In a release from Secretary of State Clinton, it was said that the sanctions were backed by China and Russia. Immediately after the release however, China released a statement that they also back the agreement initiated by Turkey and Brazil. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said his government believes the efforts by Brazil and Turkey will “aid the process of peacefully resolving the Iran nuclear issue through dialogue and negotiations.” (from here)

As Russia seems involved with the ‘alternative’ agreement as well, it seems like the US is once again working on its own and seeing the fact they run the IAEA more or less by themselves, it’s validity is (mildly put) debatable.

I’m growing a little tired of this supremecy of rightousness by the US. Indeed Iran (or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad more so) is claimed to have stated that they/he wishes to wipe Israel off the map. The level of controversy of the translation didn’t get the press, the initial translation did get, and as such this is taken for granted, but let me re-visit this little bushfire;

The translation presented by IRNA has been challenged by Arash Norouzi (involved with this and the article here on Huffington Post) , who says the statement “wiped off the map” was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the “regime occupying Jerusalem”. In his own words:

So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in Persian: “Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.” That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word “Regime”, pronounced just like the English word with an extra “eh” sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase “rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” (regime occupying Jerusalem).

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want “wiped from the map”? The answer is: nothing. That’s because the word “map” was never used. The Persian word for map, “nagsheh”, is not contained anywhere in his original Persian quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase “wipe out” ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran’s President threatened to “wipe Israel off the map”, despite never having uttered the words “map”, “wipe out” or even “Israel”

The full quote translated directly to English: “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”.

Word by word translation: Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from)..^[12][13]

Arash Norouzi further adds that the The Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) translation is the source of the confusion:

One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising. The inflammatory ‘wiped off the map’ quote was first disseminated not by Iran’s enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran’s official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran’s Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy.^[12][13]

Then there are Muhadinejad’s own reactions to the whole thing;

Speaking at a D-8 summit meeting in July 2008, when asked to comment on whether he has called for the destruction of Israel he denied that his country would ever instigate military action, there being “no need for any measures by the Iranian people”. Instead he claimed that “the Zionist regime” in Israel would eventually collapse on its own. “I assure you… there won’t be any war in the future,” both the BBC and AP quoted him as saying.

(I stole this from Wikipedia btw.)

My point is this; I am not here to defend Iran, I know there are shitloads of issues at hand in the country that do not allign with how I would see fellow humans being treated. (such as; this, this, this, and this.) The thing is though, that supressing and sabotaging the economic development will not target the higher echelons of the country, only it’s people.

This kind of ideological diplomacy is nor for the benefit of the people, or the safety of the world. It is about maintaining the status quo, and I’ve kind of had it. Looking at India or Pakistan that are actually developing nuclear weapons and the lack of press coverage as well as ‘sanctions’ (related to the nuclear subject), I find it doubtful and am simply sick and tired of it.

The nuclear weapons threat is one that has been exploited for years and years now. The stupidity of it has been surpassed by it’s lack of transparency and one-sidedness of decision making. (which in itself is sort of transparent, yet not the kind of transparency I’d personally like to see.) But I think it would be a good idea to considder the arguments thrown at you by Western media.

Peace and pancakes.

The story gets more and more interesting by the day. Yesterday NY Times published a series of letters to and from bishops and archbishops on two continents, what makes this correspondence ‘special’ is that it also features ‘his holiness’ Pope Benedictus – the devout Roman Catholic formerly known as Ratzinger. The letters addressed the ‘undesirable issue’ of Father Lawrence Murphy having been ‘engaged’ with over 200 deaf children in an inappropriate way. He (his holiness that is) did not respond, yet the fact his name shows up in this series is an interesting one.

A little reference to the Whore of Babylon from the Bible;

“And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
^17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
^17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.” (book of Revelation 17 & 18)

Now, I’m not against people finding solace in religion. If you’re happy; I’m happy. But the organised part of religion is what worries me. The extend of the current ‘misconduct’ brought to light is sick. Sexual abuse of children is something that sickens me to the absolute core and well, let’s just say I’m trying to be a peaceful man but in coming across news like this; my ‘faith is tried’.

The incredible hush-up and denial combined with the rigid and moral superiority outlook on the world of the Catholic Church is -dare I say; diabolical. Seriously, I’ve always thought ‘The Church’ to be backwards in a lot of things, but now my amazement has turned into horror. The sideways connection to a ‘myth’ described in ‘their’ own literature, that of the Whore of Babylon, is one that deserves a good, hard look;

- The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand
+ Might just reference to the Pope

- MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH
+ Mystery = lies? Babylon the great = Vatican?  The Mother of Harlots and abominations of the Earth =  The Father of the Church (i.e. clergy) and thus representative of the Church as a whole.

- Woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration
+  Man who serves wine as ‘the blood of Christ’

A bit farfetched perhaps, yet, I do wonder..

I’m sorry for the possible offence people might take of this post, for I mean no harm to peaceful and harmless human beings -nor to others really, I believe living with the things you have done will take their toll. I take it we all look for meaning in life and we all have our own motivation in order to reach unification with that which we do not understand and possibly even fear. Yet, to systematically destroy the innocence of children, to take away from them the one thing that is so far lost in our world as is, mis-using the faith people have put in you as a spiritual councilor; is disturbing and wrong. Whatever excuse you may find for yourself, whatever God you may choose to believe in; I pray/believe/hope justice will serve you.

My thoughts go out to those who have lost faith in the recent weeks or have suffered from the tyranny of those who claim to be God’s voice on Earth. May you find God’s voice in that one place no one can touch you, within yourself, for it is you who has come to this life in order to experience, and there is no one that can tell you how to do so, but you.

Peace and love to all.

I would like to propose a new idea.

Let’s start a movement (petition wise or something) that raises votes to abolish the arms industry. Completely shut it down, I mean, you can’t wage war if there’s no weapons to do so with, and if you still want to, you can go at each other with sticks and knifes or something, no longer bothering innocent people with your bullocks.

The idea to push governments to shut down the investment in weapons and closing down the military seems reasonably impossible and –no doubt, people’ll start calling me a short-sighted idealist again. Then first of I’d like to point them to the philosophical argument of being an idealist (because I agree, I am one, yet not a short-sighted one), which would be idealism is; the philosophical theory that maintains that the ultimate nature of reality is based on mind or ideas.

-So, if a realist would come to me and argue of safety, I’d challenge him or her to quantify safety as an independent entity. Safety is a psychological entity that only exists in ideas or mind. I assure you that by abolishing the weapons industry we will be ‘safer’ as there are lesser external threads on the internal concept of safety. So that’s point one, point two would be that the world is more and more connected, and more and more people seem willing to overcome nationality, background, or ‘cultural heritage’ in favour of collaborating, discussing and creating a world that is ‘one’. Making it increasingly viable to –well, just give it a try. Governments are to be (especially in countries that claim to be democratic) subject to the people, and this would be an interesting chance to see whether or not we truly do live in a democracy.

Who’s with me?

Join the facebook group please.

But where are we headed? Is evolution still purely biological or can we argue it has become a conscious development? One about the choices we make, about how we live our lives, what the function of manmade technology within evolution?

The term ‘Uomo Universalis’ -or Polymath (“universal man” or “man of the world”) is a term that may help us with the ‘looking forward’ of evolution. We are in a time (in the West) that we can afford ourselves (and technical support enabled us) to keep learning throughout our lives. Next to that we also see increased social pressure of having to be ‘up to date’ on all sorts of whimsical TV-series, hollow news coverage and gossip of all sorts.

What if we would spend that time on actually finding fulfilment in the ‘search for knowledge’? How would we live, how would the political landscape look? Probably most importantly, how would our educational system be reformed? (I’m saying reformed because I’m quite sure it would, but maybe you think differently?) Would we be happier -or not? Is ignorance bliss? Would we still be feeding our kids Ritalin? Or would we motivate them to put their energy into arts, learning and social interaction? Would we still say; what can I do about poverty, world hunger and political corruption? Or would we group, set up an alternative structure and change the situation? Would there be war? (I mean, even now it seems pretty dumb to think that killing someone stays without reaction right?)

What is the potential of human beings is what I’m really asking here. How can we fulfil the tasks and responsibilities we have and develop ourselves and thereby develop the way we stand in accord to the world?

“A (hu)man can do all things if he will.” (Leon Battista Alberti)

What do you reckon?

Peace and Love

The thing is, I want to be ‘for’ things. I want to say yes, I want to focus my energy on constructive matters, not destructive. And, knowing the history of protest around ‘global gatherings’, they’re not so constructive. Of course the feeling of unity amongst those who come there to voice the need for stronger measures on the reduction of carbon emissions, the need for a new paradigm in terms of our energy supply in general, and new policies when it comes to the way we interact with ‘Mother Nature’, is one tempting me to go. Yet, I feel its not all. With the ones that dictate the global political debate (US) likely not to even be there, it will be a facade of incompetence.

I truly believe that, within the current economic system (that despite the opportunity that has been around in the last years, still stands and is enforced by governments to keep it the way it is) we would be better of (and closer to change) if we’d focus our energy on the companies that actually create the pollution and waste. Let’s urge them to make a change, not simply because it’s something we think they should do; but more so because it makes more business sense in general.

See, looking at others to take responsibility is something we have been doing for years and years. Businesses look at the law and look for loopholes. This has been the case since the start of business and business law. When businesses look at their turnover, and see change, they move.

Carrotmob is an initiative that has shown this.

“Buy Nothing Day” (a facebook initiated ‘day’) is another one.

By keeping our focus on the government that are dependent on business for their income we will not likely see the change we would like to see. Yet, we need them in order to get the ‘wholesome’ effect.

We are stuck in a web of economic numbers, we are all, whether we like it or not, dependent on this web for our livelihood. So though we might not agree with it, we will have to either completely dissolve the current system (to which I have little hope, nor do I think it will benefit increasing equality amongst the people of the world) or we need to get ourselves together, pick the system apart and reshape it the way we would like to see it. If we want to get rid of corporate influence in our society, we will have to group ourselves, create platforms upon which individuals are enabled to work in a cell-based structure, if we want companies to be environmentally sustainable, let’s ‘reward’ those who are and disregard those who are not, and most of all, let’s stay away from negativity. And if we want our energy supply to be fully sustainable, let’s do so by voting ‘green’ into parliaments, the energy issue has to be resolved from two sides.

In Copenhagen, having lived there, we will see a huge amount of ‘riot-police’, these kind men and women will be pulled in from all over the country and are not properly trained to ‘control’ huge crowds. This means they will be afraid once the people start buzzing, atmosphere get a little grim (which is also not very smart) and they will charge. This will be widely read in mainstream media and thus will ‘once more’ show that anti-globalists, anarchists, environmental protesters and however else we are being catagorised, are a bunch of aggressors that only scream about change and do not wish it to be constructive.

That sucks, because I know for a fact that we do want it to be constructive, we simply need to organise ourselves, form collectives, create platforms and be patient. It took the world 150 years to organise the world the way it is currently organised, and if we want to change it, lets do so cell-based, de-centralised and thought-through.

Peace and love.

We’ve all heard about the Millennium Development Goals of the UN. It so happens, I’m not a big fan of institutions such as the UN. Especially not when, though it is a ‘voluntary’ organisation for countries to join, and establish somewhat of a ‘world-government’ type deal (or so is my interpretation), it’s regarded as a ‘second-choice’ in terms of political decision time. (remember the Iraq War?)

Anyway, the UN also has some good ideas. They have, in the years running up to 2000, decided to form a set of goals that are for the betterment of mankind in general (eradication of poverty / ensure environmental sustainability / achieve universal primary education / promote gender equality and empower women, for example). This, I find, is a ‘good’ thing, ‘we’ (Westerners) ought to break through the inequality we find in our world which is, for a good deal, maintained through Western behavioural patterns. So; 1-up for the UN.

Now, despite the good efforts, Ban-Ki-Moon, the tribal chief of the UN, has warned the people of the world that because of the economic crisis the goals are under pressure (see the full report here). Yeah. Right. The eradication of poverty for instance, in 15 years, can indeed be done, but the simple fact of the matter is that as long as western companies (and thus governments) still make money on this form of inequality, this will not be achieved easily (remember the ‘secondary choice’-thing). Same with the gender equality idea. This is not even achieved in ‘developed’ countries. Next to that there’s this counter movement of ‘new-feminism’ in which gender equality became some sort of chauvinistic idea, but I’ll leave that to your own judgment. In my opinion men and women are not equal, yet, should be given equal rights and men and women should be judged on their individual qualities when it comes to whatever it is you’d like to judge them on. Let’s be happy men and woman are not equal, it would be a monotonous world.

As it is, maybe we should look around and see what small initiatives are doing, and how you and I as individuals could support those initiatives. In this case, for instance, by supporting them in an effort to win an award where UN money is given away, in name of the Millennium Awards. (Because like it or not, the money will go somewhere anyway.) And I’ve got just the NGO to do that for!

As part of ‘doing my part’ I’ve joined Satara to assist in the further development of their strategy, communication and business-wise. Satara works on Ghandi’s philosophy “We need to be the change we wish to see.” We’re currently working on a spring/summer 2010 collection, produced in India, empowering women that are manufacturing the collection (by hand). We do this through paying honest wages, education and setting up a more secure social system. Satara’s profit is re-invested in a local education project in order to stimulate and enable local parents to send their kids to school instead of being forced to be dependent on their income to feed the family. (read the whole story here)

This is Moniek van Erven, telling you the story of Satara;

You can help out by voting for Satara both on- and offline;

Vote online via the following link.

Or via text-message;

Text ‘nhd satara’ to 4999 (in the Netherlands) (remember the single space between nhd & satara)

You can find more on the UN Millennium Awards here (Dutch) and here (English).

As it is, this was shameless self-promotion, but it’s for a good cause, hope you’ll help us out! Thanks in advance.

Love and Peace.

This is all public debate, which we can settle down on and say, well, it’s a hot issue, governmental participation in health-care, in the U.S. it is anyway. That doesn’t mean one ought to disrupt and try to destroy the entire debate by stating such absolute horse-shit (excuse my french), but we’ve seen this before. In Europe we’ve decided some time ago that it might not be a bad idea if (close to) everyone would have a health-care plan. But let’s be honest, and understand that, with media-outlets such as Fox we can count on some less subtle (or blatantly stupid) debates. So it goes.

But what has seriously hit my face with a metal plate was the following video;

WordPress does not support this code; please check it (here)

I mean, is this the country that ought to be in charge (because they are) of the economical reform of our international finance structure? The stupidity of the news-outlets, OK, of the people perhaps, OK, actually no, that’s not OK, in a ‘democratic’ country, but seriously, a senator, are you $%^&* kidding me?! I cannot believe this, really, how can you, being an American citizen, not get up and kick off some sort of revolution? How can you sit there and think, well, what would you think?! I’d get my bags and leave the country. I’m seriously mind-boggled. I have some U.S. based friends, and talking to them didn’t make me wiser, the acceptance, or in-ability to care, is something I can’t understand.

The day before Obama’s speech on health-care something else happened.

Van Jones, the country’s ‘Green Energy’ reformer has decided to step down from his post after continuous allegations of him being a ‘communist’. Oh, and he signed a petition which suggested that 9/11 was ‘an inside job’. First of all, I thought they’d passed the ‘communist’ thing some time ago and moved towards socialist-allocations. But OK. Next to that, if you’d look at the success of documentaries that suggest ‘the ugly possibility’ of 9/11 one could argue it is an opinion shared by a good majority of the people in the Western World. Taking into account the tactics employed during, and after the 9/11 reports, one cannot conclude otherwise than that the U.S. government was not very eager to reveal ‘the whole truth and nothing but the truth’. ( Here ‘Beck’s report on ‘revealing’ Van Jones please note the use of linguistics and way the video is build-up, oh also, both Marx and Lenin’s thought are mandatory part of Dutch History course)

It’s a sad time in the political sphere of the Western World, with extremist politicians standing up all over the spectrum, an increasing poverty of quality in media and duality increasing on a daily basis. I hope everyone will understand my (quickly) written plead for contemplation.

Peace and Love.

Now, I’m sure I’m not the only one, I talk to loads of people, from all sorts of social backgrounds and current settings that see the same world I do (more or less, perception is reality), and I truly believe Internet is the enabler of the change a lot of us would like to see. Internet is also facing a great challenge in the years ahead though. I might have (if not, I guess I should have) written about the possibility of the American ‘cable-TV-Internet’ bill that has been proposed by the telecom and cable-TV guys over there (AT&T mostly). (some info here, and an active website for net neutrality, which is the key issue for the success of Internet as a carrier/enabler of change, here) The bill would basically persue to annihilate the current freedom of choice we have on Internet. The idea these bright guys have is that the decision of what websites should be available ‘high-speed’ to consumers, should be made in boardrooms, not on the Internet itself, by the users thereof, collectively functioning as a control, relevance, (or push) factor of (web)success.

I’m happy to see that opposed to the current push towards Internet bans, and moderation by governments (here, here (Wikipedia article on general Internet censorship), here, here) are opposed by some good news (here, here in the U.S. for instance and here). The thing is, mostly, that the Internet is bigger than it’s users, because, as a single user, you’re merely a dot in the ‘cloud’, yet as a community, we’re the most powerful institution in the world. Governments with the illusion that they have the ability to control the internet must be drunk on Absinth.

The simple fact of matter is, if you push people into a corner, they’ll dig. They’ll go underground, and you (i.e. governments) won’t be able to find them. Bas has written a good piece on that 2 days ago. His point is, when you push the users of Internet into ‘illegality’ by illegalising the way they use the Internet (and have been using for a very long time), you’ll push them further and further away. His example of the amount of hackers in countries with a strong Internet ‘protocol’ is, to me quite convincing. The number of hackers in countries as such is seemingly much higher than in countries that have relatively free Internet.

Back to that wave of change you’re on. Because, you are too. Whether you like it or not. If you’re using the Internet you are part of the biggest ‘Tribe’ in the world, and thus, part of the change we’re pushing (some a bit more active than others) into this world. Initiatives such as Couchsurfing, provide, except for a cheap way round the world, also the intention and opportunity to meet new people, become more familiar with new cultures, debate viewpoints of the world and, as is the mission of Couchsurfing, “We envision a world where everyone can explore and create meaningful connections with the people and places we encounter. Building meaningful connections across cultures enables us to respond to diversity with curiosity, appreciation and respect. The appreciation of diversity spreads tolerance and creates a global community. With the apparent success, over one million members and growing , Couchsurfing is a vehicle of movement that is here to stay.

Also more ‘hands-on’ approaches of change through Internet, can be found all over. We look at Avaaz, who roam round with a mission that ‘goes a little something like this’;

Avaaz.org is a new global web movement with a simple democratic mission: to close the gap between the world we have, and the world most people everywhere want. Across the world, most people want stronger protections for the environment, greater respect for human rights, and concerted efforts to end poverty, corruption and war. Yet globalization faces a huge democratic deficit as international decisions are shaped by political elites and unaccountable corporations — not the views and values of the world’s people.

In terms of how they work, and what the extend of their reach is, one should sit down for a bit. I’ve spoken about Internet being the enabler and agent of change, and Avaaz has modeled this into a very, very hardcore system, in one year alone, Avaaz went from their Beta verion to 3.5 million members and growing 9,000 a day(!!!), this is what they say about it;

“Technology and the internet have allowed citizens to connect and mobilize like never before. The rise of a new model of internet-driven, people-powered politics is changing countries from Australia to the Philippines to the United States. Avaaz takes this model global, connecting people across borders to bring people powered politics to international decision-making.”

If you’d like to know more about Avaaz or even become a member, please check here.

As said, we’re riding a wave, and the waves is one that weather specialists would call a tidal wave, and it’s not going to stop, we have reached critical mass, we need to realise it.

For now, love and peace for all.

The idea of our wasteful behaviour was brought to my attention (once more) by a (new) friend of mine, who was talking about a documentary about how big corporations don’t wish to sell their products under a certain price, in order to maintain the year-long efforts in building up a reputation that would justify profits margins of 70-190%. It happens to be the case that I wrote a thesis on the relationship between a company’s reputation and it’s general ‘corporate social responsibility’. And I can’t help but feel the hope sink towards the bottom of my being, when big corporations such as Samsung (here/here examples of how they are ‘good citizens’) for instance, seem to think that throwing money around in a seemingly altruistic fashion will cover their ‘efforts to maintain a price worthy reputation’. (or something of that kind, I am not entirely sure how to name this kind of behaviour)

These efforts consist of systematically wasting brand new products that are not sold and thus dumped, dissembled and partially burned. We see DVD players, HD TV’s and MP3 players go down in price and most people get happy, as it is now available for a bigger public. Yet, for the corporations that manufacture these products (being ‘stock-market-companies’), these kind of ‘free-market’ dynamics create a problem. A reputation problem. The products that are sold under the general price-level of the company will give the brand a ‘bad name’ or so it the thought. But destroying the products, where we ‘the people’ don’t see or hear anything about it, will only show up in the books, somewhere deep and buried.

She also talked about fashion-labels ‘un-stitching’ their labels and shipping their clothing off to ‘development-countries’. This I see as somewhat of an attempt to do something about the unequal dynamics in our world, not too bad. But also, here we again, talk about a matter driven by the fear of ‘losing face’, but mostly, bad business-strategy. If, apparently your product is not good enough to sell your stock (or mis-priced, mis targetted or whatever), perhaps you should thing about what and how you produce, how you market it, and how you price it.

But I’m drifting off.

Apples.

Do you eat the center part of an apple? If not, why not? Have you ever tried, or do you simply don’t eat the center part of an apple because you were taught to do so? (when mum was still citting the apples for you and gave them to you in one of those brightly coloured bowls, yesh, we’ve all been there) Just think about it. Why would you not eat the center part of an apple, it’s tasty, it’s healthy, and ehm, it gives eating an apple yet ANOTHER dimension. It’s great.

To illustrate what you could do to stop the wastefulness of our Western being. I don’t want to ask people to simply start ignoring red-lights when you think it to be safe you see. It’s in the little things, and starts with yourself. Anyway, I’m off eating an apple.

Love and peace.

As I understand it, banks have been the major factor in destabilising the current world economy. This, of course, cannot have been done without the help of our dear governments, in terms of law and regulation of this world economy of ours, yet, the lobby and money thrown at them (the government), is, no doubt, a circumstance to be taken into account. From what I heard, Goldman Sachs was one of the financial institutions that was under a lot of pressure and almost went bankrupt, hence they received a ($10 billion) bailout (because the system is never wrong, it’s ‘the market’ that suffers from global tendencies that arise out of nothing). Than, they were among one of the first to repay this ‘bail-out’. One could argue, look at those good guys, they want to ride the bicycle without side-wheels. Yes, one could indeed say this. One could also argue, that perhaps, they feared the government looking over their shoulder and saying, “Ehm, perhaps you guys should change your ways”, perhaps. Who knows what they were thinking, I sure don’t.

What I do know, is that I find it very interesting that in a time like this a bank, that was so severely hit by the economic turmoil of the last year-and-a-half, can make a $2.7 billion profit, and before that, had already decided to set aside $11.4 billion, for salaries and bonuses, adding up to $386.400,- on average for every employee, secretaries included (how sweet, but what about the cleaners?). What I also know is that, for me, this whole spectacle brings forth a funny feeling in my tummy.

The thing is, not so much that is seems to happen, cause well, it does. The thing to me, more so, is the fact that it happens, and the lack of response from the world. It is all just accepted, as if it is normal. The money, according to David Vinair, came from “risks taken in turbulent markets and speculation in stocks and currency” besides that, “there is less competition”. (There’s that funny feeling again) I mean, I’m not doing business with the kind people of Goldman Sachs, because well, I barely have money to start with, yet, my mind feels slightly numb at reading this kind of news, and the powerful institutions we have looking out for our well-being (yes, I mean governments), seem to sit back and take it, because their power only goes to a certain point.

Fair enough.

Oh wait, no, it’s not that fair. Small business-owners go bankrupt, starters on the housing-markets can’t get mortgages because banks are sitting on their money, people loose their jobs and people who had a mortgage are now increasingly finding trouble to repay the money and keep their house.

Can anyone tell me why we accept this? I’m lost.

Peace and love.