples of a politician misusing his powers and influence for personal gain - just like a dictator. To me, he is right up there with people like former Russian president Vladimir Poetin.
Berlusconi is one of the few politicians in the democratic world that can boast he is "(...)record-holder for the number of trials"(...). He has had more trials against him them any other politician.
Now, under any other circumstances I would say that any person on this planet is innocent until proven guilty. But with Berlusconi there is no doubt in my mind that he is guilty as sin.
My proof is simple. In 2008 Berlusconi passed the "Lodo Alfano law", granting immunity from prosecution to the four highest political offices in Italy: the President of the Republic, the two Speakers of the Houses of Parliament and the Prime Minister. The whole purpose of the law was to stop any trials involving Berlusconi himself, by placing him above the law, which - in my opinion - is a disgrace.
Now, you would think that Italian citizens would not put up with his blatant misuse of power and start protesting and rallying the streets. I'm sure that would happen in Holland or in the USA when the president would try to do the same. I mean: president Nixon had to resign for less. Well, not in Italy. For many people Berlusconi is a hero because he appeals to the common man and has somehow served them well (in the short term) by doing what they want. Among them some reforms of labor laws leading to less unemployment and reversing a law that would have raised the retirement age to 60yrs - so it's back to 58yrs (by the way: in Holland it's 65 and it will become 67 soon).
Now, just like with that other Italian institution - the Mafia - Berlusconi's influence stretches far, and his power corrupts many, but this week it seems Berlusconi reached his limit in what he can do and who he can corrupt. Because on October 7th this week, the Italian's Constitutional Court ruled that the Lodo Alfano law is unconstitutional, so trials against Berlusconi can be reopened again. Berlusconi of course commented the ruling as "politically motivated".
Personally I think this is a triumph for democracy. Europe should not be a place for blatant dictators and politicians serving only their own best interest, even if they once where elected by the people. Since Berlusconi is 73 already, he will probably be dead by the time they put him on trial. Still: it will be interesting to see what happens.
Or, in the words of Nico Toscani: "You guys think you're above the law... well you ain't above mine!"
I'm stunned. There really is no limit to greed. It's capitalism, US style. Michael Moore uncovered yet another great story about greed. In short: you take out a life insurance policy on people working for you. If they die, you cash in. Yeah, you read that right. Corporate America gambles on you dying and then making a profit out of it. Not your family will benefit, but that asshole boss you hated all the time. I guess if corporate America can do it, maybe the military can do it too. Let's take out insurance on firefighters as well. No wait; cops!
While I was in the US in August visiting my girlfriend, the one theme dominating US news, was president Obama's healthcare reform plan. As an outsider looking into what goes on in America, I find it strange that people seem to object to something that will help out literally millions of fellow Americans. It seems that everyone says they want to help someone, but not if it costs them any money. Well, folks: there is no such thing as a free lunch.
I guess I'm to liberal - or should I say socialistic - to think that I am doing good by sharing my wealth indirectly with people that lack such basic needs as healthcare. I don't mind paying taxes for that. I am doing well and I don't mind if some of my money goes to people that aren't doing well. As long as it is not spent foolishly.
Anyway: the following clip that my girlfriend forwarded to me, is a hilarious take on things. It's making fun of healthcare execs working for big insurance companies who are all lobbying off course against Obama's plans. They are the real "victims" here...
The saying goes: "There are two infinite things: the universe and man's stupidity." Well, nothing proves better that this saying is absolutely right, than todays news. Even in a week with a plane crash and more news about the financial crisis developing, there is one Dutch politician that is able to dominate the Dutch news: Geert Wilders of the PVV. Why? According to the latest polls, made public today, Wilders right-wing political party would become the biggest political party in the Netherlands if elections would be be held today. Wilders reacted extatic to the news and even sees himself becoming 'prime minister' of Holland in the near future. Now, polls to me, are like statistics. And a saying about statistics goes; "there are lies, blatant lies and statistics." But it is a very scary thought indeed that a large majority of the Dutch people seem to have lost their minds and are now turning to a right-wing clown thinking that he can 'save' the Netherlands from all problems. My point being that Wilders biggest feat as a politician so far, is a 17 minute long 'clip' , called 'Fitna' (no it's not a 'movie'), about Islamic extremism, put together with windows movie-maker. Prior to the release of that 'clip' just the announcement of it being in the making, created a huge turnmoil in Dutch politics. It would make Holland the #1 target for terrorists. Well, the 'clip' came out, and nothing happend. What a suprise.
The media-hype around Wilders never really died and just continued, reaching a new all-time high (or low, depending on your views) when on 21 January 2009 when a three judge court ordered prosecutors to try Wilders for preaching hate. Their statement argued that "In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to... draw a clear line" and that "The court also considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders". If convicted, he may get 16 months of jail time and a fine of 9866.67 euros. Again: it just caused a huge media-hype.
My view on this case is very simple: there currently is a grey area under Dutch law between what constitutes freedom of speech and preaching hate. I think it is a good idea to get those boundaries more clear. And a trial will just do that. So what is wrong with that? If our democracy is strong enough this will not pose a problem. In fact: even though I stronlgy disagree with Wilders views an opinions, I don't think he crossed the line (yet?). Yes, I consider his statements to be Islamophobic and short-sighted, but people are entitled to their opinions, no matter how dumb they are.
So, riding on this notority, Wilders started a 'world-tour' showing Fitna in different European countries. On February 10th, his first stop was Londen. Or so he thought. The Brittish government said he wasn't welcome under EU law, which allows a member state to bar individuals if they constitute a threat to public policy, security or health. Wilders went anyway and was promptly deported, never setting foot on British soil. Personally I think that was wrong: politicians should be allowed to spread their views anywhere, anytime. They are democratically elected by the people and have a right to represent those people.
Anyway: this week Wilders continued his tour by visiting the US, where he had a private screening of Fitna for some politicians on Capitol Hill. Unlike Great Brittain he was very much welcome there, as free speech is one of the driving forces behind the US democracy. The major difference between freedom of speech in the US and Holland is, that in the US it is considered as 'absolute freedom of speech'. Even if it hurts other peoples feelings or beliefs. Thats why even the KKK can say what they think in the US. I think a lot of people support Wilders just because they think that free speech should be 'absolute' in Holland as well and because they lost their faith in the current political parties governing our country.
It is my strong belief that the more Wilders opens his mouth, the easier it is to see that his views and solutions are just rubbish. There is not just one simple solution to the social-economic problems we have in our country. Turning to extremism towards the Islam, is becoming exactly what Wilders accuses the Islam of. The only difference is that Wilders considers his cause to be 'just' and 'righteous'.
If you want to know what this kind of extreme ideological thinking leads too, just take one look at the situation in Israel and Palestina. Is that what we want in Holland, Europe? Now, if only the rest of Holland would get their common sense back and realize this.
Anyway, here is an interesting interview with Wilders on the BBC.
