Category: Art culture

Online version of the Interview that Miguel recently referred to.

Regretfully, they removed the EBay article, so I can’t link to it. This was the original text:

Kingdom in several (3) parts, can be bought as a whole ( not recommended), can be bought in parts.

I. Flanders

highly traficated and very heterogeneous architecture (as well art nouveau as spanish hacienda style) , hard working people understanding American english ( due to an overdose of episodes of Dallas), catholic but not fanatic. Be aware some Flemish ( not to confond with Amish) are ‘ practiserende Vlamingen’ and you recognise them easily by their Lion Flags (hand model or life size flag). As a whole easy to govern provided that you dont cut mobile phone traffic or television broadcasting. If you do so you will see what. Oh yes, in possesion of a seaside (50 kilometres) and flashpilars ( ‘flitspalen’). What to say, when you meet them: it is the one and the other ( ‘t is t’ een en t’ander) in case of emergency, Say it is not true ( Zeg dat het niet waar is) in all other circumstances.

II. Brussels

Lively village with nineteen lord mayors and a government on top. The real Babylon with several coexisting minorities.Nice realestate taken by National, Regional and European institutions.Still opportunities in the Bois de la Cambre for de luxe flats. Possibility to establish farming facilities both on Grand Place, De Brouckère, Place Rogier and on the Boulevards ( contact mr. Pascal Smet). What to say when meeting with a Brussels subject: Hello good morning (Zeg, draag ik soms iets van U. Quoi tu veut ma photo!)

III. Wallonia

First become member of Parti Socialiste which makes it easier in many ways to establish your situation. Has plenty of water ( sometimes sparkling), tons of old iron, acres of woods, several homebrews, ingenious shipptraffic ( The Pending Slope of Roncquiers), The Shape head quarters (tax fee cigarettes!) and German speaking backyard. In general the Wallons are more philosophical and relaxed guys then the Flemish. Plenty of opportunities but find out yourself. What to say if you bump into a Wallon: Hide the Flemish are there!

So you see there is plenty of choice. Beware there is a 300 billion of National Debt which has still to be divided under the three, but that wil be fixed soon after the Duchess Valley Talks ( het beraad van Hertoginnendal).

Free premium: the king and his court ( costs not included)

Hey Damien, why not make Brussels a purely European city not belonging to either the Flemish or the Walloon parts of Belgium? To me that sounds like the current actual situation already anyway.

I’m with you on Europe though. But I’m not for a United States of Europe modeled after the United States of America. The member states of the European Union have enormous cultural differences. They need their own leadership and have their own priorities to successfully serve their citizens.

I don’t think that centralization of power leads to more democracy (or, better living standards. As I sometimes question whether “democracy” in its current form actually serves the population well). Cooperation, however, could and should be strengthened. Perhaps have a much better way to get a consensus by all member states over the world’s problems?

Problems such as the energy crisis that we’ll most certainly face in about 15 to 20 years when the world will run out of oil, the increasingly alarming state of global warming, Kyoto protocol agreements, a strictly peacekeeping military force that would empower an organization like the United Nations to act without neoconservative-guided policies during conflicts, a court system that brings justice to victims of war crimes and puts war criminals in jail (not just hang them, using a fake trail. A real, serious and fair trial is very important for the significance of the verdict. Read Jan Wouters‘s books on the subject). Even if that is a politician of a wealthy Western country. Perhaps Europe could indeed unify a bit more on education, science and scientific research? Maybe… maybe not.

I don’t want a United States of Europe to rule over each and every aspect of citizenship in all the current European countries. To give an example: in some countries a ban to hunt foxes might mean that a large amount of farmers will see their animals getting killed? In Belgium, however, we might want to protect the species? In one European country perhaps the citizens need more railroads and trains, whereas in the other there is a high emphasis on traffic over highways and doesn’t it make a lot of sense to put extra taxes on truck drivers (or would such regulation bring the economy of that region to its knees).

In one country social security is important, in another there might be other priorities or there is perhaps a different system already in place that has served people for ages (although I do think social security is a top priority, I don’t believe it should be a stupid Belgian like me who should decide for another country whether or not they need it). Why change this? Because some people want a huge monolithic Europe? As if those people in Brussels know better than the local politicians of countries? I don’t think they do.

So yes, let’s do Europe and let’s make it significant. But let’s not hurry too much. Let’s give it time and see what works, rather than making the same mistakes that another country is making today. I don’t believe we would do it a lot better. In fact, our European culture of wars teaches us our countries didn’t do any better in the past.

Does that mean that Belgium should not take care of its current problems, because maybe in a few decades we’ll have a Utopian European something? I don’t think so. Let the Belgian voters speak, and let the Belgian politicians act based on that. Today.

Edit: crap, now that I wrote this piece of opinion, I realize that I’m going to get eaten by the politic lions of the blogging world. Heh, too late now :-\

The Economist wrote in an article:

When a French-language television programme was interrupted last December with a spoof news flash announcing that the Flemish parliament had declared independence, the king had fled and Belgium had dissolved, it was widely believed.

Being a Flemish Belgian myself I’d like to correct the “it was widely believed” part of the article: this is absolutely not true. The vast majority of Flemish people immediately recognized it as a spoof. Not only was it not being reported by the Flemish television stations, radio nor news papers most Belgians understood that this would take months of (pointless) discussing at our government resulting in a “let’s not do it” conclusion.

Most Flemish people in stead of widely believing this, thought something in the lines of “No way, that’s too good to be true!”. But in a cynical or joking way rather than using a serious tone. We laughed with it the day after, when the Flemish media started reporting the spoof. Some Walloons might have been a bit scared, but I don’t think they actually widely believed this either.

They know it’s not that easy to get rid of them :-)

I was just watching “The Trap, what happened to our dreams of freedom”, by Adam Curtis who did previous work like “The power of nightmares” and “The century of the self”.

Although I don’t know for how long it will stay there, you can at this moment find it at for example youtube: part 1, part 2, part 3,part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7

Its an interesting documentary that talks a little bit about things like Game theory. It looks like the second episode is online too, I haven’t yet looked at that one though.

I finally finished reading Noam Chomsky’s book: The abuse of power and the assault on democracy.

I would like to quote some text from his book in my blog:

One commonly hears that carping critics complain about what is wrong, but do not present solutions. There is an accurate translation for that charge: “They present solutions, but I don’t like them.” In addition to the proposals that should be familiar about dealing with the crises that reach to the level of survival, a few simple suggestions for the United States have already been mentioned:

• accept the jurisdiction of of the International Criminal Court and the world Court;
• sign and carry forward the Kyoto protocols;
• let the UN take the lead in international crises;
• relay on diplomatic and economic measures rather than military ones in confronting terror;
• keep to the traditional interpretation of the UN Charter;
• give up the Security Council veto and have “a decent respect for the opinion of mankind,” as the Declaration of Independence advises, even if power centers disagree;
• cut back sharply on military spending and sharply increase social spending.

For people who believe in democracy, these are very conservative suggestions: they appear to be the opinions of the majority of the US population, in most cases the overwhelming majority. They are radical in opposition to public policy.