Cogs can think.

This weekend, Geert Wilders was publicly exposed for the xenophobic idiot that he is.

As the world knows by now, the guy has made an anti-Islam film - well, he says he has, but no one has ever seen it, for the simple reason that he has no venue for publication. Dutch broadcasting companies are not willing to broadcast the film, YouTube doesn’t want it either, and the announcement website has been taken down by Network Solutions.

Wilders always said that if a broadcasting company knocked on his door, they could broadcast the film the same day.

And that’s where the Dutch Muslim Broadcaster comes into play. This extremely small organisation, who gets a few moments of airtime on Sunday mornings, officially offered to broadcast the film. This organisation is not extremist at all - they have a history of allowing criticasters of Islam to have their say on their shows. Theo van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, they’ve all been there.

There were two conditions. One, they get to see the film prior to broadcasting, just to prevent any legal issues if it contains content against the law (racism, for instance). A perfectly acceptable condition, and you’ll be hard-pressed to find any broadcaster or network in the world who will broadcast anything without screening it first. The second condition is the more important one. They said, ok, we’ll air the film, but we do want you, Geert Wilders, to go into a televised discussion afterwards, with other people.

And this is the reason Wilders declined. Wilders has never gone into discussion with anyone; he never comes on debate shows on TV, he never accepts any invitations to public debates, he even always refuses to go into discussion with any other politician. This is the big point of criticism on Wilders, and it’s a very, very valid one.

The job of an elected representative of the people is to go into discussion with them. Not doing so just proves your arguments are weak.

And of course, they are weak. He claims that the Islam culture is inferior to ‘Western culture’, and that it is lightyears behind in development. According to him, it’s a retarded culture. This is the funny thing. If our culture really is so much better, so much more divine, so much more developed - then why is he so afraid all the time? If our culture is so strong, shouldn’t we consequently be able to withstand any influences quite easily?

Islam poses no real threat to our way of life. Sure, there are difficulties, but we’ll work them out. Our way of life survived two world wars, social change during the ’60s, and the cold war - I think we’ll survive a few religious nutjobs. I mean, let’s face it, we can handle the religious nutjobs in the Christian and Jewish worlds too.

What poses the real threat are those people willing to give up unconditional equality simply because they are insecure about their own culture. Unconditional equality is undebatable, and cannot be forfeit. It is the very building block of our society. Without it, we are no better than those Muslim extremists.

The last few times we decided to take away the rights of people based on race or religion (what people like Wilders want), we ended up in worlds of shit. Never forget that.

Has it already been 5 years?

Apparently, it has.

And almost 90000 documented civilian casualties. Documented casualties. There’s something chillingly bureaucratic about that term. It means 90000 times, someone, somewhere, added a little tally mark under the header of “civilian casualties”. But behind each of those tally marks, behind each of those few molecules of ink, there’s a person, a human being. A man or woman, boy or girl, with a history, a story to tell, friends, relatives, hopes, fears, dreams.

It all seems so far away. Did you know that the amount of genetic variation between all of mankind, between all of its members, is smaller than the genetic differences between one troop of chimpanzees? This means that for all intents and purposes, those 90000 men and women are not strangers, they are not mere tally marks somewhere in a dusty office without a corner view. No, they are relatives, closer to you and me than most people are willing to admit.

I hope none of us can sleep tonight. We are all responsible for all the people in the world, and these 90000 tally marks should haunt you tonight. Like 900000 nails on a chalkboard.

I was just watching State Secretary of Defense Jack de Vries (is that a Tom Clancy name or what?) on TV, explaining how he wants the Dutch people to show more appreciation and respect for our military and its personnel, despite whatever you might think of our mission in Afghanistan. And I couldn’t agree with the guy more.

I’m against us being involved in the mess the Americans and Brits created over there. It’s not our war, let them sort it out.

But, that’s a political issue. Our democratically elected politicians have decided that our men and women of the army should be there, and even though I fully disagree with that decision, it was not made by the army itself. They get stuck with doing the hard, dangerous, and intensive work over there, trying to do their goddamn best to help the people there, to create better living conditions. They are putting their lives on the line every day, and they do it with such commitment, passion, and determination that I can feel nothing but respect and pride for the work they do.

It of course helps that one of my best friends is in the Royal Military Academy (cavalry). The way he details life at the Academy, what they learn, the toughness of the job, the intense preperation they receive for being officers in the Dutch armed forces makes you realise more than ever how much respect these men and women deserve.

It’s easy to stand on the sideline, and critique our military. It’s easy to sit in your lounge chair, bag of Doritos, a beer, and 6 remotes to control your DVD, Blu-Ray (or, HD-DVD if you’ve been stupid), 50″ plasma, and whatever, while knowing you have to get up at 7am the next day, only to start up your 1.4 Opel Astra, to traffic jam your way to your boring 9-to-5, for the rest of your life, ever and ever, until you die.

Our guys and girls in the military are doing their very best to deliver, and they work hard, much harder than most of you will ever realise. And because of that, I support our troops in Afghanistan. Good job, guys.

You know that feeling, you’re lying on the couch after going to university and playing some squash, you’re closing your eyes, reality drifts off, your thoughts sizzle out, and you relax fully. The news is on TV, but it doesn’t really interest you. Until you hear these words. In one sentence.

Sex. Animals. Lower house. Debate. With.

Yes. Our lower house had a serious debate on whether or not to declare bestiality illegal. As I learned today, The Netherlands is the prime exporter of bestiality pornography, and that’s of course totally unacceptable (I’m for real here. People that get off on that nonsense should be put away in mental institutions). I mean, relaxed drug laws, legalised prostitution, gay marriage, that I can handle. But sex with animals? That was actually not illegal here? What the fcuk is wrong with this country? And they say the influence of Islam is a problem? While at the same time, people were allowed to have SEX WITH ANIMALS?

There is something very, very unnerving about seeing distinguished, Christian politicians speak about sex with animals. I’m SO not going to sleep tonight without a double dose of Temazepam.

May I note that I can see what Google query you used to get here. Remember that before you comment.

I love the Dutch media. Not because they’re the best in the world (because they’re most definitely not) and I’m proud of them for it (couldn’t resist) but because they fell on their ass so bad during the night.

You see, the Dutch media are quite obviously supporters of the Democrats. During the coverage of the primaries, the Democrats get all the attention, after which they quickly say something along the lines of “oh and yeah, McCain did this and that but all of you Dutch people shouldn’t give two shits”. Of course, I made the second part up, but you can almost hear them say it. Not that I’m in any way a Republican, but still, I expect impartiality.

The second problem is that they are also quite obviously supporters of Obama. Famous journalists, TV presenters, newspapers, other public figures: most of them are pro-Obama, and this shines through quite clearly during TV shows and in newspaper/magazine articles. Whenever they interview someone pro-Clinton, he or she has to defend himself. Whenever they interview someone pro-Obama, the journalists and media people go easy, and talk about how Obama makes celestial choirs sing (thanks for that one, Hillary).

Yesterday evening, they were all more or less certain Hillary would be out, over, and done with. She wouldn’t win Texas and Ohio, and you could see the twinkle in the media people’s eyes whenever they talked about it. Obama would win, and right from then on, roses, lilies, and marshmallows would sprout all over the United States. Suddenly, there’d be no more poverty, crappy unaffordable healthcare, and hate towards the US.

Until Clinton won Ohio. And Texas. And Rhode Island. And despite her not being any closer to winning the nomination than last night, she did win them. And gone is the twinkle. The battle is still on, and I’m sure that we’ll see Clinton win the primaries after all.

Let’s hope the Dutch media can start reporting on the whole thing with more objectivity now. Obama will be a good president, but he ain’t the 2nd coming of Christ. It’s time the Dutch media realised this too. The honeymoon’s over.

Björk ftw. Seriously. During a performance in Shanghai in China, she shouted “Tibet! Tibet!” a couple of times while performing the frantic and utterly crazy “Declare Independence“. The Chinese could not handle this; they left the hall, and millions of Chinese are now all offended. The state media (as if there are any independent media in China) are ignoring the incident.

Thank you Björk. You have the guts to do what most here in the west do not dare to do: go into the lion’s den, and say it like it is.

“Declare Independence” has almost become my ‘motto’ - every people has the right to belong, to govern themselves in a way they deem fit, to protect their sovereignty, to declare independence. I fully support the people of Kosovo, the people of Schotland, the people of Tibet, and so on. This world will be a better place if people and cultures get the freedom and breathing room to develop themselves, to make their own decisions, while working together for the greater, common good under organisations like the EU and NATO. There’s no need for a global, bureacratic megagovernment in order to create world peace - all it takes is to give cultures independence and sovereignty on a local level, while working together closely on a global level.

It has worked pretty darn well in Europe. Except for the fact that the EU has invaded the local level a tad bit too much.

Speaking of sheep, I just sat down and watched last night’s debate between Clinton and Obama (all of it) - and I must say, it was a good debate. It was what I call a ‘table debate’, where the debaters are sitting down around a table, close together, instead of standing before choir stands like they do in some other debates. Table debates tend to be more focused on content, while also being looser and more intimate. Last night certainly confirmed that.

I did think Clinton ‘won’, but not by a huge margin or anything. To me, she showed her experience and deep knowledge on several key issues (especially foreign policy is what is important to me), but Obama wasn’t far behind. On two key issues they both reflected my feelings properly and strongly: Putin, and Iraq. They were both firm about condemning the undemocratic actions of Vladimir Putin, and did not tiptoe around that matter at all. I found it very encouraging to hear that - it’s something Dutch politicians can learn a lot from.

On the issue of Iraq, I was stunned and very pleasantly surprised about how much they both valued the concept of sovereignty - the question was, if the sovereign government of Iraq asks you, as potential president of the United States, to retreat all troops from Iraq, even a residual force, will you do it? Both were crystal clear: yes, we will. Sovereignty needs to be respected.

This meant a great deal to me, as sovereignty is a very important element in world politics; not only is it a concept, but it is also a feeling that people living in different nations around the world have. Sovereignty must be respected at all costs, and I’m very, very pleased to hear these two Democratic candidates commit themselves to respecting, and protecting, sovereignty around the world.

In the end, they’re both darn good candidates for the presidency of the US, and I believe both of them can give some much-needed change to not only the American people that need it the most, but also the rest of the world. It’s going to be a breath of fresh air to have an American president that is not, well, a total idiot.

Clinton-Obama. Clinton running for president, with Obama as vice-president. One may dream.

How about this.

Choose a certain period in your life; say the coming week. Then, write down every instance something that happened in your life, something that happened to you, or with you, made you feel annoyed, uncomfortable, or unpleasant. Reading something in the paper and feeling annoyed does not count, since the thing you read about in the news did not happen to you.

Then, for every item on your list, write down if it was caused by someone from Dutch/West ancestry, or by someone from Muslim ancestry.

After a week, you’ll see that most of the things that make you feel annoyed, sad, or angry, are caused by Dutch people, with a Dutch background. Doing a test like this (you have to have the guts to be honest with yourself!) will show you that no, your grieves are not caused by people with a Muslim background. They are caused by your fellow Westerners.

The reason I devised this simple test is that I see a lot of people who have zero interaction with Muslims that still see Muslims and the Islam as the cause for the problems in The Netherlands. I live in a very small, and cosy little town, and no, there barely are any Muslims in here, and most of the people I know here barely ever leave this town - they see my casual trips to Amsterdam which I make a few times a week as something special. Dude, that’s like, the other side of the world.

If these people do not see Muslims as the cause for their problems based on their own experiences with them, it must mean that this is caused by something else. The obvious suspects? The media, and our politicians. They give much more attention to the whole Islam debate than it deserves, talking their cattle buyers/voters into unsubstantiated fear and hatred; fear and hatred that will make them vote for them or buy their newspapers.

It is a despicable tactic, but in today’s political climate, there are few who dare to properly stand up against it, there are few who dare to openly do their duty as Dutchmen and women to fight for equality, tolerance, and respect. The Muslims in this country carry a Dutch passport, just like we do, and as such, they automatically have all the rights we have. They have the right to believe their own believes, to wear the clothes they want, to send their children to a school they want. Denying these basic rights to people carrying the Dutch passport (what some of our politicians openly advocate) is, as far as I’m concerned, treason. Those politicians, as well as their sheepish followers, are stepping upon the graves of our ancestors - ancestors who have fought for all that we have today.

Do the test, and you’ll see.

Apparently, because the tech community all support Obama, and they are intelligent (good one, that), I’m now supposed to switch to supporting Obama too. Right-o, it might be time to explain why I support Clinton.

You need to know one thing: in all honesty, I don’t really give a rat’s ass about who gets into office in the US. Whether you guys get Obama, Clinton, McCain, or a flying pumpkin covered in red wine, the world will still be a shitty place to live in, and the US will still be a glorified 3rd world country. No amount of Obama or Clinton is going to change that.

I don’t fall for people who give good speeches. Obama sure can deliver a good speech, but heck, many dictators could do that too, and it didn’t make them good politicians either. I’m not comparing them, I’m just trying to say that voting for someone based solely on his speech abilities is silly. Really, really silly.

And change? I’m sorry, you’re talking to someone with OCD, I really, really don’t like change. We Dutch built a pretty nice country for ourselves, and despite what some politicians want you to believe, The Netherlands really isn’t facing any major challenges. We’re rich as hell, have more stuff than ever, and have a relatively good social security system; we don’t have any big problems here like you Americans have, and as such, there simply is no need for change in this country. At all.

I transfer my dislike for change to American politics - which is completely ridiculous and unreasonable, but hey, did I ever say it wasn’t? I live on the other side of the pond, I don’t have to care about what happens to you Americans from a political perspective. The influence of the US on the economical world is fading, and the political influence will follow, meaning my personal life will be affected even less than now by whatever president you guys get.

So, if Obama’s change stuff doesn’t strike a cord with me, I’m left with making the decision based on other things. To me, Clinton comes across as knowledgeable, intelligent, experienced, and, most importantly, tough. She vaguely reminds me of Thatcher. Obama, on the other hand, comes across as a good speaker (yes), but also as inexperienced, less knowledgeable, and less tough. Obama is a good guy, I’m sure of it, and his intentions are definitely good, but so are Clinton’s. They should team up after the primaries, as I’m sure that together (with Clinton leading, preferably), they will be better able to make the US a better place for its citizens.

That’s my reasoning, and whether you like it or not, leave me be. I’ve had quite a few people already trying to make me ’see the light’ with regards to Obama, implying I’m somehow stupid or less intelligent because I prefer Clinton. And that’s starting to piss me off. I’m not telling any of you Obama folk you’re stupid or less intelligent for supporting him, so please, don’t tell that to me either.

The Netherlands has a very intricate and complicated television landscape. To even be able to grasp this landscape, we need to dive deep into this country’s history.

The Netherlands is a very diverse society; words like open, tolerant, and respect for individual freedom come to mind. This is not something of the last few decades - this has actually always been the case. The Netherlands has always been on the forefront of social equality; we were the first modern republic, the first state not to be based on either religion or a monarchy. The Republic Of The Seven United Provinces, as it was called, became the most successful state of its time, becoming the biggest economic, military, and colonial power, with the Dutch having an empire that stretched the world. We call this The Golden Age, but this is a rather cruel name since during this period, we not only advanced the world of science, art, and economics, but we also deported millions of slaves from all over the world to the Americas, killed thousands of native people all over the world, and so on. I always try to keep this in mind - we must never forget the price the rest of the world paid for our wealth.

The Republic lasted from 1581 to 1795, and set an example for all modern democracies in the world today - the founding fathers of the United States of America were influenced heavily by The Republic, and so any claims made about the US being the first modern republic are debatable, at best.

Anyway, the fact that The Republic was not based on religion paved the way for a rudimentary form of religious freedom, where Protestants and Catholics lived side-by-side in one country. I specifically say ‘rudimentary’, since even though Catholicism was allowed, they had to practice their religion in relative silence, leading to “secret” churches - churches everyone (including the government) knew were there, but none acted upon. Over the course of time, religious freedom got stronger and more absolute, leading to a society where you had multiple Protestant churches, and a strong Catholic presence, augmented by non-religious people - liberalism has always been prominent in this country, as have leftist and Labour parties, and even communists.

So, when radio came along, and the airwaves had to be spread evenly and openly among the different population groups, columnification began. We speak of columnification when different groups of people in a society live in their own separate columns; they have their own newspapers, magazines, radio stations, TV stations, schools, political parties, sports clubs, and so on. This lead to quite an orderly society, where you had a Protestant column, a Labour column, a Catholic column, a Liberal column, and so on. Elections were predictable, and only the top layer of each column (politicians) interacted with the top layers of other columns in order to form a government and run the country.

As a consequence of columnification, each column had their own radio/TV station. If you could get enough members as a station, you could earn airtime on one of the (now) three (tax-funded) public TV channels, and thus, various broadcasting networks shared the same three channels. Ironically, this also meant the end of the columnified society: people in The Netherlands finally had a window upon other columns via their television sets, and they started to realise that the other columns weren’t as wrong and ‘evil’ as their leaders and education had made them out to be. This started the ‘decolumnification’, which lasted until somewhere in the ’90s; we are now at the point where the columns are basically all gone, and this has led to the situation we have now where election results are highly unpredictable.

However, our television system is still in place, the original television stations from the columns still exist, and still broadcast to this day. Their ideological base has eroded over time, and the differences between them have faded - but some of them are still quite religious, and have a very religious programming. Being tax-funded also allows smaller stations to get airtime, such as the Muslim station we have, which airs stuff on Sunday mornings.

Why did I give you this quick history lesson? Well, something funny has been happening the past few weeks. Two non-religious, youth-oriented major stations want to air a ’70s pornographic film - Deep Throat. And now, the religious folk in this country (and contrary to popular belief, this country is actually quite Christian and religious) are all over each other to condemn this, and politicians have even tried to force the public channels to not broadcast the film - they obviously failed, since the government cannot influence the contents of the three channels and their stations.

So, they started a marathon prayer to ask God to stop the broadcast. And now we come to the sole purpose of this post, something I’ve been wanting to say here ever since I heard of the ‘prayathon’.

If the prayathon fails in its goals - does that mean God likes ’70s porn?