Dear readers,
Just a word to say that the first Darwin Award this year has come to a 36 year old Dutch male, on 1st January 2007! Yes, the moron did buy an illegal piece of fireworks in Belgium and smuggled it in the Netherlands. And yes, he didn't read the notice which stated that there was no timer (or maybe he didn't buy the notice with the rocket). So he lit it with a naked flame... while keeping his head above it. Instant kill was a result. He had no children, which made him this year first winner.
I know it is not very funny, but on the other hand, these guys break our ears every year with their illegal fireworks...
20 May 2007
17 May 2007
Galileo Europei
Dear readers,
The European Commission has finally decided to move the responsibility of building the Galileo satellite positioning system from the private sector to the public sector. The decision is met with relief by all sides, considering that the 8 company private consortium which was in charge until now had not reached any agreement in its 4 years of existence, becoming ultimately responsible for a similar delay in the implementation of this vital European infrastructure.
Galileo is a global positioning system by satellite which will eventually compete with the American GPS system (a military owned one with free civilian use) and the Russian and Chinese projects. It is a very good (or bad) example of what challenges Europe is today facing. Europe wishes to build independent capacities in many sectors. This independence is vital for the survival of our block of countries in this century. We are facing competition from old forces (Russia) but also new ones (China and India, soon Brazil and maybe South Africa). We are also more and more realizing that we can't only depend on the traditional US ally. Our interests do not fit theirs and if our ideas are somewhat similar (which is also true for India and Brazil, by the way), our ways of implementing them differ radically.
Unfortunately in this story, the project has met all the usual hurdles characterizing the European building. The first one has been the strong opposition of the USA which have tried everything they could to stop or torpedo the project. This shows again the limits of our alliance with them. Their military system has no interest in seeing a GPS system which they won't be able to disable at will such as the current one. They also don't want to see Europe reinforce its leadership in the space field which they see (and very truly so) as strategic. Quite logically then, the EU has seen internal opposition to the project coming from the USA most unconditional allies, namely the UK. Seeing that its maneuvers were failing, the US government has requested from its usual Troyan Horse to do as much damage as possible.
But fair enough, the worse hurdles have come in an also very usual way for European projects. Member states could not agree on the level of public funding to allow for this project. At a time when telecoms and computer companies were thriving, they decided that a private public partnership (led by a private consortium) with a concession system would be the best option. You have to remember that unlike GPS, Galileo will be a fee paying system. It was supposed to make its implementation attractive for public and private investment. To beat the American free competition, the Galileo system will offer a tenfold better precision on all axis, which should allow a much wider use and in areas were GPS level of approximation was forbidding its application. Tests and real size trials have shown that it was perfectly reachable for EU technologies. But the consortium could still not reach any agreement. This in a very "Airbus" way. That is meaning that each member of the consortium tried to get more of the business than reasonable while each member state involved also applied unacceptable pressure to make sure that its population would benefit the most, through employment and indirect effects.
All this means that the EU proposal of making the project public again (at least for the implementation phase) has all chances to be agreed on. This implementation will most likely will entrusted to ESA, which has showed its efficiency in earlier projects. Private companies will then only get concessions in the exploitation phase, in a similar way to what happens in the transportation world. This is probably ironical if you think that most applications of the systems will be in the same sector. Vehicle positioning is the most obvious use, but transportation companies are also impatiently waiting for the system to be implemented. Indeed, in our containerized world, one need a much better precision to be able to trace containers individually over the planet. GPS is unable to provide this with an acceptable margin of error at the moment, but Galileo with its metric precision could revolution the transportation world.
The European Commission has finally decided to move the responsibility of building the Galileo satellite positioning system from the private sector to the public sector. The decision is met with relief by all sides, considering that the 8 company private consortium which was in charge until now had not reached any agreement in its 4 years of existence, becoming ultimately responsible for a similar delay in the implementation of this vital European infrastructure.
Galileo is a global positioning system by satellite which will eventually compete with the American GPS system (a military owned one with free civilian use) and the Russian and Chinese projects. It is a very good (or bad) example of what challenges Europe is today facing. Europe wishes to build independent capacities in many sectors. This independence is vital for the survival of our block of countries in this century. We are facing competition from old forces (Russia) but also new ones (China and India, soon Brazil and maybe South Africa). We are also more and more realizing that we can't only depend on the traditional US ally. Our interests do not fit theirs and if our ideas are somewhat similar (which is also true for India and Brazil, by the way), our ways of implementing them differ radically.
Unfortunately in this story, the project has met all the usual hurdles characterizing the European building. The first one has been the strong opposition of the USA which have tried everything they could to stop or torpedo the project. This shows again the limits of our alliance with them. Their military system has no interest in seeing a GPS system which they won't be able to disable at will such as the current one. They also don't want to see Europe reinforce its leadership in the space field which they see (and very truly so) as strategic. Quite logically then, the EU has seen internal opposition to the project coming from the USA most unconditional allies, namely the UK. Seeing that its maneuvers were failing, the US government has requested from its usual Troyan Horse to do as much damage as possible.
But fair enough, the worse hurdles have come in an also very usual way for European projects. Member states could not agree on the level of public funding to allow for this project. At a time when telecoms and computer companies were thriving, they decided that a private public partnership (led by a private consortium) with a concession system would be the best option. You have to remember that unlike GPS, Galileo will be a fee paying system. It was supposed to make its implementation attractive for public and private investment. To beat the American free competition, the Galileo system will offer a tenfold better precision on all axis, which should allow a much wider use and in areas were GPS level of approximation was forbidding its application. Tests and real size trials have shown that it was perfectly reachable for EU technologies. But the consortium could still not reach any agreement. This in a very "Airbus" way. That is meaning that each member of the consortium tried to get more of the business than reasonable while each member state involved also applied unacceptable pressure to make sure that its population would benefit the most, through employment and indirect effects.
All this means that the EU proposal of making the project public again (at least for the implementation phase) has all chances to be agreed on. This implementation will most likely will entrusted to ESA, which has showed its efficiency in earlier projects. Private companies will then only get concessions in the exploitation phase, in a similar way to what happens in the transportation world. This is probably ironical if you think that most applications of the systems will be in the same sector. Vehicle positioning is the most obvious use, but transportation companies are also impatiently waiting for the system to be implemented. Indeed, in our containerized world, one need a much better precision to be able to trace containers individually over the planet. GPS is unable to provide this with an acceptable margin of error at the moment, but Galileo with its metric precision could revolution the transportation world.
14 May 2007
Herdenking
Dear readers,
Today was 14th May and a very special day in Rotterdam. It was Herdenkingdag, the commemoration of the day when, 67 years ago, the historical town center was totally wiped out by 95 Henkel 111 from the Luftwaffe. The old city (which was at that time looking very much like Den Haag) burned completely, leaving 73,000 homeless and 850 killed.
To give you an idea and commemorate this horrible day in my own way, I have uploaded two pictures which speak for themselves. They show the exact area where I know live, before and after the bombing.
My street is about in the top left corner of the pictures... To the best of my knowledge, these pictures are the property of the educational organisation KMLA.
The picture below though is my own. It shows the lights produced by the hundreds of projectors that the city placed around the border of the destroyed area today. The Dutch call it the Vuurzeegrens (the border of the sea of fire). It speaks for itself, I guess.
Eventually, you can find a lot more information there: Gemeentearchief.
Today was 14th May and a very special day in Rotterdam. It was Herdenkingdag, the commemoration of the day when, 67 years ago, the historical town center was totally wiped out by 95 Henkel 111 from the Luftwaffe. The old city (which was at that time looking very much like Den Haag) burned completely, leaving 73,000 homeless and 850 killed.
To give you an idea and commemorate this horrible day in my own way, I have uploaded two pictures which speak for themselves. They show the exact area where I know live, before and after the bombing.
My street is about in the top left corner of the pictures... To the best of my knowledge, these pictures are the property of the educational organisation KMLA.
The picture below though is my own. It shows the lights produced by the hundreds of projectors that the city placed around the border of the destroyed area today. The Dutch call it the Vuurzeegrens (the border of the sea of fire). It speaks for itself, I guess.
Eventually, you can find a lot more information there: Gemeentearchief.
11 May 2007
Mouvement Démocrate
Dear readers and especially dear brother,
I want to answer a comment you made to my previous post, about the lack of support for François Bayrou new political party, the MD (Mouvement Démocrate). I do not agree with you on the risk of Bayrou's voters afraid that he goes too much on the left side. I think that many voters interested in the new MD are actually fed up with the artificial opposition between right and left. Not that this opposition has no roots or ideological reasons (as you pointed out I learned at "Science Po" what it meant). But it is used by the two main parties to strangle and crush any alternative way, any attempt to think out of the frame. The MD is, I believe, one of these attempts. Don't take me wrong, I do not agree with everything they say. I don't look happily at Bayrou's face, dreaming of him as France and Europe's savior.
I know politics too much to ignore that politicians (as brilliant as they may be) are always disappointing and that as soon as they seize power, power corrupts them quickly. Sarkozy and Bayrou are no exceptions. I also dislike the not so secular ideas of both (in very different ways, obvously). Eventually, I also dislike in both the temptation they always had to maneuver with the party barons rather than to appeal to the citizens.
But I prefer in Bayrou the freshness of the approach, the sincere Europeanism and Humanism and most of all the anti-Jacobin stance. This man knows what to do with local powers, regional and communal collectivities and what the real place of the state as well of Europe should be. This guy believes in subsidiarity or at least he says he believes in it. About Europe, I believe a few images could be more eloquent than my prose:
I want to answer a comment you made to my previous post, about the lack of support for François Bayrou new political party, the MD (Mouvement Démocrate). I do not agree with you on the risk of Bayrou's voters afraid that he goes too much on the left side. I think that many voters interested in the new MD are actually fed up with the artificial opposition between right and left. Not that this opposition has no roots or ideological reasons (as you pointed out I learned at "Science Po" what it meant). But it is used by the two main parties to strangle and crush any alternative way, any attempt to think out of the frame. The MD is, I believe, one of these attempts. Don't take me wrong, I do not agree with everything they say. I don't look happily at Bayrou's face, dreaming of him as France and Europe's savior.
I know politics too much to ignore that politicians (as brilliant as they may be) are always disappointing and that as soon as they seize power, power corrupts them quickly. Sarkozy and Bayrou are no exceptions. I also dislike the not so secular ideas of both (in very different ways, obvously). Eventually, I also dislike in both the temptation they always had to maneuver with the party barons rather than to appeal to the citizens.
But I prefer in Bayrou the freshness of the approach, the sincere Europeanism and Humanism and most of all the anti-Jacobin stance. This man knows what to do with local powers, regional and communal collectivities and what the real place of the state as well of Europe should be. This guy believes in subsidiarity or at least he says he believes in it. About Europe, I believe a few images could be more eloquent than my prose:
08 May 2007
Results of the French Elections
Dear readers,
Now that the emotions of the first hours have passed, I'll have a comment on the results of the French elections. There was very little suspense of course, so I won't say that I was not expecting it. Nicolas Sarkozy, right wing (UMP) contender and the son of Hungarian immigrants in France, has won the Presidency. He will officially become French Vth Republic 6th President on 16th May. Legislative elections will follow where he will likely catch another absolute majority for his party, ensuring that all powers depends on him.
Wait, rewind... Not so sure after all. The Socialists, a bit stun by the defeat but encouraged by an historically high level of votes are going to put up a bitter fight. More importantly for me and for millions of voters (18% of them actually), there will be a third choice. Again, like for the first round of the Presidential elections, there will be more choice than between right wing conservatism and unchecked free market or left wing conservatism and all around state intervention. Ségolène Royale (the Socialist) just like Nicolas Sarkozy are trying to sell us the idea that the legislative is not a third round ("la belle" in French card games). But it actually is. There is eventually a chance for all people that are not happy with the choice they had in the second round to put enough Representative to the Parliament to make their voice heard.
The alternative choice to the UMP conservatists will of course be to give more legislative (and potentially Ministerial) power to the Socialists, to one of the extreme right or left parties (National Front, Workers Party, Revolutionary Communist League, Communist Party, etc.) to the Greens or of course to François Bayrou new MD party. MD stands for "Mouvement Démocratique" (French for democratic movement, obviously) and is a centrist party, fishing in the Christian democrat style as well as the socio-democrat ideas. The MD will replace the old UDF, a notability party whose politicians totally discredited themselves by betraying their leader to support the obvious winner Sarkozy.
Unfortunately, as a French citizen residing abroad, I won't have any voice in this third round. French abroad are not represented in the National Assembly and can't vote to elect its Representants (called "Députés" in French). There is no good reason for this, nor any explanation. It is just like that. It's likely to be because of the lack of funding of the French Foreign Ministry... And it is unlikely to change any time soon. Parties only interest themselves in French citizens abroad when it's Presidential election. Because they represent a large body of voters, they are interesting. But making them happy the rest of the time is not worth it. French people abroad have more open minds and broader views. They could bring challenges and innovation to France politics and of course our politicians don't want anything to trouble their good sleep and peace of mind... sorry, their hard work in service of the citizens. ;-)
Now that the emotions of the first hours have passed, I'll have a comment on the results of the French elections. There was very little suspense of course, so I won't say that I was not expecting it. Nicolas Sarkozy, right wing (UMP) contender and the son of Hungarian immigrants in France, has won the Presidency. He will officially become French Vth Republic 6th President on 16th May. Legislative elections will follow where he will likely catch another absolute majority for his party, ensuring that all powers depends on him.
Wait, rewind... Not so sure after all. The Socialists, a bit stun by the defeat but encouraged by an historically high level of votes are going to put up a bitter fight. More importantly for me and for millions of voters (18% of them actually), there will be a third choice. Again, like for the first round of the Presidential elections, there will be more choice than between right wing conservatism and unchecked free market or left wing conservatism and all around state intervention. Ségolène Royale (the Socialist) just like Nicolas Sarkozy are trying to sell us the idea that the legislative is not a third round ("la belle" in French card games). But it actually is. There is eventually a chance for all people that are not happy with the choice they had in the second round to put enough Representative to the Parliament to make their voice heard.
The alternative choice to the UMP conservatists will of course be to give more legislative (and potentially Ministerial) power to the Socialists, to one of the extreme right or left parties (National Front, Workers Party, Revolutionary Communist League, Communist Party, etc.) to the Greens or of course to François Bayrou new MD party. MD stands for "Mouvement Démocratique" (French for democratic movement, obviously) and is a centrist party, fishing in the Christian democrat style as well as the socio-democrat ideas. The MD will replace the old UDF, a notability party whose politicians totally discredited themselves by betraying their leader to support the obvious winner Sarkozy.
Unfortunately, as a French citizen residing abroad, I won't have any voice in this third round. French abroad are not represented in the National Assembly and can't vote to elect its Representants (called "Députés" in French). There is no good reason for this, nor any explanation. It is just like that. It's likely to be because of the lack of funding of the French Foreign Ministry... And it is unlikely to change any time soon. Parties only interest themselves in French citizens abroad when it's Presidential election. Because they represent a large body of voters, they are interesting. But making them happy the rest of the time is not worth it. French people abroad have more open minds and broader views. They could bring challenges and innovation to France politics and of course our politicians don't want anything to trouble their good sleep and peace of mind... sorry, their hard work in service of the citizens. ;-)
04 May 2007
03 May 2007
A Mini-treaty or a Mini-Europe?
Dear readers,
In this day of celebrating Free Press all over the World, I couldn't abstain from blogging. I was happily surprised today to read in the as usual excellent EU-Observer that Romano Prodi is now favoring an adoption of the rejected EU constitutional treaty by the countries which already ratified it. These 18 countries (which include Italy and Germany but not France nor the Netherlands) could then go on with the improved decision rules, while the others stay with the unpractical Nice treaty provisions.
I have to say that I am totally in favor of this. Some countries didn't join the Euro or the Schengen agreement, either because they were not ready for these improvements or because they had political reservations. Why not do the same for this new addendum to the European building? We (the French and the Dutch), together with the English, are obviously not ready to enjoy the improvements of the new rules. French and Dutch citizens seem to appreciate the opacity and lack of democracy of the current rules. Why should we stop other citizens, more interested in their rights and more advanced in their political culture, to go further than us along that road.
When our populations and politicians will be adult enough to understand this, then they will be able to join the rest of Europe. This, and maybe also the fear of being left behind with the English... ;-)
In this day of celebrating Free Press all over the World, I couldn't abstain from blogging. I was happily surprised today to read in the as usual excellent EU-Observer that Romano Prodi is now favoring an adoption of the rejected EU constitutional treaty by the countries which already ratified it. These 18 countries (which include Italy and Germany but not France nor the Netherlands) could then go on with the improved decision rules, while the others stay with the unpractical Nice treaty provisions.
I have to say that I am totally in favor of this. Some countries didn't join the Euro or the Schengen agreement, either because they were not ready for these improvements or because they had political reservations. Why not do the same for this new addendum to the European building? We (the French and the Dutch), together with the English, are obviously not ready to enjoy the improvements of the new rules. French and Dutch citizens seem to appreciate the opacity and lack of democracy of the current rules. Why should we stop other citizens, more interested in their rights and more advanced in their political culture, to go further than us along that road.
When our populations and politicians will be adult enough to understand this, then they will be able to join the rest of Europe. This, and maybe also the fear of being left behind with the English... ;-)
01 May 2007
Koninginedag
Dear readers,
Today was Queen's Day, or in the Dutch lingo "Koninginedag" (try to say that fast and don't forget that the g is pronounced like a Spanish j, except after another consonant...). Lots of people dressed up in orange in the streets, and with the most outrageous outfit. It was fun though. I even went to help M-So to sell old cloths in the street. We had quite good fun, a lot of tanning, but didn't sell much. I'll post some pictures about this event tomorrow. Just to give you who read me from around the world an idea of what it's like in this low land.
To stay on the bright side, I might have a new job very soon. Contract isn't signed yet, but it looks good so far.
And a last treat, for you French readers, I added a link to my brother's blog. Enjoy!
Today was Queen's Day, or in the Dutch lingo "Koninginedag" (try to say that fast and don't forget that the g is pronounced like a Spanish j, except after another consonant...). Lots of people dressed up in orange in the streets, and with the most outrageous outfit. It was fun though. I even went to help M-So to sell old cloths in the street. We had quite good fun, a lot of tanning, but didn't sell much. I'll post some pictures about this event tomorrow. Just to give you who read me from around the world an idea of what it's like in this low land.
To stay on the bright side, I might have a new job very soon. Contract isn't signed yet, but it looks good so far.
And a last treat, for you French readers, I added a link to my brother's blog. Enjoy!
26 April 2007
Polling station queue
23 April 2007
Disappointment
Dear readers,
It is little to say that I am disappointed this morning. The French election first round results are there and I am only seeing an all too usual pair in the qualified for the second round: right against left, pro-business conservatives against pro-state conservatives... Nothing really palatable at first glance. This said, this election was already a good thing for some reasons.
First, French people showed eventually that they could vote "en masse" if the proposed debate was up to stir their interest. The quality of this debate and of the candidates was, I believe, a reason for this stunning 84.7% participation. Something unseen, practically, since the founding of the Vth Republic in 1958. For this I am proud of my fellow citizens.
I am a lot less proud of my country's journalists, though. They have shown partiality, narrow mindedness and pettiness. Instead of seeing what was new and interesting in this debate (like millions of French voters rightly did), that is the emergence of a third way in the political debate, they desperately clinched to the old divisions and cliché. The first of them, the Chief Redactor of center left journal Le Monde, Jean-Marie Colombani, couldn't help but fall in that trap. Was it partiality? Was it simply lack of imagination? I would say more probably intellectual laziness. I live the second editorial in three days he wrote for everyone to see. It is not a particularly fair article, neither very responsible. At least the analysis is, I believe, correct.
The center party UDF is now placed in the delicate and more uncomfortable position than may appear at first sight of having to chose who to support. Will François Bayrou stick to its old center right roots and support UMP's Nicolas Sarkozy? I doubt it and I hope not. Will he sell very hard his support to Ségolène Royale. I hope he dares enough for this. I would probably vote for her then, though reluctantly. Actually, his credibility as a politician will hang upon the concessions he will manage to get from his rivals. Only if he seems to get more than what he gives will he be seen as strong and a potentially future President (for 2012). The only other option, and that one could well be preferable for him (as seen by Le Monde too) would be to give a consign of voting blank. I would probably follow that if Sarkozy and Royale refuse to negotiate with him a fair and balanced coalition.
On a sadder note, I was not allowed to vote for this first round. My inscription on the electoral list had been canceled, due to the end of validity of my registration at the French Consulate. Apparently, I was never made aware of this because the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs (which centralizes all these mailings, in a typical inefficient French way) didn't have the budget to send a reminding letter. This prevented hundreds of French citizens to vote, depriving them (and me) of their most basic civic rights, one of the only links still binding them to the nation. This was a frustrating experience (having to queue for an hour to discover that), which added to my disappointment at the absence of my favorite candidate in the second round. Round where I will eventually be allowed to vote... but too late to make a difference. Bureaucratic bastards!
It is little to say that I am disappointed this morning. The French election first round results are there and I am only seeing an all too usual pair in the qualified for the second round: right against left, pro-business conservatives against pro-state conservatives... Nothing really palatable at first glance. This said, this election was already a good thing for some reasons.
First, French people showed eventually that they could vote "en masse" if the proposed debate was up to stir their interest. The quality of this debate and of the candidates was, I believe, a reason for this stunning 84.7% participation. Something unseen, practically, since the founding of the Vth Republic in 1958. For this I am proud of my fellow citizens.
I am a lot less proud of my country's journalists, though. They have shown partiality, narrow mindedness and pettiness. Instead of seeing what was new and interesting in this debate (like millions of French voters rightly did), that is the emergence of a third way in the political debate, they desperately clinched to the old divisions and cliché. The first of them, the Chief Redactor of center left journal Le Monde, Jean-Marie Colombani, couldn't help but fall in that trap. Was it partiality? Was it simply lack of imagination? I would say more probably intellectual laziness. I live the second editorial in three days he wrote for everyone to see. It is not a particularly fair article, neither very responsible. At least the analysis is, I believe, correct.
The center party UDF is now placed in the delicate and more uncomfortable position than may appear at first sight of having to chose who to support. Will François Bayrou stick to its old center right roots and support UMP's Nicolas Sarkozy? I doubt it and I hope not. Will he sell very hard his support to Ségolène Royale. I hope he dares enough for this. I would probably vote for her then, though reluctantly. Actually, his credibility as a politician will hang upon the concessions he will manage to get from his rivals. Only if he seems to get more than what he gives will he be seen as strong and a potentially future President (for 2012). The only other option, and that one could well be preferable for him (as seen by Le Monde too) would be to give a consign of voting blank. I would probably follow that if Sarkozy and Royale refuse to negotiate with him a fair and balanced coalition.
On a sadder note, I was not allowed to vote for this first round. My inscription on the electoral list had been canceled, due to the end of validity of my registration at the French Consulate. Apparently, I was never made aware of this because the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs (which centralizes all these mailings, in a typical inefficient French way) didn't have the budget to send a reminding letter. This prevented hundreds of French citizens to vote, depriving them (and me) of their most basic civic rights, one of the only links still binding them to the nation. This was a frustrating experience (having to queue for an hour to discover that), which added to my disappointment at the absence of my favorite candidate in the second round. Round where I will eventually be allowed to vote... but too late to make a difference. Bureaucratic bastards!
17 April 2007
Bowling for Virginia Tech
Dear readers,
Sorry for the title, I know it is crap but I didn't find anything better. So yes, it is a bit of an obliged topic...
Apart from the obvious condolences to the victims families and friends, I believe that the USA and Virginia in particular deserve a bit more. I was thinking about letting it go, but then I saw this guy talking about it on CNN and making all kinds of reasoning and comments (out of his arse for sure...) to explain it and to try to blame it on anything except guns. It was so pitiful and, I dare say, painful to see a human being going so low in the abjection that I felt compelled to write this.
So the poor guy began blaming the society and the American decadence and of course, guess what: video games! Yes, you have heard it: student Cho didn't murder in cold blood 32 people, wounding many others and committing suicide afterwards, with a 9mm and a 22LR automatic guns. No, he did it with video games. He slaughtered all his co-students with a Playstation! Sometimes NRA people are just ridiculous, but I believe this one was frankly bordering the evil.
Someone should have reminded this moron that this kind of events rarely happen (if not never) in Europe. And why? Well, simple enough: you can't get a gun like that. For the first time I had the irony to to find myself in total agreement with Australian Prime Minister John Howard who said that he was sorry for what happened but that it was certainly at least partly due to American gun culture and the absence of gun control laws in the USA and especially in Virginia.
Anything else is nonsense. Statistics are there to prove it: no gun control means multiple murders, gun control means none (or a lot less). Everything else is pure lobbying...
Sorry for the title, I know it is crap but I didn't find anything better. So yes, it is a bit of an obliged topic...
Apart from the obvious condolences to the victims families and friends, I believe that the USA and Virginia in particular deserve a bit more. I was thinking about letting it go, but then I saw this guy talking about it on CNN and making all kinds of reasoning and comments (out of his arse for sure...) to explain it and to try to blame it on anything except guns. It was so pitiful and, I dare say, painful to see a human being going so low in the abjection that I felt compelled to write this.
So the poor guy began blaming the society and the American decadence and of course, guess what: video games! Yes, you have heard it: student Cho didn't murder in cold blood 32 people, wounding many others and committing suicide afterwards, with a 9mm and a 22LR automatic guns. No, he did it with video games. He slaughtered all his co-students with a Playstation! Sometimes NRA people are just ridiculous, but I believe this one was frankly bordering the evil.
Someone should have reminded this moron that this kind of events rarely happen (if not never) in Europe. And why? Well, simple enough: you can't get a gun like that. For the first time I had the irony to to find myself in total agreement with Australian Prime Minister John Howard who said that he was sorry for what happened but that it was certainly at least partly due to American gun culture and the absence of gun control laws in the USA and especially in Virginia.
Anything else is nonsense. Statistics are there to prove it: no gun control means multiple murders, gun control means none (or a lot less). Everything else is pure lobbying...
12 April 2007
Humanism
Dear readers,
As you can see in my book list, I have recently read the "Erasmus" of Stefan Zweig, the biography of the arguably most famous Rotterdamer. Thanks to M-So for lending me the book (and yes, I'll give it back to you asap if my cat does not eat it before).
It is a very interesting book, I'd say and particularly fitting our troubling times. It has also the enormous advantage of being short and extremely well written. Stefan Zweig was a highly cultivated person and a incredible writer, if sometimes a bit excessive in expressing his feelings, in my humble opinion. But of course, it was the 30's, not a time known for its lack of excesses.
This said, I'd like to point out the extraordinary similarities between Erasmus time and ours (not to mention Stefan Zweig time). And by this to demonstrate the importance of what we can still learn from the greatest and the first of the Humanists. Erasmus of Rotterdam was what was called at that time a "Renaissance man" (in French "un honnête homme"). There is obviously no way anymore to have a holistic knowledge of all sciences and arts like him. But his analysis, his way can still be of great use. Indeed, isn't it obvious that our XXIst century is beginning just like the Renaissance, in some way? The massive Huntingtonian opposition between the Western world and the Muslim world today is extremely similar to the Religious Wars of the time of Martin Luther and Leon X. Without saying who is right and who is not (and frankly it does not matter), there are obvious parallelism between the extreme violence of an Al Qaeda, for instance and the cruelty showed by the Reformed against the peasants of Münzer, for instance, or during the Rome plundering. This last event had exactly the same effect than 9/11 on the Papacy. Leon X authorized the monk Cafara (the later Pope Paul IV) to create the Inquisition.
We know what followed and which permanent division of the Christian World and of Europe in general was born through these events. Nationalism was a direct product of the Religious Wars in Europe and I dare say that there is a nearly uninterrupted chain of events (the French Revolution apart) which leads from these Wars to the two World Wars. And isn't it also true that we can compare the reaction of the Republican US administration to the one of the Catholic lands at that time. The justification of torture to "help terrorists to confess"? The use of extra judicial jails and ad hoc procedures? The use of preventive war, in the name of God or Democracy? Of course, not everything is the same. Each epoch has its own problems and singularities. But it should be obvious that we need a new Erasmus.
Someone wise enough to be respected by everyone. Someone, I would say, even better than Erasmus. Because, Zweig points it very clearly in this biography, Erasmus had a terribly weak point. He was not brave. He was physically a coward (according to his own words). He was terrified by Luther and just as terrified by the reaction of the Catholic authorities. For this reason, he twice refused the invitation to attend the Diete (at Worms and later Augsburg) where probably only him could have made a difference and avoid the definitive condemnations issued at these events. Preaching peace and writing about Europeanism is a great thing. It is worthy of our admiration, and I will always follow Erasmus ideas... Because, as he said, "heel de aarde is je Vaderland". But acting is just as important, be it only by the strength of words. Because failing to act right can be just as irresponsible than acting wrong.
As you can see in my book list, I have recently read the "Erasmus" of Stefan Zweig, the biography of the arguably most famous Rotterdamer. Thanks to M-So for lending me the book (and yes, I'll give it back to you asap if my cat does not eat it before).
It is a very interesting book, I'd say and particularly fitting our troubling times. It has also the enormous advantage of being short and extremely well written. Stefan Zweig was a highly cultivated person and a incredible writer, if sometimes a bit excessive in expressing his feelings, in my humble opinion. But of course, it was the 30's, not a time known for its lack of excesses.
This said, I'd like to point out the extraordinary similarities between Erasmus time and ours (not to mention Stefan Zweig time). And by this to demonstrate the importance of what we can still learn from the greatest and the first of the Humanists. Erasmus of Rotterdam was what was called at that time a "Renaissance man" (in French "un honnête homme"). There is obviously no way anymore to have a holistic knowledge of all sciences and arts like him. But his analysis, his way can still be of great use. Indeed, isn't it obvious that our XXIst century is beginning just like the Renaissance, in some way? The massive Huntingtonian opposition between the Western world and the Muslim world today is extremely similar to the Religious Wars of the time of Martin Luther and Leon X. Without saying who is right and who is not (and frankly it does not matter), there are obvious parallelism between the extreme violence of an Al Qaeda, for instance and the cruelty showed by the Reformed against the peasants of Münzer, for instance, or during the Rome plundering. This last event had exactly the same effect than 9/11 on the Papacy. Leon X authorized the monk Cafara (the later Pope Paul IV) to create the Inquisition.
We know what followed and which permanent division of the Christian World and of Europe in general was born through these events. Nationalism was a direct product of the Religious Wars in Europe and I dare say that there is a nearly uninterrupted chain of events (the French Revolution apart) which leads from these Wars to the two World Wars. And isn't it also true that we can compare the reaction of the Republican US administration to the one of the Catholic lands at that time. The justification of torture to "help terrorists to confess"? The use of extra judicial jails and ad hoc procedures? The use of preventive war, in the name of God or Democracy? Of course, not everything is the same. Each epoch has its own problems and singularities. But it should be obvious that we need a new Erasmus.
Someone wise enough to be respected by everyone. Someone, I would say, even better than Erasmus. Because, Zweig points it very clearly in this biography, Erasmus had a terribly weak point. He was not brave. He was physically a coward (according to his own words). He was terrified by Luther and just as terrified by the reaction of the Catholic authorities. For this reason, he twice refused the invitation to attend the Diete (at Worms and later Augsburg) where probably only him could have made a difference and avoid the definitive condemnations issued at these events. Preaching peace and writing about Europeanism is a great thing. It is worthy of our admiration, and I will always follow Erasmus ideas... Because, as he said, "heel de aarde is je Vaderland". But acting is just as important, be it only by the strength of words. Because failing to act right can be just as irresponsible than acting wrong.
08 April 2007
Developments in the Port of Marseille
Dear readers,
Despite the fact that I am no more working for a Port company, I continue to stay tuned to what happens in the global port community (and you can follow this too through the news links on the right hand side of this blog). Unfortunately, the big news in the latest days, apart from the Russian wishes to invest in Indian ports and the swallowing of Comanav and Cheng Lie by CMA CGM, was the end of the very long strike in the Port of Marseille. An other one you might say, and you would be right. So let's have a look at what happened and the economic and social consequences.
The strike began more than two weeks ago, by a blockade of the oil terminals (Marseille first and foremost activity) by the CGT union workers of the Port. The alleged reason was that future gas terminals belonging and operated by Gaz de France (and not by the Port of Marseille, contrarily to the existing facilities) would be served by Gaz de France (GDF) own personnels. Gas terminals have obviously massive safety issues and are probably the most dangerous ones in case of an accident, especially for neighboring communities. Port Autonome employees have not the required training, don't answer to the terminal operator and are not under its responsibility either from a legal point of view. But European regulations on safety make very clear that the operator is still liable if an accident occurs due to a contractor's employee (which would be the exact situation if Gaz de France used Port Autonome staff). Very understandably so, GDF refused to use Port Autonome employees. The strike began, the conflict blocking not only the oil terminals but also soon the roro and container terminals.
The loss for the Port of Marseille, already a very marginal port in the Mediterranean game, became very quickly enormous, reaching dozens of millions of Euros according to Mer & Marine news website. The government, main shareholder of Gaz de France, decided that the damage was too big and asked GDF to accept the union claims. In the end, to ensure the employment of 5 totally worthless unionized employees, this blackmailing game has hurt pretty bad the local economy, the already abysmal port reputation and more largely the credibility of French Ports. The private interests of a small mafia has (again) been preferred to the greater interest of millions of people, employees, families and companies.
Let's make no mistake here. I don't deny the obvious importance and necessity of unions to defend the interests of employees. These interests are all too often forgotten by soulless companies and exploiting managers. But there are also limits to social conflicts. When unions are fighting for salaries, economic improvements, work conditions and safety, I am all for it. But when unions, and it was obviously the case here, are only defending a monopoly, working against safety, against the improvement of economic conditions and of employment, I would say the government should on the contrary show some balls and do its job. The strike blocked terminals of other operators which had nothing to do with this. The police should have been sent to unlock the situation, the tribunal should have condemned the strike as obviously illegal and the union people on the blockades should have been fined and sent to jail. It is NOT an attempt on the striking rights of employees to break a strike when it is clearly breaking the laws.
In the end, Marseille has and will again lose traffic to the ports of Genoa and Barcelona or Valencia. The Port will again see its activity limited to its direct hinterland, which is geographically limited to the area south of Lyon. Employment in the Port will stagnate and economic growth which could be buoyant like in all other Mediterranean ports (with growth rates up to 9 or 10%) will remain limited to a couple of percentage points. All of this for five union people...
Despite the fact that I am no more working for a Port company, I continue to stay tuned to what happens in the global port community (and you can follow this too through the news links on the right hand side of this blog). Unfortunately, the big news in the latest days, apart from the Russian wishes to invest in Indian ports and the swallowing of Comanav and Cheng Lie by CMA CGM, was the end of the very long strike in the Port of Marseille. An other one you might say, and you would be right. So let's have a look at what happened and the economic and social consequences.
The strike began more than two weeks ago, by a blockade of the oil terminals (Marseille first and foremost activity) by the CGT union workers of the Port. The alleged reason was that future gas terminals belonging and operated by Gaz de France (and not by the Port of Marseille, contrarily to the existing facilities) would be served by Gaz de France (GDF) own personnels. Gas terminals have obviously massive safety issues and are probably the most dangerous ones in case of an accident, especially for neighboring communities. Port Autonome employees have not the required training, don't answer to the terminal operator and are not under its responsibility either from a legal point of view. But European regulations on safety make very clear that the operator is still liable if an accident occurs due to a contractor's employee (which would be the exact situation if Gaz de France used Port Autonome staff). Very understandably so, GDF refused to use Port Autonome employees. The strike began, the conflict blocking not only the oil terminals but also soon the roro and container terminals.
The loss for the Port of Marseille, already a very marginal port in the Mediterranean game, became very quickly enormous, reaching dozens of millions of Euros according to Mer & Marine news website. The government, main shareholder of Gaz de France, decided that the damage was too big and asked GDF to accept the union claims. In the end, to ensure the employment of 5 totally worthless unionized employees, this blackmailing game has hurt pretty bad the local economy, the already abysmal port reputation and more largely the credibility of French Ports. The private interests of a small mafia has (again) been preferred to the greater interest of millions of people, employees, families and companies.
Let's make no mistake here. I don't deny the obvious importance and necessity of unions to defend the interests of employees. These interests are all too often forgotten by soulless companies and exploiting managers. But there are also limits to social conflicts. When unions are fighting for salaries, economic improvements, work conditions and safety, I am all for it. But when unions, and it was obviously the case here, are only defending a monopoly, working against safety, against the improvement of economic conditions and of employment, I would say the government should on the contrary show some balls and do its job. The strike blocked terminals of other operators which had nothing to do with this. The police should have been sent to unlock the situation, the tribunal should have condemned the strike as obviously illegal and the union people on the blockades should have been fined and sent to jail. It is NOT an attempt on the striking rights of employees to break a strike when it is clearly breaking the laws.
In the end, Marseille has and will again lose traffic to the ports of Genoa and Barcelona or Valencia. The Port will again see its activity limited to its direct hinterland, which is geographically limited to the area south of Lyon. Employment in the Port will stagnate and economic growth which could be buoyant like in all other Mediterranean ports (with growth rates up to 9 or 10%) will remain limited to a couple of percentage points. All of this for five union people...
06 April 2007
It's Spring
 |
| From Marelles-blog |
Dear readers,
It is spring and the birds are building their nests. Unfortunately, for these water hens it means using what they can find in their direct environment. In the Leuwehaven area, in Rotterdam, it is essentially broken branches, waste and dirt from the surrounding local shops. I don't know what kind of life it will be for the chickens (you can see the eggs under the mother's belly), but it is still a bit sad to realize they will be born amongst oily jerrycans and pieces of pipes rather than straw and feathers.
Pictures from Picasa still don't work, apparently. I'll update this post later to show you the actual pic.
Update: As promised, here is the actual picture. Still no news from Picasa, Google or Blogger... :-(
30 March 2007
EU Observer - Joschka Fischer speech
Dear readers,
Here is another excellent comment from the EU Observer about the latest speech from German ex-Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer. Fischer will certainly be sorely missed as a Foreign Minister, as his ideas, strong will and imagination were behind some of the best pages of European recent History. Unfortunately, this time, the new Princeton Professor is more playing the role of Cassandra. And rightly so, I could add.
While I would advise you to read the full article, there is I think one point which is absolutely central to Fischer's "prediction" and that I think any European citizen should know about. He says that if the EU has not at least partly settled its institutional problem by the end of 2009, it will most probably be too late. At that time, the quick strengthening of the other major powers (China, India and in a lesser way the USA and Russia) will have render us irrelevant. Europea is already a very secondary player in world politics, not because it is less important, sizable or economically powerful, but simply because it will have become a playground for the other powers. We all know what this means. Europe was forced to be a playground after Second World War and during the Cold War, because it had no political unity and no own military power. After 1989, we got a window of opportunity to create this political unity, which we achieved in some ways by the process between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the latest wave of EU expansion in 2006. But this achievement has been halted, incomplete and dangerously off balance, without an institutional cement which would guarantee its sustainability and practical daily functioning.
Even worse, its military and foreign policy power and influence are, to say the least, ridiculous. This has simply never been considered as a priority by European nation states who wrongly believe that they are better protected on their own. This vision has shown its total obsolescence in the latest years, though no one seems to care or even think it is important. Europe faces major challenges of terrorism, power bullies, capacity projection, environmental issues and economic deficiencies, but it has no way of presenting a coordinated answer to these. One of the main reasons is of course the attitude of some specific member states which are already playing against their fellow European states by favoring one of the super powers, the power bullies as I named them, above the common European interest (the United Kingdom obviously). Others are doing so by simple lack of political vision or mere ignorance (Poland, France).
We have a last window of opportunity. We can vote a new constitution (or whatever you call it), with or without the splinter states who don't want to count in the future world game. We can, if we are fast and clever, create a better Europe for ourselves and for our children. But if we wait too much, if we are not ambitious enough, we will become something like the ASEAN or Latin America: a playground for the USA, China and Russia, where it won't be our interest that will be debated and strengthened but the ones of the American companies, the Chinese corrupt elite and the Russian mafia. If this is what we want, then ok, let's change nothing and enjoy our petty divisions and our exploitation. Who cares, we won't count anymore. We will vote for leaders (if we are still allowed too) but it won't make any difference because these leaders won't actually take the decisions which will influence our lives.
Here is another excellent comment from the EU Observer about the latest speech from German ex-Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer. Fischer will certainly be sorely missed as a Foreign Minister, as his ideas, strong will and imagination were behind some of the best pages of European recent History. Unfortunately, this time, the new Princeton Professor is more playing the role of Cassandra. And rightly so, I could add.
While I would advise you to read the full article, there is I think one point which is absolutely central to Fischer's "prediction" and that I think any European citizen should know about. He says that if the EU has not at least partly settled its institutional problem by the end of 2009, it will most probably be too late. At that time, the quick strengthening of the other major powers (China, India and in a lesser way the USA and Russia) will have render us irrelevant. Europea is already a very secondary player in world politics, not because it is less important, sizable or economically powerful, but simply because it will have become a playground for the other powers. We all know what this means. Europe was forced to be a playground after Second World War and during the Cold War, because it had no political unity and no own military power. After 1989, we got a window of opportunity to create this political unity, which we achieved in some ways by the process between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the latest wave of EU expansion in 2006. But this achievement has been halted, incomplete and dangerously off balance, without an institutional cement which would guarantee its sustainability and practical daily functioning.
Even worse, its military and foreign policy power and influence are, to say the least, ridiculous. This has simply never been considered as a priority by European nation states who wrongly believe that they are better protected on their own. This vision has shown its total obsolescence in the latest years, though no one seems to care or even think it is important. Europe faces major challenges of terrorism, power bullies, capacity projection, environmental issues and economic deficiencies, but it has no way of presenting a coordinated answer to these. One of the main reasons is of course the attitude of some specific member states which are already playing against their fellow European states by favoring one of the super powers, the power bullies as I named them, above the common European interest (the United Kingdom obviously). Others are doing so by simple lack of political vision or mere ignorance (Poland, France).
We have a last window of opportunity. We can vote a new constitution (or whatever you call it), with or without the splinter states who don't want to count in the future world game. We can, if we are fast and clever, create a better Europe for ourselves and for our children. But if we wait too much, if we are not ambitious enough, we will become something like the ASEAN or Latin America: a playground for the USA, China and Russia, where it won't be our interest that will be debated and strengthened but the ones of the American companies, the Chinese corrupt elite and the Russian mafia. If this is what we want, then ok, let's change nothing and enjoy our petty divisions and our exploitation. Who cares, we won't count anymore. We will vote for leaders (if we are still allowed too) but it won't make any difference because these leaders won't actually take the decisions which will influence our lives.
29 March 2007
Rotterdam Blaak
Dear readers,
I am just trying to upload photos to the blog. This function has currently a bug, but I let it in this state to allow Google engineers to see what is wrong and repair it.
Thank you for your patience.
Update: I had enough of this so I edited the picture in My Album in Picasa, and this message accordingly. Google people believe it is a connexion issue, but I am afraid this looks more like a browser incompatibility. Because everything works perfectly from my laptop with IE7.
26 March 2007
EXIT
Dear readers,
Despite the fact that I am now full time seraching for a new position, I try not close myself completely, would it be only to make sure that I continue to cultivate my network. So that's how I was invited yesterday to a DJ's show at the old Rottterdam's club the Exit. The Exit is an old club recently renovated. I used to go there before they changed the whole place. It was always a cool place to dance on Afro-cuban or jazzy music. There were always good dancer, making quite of a show. The only problem was that it was also one of the only place where people were allowed to smoke pot while dancing. Which means that it used to be pretty smoky.
Now the place is much more trendy, though the crowd has kept some of the typical Rotterdam's underground scene. The party was called Semtexx. I hope these guys don't really know what Semtex is, because I think it is a crappy name for a party. But anyway... DJs were pretty good, as far as I can tell. Of course, I am not very knowledgeable in terms of techno and house music. I could tell that it was good though, because of the technique. What you have to know is that many club DJs in Holland are quite bad. They simply ignore the need of a smooth transition between two songs or themes. Nothing of this yesterday. I saw three of them in a three hour succession and they definitely knew their job. As for the music itself, it was ok, even for me. That says it all... :-)
23 March 2007
How has the EU improved our lives?
Dear readers,
I take the opportunity of the 50th Anniversary of the European Union and of this excellent article in the EU Observer by BBC's correspondent Mathew Charles to try and show again why the EU integration is such a good thing for us citizens. This journalist compares the Eurovision song contest and the Rome Treaty (born only at one year of interval and for "similar reasons"). He can't fail to notice that the first one has been more successful than the second in terms of popularity.
And though, I can't quite accept the fact that many Europeans feel that the Eurovision has actually brought up more good to them than the European Union. Mathew Charles goes on to show that it is because the EU and the European Parliament are very bad communicators and he is obviously right. He is also right when he says that the EU has a bad image because it lets member States (and I would add the sewer press) make its communication and distort its message. I would go a bit further then, and say that it is also because many European citizens don't even try to understand what is going on. Not only for the EU, to be honest. I have noticed, even amongst relatively educated citizens, an lazy attitude towards information.Most people accept flatly what comes out of their favorite newspaper (or worse, from TV) and just swallows it without any double checking, any critical mindset or even any common sense.
OK, I know that it is not always the case, and I have had some happy surprises... But just to bring my stone to the building, I would like to list here some of the great improvements brought by the European Union (on top of the obvious 50 years of peace we had amongst its members, a duration unheard of in human kind History).
- The Water framework (still unrespected by many member states, including France) allows us, in theory, to have a constant access to quality unpolluted water, protects river and coastal fishs and plants and our environment.
- The fight against air pollution goes into the same vein. Without the EU, there wouldn't have been a Kyoto agreement, neither the tremendous improvement in our air quality we enjoyed.
- Safety regulations. Thanks to the EU, a high level of safety regulations for thousands of technical items, objects, toys or machines are protecting our lives and the one of our children, whatever country these goods are coming from.
- The freedom of travel and of circulation of goods has made our lives easier, has helped consistently contain the inflation to the lowest levels ever seen in Europe and has given us the opportunity to relatively cheap holidays in wonderful places, meeting wonderful people. OK. This one is not true for the UK and Ireland, but hey, nobody is perfect and we will have to deal with the Britons all our lives I guess :-(
- the European funding programs have helped hundreds of thousands of students from all over Europe to learn other languages, techniques and cultures. They have also helped thousands of unemployed people to get a professional training to get jobs, hundreds of thousands of scientists to make science go further, improve technologies and ultimately our lives. They also helped producing movies, shows, concerts, and all kind of artistic events and products. Eventually, they have tremendously improved national and transnational infrastructures, roads, railways, bridges, ports, hospitals, and many other things that we take for granted.
I could go on and on like this for pages, but the fact is, the EU has tremendously improved our lives and can continue doing so. But for this, it needs more support from its citizens, so a better communication indeed, and more support from its member states (which means that we must vote for honest people rather than the usual liars that vote for one thing in Brussels, then come back and spit on the EU if it doesn't work or boast for themselves if it did).
I take the opportunity of the 50th Anniversary of the European Union and of this excellent article in the EU Observer by BBC's correspondent Mathew Charles to try and show again why the EU integration is such a good thing for us citizens. This journalist compares the Eurovision song contest and the Rome Treaty (born only at one year of interval and for "similar reasons"). He can't fail to notice that the first one has been more successful than the second in terms of popularity.
And though, I can't quite accept the fact that many Europeans feel that the Eurovision has actually brought up more good to them than the European Union. Mathew Charles goes on to show that it is because the EU and the European Parliament are very bad communicators and he is obviously right. He is also right when he says that the EU has a bad image because it lets member States (and I would add the sewer press) make its communication and distort its message. I would go a bit further then, and say that it is also because many European citizens don't even try to understand what is going on. Not only for the EU, to be honest. I have noticed, even amongst relatively educated citizens, an lazy attitude towards information.Most people accept flatly what comes out of their favorite newspaper (or worse, from TV) and just swallows it without any double checking, any critical mindset or even any common sense.
OK, I know that it is not always the case, and I have had some happy surprises... But just to bring my stone to the building, I would like to list here some of the great improvements brought by the European Union (on top of the obvious 50 years of peace we had amongst its members, a duration unheard of in human kind History).
- The Water framework (still unrespected by many member states, including France) allows us, in theory, to have a constant access to quality unpolluted water, protects river and coastal fishs and plants and our environment.
- The fight against air pollution goes into the same vein. Without the EU, there wouldn't have been a Kyoto agreement, neither the tremendous improvement in our air quality we enjoyed.
- Safety regulations. Thanks to the EU, a high level of safety regulations for thousands of technical items, objects, toys or machines are protecting our lives and the one of our children, whatever country these goods are coming from.
- The freedom of travel and of circulation of goods has made our lives easier, has helped consistently contain the inflation to the lowest levels ever seen in Europe and has given us the opportunity to relatively cheap holidays in wonderful places, meeting wonderful people. OK. This one is not true for the UK and Ireland, but hey, nobody is perfect and we will have to deal with the Britons all our lives I guess :-(
- the European funding programs have helped hundreds of thousands of students from all over Europe to learn other languages, techniques and cultures. They have also helped thousands of unemployed people to get a professional training to get jobs, hundreds of thousands of scientists to make science go further, improve technologies and ultimately our lives. They also helped producing movies, shows, concerts, and all kind of artistic events and products. Eventually, they have tremendously improved national and transnational infrastructures, roads, railways, bridges, ports, hospitals, and many other things that we take for granted.
I could go on and on like this for pages, but the fact is, the EU has tremendously improved our lives and can continue doing so. But for this, it needs more support from its citizens, so a better communication indeed, and more support from its member states (which means that we must vote for honest people rather than the usual liars that vote for one thing in Brussels, then come back and spit on the EU if it doesn't work or boast for themselves if it did).
21 March 2007
Delfshaven
Dear readers,When I came out of my intake interview, I realized the CWI building (in the Delfshaven area) is not a far walk from the Lloyd's kwartier and its old shipyard. So I decided to take advantage of the beautiful (if freezing) weather and go take some nice pictures of the port of Rotterdam. Here are a couple of my shots. The place is on the North bank of the Maas river and there are a couple of new buildings with stunning modern architecture. There is also a shipyard where people are working on rebuilding an old Dutch wooden vessel, the Delft, and a small related museum. Enjoy...
Unemployment benefits (follow up)
Dear readers,
As much as I was appalled by the process of registering for my unemployment benefit, I was also quite happily surprised with the intake meeting today. First, the CWI building was not too far and in a decent building. Second, the waiting time was extremely reduced (a couple of minutes). Third, the intake interview itself was very fast and easy. The two or three persons I had to interact with were friendly, smiling, service minded and supportive. Fourth, the part of registering my declaration and filing for the benefits was done in the same office and practically at the same time. Last but not least, the explanations were clear and all my questions were quickly answered.
If I compare this with my experience of the French ASSEDIC and ANPE, it is like comparing day and night. First, at that time (I am speaking more than 7 years ago), there was no way you could fill in the forms on the Internet. Apart from this, the major hurdle with the French system is that you have two different bureaucracies to register as a job seeker and to file for the benefits. Which means massive queues to get your forms, fill them in, etc.
If anyone had told me that I would one day praise the Dutch bureaucracy, I wouldn't have believed it. But it is so... Of course, the fact that job seekers are nearly three times more numerous in France, compared with the active population, probably doesn't help. I can imagine that it is more difficult to handle more than two millions unemployed persons than a couple of hundreds of thousands.
As much as I was appalled by the process of registering for my unemployment benefit, I was also quite happily surprised with the intake meeting today. First, the CWI building was not too far and in a decent building. Second, the waiting time was extremely reduced (a couple of minutes). Third, the intake interview itself was very fast and easy. The two or three persons I had to interact with were friendly, smiling, service minded and supportive. Fourth, the part of registering my declaration and filing for the benefits was done in the same office and practically at the same time. Last but not least, the explanations were clear and all my questions were quickly answered.
If I compare this with my experience of the French ASSEDIC and ANPE, it is like comparing day and night. First, at that time (I am speaking more than 7 years ago), there was no way you could fill in the forms on the Internet. Apart from this, the major hurdle with the French system is that you have two different bureaucracies to register as a job seeker and to file for the benefits. Which means massive queues to get your forms, fill them in, etc.
If anyone had told me that I would one day praise the Dutch bureaucracy, I wouldn't have believed it. But it is so... Of course, the fact that job seekers are nearly three times more numerous in France, compared with the active population, probably doesn't help. I can imagine that it is more difficult to handle more than two millions unemployed persons than a couple of hundreds of thousands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)