With the ink of the Iraq Inquiry still wet, we’re gearing up to allow our governments to make exactly the same mistakes again, just replace the “q” by an “n”.

The issue of the alleged Iranian push for an atomic weapon isn’t new, but dates back to (at least) the Bush administration. With two wars going on Bush wasn’t keen on a third and as has become clear after his presidency, he was not as hawky on this as his advisers, to whom he would refer as “the bomber boys”, for their trigger-happy attitude towards Iran.
Mr. Obama’s appeal as a presidential candidate was in no small part due to his opposition to the war in Iraq, which, as it turns out, most of us mistook for military moderation. It must be said that during his campaign he pointed out that he opposed the war in Iraq because he thought it was a diversion from a higher military objective: the war in Afghanistan and the capture of Osama bin Laden. Now Obama seems to be as disinterested with Bin Laden as George Bush was. General McCrystal suggested that Mr. Obama seemed disinterested with the war in Afghanistan as well and the pullout deadline does seem to confirm that.
What remains is the impression of an incoherent military strategy that seems motivated by short term political goals rather than by military objectives.
Against the wishes of the Iraq government, and to the worry of many commentators, Mr Obama has decided to “end the combat mission” in Iraq, leaving 50,000 troops and then pull those out by mid-2011. Commentators suggest that US policy makers prefer to leave Iraqi politics in limbo (as it is, right now) so that Iran might be tempted to try to fill the void, giving the US an excuse to move into Iran.
Likewise the US will start to withdraw troops from Afganistan by July 2011.

July 2011 is an ever-returning date in articles on the US involvement is the Middle-East, see for instance this article in which an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities is predicted for July 2011.
To explain the date July 2011 we reveal our pessimistic outlook on the morale of international politics. Some of you may be still puzzled how the now less than popular George W. Bush managed to get elected to a second term, but the answer is simple: Bush seemed to be winning the war in Iraq, which was quite popular with the homefront when things seemed to be going well, in military terms.
Needless to say that with the 2012 elections coming up, July 2011 would be proper timing.

More importantly, though: if it serves a good cause isn’t it legitimate then for a president to take electoral advantage of a military campaign? It takes a higher spirit than mine to answer that one, so instead let’s take a look at how legitimate this hypothetical war would be.

No doubt that the cause of nuclear non-proliferation is a worthy one and let’s note that Iran is a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty (NPT – its member states legally bind themselves not to construct nuclear weapons). The driving force behind the push against Iran’s nuclear program is Israel and the “Jewish lobby” in the US. Israel however, is not a signatory to the NPT, while, outside of Israel, it’s virtually undisputed that Israel posseses atomic weapons.

Iran is also a signatory to the IAEA (international organization that checks nuclear facilities), which with it has had its difficulties, but is still accepted as a member, complying with IAEA rules. The conflict between Iran and Western powers mainly arises from the fact that Iran feels it has a right to enrich uranium (which it does, according to IAEA rules), while the US and the EU want Iran to abandon nuclear enrichment altogether, because in theory enrichment can faciltate the construction of a nuclear weapon.

The US/EU approach immediately presents the fact that Iran is treated differently than other countries. While many countries are enriching uranium, only Iran is confronted with animosity and sanctions.
Iran has made many offers related to its nuclear enrichment program, as can be seen here, which it hoped would convince the West about the peacefulness of its nuclear program (as it claims). These offers went beyond what is legally required by the IAEA, but were rejected by the US/EU, who insist on Iran completely abandoning nuclear enrichment.
As said, Iran is treated differently by the US/EU than other countries, presumably in accordance with George Bush’s definition of “rogue states”, which, as exemplified above, is not based upon any legal principles, but is a political definition. Iran’s leadership has described this treatment as “very insulting and humiliating”, which may be one reason why they refuse to give up nuclear enrichment, because they would admit they are second rate citizens of the world, not having the same rights as others.

In May of this year Brazil and Turkey brokered a deal with Iran in which Iran would ship about half of its uranium stock to Turkey, where it would be enriched to a level at which it can be used for peaceful purposes only and then be returned within a year. The US rejected the plan on the same day, saying Iran could still enrich the other half to a non-peaceful level.

Given the fact the Germany and France never honoured their side of a nuclear deal with Iran and the apparent unwillingness of the West to respect Iran’s rights under the IAEA rules, is it so strange that Iran is reluctant to give up all of its uranium? That Turkey could be pressured not to return the uranium is not farfetched, as the American reaction towards Turkey about the latter’s involvement in the proposed deal has demonstrated.
Since the Brazilian/Turkish deal was proposed, these two countries have been bitterly criticized by Western media and diplomats, and Barack Obama has suggested that Turkey should expect a weapons delivery boycott. Brazil has already backtracked on its refusal to support additional sanctions against Iran.

If the the US/EU tandem were serious about a deal with Iran, wouldn’t they propose the following?

Let the Brazilian/Turkish plan go through and when all the enriched uranium is returned to Iran, it will send its remaining uranium stock to Turkey. This would be similar to offers made by Iran to abandon enrichment in practice, but in principle keep the enrichment option open. So the question arises: what is the West interested in, humiliation and/or military confrontation with Iran, or ensuring that Iran’s nuclear program remains peaceful, i.e. non-proliferation?

Due to the recent financial and economic crisis the political center of gravity in the world shifted away from the US/EU and it looked as if a possibility of a US-war against Iran could be put to bed. The recent EU sanctions against Iran has shifted the political center of gravity back to West, due to the shock effect of the unexpected hawkish nature of the EU position. While EU executives might regard that as a success, it makes them full accessories to any possible US military actions against Iran. Recently the US forced Japan to increase its sanctions on Iran, because “Japan’s sanctions fell short of those imposed by the EU”. In this author’s opinion the EU sanctions have led to a domino effect that is likely to lead to war against Iran.

The presumed stategy of the US is: impose sanctions to weaken Iran in preparation of a war beginning in July 2011, exactly in accordance with the path that lead to the war in Iraq.

The election of Barack Obama has resulted in a “reset” of America’s relationship with the world. This “Obama effect” is what makes the current development possible. While, sadly, Mr Obama has lost most of his credibility already (as suggested by dropping approval rates around the world), a reset can’t be undone and that’s why there doesn’t seem to be enough political momentum against militaristic adventurism and once again we’re in a position that puts the lives of 100,000s of people in the Middle-East at risk.

100,000s may be an understatement if you consider the following:
Iran has already indicated that they have “learned from the war in Iraq and have taken measures” to make it hard for the US to overcome Iran. It’s clear that the US don’t want another lengthy war and please observe that Obama has already issued a nuclear threat towards Iran. It’s remarkable that a Western country can issue a nuclear threat against another country, without this having serious political consequences. An increasing number of political leaders around the world fear that nuclear war will the “end game” of America’s antagonism towards Iran, but few are willing to voice their concern.
Apart from destroying the cradle of human civilization, any war (either nuclear or conventional) will be the last nail in the coffin of the America as we know it. There will be no second “Obama effect” and America will become isolated internationally. It will plunge the world into another economic crisis, but this time without the state being able to bail us out, due to the previous crisis.
Nevertheless, it looks like a war against Iran is Obama’s “exit-strategy” from both Afghanistan and Iraq, so I do wonder how a war against Iran is going to be avoided, no matter how many concessions Iran would, in theory, be willing to make.

America is big on cultural heritage. You’re not “just” an American, you’re also Irish, French, Japanese, African- or Native American, or mix of several, a pride of cultural heritage which adds to national, American pride.
In my country Muslims are granted no such pride. Their expression of cultural heritage is seen as provocative.

Personaly I’m faced with the following dilemma: I don’t want to be branded as “political”, because of all the negative personal consequences this has. At the same time you can’t get around making political statements, because society forces you to defend yourself, in my case against the gay onslaught. This is not a matter of ideology, of being “right”, it’s a matter of keeping your sanity in the midst of toxic practical circumstances.

Clearly, my comments on headscarves have a different, essentially non-personal background, because I’m not a Muslim. Then why take the political risk? Because at some point enough is enough. It’s very well not to want to be a trouble maker, but at some point this kind of attitude changes into cowardice and reproachable indifference. Enough is enough, Muslims are also human beings and I distance myself from the ghastly way they are treated in some countries.

Sir Elton John has claimed Jesus was a “super-intelligent gay man” in an interview with a US magazine.

If Jesus is gay, then who isn’t? Is that the “wisdom” that Sir Elton is trying to impart on us? I’m glad I’m not a Christian. I would be very offended.

However, BBC website says:

A spokesman for the Church of England said: “Sir Elton’s reflection that Jesus calls us all to love and forgive is one shared by all Christians.”

Wonderful. Remember the church’s outrage over the movie (The Last Temptation of Christ) in which Jesus was portrayed as being married to Maria Magdalena? So is Sir Elton’s line the church’s line?

All I can say is: Happy prayers, folks!

Actually, there’s nothing new here. Gay appropriation of Jesus is as old as clerical celibacy, which is why, in my Messiah painting, I have heterosexualised the Messiah.

Needless to say that, as usual, my critics avoid every kind of debate, pretending that they represent some kind of moral majority, which is undisputed, in their view. If it is undisputed, it’s because anyone who touches their holy cows will invariably be slammed as a right-wing extremist, a fascist… oh yes…
I don’t accept being called a right-wing extremist if those that express such accusations arrogantly refuse to exercise the most basic of democratic duties: discussion. This refusal is a blatant demonstration of the moral bankruptcy of such a self-proclaimed “moral majority”, because it begs the question:

If the pro-gay movement is morally superior, then how come they refuse discussion? Is it perhaps because their views cannot stand the test of debate and they will rather rely on their antiquated assumption that they are The Youths Who Have The Future (even in their 70s) and therefore will get their way, with, or especially, without debate? This assumption, if you ask me, testifies of the unprecedented disconnect between the political elite and mainstream society. As it stands, gays are promoted to an elite that can’t be criticised. But then, without gays obligations, I can’t support gays rights.

A couple of things:
- Other people’s sexual practices are neither my concern, nor my business, whether it’s straight or gay.
- I have no beef with lesbians.
- In my experience gay men are totally intolerant of another person’s sexual preference and identity and after two decades of incessant harrassment, no civilized person can expect me to want to have anything to do with gay men. So don’t hold your breath, and conspire all you want. It’s not going to happen.

So please…..do me a favour….either react to this message or take your political correctness to another planet. Opinions that are based on interests only, and not tested by discussion, are inevitably doomed (this is not ideology, but a practical observation), especially in this fast moving world of internet connectivity.
I’m sure Elton John will agree…..cuz he’s a super-intelligent gay man.

This is a subject that I don’t want to address in more than one post, so I update as the facts change. We have now reached the point at which gays are being physically assaulted in Dutch cities. As I’ve been physically attacked by gays myself, I have to assume that at least part of the prementioned attacks were provoked (and you can hardly assert that provocation is alien to the gay community), I have to say that I oppose any use of violence, either by or against gays. I have no appreciation for gays, as I have explained, but violence against them will only confirm the political elite’s position of non-discussion, because they will claim moral superiority and continue to ignore the violence commited by gays.
So please, do not beat the crap out of gays, but instead force the political elite to debate, such as:

- Why do they make it impossible for scientists to conduct research into homosexuality if it produces results that are regarded as, I quote, “politically dangerous”? In my opinion, what’s “politically dangerous” should be the result of debate and not predefined by the political elite.
Whenever scientific research produces results that don’t please the gay community, this research is likened to “Nazi science” and the scientists get severely verbally abused. There have been cases in which scientists lost their job, because their research produced results that were regarded as unfavorable to the gay community.

- Meanwhile, political desicions are taken, for instance, gay marriage is imposed on society, while in fact the mere notion of homosexuality remains undefined as long as the political elite blocks open and free scientific research and debate. In other words…we don’t really know what homosexuality is, what causes it and if it’s inherited or a developmental deviation. These are questions that should be answered before political desicions are taken, but instead the political elite elects to block research and debate and impose the social consequences upon the population.

So let’s not give the political elite the chance the continue to portray homosexuals as victims and heterosexuals as perpetrators exclusively. As it stands, men that are harassed by gays are in the same boat as children at Catholic boarding schools: their complaints aren’t taken seriously, whether or not they are believed. Harassment by gays is a taboo in modern society and one that the political elite is eager to maintain.

Finally, I used the Catholic boarding school example to make a point, not to suggest abuse there is, or was, more prevalent than in the rest of society.
Like that taboo has been broken, let’s break the taboo of men as victims of gay harassment, for a more peaceful society.

I came to this conclusion be analyzing my own development, so those that are interested in famous artists only, will be excused from here on.

As a teenager I was a hopeless romantic and for me music was an exercise in sentimentality. Today I battle against sweet melodies in a way similar to Picasso fighting lovely pictures. In painting I have no such problem, in line with the above-mentioned line of thought, because I started to paint at 26. As a painter I will happily be an aesthetic, but in music I’m a candy machine, although there are ways to emphasize the expressive aspect.

>>> music blog

As long as artists believe in the myth of the superheroes (gallery people – MJ) as judge and jury, they will not have domain of the universal house. The mythical dealer would prefer to be indemnified of even the greatest work, no matter how talented this person is, even if they prove to be the new Leonardo, precisely because of this fantastical responsibility

Leonardo with no gallery, no money and (most importantly) no influential connections and no proof of any kind of extensive marketing or promotions apropos for the exclusive NYC market – such cannot exist. This does not need debate: it is common sense! You cannot travel to the moon on a bicycle.

I don’t know about the bike but the condition for an exhibition is that the artist pays the gallery $3000 per exhibition, the gallery taking 50% of the sales revenues. I’d like to see Cinderella go to the ball with $3000 in order to dance with the prince.

The exclusive art market, huh? On the same blog the lady laments about the art market being about money only, with only a small number of galleries actually making any money on art. "The great art works of our time will never be seen!!!!!"

Perhaps because our superheroes would rather be indemnified? Or am I being sarcastic?

In any case, her hubby is a financial big shot (mortgages) so their gallery has "upfront financing".

What I learned is that most galleries in fact operate in the margins themselves. They have their gallery at a hot venue and their upfront financing, but no art and no sales. Oops!

Oh yeah, I have a new painting at http://paintings.name/image-files/exhibit-a.php.

I wrote this track, played the guitar and used my laptop and some music production software to record it.

The track is 2:56 min long, its file size weighs in at 4 MB.

I have registered the recording for copyright, so you may not burn it to CD, or otherwise multiply it, but please feel free to add it to your iPod or MP3 player.

From here on all my posts on music will be added to my new music blog at http://music.paintings.name.

I know I drive people to despair with my cat fetish, but I think the’re great. If this painting looks like kids art, it’s because it is, but frankly, I don’t see what’s more mature about people rambling about their human kids…..God is not a golfer, but a professional breeder.

This is just a thingy from 1999 to keep you busy while I’m working on new paintings.

Because the schools are out, this is a prime moment to address the art and/or design students among you and talk about art materials. As mentioned before my primary tool is the palette knife now (but not used in the painting on the left). I can’t tell you how to use the palette knife because that’s entirely personal. In other words: you put some paint on your knife and then onto the canvas. You can apply the paint thick or thin, there are no rules. What does matter is the size of the knife you use: larger knives will leave a very different impression than small knives.
I use the knife for two things: create areas of color, but I also use the knife to paint lines.

Small triangular palette knife (edge 2 cm, 0.8 in) As you can see, I don’t clean my palette knives very often. Contrary to popular belief, I do shower. Single-edge palette knife (edge 5 cm, 2 in)

Drawing lines with the palette knife

For drawing lines the knife doesn’t look like the right tool, but you can create very expressive lines in the following way: just put a blob of paint on the upper half of your knife (like the small triangular one, above) and then, with the tip, start painting a line. You’ll run out of paint after an inch or so, but when you reload the knife’s tip with paint, don’t overpaint any faint spots and don’t fill in gaps in the line segment you made. Most of the time (unless you really think you have to make a correction) leave the line segment in its original state, or else you’ll ruin the expressive effect, and the line segment will become messier every time you work on it. It’ll take some practice but it’s a really expressive way of painting. As you’ll see, using oil paint or acrylic paint, AS IS, to use on the palette knife, is unsatisfactory. What you need is paint with BODY. For this, mix oil paint with acrylic modelling paste and some liquin impasto. Officially, oils and acrylics don’t mix, but unofficially they do. I do recommend using oil paint, as opposed to mixing acrylic paint with acrylic modelling paste, because oil paint simply has more quality. For acrylic modelling paste look for a kind that is essentially transparent. Such paste will still look milky-white in the pot, but in thin layers (or mixed with something) will be almost transparent. Don’t use modelling paste to which a (white) pigment has been added, because you want to leave the color of your oils in tact. Because it’s acrylics, the modelling paste will still affect the color of the mix, making it look matted and dull. That’s where the liquin impasto (LI) comes in, because, miraculously, a little bit of LI will considerably improve the color or the mix, making it much deeper, almost restoring the oil paint’s original color. Be sure not to mix the LI with the oil first, because then the LI won’t properly attach to the acrylics (I think). Just mix the three components together or add the LI last (which is best). The LI makes the mix rather slow drying, with is good, because the acrylics/oils mix is very quick to dry, too quick to my taste. Experiment with proportions. Start mixing acrylics and oils in different proportions. Too little oil will reduce the strength of color, too much oil will produce a putty-like substance that is difficult to process and doesn’t look good. You won’t need to add much LI, just enough to restore the depth of color. [By the way, this post has been updated. Before, I was rambling  about alkyd modelling paste -- what I meant was liquin impasto]. Big triangular palette knife (edge: 5.5 cm, 2.2 in) For completeness I have included a pic of a third type palette knife, which may look more familiar than the single-edge knife, but I prefer the single edge. A large triangular knife is unwieldy.

Abstract Portrait No. 8

This painting was made in 1999 (I think). Its main purpose was to test a new acrylics color I had bought: quinacridone gold, which is the brown color you see in the image. I figured it would work similarly to the burnt sienna acrylics I used in my Egyptian paintings, but it didn’t, maybe because burnt sienna is more transparent. Burnt sienna acrylics mix very well with titanium white, which permits subtle modelling and lead to the manneristic style of my Egyptian paintings.

I have visited no less than six museums during the past months and learned many things, but right now I’m deeply immersed in amateur music production, so all my other activities suffer (still painting, though).

A week ago I bought a Fender Stratocaster, the first decent electric guitar I’ve ever owned. “Decent” is an understatement, because it’s an instrument of pure quality. Years ago I gave up making music out of frustration over my inability to fulfill my artistic dreams by means of the musical medium. I wanted to do everything at the same time: create popular music that was simple and compact and at the same time contain complex harmony and atonality. I consistenly rejected my music teacher’s assertion that popular music consists of the tonic, subdominant and dominant chords, but at the same time I was unable to find a music teacher that would give me a proper grounding in music theory.

Anyway, I’ve always loved playing the guitar. For a painter I’m a pretty normal guy, but as an adolescent I had a physical relationship with my acoustic guitar. I would actually pet it .
To me a guitar is a living person, like a child that needs care and understanding. I like to visit music shops and “meet” its guitars, by running my finger across their strings to check their sound. Some guitars are lovable, others are unfortunate, as in underprivileged, as there are no bad guitars, just bad makers.