Dear readers,
I have been away for much too long and I would like to apologize. I have been pretty busy doing too many things at the same time (and thus nothing really well enough).
To come back to our topic, I would like to talk today about Myanmar. Our newspapers have been full of public indignation to what just happened there and what is most certainly still happening. They were also full of governmental indignation at the same facts. We heard the UK, USA, French or German governments having terrible words for the mad generals' junta. Sanctions were even voted by the European Union as well as the US Congress. Even the UN Security Council (this true embodiment of international hypocrisy) went as far as calling the Myanmar thugs to more measure. But, let's be honest, for what result? Nada! The government violently cracked down on the unhappy monks and their civilian supporters. Everything went back to normal, and, while the generals feast on the spoils of the people in their new capital, the "order" reigns in Rangoon.
Why is that? Well, it is simple. The Western countries have little or no interaction with Myanmar (ex-Burma) and the suppression of this little won't change anything for the ghoulish members of the junta. They can continue to mismanage, plunder, torture, slaughter and exploit in all impunity. The only true country with which they have any interaction is China. But as we all know, the People's Republic of China is not shy about Human rights violations. It cultivates it as a national sport. And speaking about sport, it is just organizing the next Olympics. What an unfortunate coincidence! Immediately, of course, some voices rose to ask China to act towards Myanmar in a responsible way to help the International Community stopping the slaughter. But China's answer was the usual: Myanmar problems are internal and do not threaten the region's stability. This is basically a diplomatic way of saying: "as long as Myanmar problems don't threaten our oil and raw material routes, we prefer to continue help the generals plundering the country, it is highly profitable and who cares about poor citizens, they'll die sooner or later anyway". Just the way China deals with North Korea, basically, and, after all, just the same way it deals with its own citizens when they are unhappy...
So the same voices raised an idea: why not ask for a boycott of the same Olympics if China does nothing? That sounds like a fair idea: China badly needs these Olympics to help it improve its international standards (quite spoiled by its treatment of Tibet or Sin Kiang or its unfriendly gesticulations against Taiwan). And it probably needs it even more than it needs Myanmar. So, what happened? Well, nothing of course. I don't know why, but there is not any such request anymore in the global press. Not a word. So I am asking myself a question: did China pressured the Western governments (after all, China is a big market for their industries, but, more importantly a major workshop for the goods they consume)? It is actually unlikely. As the recent Dalai Lama visit to Washington shows, the Chinese dictators don't have this power yet. So maybe it is another reason. Maybe main media were too afraid? For instance afraid of being banned from covering these famous Olympics. Or worse, simply of losing very substantial publicity revenues if the show (as unlikely as it is) does not go on? I don't have any proper answer to these questions. But I think they deserved to be asked.
For myself, I will boycott the Beijing Olympics. I am sad of seeing the Games once again giving up to a country which violates some of the basic principles of sport and more importantly Humanity. So I will not watch TV broadcasts showing the Games and I will not read newspapers about it either. It would be a serious treason to the poor people of Burma who suffer and desperately hoped that this time we would mobilize for them. With something more than good words. We are very good with words. Not too much with actions.
During this time, China holds the 17th Party Congress. A vast farce where journalists dig up in word counts (you don't really want to listen to the whole speeches, it's way too boring) what the next party line will be. A farce where new party leaders try to impose their mark on History, like Deng Xiao Ping in its time. Apparently, the new fad this year is "Scientific Outlook on Development"... Probably a cover up for more exploitation and pollution. But who cares? It's China, right?
18 October 2007
07 September 2007
European Treaty on the (dissection) table
Dear readers,
The Portuguese Presidency of the European Union has decided to fast track the discussions on the new European Treaty. For those who have been sleeping in a glass box during the last years, the new treaty is a barely readable but badly cut down version of the Constitutional Treaty sunk by the French and the Dutch referendums in 2005. Anyway, the Portuguese (who currently hold the presidence of the European Commission as well) want to close the negotiation in six weeks to have something signed and validated by the member states before 2009. Most commentators are underlining the difficulty of the task (if not its unreal timetable). They point at Poland's coming elections in October as well as UK's Georges Brown lock up with unions and its own Labour Party. They also mention more minor points such as Austria's issue with University policy. All agree anyway to say that pulling the treaty out of the ditch is going to be nothing less than Herculean.
But I personaly believe than, further than the usual bickering and Teheran carpet seller style of the negotiations (which is sadly nothing new), the real problem comes from the legitimacy. We are again paying for decades of governments playing against the EU at home and even sometimes in Brussels. We are paying for the failure from most political parties to actually show some European commitment. Worse we are paying the total absence of "selling the EU to its citizens". I have said it earlier, but unfortunately, the current events are showing again the urgency of such points. The EU can't survive another blocking of its institutional construction. But it can even less survive the total disaffection from its citizens. Most citizens of the EU, even educated ones, have no idea what are the positive aspects of the EU, even the quite obvious ones. Most citizens on the other hand believe all the bad stories that an ignorant press or irresponsible politicians have spread over the EU. In summary: everything bad in the EU comes from Brussels, but everything good comes from the local politicians... Yeah, sure...
The UK unions fortunately know better, and they have severely attacked Georges Brown for its opt-out clauses in the social policy. But in other countries, unions and political parties alike blindly attack the EU for all kinds of wrong reasons. So, let's say it once and for all: yes, the EU is not very democratic, neither very transparent. But let's be honest about it, the main reason has nothing to do with Brussels (which has always attempted to simplify and democratize things) but everything to do with a bunch of ruthless national politicians. And it's time to name a few, just for the sake of responsibility (a word they use a lot but practice very little, if at all): Tony Blair and Georges Brown, Jacques Chirac (though sadly his current successor seems to take exactly the same way) and Laurent Fabius, the Kazynsky brothers, Jan Pieter Balkenende and, last but not least, Silvio Berlusconi (the frightening clown of the Italian politics). There are others, but I believe that these ones are the most directly responsible.
So if the Portuguese really want to do something for the EU, it is, I believe, more important to win the hearts and minds of its citizens, through a massive explanation campaign. This is the most urgent thing at the moment, probably the only real one actually. All the rest is technicalities which could easily be overcome, if only the European citizens had a little faith in their institutions. I just hope that decades of power play, haggling and sabotaging by national authorities haven't killed the little good will left.
The Portuguese Presidency of the European Union has decided to fast track the discussions on the new European Treaty. For those who have been sleeping in a glass box during the last years, the new treaty is a barely readable but badly cut down version of the Constitutional Treaty sunk by the French and the Dutch referendums in 2005. Anyway, the Portuguese (who currently hold the presidence of the European Commission as well) want to close the negotiation in six weeks to have something signed and validated by the member states before 2009. Most commentators are underlining the difficulty of the task (if not its unreal timetable). They point at Poland's coming elections in October as well as UK's Georges Brown lock up with unions and its own Labour Party. They also mention more minor points such as Austria's issue with University policy. All agree anyway to say that pulling the treaty out of the ditch is going to be nothing less than Herculean.
But I personaly believe than, further than the usual bickering and Teheran carpet seller style of the negotiations (which is sadly nothing new), the real problem comes from the legitimacy. We are again paying for decades of governments playing against the EU at home and even sometimes in Brussels. We are paying for the failure from most political parties to actually show some European commitment. Worse we are paying the total absence of "selling the EU to its citizens". I have said it earlier, but unfortunately, the current events are showing again the urgency of such points. The EU can't survive another blocking of its institutional construction. But it can even less survive the total disaffection from its citizens. Most citizens of the EU, even educated ones, have no idea what are the positive aspects of the EU, even the quite obvious ones. Most citizens on the other hand believe all the bad stories that an ignorant press or irresponsible politicians have spread over the EU. In summary: everything bad in the EU comes from Brussels, but everything good comes from the local politicians... Yeah, sure...
The UK unions fortunately know better, and they have severely attacked Georges Brown for its opt-out clauses in the social policy. But in other countries, unions and political parties alike blindly attack the EU for all kinds of wrong reasons. So, let's say it once and for all: yes, the EU is not very democratic, neither very transparent. But let's be honest about it, the main reason has nothing to do with Brussels (which has always attempted to simplify and democratize things) but everything to do with a bunch of ruthless national politicians. And it's time to name a few, just for the sake of responsibility (a word they use a lot but practice very little, if at all): Tony Blair and Georges Brown, Jacques Chirac (though sadly his current successor seems to take exactly the same way) and Laurent Fabius, the Kazynsky brothers, Jan Pieter Balkenende and, last but not least, Silvio Berlusconi (the frightening clown of the Italian politics). There are others, but I believe that these ones are the most directly responsible.
So if the Portuguese really want to do something for the EU, it is, I believe, more important to win the hearts and minds of its citizens, through a massive explanation campaign. This is the most urgent thing at the moment, probably the only real one actually. All the rest is technicalities which could easily be overcome, if only the European citizens had a little faith in their institutions. I just hope that decades of power play, haggling and sabotaging by national authorities haven't killed the little good will left.
30 August 2007
Holidays
Dear readers,
I was in holidays in France for a couple of weeks. This is why there haven't been any posts lately. It was nice (though rainy). Those who wants to see the pictures can here. Mostly boring if you are not a family member, but there are nice pictures of my parents town and region.
I was in holidays in France for a couple of weeks. This is why there haven't been any posts lately. It was nice (though rainy). Those who wants to see the pictures can here. Mostly boring if you are not a family member, but there are nice pictures of my parents town and region.
13 August 2007
New name for the blog !
Dear readers,
I had to chose a new name for the blog, as the old one was creating too many wrong search results. Temporarily, it is now Logrus Marelles Story, until I find something better or more fitting the content. If you guys out there have any good idea I can use, I am open to suggestions. It is a bit tricky, considering that my rantings are covering several very different topics... But well, we'll see how this works.
I had to chose a new name for the blog, as the old one was creating too many wrong search results. Temporarily, it is now Logrus Marelles Story, until I find something better or more fitting the content. If you guys out there have any good idea I can use, I am open to suggestions. It is a bit tricky, considering that my rantings are covering several very different topics... But well, we'll see how this works.
09 August 2007
Gert Wilder and the Koran
Dear readers,
I just wanted to react to the hot topic of the day in the Netherlands. The leader of the PvV (Party for Freedom, an extreme right wing small Dutch party), Gert Wilders, has asked for a ban on the Koran in the Netherlands, comparing the Muslim holy book to Mein Kampf. As you can imagine, this has stirred quite some reactions, not only from the Muslim community, but also from the media, the government and, more interestingly, from lawyers. Two lawyers are suing Wilders on the basis that he is attacking the Dutch "samenleving" concept. This concept means that The Netherlands ability to survive as a crowded small multicultural country is based on a relative tolerance and the possibility to "live together" ("samenleven" in Dutch) peacefully.
Wilders has attacked this relentlessly indeed, even since before his election in the Tweede Kamer (the Dutch lower chamber of the Parliament). His targets are mainly the left wing SP (and anything vaguely socialist) and the Muslim community and concepts. He likes also to fire at will on the conservative government. His favorite tactics are slander, calomny, veiled threats and Parliament open questions... This is resented by many in the Netherlands, but not all, as the PvV enjoys a small but significant level of electoral support.
This last outburst though is probably one too many. The Netherlands is a very religious society (very comparable to the USA in that matter) and most its social and educational system, as well as part of its political system is confessionally based. While most political and social movement are Christian (Catholics and Protestants are roughly representing 45% of the population each), the Muslim community is strong here and sometimes quite radicalised. Muslims here have schools, mosques and social organisations. Attacking their most basic faith is a very dangerous game. Not that they might retaliate physically (it is not to be excluded, but Wilders is quite paranoid and pretty well protected), but because of the parallels that could be made.
I have read the Koran myself (though not in its original language, unfortunately) as well as the Bible and some other "holy books". To be honest, the Muslim sacred book is not worse nor better than most of the others. It is for some parts fairly violent, unfair and one sided. For other parts it is tolerant, open and poetic. The same can be said of most of these books. Attacking one on the fact that parts of it are violent is in a way attacking all the others. And that is something that most Dutch people, Christians, Jews and Muslims alike are not ready to accept...
I just wanted to react to the hot topic of the day in the Netherlands. The leader of the PvV (Party for Freedom, an extreme right wing small Dutch party), Gert Wilders, has asked for a ban on the Koran in the Netherlands, comparing the Muslim holy book to Mein Kampf. As you can imagine, this has stirred quite some reactions, not only from the Muslim community, but also from the media, the government and, more interestingly, from lawyers. Two lawyers are suing Wilders on the basis that he is attacking the Dutch "samenleving" concept. This concept means that The Netherlands ability to survive as a crowded small multicultural country is based on a relative tolerance and the possibility to "live together" ("samenleven" in Dutch) peacefully.
Wilders has attacked this relentlessly indeed, even since before his election in the Tweede Kamer (the Dutch lower chamber of the Parliament). His targets are mainly the left wing SP (and anything vaguely socialist) and the Muslim community and concepts. He likes also to fire at will on the conservative government. His favorite tactics are slander, calomny, veiled threats and Parliament open questions... This is resented by many in the Netherlands, but not all, as the PvV enjoys a small but significant level of electoral support.
This last outburst though is probably one too many. The Netherlands is a very religious society (very comparable to the USA in that matter) and most its social and educational system, as well as part of its political system is confessionally based. While most political and social movement are Christian (Catholics and Protestants are roughly representing 45% of the population each), the Muslim community is strong here and sometimes quite radicalised. Muslims here have schools, mosques and social organisations. Attacking their most basic faith is a very dangerous game. Not that they might retaliate physically (it is not to be excluded, but Wilders is quite paranoid and pretty well protected), but because of the parallels that could be made.
I have read the Koran myself (though not in its original language, unfortunately) as well as the Bible and some other "holy books". To be honest, the Muslim sacred book is not worse nor better than most of the others. It is for some parts fairly violent, unfair and one sided. For other parts it is tolerant, open and poetic. The same can be said of most of these books. Attacking one on the fact that parts of it are violent is in a way attacking all the others. And that is something that most Dutch people, Christians, Jews and Muslims alike are not ready to accept...
04 August 2007
Lieke Snellen expo
Dear readers,I visited yesterday the art expo of a friend, Lieke Snellen, at the Tent (Witte de Withstraat, Rotterdam). Lieke is a Master graduate of the Piek Zwart Art School. She was showing her work for the public in this space reserved for young contemporary artists. I took the liberty to take some pictures to show her work. They are available on my Flickr gallery (the link is in the right hand menu).
I think Lieke has done a great job, both in using every day's life objects and transforming them into sculptures, but also in the video montages she has put on display. I particularly liked what she did with the chairs, but also a very nice piece of work including bricks of two colors. It is, all in all, very promising and I wish her a lot of success in the future. She has some talent!
Shop story
Dear readers,
This is just a little story I heard recently. But quite revealing of the times we are living in...
It's this little cute black girl in a shop in Rotterdam Zuid. She bables with the sales woman and explains her how happy she is. The sales woman asks her about her parents. The girl is beaming with pride: "My dad is a musician. He is really good..." The sales woman: "Really. That's nice." The girl replies: "He is such a good musician that he even received a prize..." The sales woman obviously asks which prize her dad got. And the little girl answers, dead serious: "Hij heeft een general pardon gewonnen!" (he received imunity from prosecution for being an illegal immigrant in the Netherlands, effectively granting him residency permit).
No comment...
This is just a little story I heard recently. But quite revealing of the times we are living in...
It's this little cute black girl in a shop in Rotterdam Zuid. She bables with the sales woman and explains her how happy she is. The sales woman asks her about her parents. The girl is beaming with pride: "My dad is a musician. He is really good..." The sales woman: "Really. That's nice." The girl replies: "He is such a good musician that he even received a prize..." The sales woman obviously asks which prize her dad got. And the little girl answers, dead serious: "Hij heeft een general pardon gewonnen!" (he received imunity from prosecution for being an illegal immigrant in the Netherlands, effectively granting him residency permit).
No comment...
19 July 2007
New pictures uploaded
Dear readers,
I decided to use a bit of my precious time to upload new pictures on Flickr. Especially recent Rotterdam ones, but also old ones from the ports I had visited in the last years. So you can enjoy these here.
Have a good day!
13 July 2007
Movies on the fly
Dear readers,
I had the chance to go to both the Life Earth concerts in Amsterdam and the jazz live performance in Oud Charlois for Jazz Festival Rotterdam. Let's say that I was not too impressed by Life Earth (7th July). The public was scarce, as well as far from enthusiastic. Worse, the bands invited were minor ones. If I can give credit to the first two (female singers unknown outside the Netherlands but with voices pretty enough and certain musical qualities), I have to admit that Ali B was right when he blurted: "Hamburg got Shakira, London has Genesis, but you guys got Ali B, sorry..."
And true enough, despite the attempts of some local "cabaretier" to make the atmosphere a bit nicer, it didn't get any cooler. Maybe that was partially due to the bright sun (I got bad sunburns). It was not very constant, but seriously hot. But I believe that this disaster of an event lacked any serious band to listen to. On the contrary, Jazz in Charlois (8th July) was very nice, cozy and nearly intimate, but with quality musicians and an enthusiastic public. OK, it was also a bit of an older one, but who cares. Even the kids in the crowed enjoyed it. It was far less pretentious but far more efficient than the world wide show of the day before.
Just as an extra note, and also because I am in the mood, I would like to mention to you, dear readers, that the European Union has published a hilarious video on YouTube, featuring 45 seconds of pretty hot love scenes for various MEDIA subsidised movies. The film extract has provoked quite a stir amongst some European politicians, stiffening (if I may use this crude joke) at the idea of multi nationally sponsored sex. So, enjoy!
I had the chance to go to both the Life Earth concerts in Amsterdam and the jazz live performance in Oud Charlois for Jazz Festival Rotterdam. Let's say that I was not too impressed by Life Earth (7th July). The public was scarce, as well as far from enthusiastic. Worse, the bands invited were minor ones. If I can give credit to the first two (female singers unknown outside the Netherlands but with voices pretty enough and certain musical qualities), I have to admit that Ali B was right when he blurted: "Hamburg got Shakira, London has Genesis, but you guys got Ali B, sorry..."
And true enough, despite the attempts of some local "cabaretier" to make the atmosphere a bit nicer, it didn't get any cooler. Maybe that was partially due to the bright sun (I got bad sunburns). It was not very constant, but seriously hot. But I believe that this disaster of an event lacked any serious band to listen to. On the contrary, Jazz in Charlois (8th July) was very nice, cozy and nearly intimate, but with quality musicians and an enthusiastic public. OK, it was also a bit of an older one, but who cares. Even the kids in the crowed enjoyed it. It was far less pretentious but far more efficient than the world wide show of the day before.
Just as an extra note, and also because I am in the mood, I would like to mention to you, dear readers, that the European Union has published a hilarious video on YouTube, featuring 45 seconds of pretty hot love scenes for various MEDIA subsidised movies. The film extract has provoked quite a stir amongst some European politicians, stiffening (if I may use this crude joke) at the idea of multi nationally sponsored sex. So, enjoy!
05 July 2007
Alan Johnston Liberation
Dear readers,
It is an understatement to say that Alan Johnston liberation (without assault) is a major victory for Hamas. A victory on the international scene that it has began using on all channels at its disposal. Fair enough, we have to acknowledge that it has succeeded where Fatah was not able to do anything. Furthermore it has begun to restore (its) law and order in Gaza. It is no small feat, even if this has cost already many lives, mainly of Fatah members.
But there are other aspects to this. Hamas is claiming that Fatah is responsible for a situation where clans and mafias (such as the one which was holding Alan) were allowed to freely carry weapons and impose their own will. It is certainly true in a way. Fatah never really opposed the clans or the different militias in Gaza or in the West Bank. In some cases, it actually created or encouraged them. This said, it is a very ironical claim from a party which is actually arming a militia itself, outside of any legal process (if this has any meaning in the Palestinian Territories). Worse, this party, Hamas, has not hesitated to use this militia to fight physically "official" Palestinian security services. So it is clearly a sad case of bad faith from Hamas.
Let's not be too naive. Hamas, because it is less corrupt and more disciplined, also more fanatical than Fatah, will probably succeed in Gaza. But at which price will this come? It is pretty obvious that the Islamic Law will be applied (in whichever local Hamas oriented interpretation...). It is probably better than no law at all, in a sense, but it is a very bad thing for a big part of the million and a half Gaza citizens: women, Christians, secular Palestinians. Let's also not forget that Hamas is still a terrorist movement. It might show a nice face from time to time, but the fact is they never hesitated to use suicide bombers, slaughter of innocents, etc., sometimes just to make a point. OK, let's be fair in another way, their opponents are barely better (and Israel has not shown a lot more respect for innocent lives either).
And there is a third party that can still play a very nasty game. To continue "exist" in a political sense, Islamic Jihad will have to show some muscle pretty quickly. They are present in Gaza as well as the West Bank. I would not be surprised if they try to create some trouble in Gaza (to test Hamas new power) and in the West Bank... How Fatah, Hamas and Israel will react to this (end interact together) will probably be the key to Palestine's future.
It is an understatement to say that Alan Johnston liberation (without assault) is a major victory for Hamas. A victory on the international scene that it has began using on all channels at its disposal. Fair enough, we have to acknowledge that it has succeeded where Fatah was not able to do anything. Furthermore it has begun to restore (its) law and order in Gaza. It is no small feat, even if this has cost already many lives, mainly of Fatah members.
But there are other aspects to this. Hamas is claiming that Fatah is responsible for a situation where clans and mafias (such as the one which was holding Alan) were allowed to freely carry weapons and impose their own will. It is certainly true in a way. Fatah never really opposed the clans or the different militias in Gaza or in the West Bank. In some cases, it actually created or encouraged them. This said, it is a very ironical claim from a party which is actually arming a militia itself, outside of any legal process (if this has any meaning in the Palestinian Territories). Worse, this party, Hamas, has not hesitated to use this militia to fight physically "official" Palestinian security services. So it is clearly a sad case of bad faith from Hamas.
Let's not be too naive. Hamas, because it is less corrupt and more disciplined, also more fanatical than Fatah, will probably succeed in Gaza. But at which price will this come? It is pretty obvious that the Islamic Law will be applied (in whichever local Hamas oriented interpretation...). It is probably better than no law at all, in a sense, but it is a very bad thing for a big part of the million and a half Gaza citizens: women, Christians, secular Palestinians. Let's also not forget that Hamas is still a terrorist movement. It might show a nice face from time to time, but the fact is they never hesitated to use suicide bombers, slaughter of innocents, etc., sometimes just to make a point. OK, let's be fair in another way, their opponents are barely better (and Israel has not shown a lot more respect for innocent lives either).
And there is a third party that can still play a very nasty game. To continue "exist" in a political sense, Islamic Jihad will have to show some muscle pretty quickly. They are present in Gaza as well as the West Bank. I would not be surprised if they try to create some trouble in Gaza (to test Hamas new power) and in the West Bank... How Fatah, Hamas and Israel will react to this (end interact together) will probably be the key to Palestine's future.
02 July 2007
France's President dangerous play
Dear readers,
I have ranted a lot about the USA and the UK in the past days, so I guess it is only fair enough that I turn back to my own country for once. More precisely, I would like to give a look on the first hints on France's new European policy. And, let's say it right away, it is not looking too good. France's new President, Nicolas Sarkozy, has been keen to show that he was in control and to assert himself in the first days after his elections, both at home and in international meetings. If he enjoys internally what we call in France "l'état de grâce" (a religious term describing the trust the people give in a newly elected leader), he still has to prove himself abroad. And the first appearances have been nothing less than abysmal.
I will pass on the little show at the G8 summit where our dear new President showed he couldn't really stand alcohol. It's a minor mistake and merely an embarrassing moment. Not everyone can make a Russian roll under the table. ;-) More importantly, I believe, the "petit" Nicolas has sent four first messages to the world. The first was the day of his election, when he said that France should try to rebuild links with its US ally while continuing to show its "friendly difference". Nothing wrong with this, as it might be a small inflexion from past policies, but no real novelty.
His second message has been a little more concerning. And it was also a kind of backing off from his electoral promises (probably not the last but, hey, that's politicians for you). In two occasions, he gave signs that he would abandon free market orthodoxy to avoid social unrest. The first one was its visit to Airbus, where he hinted that he could ask for a renegotiation of the reorganisation plan. I hope this does not happen. Airbus badly needs such a reorganisation if we want to keep in Europe some kind of lead over the American aerospace industry. It is not a social issue, nor really an economic one, it is more strategic. Any visionary leader (and so is Angela Merkel who accepted the plan) should see that. The second occasion was during the renegotiation for the amended European Treaty in Brussels. The only French demand was to scrap the defense of free competition by the Union. I am not particularly concerned about it. After all, there is no need to put this kind of proposal in the supranational treaties when it can more appropriately be dealt by regulations and directives. I have always been in favor of keeping organisational aspects at treaty and constitutional level and political aspects in the purely legal field. But the message sent to the world and to France European partners is worrying: Nicolas Sarkozy, self proclaimed champion of free market is backing off.
Sarkozy's third message has been to the Middle-East world as well as Europe. Our new president has said in several occasions that he wanted a clear definition of Europe's ultimate border. And he has also said he does not want to see Turkey ever entering the EU. Everybody can see he will use the first matter to block the second. This is a bad idea hidden behind a good one. Yes, there is a point in defining the future ultimate borders. Would it be for the sake of clarity, but also to send a message out. But no, Turkey should not be excluded a priori. I have said it several times, but we have treaties and engagements with Turkey that we can not negate. Furthermore, blocking Turkey is a major strategic and geopolitical mistake.
To show how dumb that is, I'll give a little example. Two groups of children are playing in a school court. One is a bit uptight, but rather nice, educated and fair play, consisting of mainly rich white boys. The other group is quite more violent, colored, poor and aggressive (it's not their fault all the way, they have been poorly educated and resent previous squabbles with the first group). There is one big boy in the middle, stronger than most of the others, but not really belonging to either group. Both groups are not fighting, but everybody knows, including the teachers, that it might happen at any moment, as it already has in the past. The big boy in the middle has asked to play with the rich ones, because he is wary about the aggressiveness and condition of the poor boys. The rich ones, at the beginning of the year have said, ok, you can play with us, but there are some conditions you have to respect. And we give you the first six months of the year to fulfill these very difficult conditions. He has to find nice cloths, treat the girls in the school with more respect, improve his marks, learn to talk better and avoid all these bad words and he has to stop beating his little brother. There is also a little marble issue with two of the smallest of the rich boys (nobody is really sure about the legitimacy of the issue, or who began it, but the two small boys are adamant it must be solved at once, despite its relatively small importance).
After 3 months, the big boy has quite improved, but suddenly, the white boys begin to make it more difficult for him. They add criteria, renegotiate the trial period length with the big boy. Suddenly, four of the white rich boys call it quit (before the end of the six months). They just say: no you don't belong to our group. Keep playing on the side. Oh, and by the way, keep away from the poor guys because they are not as good as us. What do you think the big guy will do? And who do you think will win the next fight for marbles between both kids groups? Do you think girls will get more respect from all groups after all? And do you think that it will motivate the poor kids to behave better? Well, any school kid knows the answer to these questions. Any teacher too. But not our President as it seems.
But you know what? There is a third message sent out there by our dear Sarko... He has decided lately to present France's new budget. Now remember, Sarkozy is a right wing guy, defending free market and sounder budgetary policies... Well, think again. The project of budget is showing an deficit increased to 2.4% and no return to an even balance before 2012. So long for the agreed return to a balanced budget in 2010. This is not only stupid for France (remember that this is increasing our already massive debt, one of the highest in the world), it is also a break of solidarity with other European countries in the Eurozone which are balancing their budget. Basically, we make them indirectly pay (through the common monetary policy) for our deficit too. A nicety that they will sure remember when we will really need them for something important. Solidarity is not just one way. It s always give and take, especially in international relations...
I have ranted a lot about the USA and the UK in the past days, so I guess it is only fair enough that I turn back to my own country for once. More precisely, I would like to give a look on the first hints on France's new European policy. And, let's say it right away, it is not looking too good. France's new President, Nicolas Sarkozy, has been keen to show that he was in control and to assert himself in the first days after his elections, both at home and in international meetings. If he enjoys internally what we call in France "l'état de grâce" (a religious term describing the trust the people give in a newly elected leader), he still has to prove himself abroad. And the first appearances have been nothing less than abysmal.
I will pass on the little show at the G8 summit where our dear new President showed he couldn't really stand alcohol. It's a minor mistake and merely an embarrassing moment. Not everyone can make a Russian roll under the table. ;-) More importantly, I believe, the "petit" Nicolas has sent four first messages to the world. The first was the day of his election, when he said that France should try to rebuild links with its US ally while continuing to show its "friendly difference". Nothing wrong with this, as it might be a small inflexion from past policies, but no real novelty.
His second message has been a little more concerning. And it was also a kind of backing off from his electoral promises (probably not the last but, hey, that's politicians for you). In two occasions, he gave signs that he would abandon free market orthodoxy to avoid social unrest. The first one was its visit to Airbus, where he hinted that he could ask for a renegotiation of the reorganisation plan. I hope this does not happen. Airbus badly needs such a reorganisation if we want to keep in Europe some kind of lead over the American aerospace industry. It is not a social issue, nor really an economic one, it is more strategic. Any visionary leader (and so is Angela Merkel who accepted the plan) should see that. The second occasion was during the renegotiation for the amended European Treaty in Brussels. The only French demand was to scrap the defense of free competition by the Union. I am not particularly concerned about it. After all, there is no need to put this kind of proposal in the supranational treaties when it can more appropriately be dealt by regulations and directives. I have always been in favor of keeping organisational aspects at treaty and constitutional level and political aspects in the purely legal field. But the message sent to the world and to France European partners is worrying: Nicolas Sarkozy, self proclaimed champion of free market is backing off.
Sarkozy's third message has been to the Middle-East world as well as Europe. Our new president has said in several occasions that he wanted a clear definition of Europe's ultimate border. And he has also said he does not want to see Turkey ever entering the EU. Everybody can see he will use the first matter to block the second. This is a bad idea hidden behind a good one. Yes, there is a point in defining the future ultimate borders. Would it be for the sake of clarity, but also to send a message out. But no, Turkey should not be excluded a priori. I have said it several times, but we have treaties and engagements with Turkey that we can not negate. Furthermore, blocking Turkey is a major strategic and geopolitical mistake.
To show how dumb that is, I'll give a little example. Two groups of children are playing in a school court. One is a bit uptight, but rather nice, educated and fair play, consisting of mainly rich white boys. The other group is quite more violent, colored, poor and aggressive (it's not their fault all the way, they have been poorly educated and resent previous squabbles with the first group). There is one big boy in the middle, stronger than most of the others, but not really belonging to either group. Both groups are not fighting, but everybody knows, including the teachers, that it might happen at any moment, as it already has in the past. The big boy in the middle has asked to play with the rich ones, because he is wary about the aggressiveness and condition of the poor boys. The rich ones, at the beginning of the year have said, ok, you can play with us, but there are some conditions you have to respect. And we give you the first six months of the year to fulfill these very difficult conditions. He has to find nice cloths, treat the girls in the school with more respect, improve his marks, learn to talk better and avoid all these bad words and he has to stop beating his little brother. There is also a little marble issue with two of the smallest of the rich boys (nobody is really sure about the legitimacy of the issue, or who began it, but the two small boys are adamant it must be solved at once, despite its relatively small importance).
After 3 months, the big boy has quite improved, but suddenly, the white boys begin to make it more difficult for him. They add criteria, renegotiate the trial period length with the big boy. Suddenly, four of the white rich boys call it quit (before the end of the six months). They just say: no you don't belong to our group. Keep playing on the side. Oh, and by the way, keep away from the poor guys because they are not as good as us. What do you think the big guy will do? And who do you think will win the next fight for marbles between both kids groups? Do you think girls will get more respect from all groups after all? And do you think that it will motivate the poor kids to behave better? Well, any school kid knows the answer to these questions. Any teacher too. But not our President as it seems.
But you know what? There is a third message sent out there by our dear Sarko... He has decided lately to present France's new budget. Now remember, Sarkozy is a right wing guy, defending free market and sounder budgetary policies... Well, think again. The project of budget is showing an deficit increased to 2.4% and no return to an even balance before 2012. So long for the agreed return to a balanced budget in 2010. This is not only stupid for France (remember that this is increasing our already massive debt, one of the highest in the world), it is also a break of solidarity with other European countries in the Eurozone which are balancing their budget. Basically, we make them indirectly pay (through the common monetary policy) for our deficit too. A nicety that they will sure remember when we will really need them for something important. Solidarity is not just one way. It s always give and take, especially in international relations...
30 June 2007
Global dominance and military strategy
Dear readers,
I was struck today by a report on CNN about the current situation of military operations in Afghanistan. Amongst news of massive killings of civilians, due to indiscriminate air strikes in the Helmand province, Hamid Karzai, the Afghan President, warned the NATO forces that it was reaching an intolerable level. The analyst interviewed in this context explained that NATO commanders in Afghanistan have admitted that they have not enough troops on the ground to do the job. They have to call air strikes even when they suspect civilian death are likely to occur. They simply can't send soldiers to assault the place themselves.
On top of the humanitarian aspect, this calls a serious strategy issue. In the traditional American (and NATO) strategic thinking, global military dominance can only be reached if the USA are able to fight two medium intensity conflicts at the same time and still keep enough reserves to hold the national "sanctuary". Afghanistan and the Iraqi wars are medium intensity conflict, meaning that NATO or US forces there are fighting a guerrilla rather than classic forces. And despite this, it is pretty obvious for observers that NATO and US forces are unable to end these conflicts in a satisfactory manner. I am not even speaking about winning, as this word has little significance in guerrilla warfare. It seems that the USA especially (but most NATO countries have a similar or even worse problem) simply don't have enough men anymore to win two wars simultaneously. Or even to win only one of them.
This is not just a question of numbers, I believe, but also of the type of equipment used as well as the tactics on the ground. It is very difficult, if not simply impossible to win a guerrilla war without actually occupying the ground with infantry. The problem is of course also geographic. Sustaining important forces in countries such as Afghanistan or Iraq is a logistics nightmare. Afghanistan especially has extremely high mountains and an unforgiving climate. Both countries have large desert areas as well as relatively densely populated cities. The latter are also battlefields which actually demand very high concentration of infantry forces. All in all, it seems that if the Afghanistan conflict could probably have been dealt with alone by NATO, the insistence of the USA and UK to also attack Iraq have proved disastrous for both operations. Even a conflict were it would have been relatively easy to win hearts and minds such as Afghanistan (where NATO forces enjoyed a relatively high level of popular support) is now more and more difficult to win.
There might be a point in a not so far future where NATO and the USA will have to evacuate both places. It would have been the demonstration of the French proverb: "qui court après deux lièvres n'en attrape aucun". Or in English: "who hunts two hares catches none".
I was struck today by a report on CNN about the current situation of military operations in Afghanistan. Amongst news of massive killings of civilians, due to indiscriminate air strikes in the Helmand province, Hamid Karzai, the Afghan President, warned the NATO forces that it was reaching an intolerable level. The analyst interviewed in this context explained that NATO commanders in Afghanistan have admitted that they have not enough troops on the ground to do the job. They have to call air strikes even when they suspect civilian death are likely to occur. They simply can't send soldiers to assault the place themselves.
On top of the humanitarian aspect, this calls a serious strategy issue. In the traditional American (and NATO) strategic thinking, global military dominance can only be reached if the USA are able to fight two medium intensity conflicts at the same time and still keep enough reserves to hold the national "sanctuary". Afghanistan and the Iraqi wars are medium intensity conflict, meaning that NATO or US forces there are fighting a guerrilla rather than classic forces. And despite this, it is pretty obvious for observers that NATO and US forces are unable to end these conflicts in a satisfactory manner. I am not even speaking about winning, as this word has little significance in guerrilla warfare. It seems that the USA especially (but most NATO countries have a similar or even worse problem) simply don't have enough men anymore to win two wars simultaneously. Or even to win only one of them.
This is not just a question of numbers, I believe, but also of the type of equipment used as well as the tactics on the ground. It is very difficult, if not simply impossible to win a guerrilla war without actually occupying the ground with infantry. The problem is of course also geographic. Sustaining important forces in countries such as Afghanistan or Iraq is a logistics nightmare. Afghanistan especially has extremely high mountains and an unforgiving climate. Both countries have large desert areas as well as relatively densely populated cities. The latter are also battlefields which actually demand very high concentration of infantry forces. All in all, it seems that if the Afghanistan conflict could probably have been dealt with alone by NATO, the insistence of the USA and UK to also attack Iraq have proved disastrous for both operations. Even a conflict were it would have been relatively easy to win hearts and minds such as Afghanistan (where NATO forces enjoyed a relatively high level of popular support) is now more and more difficult to win.
There might be a point in a not so far future where NATO and the USA will have to evacuate both places. It would have been the demonstration of the French proverb: "qui court après deux lièvres n'en attrape aucun". Or in English: "who hunts two hares catches none".
27 June 2007
Tony Blair
Dear readers,
This is just an extra note in reaction to Tony Blair's proposed nomination as head of the "Quartet" team for the Middle-East conflict. As noted in several Arab newspapers today, Tony Blair seems to be a very strange choice for such a function. Al Quds quotes his remorseless participation to the Iraqi disaster, and it is an obvious one. The Arab newspaper also claims that Tony Blair has a bias towards Israel, which is less obvious to me. But I see another serious problem in letting Blair head the Quartet team. Blair does can't decently represent the EU in the Quartet, considering he always favored the USA when he was Prime Minister. Worse, his obvious ideological proximity with Georges W. Bush makes him a marked man, not so much biased towards Israel than towards the USA. I strongly believe that if Russia and the EU vote him in the position, they will have to regret it dearly later on. He is just too unreliable.
This is just an extra note in reaction to Tony Blair's proposed nomination as head of the "Quartet" team for the Middle-East conflict. As noted in several Arab newspapers today, Tony Blair seems to be a very strange choice for such a function. Al Quds quotes his remorseless participation to the Iraqi disaster, and it is an obvious one. The Arab newspaper also claims that Tony Blair has a bias towards Israel, which is less obvious to me. But I see another serious problem in letting Blair head the Quartet team. Blair does can't decently represent the EU in the Quartet, considering he always favored the USA when he was Prime Minister. Worse, his obvious ideological proximity with Georges W. Bush makes him a marked man, not so much biased towards Israel than towards the USA. I strongly believe that if Russia and the EU vote him in the position, they will have to regret it dearly later on. He is just too unreliable.
The Eu and YouTube
Dear readers,
The European Union and its European Commission are making desperate attempts to appeal to more of its citizens. An important mission, more important in my eyes than the disastrous conference of last week. I don't know if most EU citizens will, like me, feel truly Europeans instead of only English, French, German, Polish or Dutch. But knowing why we are doing this together is an important step. A step the infamous Kaczynski brothers have probably forgotten (if they ever realized it). I guess their twin couple would be more at ease in an episode of Fawlty Towers than in EU negotiations they despise anyway.
But the point is that the EU has decided to use modern tools to do this. And what could be more trendy and modern than YouTube? At least, that is what the civil servants of the Communication DG have thought. So they put all kinds of EU related and EU promo videos on a YouTube site. It's worth a look, even if most of the videos are a bit lame. At least the series "If the EU didn't exist..." is quite a laugh. So, enjoy !
The European Union and its European Commission are making desperate attempts to appeal to more of its citizens. An important mission, more important in my eyes than the disastrous conference of last week. I don't know if most EU citizens will, like me, feel truly Europeans instead of only English, French, German, Polish or Dutch. But knowing why we are doing this together is an important step. A step the infamous Kaczynski brothers have probably forgotten (if they ever realized it). I guess their twin couple would be more at ease in an episode of Fawlty Towers than in EU negotiations they despise anyway.
But the point is that the EU has decided to use modern tools to do this. And what could be more trendy and modern than YouTube? At least, that is what the civil servants of the Communication DG have thought. So they put all kinds of EU related and EU promo videos on a YouTube site. It's worth a look, even if most of the videos are a bit lame. At least the series "If the EU didn't exist..." is quite a laugh. So, enjoy !
26 June 2007
An Amended Treaty for the the EU
Dear readers,
The conference presided by Germany and which was supposed to relaunch the EU construction, stalled by France and the Netherlands, has been presented by Angela Merkel as a success. My first reaction would be to say: we should be preserved from such success in the future, because I don't see what a failure would have had worse. But let's analyze a bit what happened.
The intergovernmental conference in Brussels lasted a bit longer than foreseen, but that is a very usual feature with these negotiations. What actually happened behind the doors of the conference rooms was unfortunately not worth the time spent on it (paid, may I remind you, with our hard won euros). It was one of the worse pieces of haggling and bitter bickering that the EU has seen. Everyone was ready to take concessions from others but none was ready to offer something for the common good. The result is up to the lack of good will. Even Poland managed to get its way, despite its ridiculous claims (opposed by all the 26 other members). Somebody was so frightened to see them walk out that they actually managed to impose a point on the voting system that wasn't even in the list of items at the conference.
Thanks to the twin "jerk" brothers in Warsaw, the completely inefficient voting system from the Nice Treaty will be kept until 2014 and, for some areas deemed "important" by member states (understand Poland or future other jerks discretionary decision) until 2017. This is sad enough already, but it isn't the end of it. Most of the items in the Constitution project which were trying to put some spirit in the Union, some visibility (and by it some democracy) in its functioning, have been scrapped or badly damaged. Gone is the official adoption of its flag, anthem, motto and other symbols. Like such things could harm the petty nationalism of some member states? This is ridiculous, sad, but ridiculous. I don't know who asked for this, but you can bet the UK is behind. It's typically the type of decision which would (temporarily) please the readers of The Sun. Gone is also (and at the request of the same country) the EU Foreign Minister, replaced by a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. How can anyone take such a title seriously?
But more important maybe than the symbolic aspects, everybody has bitten chunks of a text which should have remained simple and readable. The only serious flaw of the late Constitution was its lack of readability, and that flaw has been actually made worse. On top of this, countries have won the right to opt out from the common justice and security policy. The UK have asked for this and obtained it. But it means again that they are not showing any kind of commitment to Europe. Everybody can see, even, I am sure, Her Majesty's police forces, that a common policy in this domain is vital to fight international crime, terrorism or illegal immigration. But the UK will prefer endanger its own citizens rather than bow to the EU. The stupidity of politicians, their lack of vision will be paid dearly in the future. But hey, they don't care, they will get reelected because they will have gotten a "victory" in Brussels last week-end.
Poor Europe and poor Europeans. Do we deserve this? I guess yes. After all, we have got the politicians we have voted for. And French and Dutch citizens bear even more responsibility. It's after all their fault if all this happened. By voting no, they have killed a great project and made all this possible. It is saddening but true. The two countries which were maybe the most willing builders of the European ideas have betrayed it in the most stupid way.
I don't see what the future will get us. But I am not optimistic (one used to say that I was a cynic and that one was right). The only way of rebuilding what's left of the EU, with all its opt-out clauses, temporary systems and impaired institutions, would be I think to go it alone with a group of countries whose citizens and politicians have a bit more vision than the others. I don't even know for sure that these countries exist. But I guess Belgium, Italy, Germany, Spain and Luxembourg are the most obvious ones. They should invite the historical ones to follow them (us French and Dutch, for instance) and hopefully we will see our mistakes. But I believe they should simply drop out (instead of opting out) the ones that don't really want to participate. Then we will see who owns the future. The old nation states like the UK or Poland or the new humanist European dream?
The conference presided by Germany and which was supposed to relaunch the EU construction, stalled by France and the Netherlands, has been presented by Angela Merkel as a success. My first reaction would be to say: we should be preserved from such success in the future, because I don't see what a failure would have had worse. But let's analyze a bit what happened.
The intergovernmental conference in Brussels lasted a bit longer than foreseen, but that is a very usual feature with these negotiations. What actually happened behind the doors of the conference rooms was unfortunately not worth the time spent on it (paid, may I remind you, with our hard won euros). It was one of the worse pieces of haggling and bitter bickering that the EU has seen. Everyone was ready to take concessions from others but none was ready to offer something for the common good. The result is up to the lack of good will. Even Poland managed to get its way, despite its ridiculous claims (opposed by all the 26 other members). Somebody was so frightened to see them walk out that they actually managed to impose a point on the voting system that wasn't even in the list of items at the conference.
Thanks to the twin "jerk" brothers in Warsaw, the completely inefficient voting system from the Nice Treaty will be kept until 2014 and, for some areas deemed "important" by member states (understand Poland or future other jerks discretionary decision) until 2017. This is sad enough already, but it isn't the end of it. Most of the items in the Constitution project which were trying to put some spirit in the Union, some visibility (and by it some democracy) in its functioning, have been scrapped or badly damaged. Gone is the official adoption of its flag, anthem, motto and other symbols. Like such things could harm the petty nationalism of some member states? This is ridiculous, sad, but ridiculous. I don't know who asked for this, but you can bet the UK is behind. It's typically the type of decision which would (temporarily) please the readers of The Sun. Gone is also (and at the request of the same country) the EU Foreign Minister, replaced by a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. How can anyone take such a title seriously?
But more important maybe than the symbolic aspects, everybody has bitten chunks of a text which should have remained simple and readable. The only serious flaw of the late Constitution was its lack of readability, and that flaw has been actually made worse. On top of this, countries have won the right to opt out from the common justice and security policy. The UK have asked for this and obtained it. But it means again that they are not showing any kind of commitment to Europe. Everybody can see, even, I am sure, Her Majesty's police forces, that a common policy in this domain is vital to fight international crime, terrorism or illegal immigration. But the UK will prefer endanger its own citizens rather than bow to the EU. The stupidity of politicians, their lack of vision will be paid dearly in the future. But hey, they don't care, they will get reelected because they will have gotten a "victory" in Brussels last week-end.
Poor Europe and poor Europeans. Do we deserve this? I guess yes. After all, we have got the politicians we have voted for. And French and Dutch citizens bear even more responsibility. It's after all their fault if all this happened. By voting no, they have killed a great project and made all this possible. It is saddening but true. The two countries which were maybe the most willing builders of the European ideas have betrayed it in the most stupid way.
I don't see what the future will get us. But I am not optimistic (one used to say that I was a cynic and that one was right). The only way of rebuilding what's left of the EU, with all its opt-out clauses, temporary systems and impaired institutions, would be I think to go it alone with a group of countries whose citizens and politicians have a bit more vision than the others. I don't even know for sure that these countries exist. But I guess Belgium, Italy, Germany, Spain and Luxembourg are the most obvious ones. They should invite the historical ones to follow them (us French and Dutch, for instance) and hopefully we will see our mistakes. But I believe they should simply drop out (instead of opting out) the ones that don't really want to participate. Then we will see who owns the future. The old nation states like the UK or Poland or the new humanist European dream?
25 June 2007
I'll be back !
Dear readers,
I must apologize deeply for not having there for so long. So sorry... Well, I have good reasons for it too. I got a new job for a month, with a lot of work and a lot of training too. It was nice and interesting, but unfortunately, it didn't turn out as the job of my dreams. And where there is no motivation, there is also no results, I guess. Which means that they asked me to leave at the end of the trial period.
Okay, I have to admit, it is humiliating. But, hey, what does not kill you makes you stronger. So I guess I have learned my lesson. I will never ever again try to do something I am not qualified for. And I'll stop dreaming and get a real job which fits what I know I am good at.
So if you hear about something... You know what to do! ;-)
I must apologize deeply for not having there for so long. So sorry... Well, I have good reasons for it too. I got a new job for a month, with a lot of work and a lot of training too. It was nice and interesting, but unfortunately, it didn't turn out as the job of my dreams. And where there is no motivation, there is also no results, I guess. Which means that they asked me to leave at the end of the trial period.
Okay, I have to admit, it is humiliating. But, hey, what does not kill you makes you stronger. So I guess I have learned my lesson. I will never ever again try to do something I am not qualified for. And I'll stop dreaming and get a real job which fits what I know I am good at.
So if you hear about something... You know what to do! ;-)
03 June 2007
Interviewed
Dear readers,
Sorry for not writing anything in the last days. But it is for a good reason: I have been working a lot for my new job. Apart from this, great news: I have been interviewed. You can look at my answers about the expatriate life here. You can even see my face... lol... Quite a scoop, I guess.
Unfortunately, the good news stop there. I am officially completely broke. The unemployment money for last month didn't arrive. Which means I am in a very dire situation, money wise. I guess I'll have to eat potatoes in the coming months before I can actually party again... :-(
Sorry for not writing anything in the last days. But it is for a good reason: I have been working a lot for my new job. Apart from this, great news: I have been interviewed. You can look at my answers about the expatriate life here. You can even see my face... lol... Quite a scoop, I guess.
Unfortunately, the good news stop there. I am officially completely broke. The unemployment money for last month didn't arrive. Which means I am in a very dire situation, money wise. I guess I'll have to eat potatoes in the coming months before I can actually party again... :-(
20 May 2007
Darwin Award
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...
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...
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.
20 March 2007
McJobs
Dear readers,
I was puzzled today by a CNN program about jobs. Mc Donalds, the famous fast food chain, is trying to change the perception of job opportunities within the company. The term McJob has indeed been used worldwide to mock the products of the company and describe an unattractive, boring and poorly paid job. A job that we would call in French purely alimentary, no pun intended.
To defend its point, the company spokesman presented a statistic showing that a majority (60%, if my memory is reliable) of the higher managers at Mc Donalds are coming from behind the counter. Which is pretty good... as an absolute value. Indeed, this is in no way a measure of the attractivity of a job at Mc Donalds. It is only a measure of the origin of its management.
A better index would have been the percentage of basic employees who actually manage to get a higher position. A good index would have been a ranking of this percentage against other companies in the same sector or against average companies in general.
But I suspect such a scientifically correct measure would have been a very poor one in terms of PR. I have difficulties indeed to believe that Mc Donalds would have fared well with such figures...
I was puzzled today by a CNN program about jobs. Mc Donalds, the famous fast food chain, is trying to change the perception of job opportunities within the company. The term McJob has indeed been used worldwide to mock the products of the company and describe an unattractive, boring and poorly paid job. A job that we would call in French purely alimentary, no pun intended.
To defend its point, the company spokesman presented a statistic showing that a majority (60%, if my memory is reliable) of the higher managers at Mc Donalds are coming from behind the counter. Which is pretty good... as an absolute value. Indeed, this is in no way a measure of the attractivity of a job at Mc Donalds. It is only a measure of the origin of its management.
A better index would have been the percentage of basic employees who actually manage to get a higher position. A good index would have been a ranking of this percentage against other companies in the same sector or against average companies in general.
But I suspect such a scientifically correct measure would have been a very poor one in terms of PR. I have difficulties indeed to believe that Mc Donalds would have fared well with such figures...
19 March 2007
Unemployment benefits?
Dear readers,
I had last week the "luck" of discovering the Dutch unemployment benefit system. Not that I am proud of it, but let's say that considering I have now 13 days to find a new job and not one decent lead, it is a bit of a safer approach.
My good surprise was to discover that you can do most of the work online. There is a form to register as a job seeker and another one to apply for the unemployment benefits. Both are on the same CWI website. The good thing is that if you fill them in in the right order, data from the first will be reused from the second, which is a big winner on the time aspect.
The very bad thing is that just the first form takes literally hours to fill in. And considering I am a foreigner, so a bit slower than average, it is a miracle my browser didn't crash in the process. Second bad surprise was that despite the electronic (lengthy) registration, I still have to present myself physically to an "intake meeting" with all the papers you can imagine... So all this time won for... not much in the end. In the best case scenario, I will get 70% of my salary, which is barely enough to pay my mortgage, my bills and my food. :-(
I had last week the "luck" of discovering the Dutch unemployment benefit system. Not that I am proud of it, but let's say that considering I have now 13 days to find a new job and not one decent lead, it is a bit of a safer approach.
My good surprise was to discover that you can do most of the work online. There is a form to register as a job seeker and another one to apply for the unemployment benefits. Both are on the same CWI website. The good thing is that if you fill them in in the right order, data from the first will be reused from the second, which is a big winner on the time aspect.
The very bad thing is that just the first form takes literally hours to fill in. And considering I am a foreigner, so a bit slower than average, it is a miracle my browser didn't crash in the process. Second bad surprise was that despite the electronic (lengthy) registration, I still have to present myself physically to an "intake meeting" with all the papers you can imagine... So all this time won for... not much in the end. In the best case scenario, I will get 70% of my salary, which is barely enough to pay my mortgage, my bills and my food. :-(
12 March 2007
A French IND?
Dear readers,
I have never hidden my political ideas, nor my sympathy for one of the candidates running for the next French presidential election. So it won't be a surprise for you when I say that I am appalled by the declaration of another candidate, Nicolas Sarkozy, proposing a new French Ministry of Immigration and National Identity. This Ministry, whose responsibilities are otherwise quite shadowy, would be in charge of the integration of immigrants trying to come to France to live there.
I have always said that a better controlled immigration would be a good thing for France and Europe as well. I also strongly believe in a very open society, where political refugees would receive not only shelter but also support and where migrants would also be given opportunities, depending on what they can offer to our countries as well as what our countries can propose to them. And of course, I always thought that the best way of keeping emigration flows bearable both for the origin and destination countries was for the destination ones to sincerely and significantly support the origin countries development. This is obviously not happening at the moment, for different reasons, one of the first being the low level of European cooperation in these matters.
But I also know for sure, and thanks to the Dutch experience, that creating a Ministry of Integration (or whatever you call it) is not the good solution. Creating more bureaucracy is not a human way of answering an urgent problem. Economic and political problems can be handled only with economic and political solution. Mister Sarkozy fell into the same populist trap than Rita Verdonk's VVD in the Netherlands: giving a purely administrative answer to a human issue. I know all too well of the terrible consequences this sometimes had here, with heart breaking stories of people sent back to countries where they could face death (or worse), of children torn off from their families or of decent working and tax paying residents being given 28 days to leave all their life behind them...
So I beg you, my dear fellow French voters, vote for whoever you want, it's up to you as this is (still) a free country. But for good people's sake, don't bring to the Presidency a male version of "Iron Rita". The country of Human Rights and Enlightenment deserves better... just like the country of Humanism deserved better than the VVD.
I have never hidden my political ideas, nor my sympathy for one of the candidates running for the next French presidential election. So it won't be a surprise for you when I say that I am appalled by the declaration of another candidate, Nicolas Sarkozy, proposing a new French Ministry of Immigration and National Identity. This Ministry, whose responsibilities are otherwise quite shadowy, would be in charge of the integration of immigrants trying to come to France to live there.
I have always said that a better controlled immigration would be a good thing for France and Europe as well. I also strongly believe in a very open society, where political refugees would receive not only shelter but also support and where migrants would also be given opportunities, depending on what they can offer to our countries as well as what our countries can propose to them. And of course, I always thought that the best way of keeping emigration flows bearable both for the origin and destination countries was for the destination ones to sincerely and significantly support the origin countries development. This is obviously not happening at the moment, for different reasons, one of the first being the low level of European cooperation in these matters.
But I also know for sure, and thanks to the Dutch experience, that creating a Ministry of Integration (or whatever you call it) is not the good solution. Creating more bureaucracy is not a human way of answering an urgent problem. Economic and political problems can be handled only with economic and political solution. Mister Sarkozy fell into the same populist trap than Rita Verdonk's VVD in the Netherlands: giving a purely administrative answer to a human issue. I know all too well of the terrible consequences this sometimes had here, with heart breaking stories of people sent back to countries where they could face death (or worse), of children torn off from their families or of decent working and tax paying residents being given 28 days to leave all their life behind them...
So I beg you, my dear fellow French voters, vote for whoever you want, it's up to you as this is (still) a free country. But for good people's sake, don't bring to the Presidency a male version of "Iron Rita". The country of Human Rights and Enlightenment deserves better... just like the country of Humanism deserved better than the VVD.
09 March 2007
The Dutch Regional Elections
Dear readers,
On wednesday, there was the Dutch Regional elections. As some journalist from the NRC Handelsblat put it, these are more important than they seem, because you actually vote for three reasons with one voice. First, Dutch citizens were voting for the Regional Councils. This was actually the real election. But these give also the results of the First Chamber of the Parliament, based on the results in each Region. So that's actually two votes in one, from a constitutional point of view. But the journalist was making a case (and was proved right) that it was also a kind of referendum for the current brand new coalition. This one is an odd mix of the CDA (Christian Democrat, the party of middle class families, rather right wing), CU (another Christian Democrat one, but more protestant and more centre left) and PvdA (Blair style Labour, but still left wing). It turn out to be reflecting quite exactly the results of the last legislative elections which gave way to this coalition, including the rise of the popular but very left wing SP (Socialist Party).
But what got my attention more than anything else during this process, apart from the total lack of participation, is the discovery that there is no ID check to vote. I mean, theortically, there is one. But a (male) journalist of free newspaper Metro managed to vote no less than five times, including once with the ID of a woman! This means that there is simply no ID check for voters, or at least no serious one. This came of course as a surprise to me, French citizen used to carry a photo ID on me all the time, passport or ID card. But then I realized that Dutch citizens are extremely against the use of personal ID in their life. This is both part of the country free culture and mentality. It is also a result of recent History: when a policeman was asking a citizen for an ID, it was until last year not uncommon to hear te outraged citizen let out an "Ausweis bitte!" to the unfortunate civil servant. German occupation is still vivid in many memories... Until last year only, I wrote, because with the new post 9/11 antiterrorist laws, it is now mandatory to carry an ID at all times, just like in France. But ultimately, this story of multiple votes is saying more about the state of mind in politics in the Netherlands. Nobody checks IDs because nobody believes anyone would actually cheat to vote. That would be so... asocial!
On wednesday, there was the Dutch Regional elections. As some journalist from the NRC Handelsblat put it, these are more important than they seem, because you actually vote for three reasons with one voice. First, Dutch citizens were voting for the Regional Councils. This was actually the real election. But these give also the results of the First Chamber of the Parliament, based on the results in each Region. So that's actually two votes in one, from a constitutional point of view. But the journalist was making a case (and was proved right) that it was also a kind of referendum for the current brand new coalition. This one is an odd mix of the CDA (Christian Democrat, the party of middle class families, rather right wing), CU (another Christian Democrat one, but more protestant and more centre left) and PvdA (Blair style Labour, but still left wing). It turn out to be reflecting quite exactly the results of the last legislative elections which gave way to this coalition, including the rise of the popular but very left wing SP (Socialist Party).
But what got my attention more than anything else during this process, apart from the total lack of participation, is the discovery that there is no ID check to vote. I mean, theortically, there is one. But a (male) journalist of free newspaper Metro managed to vote no less than five times, including once with the ID of a woman! This means that there is simply no ID check for voters, or at least no serious one. This came of course as a surprise to me, French citizen used to carry a photo ID on me all the time, passport or ID card. But then I realized that Dutch citizens are extremely against the use of personal ID in their life. This is both part of the country free culture and mentality. It is also a result of recent History: when a policeman was asking a citizen for an ID, it was until last year not uncommon to hear te outraged citizen let out an "Ausweis bitte!" to the unfortunate civil servant. German occupation is still vivid in many memories... Until last year only, I wrote, because with the new post 9/11 antiterrorist laws, it is now mandatory to carry an ID at all times, just like in France. But ultimately, this story of multiple votes is saying more about the state of mind in politics in the Netherlands. Nobody checks IDs because nobody believes anyone would actually cheat to vote. That would be so... asocial!
05 March 2007
Utrecht Jazz Festival
Dear readers,
I had an interesting visit to Utrecht this week-end. I wanted to enjoy a concert by the Hasse Poulsen Jazz Band. These are Danish jazzmen, living in France but singing (sometimes) in English. I wasn't disappointed. Though their style, a mix of jazz, blues, house and heavy metal, was not my particular cup of tea, I could still appreciate the virtuosity and the energy of the band. As usual, the sound of the SJU was excellent and the beer very drinkable...
So here is a picture of these guys, sorry for the blur, but it's not that easy to get a decent photo in a dark room without a flash.
Anyway, if you like good music and inventive musicians, don't hesitate to listen to these guys. They are touring Europe regularly, so it should be easy if you live on the old continent. And bravo to the SJU and the Utrecht Jazz Festival for an excellent (if short) concert.
I had an interesting visit to Utrecht this week-end. I wanted to enjoy a concert by the Hasse Poulsen Jazz Band. These are Danish jazzmen, living in France but singing (sometimes) in English. I wasn't disappointed. Though their style, a mix of jazz, blues, house and heavy metal, was not my particular cup of tea, I could still appreciate the virtuosity and the energy of the band. As usual, the sound of the SJU was excellent and the beer very drinkable...
 |
| From Marelles-blog |
So here is a picture of these guys, sorry for the blur, but it's not that easy to get a decent photo in a dark room without a flash.
Anyway, if you like good music and inventive musicians, don't hesitate to listen to these guys. They are touring Europe regularly, so it should be easy if you live on the old continent. And bravo to the SJU and the Utrecht Jazz Festival for an excellent (if short) concert.
27 February 2007
Genocide
Dear readers,
The recent verdict of the International Court of Justice about Serbia raises, I believe, an interesting question. We read the word genocide quasi every day in the press, we hear it on radio and tv, but I am not too sure that people realise what it exactly means. So the rage of Bosnian demonstrators after the verdict might be very understandable, but not very well directed. The Court was asked to tell the (international) law, and it did it remarkably well. So the question is "What is exactly genocide?" What does it cover? Who can be responsible for genocide? And obviously who can be guilty of not preventing genocide, or worse, accomplicity?
It is not as an easy question as it may seems. Genocide is a very vast word, but it has a very precise legal meaning. According to this article, the only space left to debate is about the extent. Where does genocide begin and where does "simple" massacre ends? The legal definition speaks about partial or total destruction of a group because of its religion, ethnicity, etc. So there is a jurisprudence about what constitutes a part big enough to qualify for genocide. The Tribunal for ex-Yougoslavia stated that, to qualify, a group of victims must be significant in absolute numbers, relatively to the size of the total group but also relatively to the reach of the perpetrator. And of course, the organisation (system) and intent must be proven.
In the case of Sebrenica, genocide is clear: perpetrators systematically killed all male population (effectively preventing the reproduction of the targetted group part), the part was significant in absolute value (several thousands) and relative numbers (a region is a significant part of a country). There was a very systematic effort and organisation: the perpetrators organised the deception of the population to help their murderous effort, organising convoys that would lead some to their deaths and others to exile (after systematic rape).
But what the Court showed in yesterday's decision is that Serbia as a state did not organise such an act. Serbia certainly helped, or at least did not prevent the genocide in local Sebrenica. But Serbia as a state did not organise the genocide of all Muslim and ethnic Kroatian populations. Local Bosno-Serb authorities did. No one in Belgrad had theorized ethnic cleansing. It was Radovan Karadzic who did in Bosnia. Serbia aimed at dominance over ex-Yougoslavia, not extermination. Belgrade, in few words, was guilty of non-prevention and certainly of dictatorship. But not genocide... Serbia did little worse than China or the Arab League with Sudan (relating to Darfur) or than France with Rwanda.
That doesn't tell much about China and France, does it?
The recent verdict of the International Court of Justice about Serbia raises, I believe, an interesting question. We read the word genocide quasi every day in the press, we hear it on radio and tv, but I am not too sure that people realise what it exactly means. So the rage of Bosnian demonstrators after the verdict might be very understandable, but not very well directed. The Court was asked to tell the (international) law, and it did it remarkably well. So the question is "What is exactly genocide?" What does it cover? Who can be responsible for genocide? And obviously who can be guilty of not preventing genocide, or worse, accomplicity?
It is not as an easy question as it may seems. Genocide is a very vast word, but it has a very precise legal meaning. According to this article, the only space left to debate is about the extent. Where does genocide begin and where does "simple" massacre ends? The legal definition speaks about partial or total destruction of a group because of its religion, ethnicity, etc. So there is a jurisprudence about what constitutes a part big enough to qualify for genocide. The Tribunal for ex-Yougoslavia stated that, to qualify, a group of victims must be significant in absolute numbers, relatively to the size of the total group but also relatively to the reach of the perpetrator. And of course, the organisation (system) and intent must be proven.
In the case of Sebrenica, genocide is clear: perpetrators systematically killed all male population (effectively preventing the reproduction of the targetted group part), the part was significant in absolute value (several thousands) and relative numbers (a region is a significant part of a country). There was a very systematic effort and organisation: the perpetrators organised the deception of the population to help their murderous effort, organising convoys that would lead some to their deaths and others to exile (after systematic rape).
But what the Court showed in yesterday's decision is that Serbia as a state did not organise such an act. Serbia certainly helped, or at least did not prevent the genocide in local Sebrenica. But Serbia as a state did not organise the genocide of all Muslim and ethnic Kroatian populations. Local Bosno-Serb authorities did. No one in Belgrad had theorized ethnic cleansing. It was Radovan Karadzic who did in Bosnia. Serbia aimed at dominance over ex-Yougoslavia, not extermination. Belgrade, in few words, was guilty of non-prevention and certainly of dictatorship. But not genocide... Serbia did little worse than China or the Arab League with Sudan (relating to Darfur) or than France with Rwanda.
That doesn't tell much about China and France, does it?
20 February 2007
Looking for a job
Dear readers,
No politics today, no two cents philosophical comments. And no picture...
I am just too busy looking for a new job. So if you know a company looking for a good market analyst, or better, if your company needs a team manager in an intelligence section, I am the right man for the job. I have good project management experience, studied International Relations, can speak Dutch, French and English (and I can learn more if you want to...) and I have worked in the maritime, insurance and agro-food sectors. I don't mind working hard, travelling or even moving to a new country, as long as the pay is decent and the job interesting.
And yes, of course, I have a CV ready if you are interested. You can ask me by e-mail here. ;-)
No politics today, no two cents philosophical comments. And no picture...
I am just too busy looking for a new job. So if you know a company looking for a good market analyst, or better, if your company needs a team manager in an intelligence section, I am the right man for the job. I have good project management experience, studied International Relations, can speak Dutch, French and English (and I can learn more if you want to...) and I have worked in the maritime, insurance and agro-food sectors. I don't mind working hard, travelling or even moving to a new country, as long as the pay is decent and the job interesting.
And yes, of course, I have a CV ready if you are interested. You can ask me by e-mail here. ;-)
16 February 2007
Al Jazeera - Refugees
Dear readers,
I was reading this article on Al Jazeera in English today and I thought I'd like to share this pearl of hypocrisy with you. Not hypocrisy from the part of Al Jazeera, but from the part of certain members of the US administration. Basically, the USA have "discovered" that their operations in Iraq had caused, since 2003, the emigration of millions of Iraqis. And guess who is taking the brunt of these numbers? Iraq Arab neighbours, obviously, which are already deep into social, political and economic problems themselves... And who is paying for the influx, the logistical nightmare, the food and shelter? Well, the fleeing Iraqis themselves, of course, as well as the UNHCR obviously. Which means in the end you and me, as the UNHCR is funded (indirectly) by our taxes.
So of course, in the last four years, Iraqis and their families have desperately tried to leave Arab countries where they are not always welcome, to say the least, and fled to Europe, where they are ending "en masse", in our ports, stations, public social shelters, etc. And what has the US administration done about this? Well, last year they have accepted 202 of these refugees (mainly people working for them in Iraq and who were threatened) and they propose to take about 7000 this year. And they might spend some money in Arab lands to pay for the costs of some of the other ones. That's so nice and charitable... I am sure the Iraqis will appreciate the gift to its true value. So, here we go, let's destroy a country in the name of regime change, under false pretenses, plunge it deep into chaos, mismanage it and exploit its resources. And when people get so desperate that they take what they can of their belongings and families and run away, let's just give them a couple of dollars and tell them to stay around. And please, don't come and bother us in our Brave New World... We are way to busy enjoying our wealth, our SUV, our freedoms (ooops...) and our way of life!
I was reading this article on Al Jazeera in English today and I thought I'd like to share this pearl of hypocrisy with you. Not hypocrisy from the part of Al Jazeera, but from the part of certain members of the US administration. Basically, the USA have "discovered" that their operations in Iraq had caused, since 2003, the emigration of millions of Iraqis. And guess who is taking the brunt of these numbers? Iraq Arab neighbours, obviously, which are already deep into social, political and economic problems themselves... And who is paying for the influx, the logistical nightmare, the food and shelter? Well, the fleeing Iraqis themselves, of course, as well as the UNHCR obviously. Which means in the end you and me, as the UNHCR is funded (indirectly) by our taxes.
So of course, in the last four years, Iraqis and their families have desperately tried to leave Arab countries where they are not always welcome, to say the least, and fled to Europe, where they are ending "en masse", in our ports, stations, public social shelters, etc. And what has the US administration done about this? Well, last year they have accepted 202 of these refugees (mainly people working for them in Iraq and who were threatened) and they propose to take about 7000 this year. And they might spend some money in Arab lands to pay for the costs of some of the other ones. That's so nice and charitable... I am sure the Iraqis will appreciate the gift to its true value. So, here we go, let's destroy a country in the name of regime change, under false pretenses, plunge it deep into chaos, mismanage it and exploit its resources. And when people get so desperate that they take what they can of their belongings and families and run away, let's just give them a couple of dollars and tell them to stay around. And please, don't come and bother us in our Brave New World... We are way to busy enjoying our wealth, our SUV, our freedoms (ooops...) and our way of life!
14 February 2007
Valentine
Dear readers,
Nothing special today. I am just enjoying a free day to work on my CV, search a new job, all this hassle. Well, yes, of course it is Valentine's day. Honestly, I have been guilty of forgetting it many times in the past, leading to horrible scenes with girlfriends.
Today is different. Today, I would like to wish a happy Valentine's day to someone I miss terribly. I don't even know if she reads me from time to time or not. So my dear, if you read this, know that distance is not always soothing everything and that time is not always a filter. They can also sharpen pain and enhance memories.
May the sun shine on your life and may fate or the circumstances (whichever we believe in the most) make us join again together.
With love...
Nothing special today. I am just enjoying a free day to work on my CV, search a new job, all this hassle. Well, yes, of course it is Valentine's day. Honestly, I have been guilty of forgetting it many times in the past, leading to horrible scenes with girlfriends.
Today is different. Today, I would like to wish a happy Valentine's day to someone I miss terribly. I don't even know if she reads me from time to time or not. So my dear, if you read this, know that distance is not always soothing everything and that time is not always a filter. They can also sharpen pain and enhance memories.
May the sun shine on your life and may fate or the circumstances (whichever we believe in the most) make us join again together.
With love...
07 February 2007
After the parrots, a rabbit
 |
| By Logrus |
Only 24 hours after my previous post below, about mating parrots in winter, snow began to fall heavily over Zuid Holland, and pretty soon it was all covered in cold white. Animals, unlike the day before, were not really happy with it, such as this tiny rabbit under my office window, trying to get some food in a worker's garden. The contrast with the previous day was so big, it is a shame that I couldn't take pictures of the parrot so as to support my message.
But anyway, it doesn't change anything to the fact that the weather is really getting weird and that animals are the first ones to suffer...
05 February 2007
Winter parrots mating
Dear readers,
There was last week a major conference in Paris about climate change and global warming. It is certainly an alarming situation that was described in the final report, but we all know the most catastrophic effects will be "enjoyed" by our children, most probably. This said, some effects can be felt already, according to some climatologists. Apparently, some of the very warm weather we had in the last years could be linked to our own activities. Quite scary, I believe. But some of these effects are actually quite nicer...
I had a good example today when I looked outside the window. May I remind you that this is Netherlands, and definitely winter time. Some years qgo, at the same date, canals were frozen and people were ice skating safely... Well, this year, forget about canal ice skating. There were a whole bunch of green parrots, in full mating parade, flying and tumbling all around the building. I know parrots can be adaptable birds, and we have had many of them in the Netherlands for some time, mainly in bigger cities. But this is not even a city centre and they were actually mating at the heart of winter!
They said it all, guys and gals, the weather is getting all crazzy. And birds too... ;-)
There was last week a major conference in Paris about climate change and global warming. It is certainly an alarming situation that was described in the final report, but we all know the most catastrophic effects will be "enjoyed" by our children, most probably. This said, some effects can be felt already, according to some climatologists. Apparently, some of the very warm weather we had in the last years could be linked to our own activities. Quite scary, I believe. But some of these effects are actually quite nicer...
I had a good example today when I looked outside the window. May I remind you that this is Netherlands, and definitely winter time. Some years qgo, at the same date, canals were frozen and people were ice skating safely... Well, this year, forget about canal ice skating. There were a whole bunch of green parrots, in full mating parade, flying and tumbling all around the building. I know parrots can be adaptable birds, and we have had many of them in the Netherlands for some time, mainly in bigger cities. But this is not even a city centre and they were actually mating at the heart of winter!
They said it all, guys and gals, the weather is getting all crazzy. And birds too... ;-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)