Dear readers,
Looks like the website Blacksmiths of Lebanon has gone into hiding. Strangely, it is now an invitation only site. That sounds bizarre for te rather outspoken collective of Lebanese bloggers behind the site. If anyone has news about these gentlemen, please comment. I am actually a little bit worried.
21 January 2010
31 December 2009
2009 Review before 2010 wishes
Dear readers,
I have been a very bad blogger in 2009, inflicting only a couple of blog posts on you. I am very ashamed of this, so I decided to finish this year with something useful. So for all of you living in Rotterdam, Dutchies of Alochtones, here is a couple of tips from my 2009 experience to use in 2010 (and some shameful publicity for some friends of mine).
* Restaurant (classic): Met de Franse Slag. This classic French restaurant and café, on Schilderstraat 20, has a good chef and an excellent service for a very reasonable price (count 50 euros pp including wine for a three courses meal). The decor is also quite interesting, mixing jazzy and kitsch.
* Restaurant (exotic): Fugu is an excellent Japanese restaurant. Although not truely Japanese (there is no true Japanese restaurant in Rotterdam), it is the nearest to traditional Japanese cooking. The service is perfect and the location really nice, in the Wester Handelsterrein.
* Gaming store (geeky): Gamers of the West is your international friendly card, board and miniature game shop, in the Jonker Fransstraat. Led by the energetic and welcoming West Givner (from Cleveland, Ohio), you will find there everything to play from Magic to Warhammer 40K, but also some rarer stuff, such as Infinity miniatures or my personal favourite: Legends of the Five Rings. The shop is big and West invites eveyone to play inside, so it is a very good atmosphere.
* Strip shop (general): Yendor. In the Korte Hoogstraat, it has cartoon novels, strips, mangas and some merchandising objects too. The staff is always helpful and has some old or rare stuff, on demand. Great service and great choice, although mostly (but not only) in Dutch.
* Computer shop: MyCom has good service, great advice and a very good content. On the Mariniersweg, it proposes pretty much everything, PC only, at excellent prices. Ordering online is possible, as well as home delivery.
I have been a very bad blogger in 2009, inflicting only a couple of blog posts on you. I am very ashamed of this, so I decided to finish this year with something useful. So for all of you living in Rotterdam, Dutchies of Alochtones, here is a couple of tips from my 2009 experience to use in 2010 (and some shameful publicity for some friends of mine).
* Restaurant (classic): Met de Franse Slag. This classic French restaurant and café, on Schilderstraat 20, has a good chef and an excellent service for a very reasonable price (count 50 euros pp including wine for a three courses meal). The decor is also quite interesting, mixing jazzy and kitsch.
* Restaurant (exotic): Fugu is an excellent Japanese restaurant. Although not truely Japanese (there is no true Japanese restaurant in Rotterdam), it is the nearest to traditional Japanese cooking. The service is perfect and the location really nice, in the Wester Handelsterrein.
* Strip shop (general): Yendor. In the Korte Hoogstraat, it has cartoon novels, strips, mangas and some merchandising objects too. The staff is always helpful and has some old or rare stuff, on demand. Great service and great choice, although mostly (but not only) in Dutch.
* Computer shop: MyCom has good service, great advice and a very good content. On the Mariniersweg, it proposes pretty much everything, PC only, at excellent prices. Ordering online is possible, as well as home delivery.
21 August 2009
Will we pluck the chicken or kill it?
Dear readers,
I have listened with disgust to many of the comments made in the UK and in the Netherlands about the so-called Icesave deal. This is a nasty piece of chauvinistic bullshit if there is one. Let's go back to the facts. In 2007 and 2008, many Dutch and British citizens (as well as most Icelandic people) subscribed to Landbanski saving accounts which were proposing extraordinary returns, far above the (then already quite high) market interest rates. Unfortunately for them, such rates could only be achieved through a semi-pyramidal scheme, part of the returns being funded by capital being invested by the new customers. Please note that each national group of citizens was also relying on guarantees from their respective national finance regulators. This lasted until the now infamous credit crisis burst, leaving thousands of people with virtually nothing left of their savings.
Obviously, these customers turned back to their state and activated the refund requests linked to the national guarantee. Some of them, however, had invested amounts in the Landbanski scheme that were higher than the national guarantee limit. They lost a lot of money, on top of the promised interests. Understandably, these citizens and the public organisations that had imitated them (regional councils, towns and other districts) were quite angry at the Icelandic banks for having failed them, despite the fact that they should probably have known better. There is indeed no such thing as a saving system which can deliver twice the market interest rate.
However, things became uglier. Hit by a triple bank failure (aggravated by the UK uncompromising attitude), the Icelandic currency lost most of its value and the Icelandic economy collapsed. Iceland new government and its citizens, understanding for the first time that their previous go-it-alone policy was not protecting them in times of crisis, decided to apply for EU membership. The reasoning is that the European Union, particularly its monetary aspects (the Euro), could protect them in the future from similar disasters. This was favourably seen by most EU member states (in normal times, Iceland would be a net contributor to the EU budget). But the UK and Netherlands, were both governments are in difficult electoral situations, facing strong populist criticisms, vocally requested that Iceland first reimburse the sums they had advanced themselves to their duped citizens. This is called the Icesave package deal and is currently being discussed by the Iceland Parliament, the Athling (the oldest Parliament in the world).
This is unfortunately probably going to derail the whole process. EU membership negotiations were already going to be difficult, due to a understandable worries from the Icelandic fishery sector. But the new British and Dutch exigences are enraging an already touchy Icelandic public opinion. And I can only give my support to the unfortunate Icelandic citizens. Why on Earth, when they are already down, highly indebted and suffering from a terrible crisis, should they be forced to support the costs of guarantees that were passed by other governments. Why should they pay for the misdeeds of a private bank which only happens to share a geographic situation with them. Why should they be asked to cover on their own money the risks taken by other people? Why should they in other words, pay for the greed of fellow Europeans? I see no ethical basis for this. I don't see any legal reason for this either. On the contrary, I believe that we should rather give a shoulder to fellow Europeans, especially at a time when everyone is suffering. That's what solidarity is for. That's what the EU is for: being stronger together, not screwing the weakest link...
I have listened with disgust to many of the comments made in the UK and in the Netherlands about the so-called Icesave deal. This is a nasty piece of chauvinistic bullshit if there is one. Let's go back to the facts. In 2007 and 2008, many Dutch and British citizens (as well as most Icelandic people) subscribed to Landbanski saving accounts which were proposing extraordinary returns, far above the (then already quite high) market interest rates. Unfortunately for them, such rates could only be achieved through a semi-pyramidal scheme, part of the returns being funded by capital being invested by the new customers. Please note that each national group of citizens was also relying on guarantees from their respective national finance regulators. This lasted until the now infamous credit crisis burst, leaving thousands of people with virtually nothing left of their savings.
Obviously, these customers turned back to their state and activated the refund requests linked to the national guarantee. Some of them, however, had invested amounts in the Landbanski scheme that were higher than the national guarantee limit. They lost a lot of money, on top of the promised interests. Understandably, these citizens and the public organisations that had imitated them (regional councils, towns and other districts) were quite angry at the Icelandic banks for having failed them, despite the fact that they should probably have known better. There is indeed no such thing as a saving system which can deliver twice the market interest rate.
However, things became uglier. Hit by a triple bank failure (aggravated by the UK uncompromising attitude), the Icelandic currency lost most of its value and the Icelandic economy collapsed. Iceland new government and its citizens, understanding for the first time that their previous go-it-alone policy was not protecting them in times of crisis, decided to apply for EU membership. The reasoning is that the European Union, particularly its monetary aspects (the Euro), could protect them in the future from similar disasters. This was favourably seen by most EU member states (in normal times, Iceland would be a net contributor to the EU budget). But the UK and Netherlands, were both governments are in difficult electoral situations, facing strong populist criticisms, vocally requested that Iceland first reimburse the sums they had advanced themselves to their duped citizens. This is called the Icesave package deal and is currently being discussed by the Iceland Parliament, the Athling (the oldest Parliament in the world).
This is unfortunately probably going to derail the whole process. EU membership negotiations were already going to be difficult, due to a understandable worries from the Icelandic fishery sector. But the new British and Dutch exigences are enraging an already touchy Icelandic public opinion. And I can only give my support to the unfortunate Icelandic citizens. Why on Earth, when they are already down, highly indebted and suffering from a terrible crisis, should they be forced to support the costs of guarantees that were passed by other governments. Why should they pay for the misdeeds of a private bank which only happens to share a geographic situation with them. Why should they be asked to cover on their own money the risks taken by other people? Why should they in other words, pay for the greed of fellow Europeans? I see no ethical basis for this. I don't see any legal reason for this either. On the contrary, I believe that we should rather give a shoulder to fellow Europeans, especially at a time when everyone is suffering. That's what solidarity is for. That's what the EU is for: being stronger together, not screwing the weakest link...
19 August 2009
Android Review
Dear readers,
As some of you might now, I got myself a new mobile phone while renewing my phone subscription. After long and careful consideration about which phone was on offer by my provider, as well as my own budget (which is as usual on the tight side), I decided to go for the much touted HTC G2 "Hero". The important thing about this phone is not just the specifications, but the operating system.
The HTC Hero makes full use of the latest version of Google's Android OS, dubbed Cupcake (a Linux related operating system for mobile and smart phones). It does so via its own HTC Sense interface which is basically an integration of Android to the HTC Hero. Before going any further in this review, let me state a couple of points first: I am a Google fan in many ways (although I don't like everything they do) and I enjoy gadgets of all types very much. All in all, I am extremely happy with the HTC acquisition and I plan to keep it for a good while. This said, I am also going to bitch a bit about what I don't like in both, so get ready.
First, let's have a look at the goodies (and there is a whole lot of them).
The phone is big, without being heavy (135 grams) or unhandy. It has a kind of bended shape at the bottom, which is not unpleasant and makes it feel like an actual phone, not just another IPhone copy. The screen is rectangular, with an 81 mm (3.2 inches) diagonal and a fairly standard 480 * 320 pixels resolution. The brightness is good and makes it easy to read even without the backlight option on, unless in bright sun light, of course. There is a mini-mouse ball for navigation, six buttons and no keyboard. Input is done via the touchscreen. The only plugs are a semi standard USB 2 and a headphone jack. A 5 Mega pixel video camera is included, as well as a slot for mini HD SD memory card (filled with a 2 Gigabytes one). I immediately replaced the SD card by an 8 G one, because I was planning to listen to music on this new toy. ;-)
All in all, I have used this phone for four days now, and it feels great. As a phone it is doing its job nicely, calling and receiving calls is going fine and the sound is crisp. Messaging is also quite handy and the OS shines already at this stage with its integrated way of guessing words for you as you type, but without imposing a solution on you (assuming you are typing in the language you indicated in the settings). I mention both of these because in these days of smart phones, people and especially salesmen tend to forget that a mobile is primarily this: a bloody telephone. As another side comment, I should also add that the battery life is really good. I was a bit afraid of this in the first place, but I was happily surprised. Despite using the phone intensively (including some of the most power intensive options I am going to mention later), the battery lasts easily a full work day and more. This means you can load your phone during night or in the morning, go to work with it and use it a lot, come back home, continue using it and only have to put it on the (USB type plug) loader at night again or the morning after. This is a major plus point, I think.
The applications and the OS are also a blast. The camera works fine and uses a second or two delay as default, which is handy in most situations where one might want to use a phone camera. The video is ok too, but this is not the most interesting use of the HTC Hero lenses in any way... The interface uses finger gliding/tapping or the mouse ball. Both work very well, although I have to say that my greasy fingers are not really helping on the touchscreen. Tapping to type is going well, as I already mentioned. The Android "desktop" functions pretty much as one virtual scrolling screen made of seven times the actual HTC screen. The central panel is linked to the home button and shows the WiFi switch, the Browser the Mail application, the Contact list, the SMS launcher and an analog watch per default. There are also three virtual buttons in the lower bar (the application list, the phone mode and the "add icon or widget" button). The higher bar is a status one, which can be expended, and proves highly useful to open incoming messages, alerts and other notifications directly.
Other panels show a couple of other icons and widgets (weather forecast for your location, web search, camera and music). I have to say something about the music listener application. The way it works is really the most user friendly you can imagine. To load music on the phone: just plug the HTC on a USB port on your PC (it will use this to reload too, by the way) and use copy paste from a PC window to the HTC window. Once the transfer has occurred, unplug the phone and voilà: the music is found, recognized, sorted by meta tags and ready to play. All basic options are there: play lists, shuffle, repeat and so on. The sound is excellent and the provided headphones are of decent quality. Volume can be changed via the phone side button reserved to this use. A remote on the headphones allows the following actions: play or stop/pause, forward and backward.
Of course, maybe the most interesting aspect of Android is the number of applications you can download from the "Market" to the phone and use almost immediately. Thanks to Google's open policy, these are mostly free (although many of them are not, ranging from 1 to 5 or 6 Euros, there is pretty much two free equivalent for each paying one). They cover all kinds of software and uses, from the obvious productivity applications to the silliest games or "social networking" fads.
Speaking about fashion, the latest and maybe most impressive type of application available on the Android market are the ones called "augmented reality". Some predict this will be the new step beyond Web 2.0. I honestly don't know, but it certainly looks cool. There are two major applications in this range (and only available on Android, as far as I know): Layar, a Dutch system, and Austrian made Wikitude. There used to be a Japanese one, but it seems to not have survived the recent credit crisis. What do they do? Well, they make use of the GPS receiver, the accelerometer and the video camera or the HTC Hero to actually display layers of web based information directly on the live video images of your surroundings displayed by the camera. The best comparison I have seen to described this is the images taken in the movie Terminator, when the spectator gets to peek from the Terminator point of view. They don't see only the video image of what the robot perceives, but also all kinds of (con)textual information about its targets and environment. Augmented reality applications do exactly that. Most use a simple search for geolocated elements on the web (such as Wikipedia locations, Google map searches and so on). But, as demonstrated by Layar, any provider of such layers can have its specific information displayed on their software platform (presumably via their own API).
Now let's have a look at the bad sides.
The first negative, although it is a minor thing, is the fact that the screen is only 3.2 inches, instead of the massive 3.5 showed by the IPhone. It might not be much, but it is visible and not irrelevant in terms of reading comfort. This said, it has a positive side as it is easier to hold than the Apple product, especially for someone like me with less than average size hands. Still in the usability issues, the volume button that I mentioned above is not so obvious to use and a bit poorly designed. But again, no big deal and more a matter of getting used to it.
There are more annoyances on the software side, unfortunately. Again, please remember that most of this if not all comes for free, so it is a bit like complaining about a present somebody made to you... But still, for the sake of software improvement, it needs to be said. First, and at least for my provider, Skype is not allowed to function with Voice over IP via the WiFi. I can understand the economic rational behind this, but it made me a sad panda. ;-)
The second and probably most annoying issue is the browser. It is full of bugs in my opinion. I know it is based on a much acclaimed system (which is also used on the IPhone), but still I hate it. Despite claims of the contrary in the settings, I can't have the home page stick at all. Cache refreshing happens when it wants (pretty much never), which makes AJAX software nearly unusable. I see that there are other browsers available on the Android Market, and I certainly intend to test them. At the moment and the way it is designed, the default one is sub par. Another bad thing with it is that the button you normally use to close an application (the left arrow) is also the "Go back" button in the browser. I haven't find a decent way of going around this. Frankly, this is poor design.
A thing I also found annoying in Android is that, despite the fact the software is a Google based product, Google applications are not supported that well. Of course, Gmail and Google Calendar are standard, as well as YouTube and Google Map (which makes great use of the GPS) and you can add easily Google Finance and a couple of others. But I find unfortunate that Google Reader has no dedicated application nor a widget and that there is no free application allowing to synchronize your Google To-Do List. I couldn't find anything to synchronize bookmarks either, but i haven't researched the issue in details either. I eventually settled for the free and excellent NewsRob application which integrates very well with Google Reader and I am using the pretty good Astrid app for the To-Do List (although it does not synchronize with Google To-Do list on iGoogle). And I know that I could use both these applications through the browser. But after what I said about the standard browser, I guess you will understand why I refuse to do so (and why it wouldn't work too well, considering the caching issues). Also, using the browser involves at least one or two extra clicks or taps and I think there is no best way to kill user friendliness.
Last but not least, Picasa is poorly supported. Although it is supposed to natively integrate with the Android Albums photo library, this is not easy to find out and even worse executed. I could not make it work at all, for some reason, and I ended up canceling the picture upload. Strangely enough, Facebook and Flickr uploads are also natively supported and work better... 8-\
Apart from these glitches and minor annoyances, I would conclude this (too) long review by saying that the HTC Hero with Android and HTC Sense is a great smart phone with a fantastic piece of software running on it. And I haven't tried all of it yet, by far... So I would highly recommend it. And for the budget conscious like me, I would even go as far as saying that it is superior to the Apple IPhone.
As some of you might now, I got myself a new mobile phone while renewing my phone subscription. After long and careful consideration about which phone was on offer by my provider, as well as my own budget (which is as usual on the tight side), I decided to go for the much touted HTC G2 "Hero". The important thing about this phone is not just the specifications, but the operating system.
The HTC Hero makes full use of the latest version of Google's Android OS, dubbed Cupcake (a Linux related operating system for mobile and smart phones). It does so via its own HTC Sense interface which is basically an integration of Android to the HTC Hero. Before going any further in this review, let me state a couple of points first: I am a Google fan in many ways (although I don't like everything they do) and I enjoy gadgets of all types very much. All in all, I am extremely happy with the HTC acquisition and I plan to keep it for a good while. This said, I am also going to bitch a bit about what I don't like in both, so get ready.
First, let's have a look at the goodies (and there is a whole lot of them).
The phone is big, without being heavy (135 grams) or unhandy. It has a kind of bended shape at the bottom, which is not unpleasant and makes it feel like an actual phone, not just another IPhone copy. The screen is rectangular, with an 81 mm (3.2 inches) diagonal and a fairly standard 480 * 320 pixels resolution. The brightness is good and makes it easy to read even without the backlight option on, unless in bright sun light, of course. There is a mini-mouse ball for navigation, six buttons and no keyboard. Input is done via the touchscreen. The only plugs are a semi standard USB 2 and a headphone jack. A 5 Mega pixel video camera is included, as well as a slot for mini HD SD memory card (filled with a 2 Gigabytes one). I immediately replaced the SD card by an 8 G one, because I was planning to listen to music on this new toy. ;-)
All in all, I have used this phone for four days now, and it feels great. As a phone it is doing its job nicely, calling and receiving calls is going fine and the sound is crisp. Messaging is also quite handy and the OS shines already at this stage with its integrated way of guessing words for you as you type, but without imposing a solution on you (assuming you are typing in the language you indicated in the settings). I mention both of these because in these days of smart phones, people and especially salesmen tend to forget that a mobile is primarily this: a bloody telephone. As another side comment, I should also add that the battery life is really good. I was a bit afraid of this in the first place, but I was happily surprised. Despite using the phone intensively (including some of the most power intensive options I am going to mention later), the battery lasts easily a full work day and more. This means you can load your phone during night or in the morning, go to work with it and use it a lot, come back home, continue using it and only have to put it on the (USB type plug) loader at night again or the morning after. This is a major plus point, I think.
The applications and the OS are also a blast. The camera works fine and uses a second or two delay as default, which is handy in most situations where one might want to use a phone camera. The video is ok too, but this is not the most interesting use of the HTC Hero lenses in any way... The interface uses finger gliding/tapping or the mouse ball. Both work very well, although I have to say that my greasy fingers are not really helping on the touchscreen. Tapping to type is going well, as I already mentioned. The Android "desktop" functions pretty much as one virtual scrolling screen made of seven times the actual HTC screen. The central panel is linked to the home button and shows the WiFi switch, the Browser the Mail application, the Contact list, the SMS launcher and an analog watch per default. There are also three virtual buttons in the lower bar (the application list, the phone mode and the "add icon or widget" button). The higher bar is a status one, which can be expended, and proves highly useful to open incoming messages, alerts and other notifications directly.
Other panels show a couple of other icons and widgets (weather forecast for your location, web search, camera and music). I have to say something about the music listener application. The way it works is really the most user friendly you can imagine. To load music on the phone: just plug the HTC on a USB port on your PC (it will use this to reload too, by the way) and use copy paste from a PC window to the HTC window. Once the transfer has occurred, unplug the phone and voilà: the music is found, recognized, sorted by meta tags and ready to play. All basic options are there: play lists, shuffle, repeat and so on. The sound is excellent and the provided headphones are of decent quality. Volume can be changed via the phone side button reserved to this use. A remote on the headphones allows the following actions: play or stop/pause, forward and backward.
Of course, maybe the most interesting aspect of Android is the number of applications you can download from the "Market" to the phone and use almost immediately. Thanks to Google's open policy, these are mostly free (although many of them are not, ranging from 1 to 5 or 6 Euros, there is pretty much two free equivalent for each paying one). They cover all kinds of software and uses, from the obvious productivity applications to the silliest games or "social networking" fads.
Speaking about fashion, the latest and maybe most impressive type of application available on the Android market are the ones called "augmented reality". Some predict this will be the new step beyond Web 2.0. I honestly don't know, but it certainly looks cool. There are two major applications in this range (and only available on Android, as far as I know): Layar, a Dutch system, and Austrian made Wikitude. There used to be a Japanese one, but it seems to not have survived the recent credit crisis. What do they do? Well, they make use of the GPS receiver, the accelerometer and the video camera or the HTC Hero to actually display layers of web based information directly on the live video images of your surroundings displayed by the camera. The best comparison I have seen to described this is the images taken in the movie Terminator, when the spectator gets to peek from the Terminator point of view. They don't see only the video image of what the robot perceives, but also all kinds of (con)textual information about its targets and environment. Augmented reality applications do exactly that. Most use a simple search for geolocated elements on the web (such as Wikipedia locations, Google map searches and so on). But, as demonstrated by Layar, any provider of such layers can have its specific information displayed on their software platform (presumably via their own API).
Now let's have a look at the bad sides.
The first negative, although it is a minor thing, is the fact that the screen is only 3.2 inches, instead of the massive 3.5 showed by the IPhone. It might not be much, but it is visible and not irrelevant in terms of reading comfort. This said, it has a positive side as it is easier to hold than the Apple product, especially for someone like me with less than average size hands. Still in the usability issues, the volume button that I mentioned above is not so obvious to use and a bit poorly designed. But again, no big deal and more a matter of getting used to it.
There are more annoyances on the software side, unfortunately. Again, please remember that most of this if not all comes for free, so it is a bit like complaining about a present somebody made to you... But still, for the sake of software improvement, it needs to be said. First, and at least for my provider, Skype is not allowed to function with Voice over IP via the WiFi. I can understand the economic rational behind this, but it made me a sad panda. ;-)
The second and probably most annoying issue is the browser. It is full of bugs in my opinion. I know it is based on a much acclaimed system (which is also used on the IPhone), but still I hate it. Despite claims of the contrary in the settings, I can't have the home page stick at all. Cache refreshing happens when it wants (pretty much never), which makes AJAX software nearly unusable. I see that there are other browsers available on the Android Market, and I certainly intend to test them. At the moment and the way it is designed, the default one is sub par. Another bad thing with it is that the button you normally use to close an application (the left arrow) is also the "Go back" button in the browser. I haven't find a decent way of going around this. Frankly, this is poor design.
A thing I also found annoying in Android is that, despite the fact the software is a Google based product, Google applications are not supported that well. Of course, Gmail and Google Calendar are standard, as well as YouTube and Google Map (which makes great use of the GPS) and you can add easily Google Finance and a couple of others. But I find unfortunate that Google Reader has no dedicated application nor a widget and that there is no free application allowing to synchronize your Google To-Do List. I couldn't find anything to synchronize bookmarks either, but i haven't researched the issue in details either. I eventually settled for the free and excellent NewsRob application which integrates very well with Google Reader and I am using the pretty good Astrid app for the To-Do List (although it does not synchronize with Google To-Do list on iGoogle). And I know that I could use both these applications through the browser. But after what I said about the standard browser, I guess you will understand why I refuse to do so (and why it wouldn't work too well, considering the caching issues). Also, using the browser involves at least one or two extra clicks or taps and I think there is no best way to kill user friendliness.
Last but not least, Picasa is poorly supported. Although it is supposed to natively integrate with the Android Albums photo library, this is not easy to find out and even worse executed. I could not make it work at all, for some reason, and I ended up canceling the picture upload. Strangely enough, Facebook and Flickr uploads are also natively supported and work better... 8-\
Apart from these glitches and minor annoyances, I would conclude this (too) long review by saying that the HTC Hero with Android and HTC Sense is a great smart phone with a fantastic piece of software running on it. And I haven't tried all of it yet, by far... So I would highly recommend it. And for the budget conscious like me, I would even go as far as saying that it is superior to the Apple IPhone.
17 August 2009
There Is Honor Amongst Thieves
Dear readers,
I read this morning that Mikhail Khodorovski has refused to request the pardon of Dimitri Medvedev, as hinted by the current Russian President. Khodorovski is doing an 8 year jail term in Russia for alleged tax evasion and he is being currently tried for a second set of fraud and embezzlement accusations. This second set is just as likely to end up in a conviction and a maximum 20 year cumulative sentence, considering the level of independence of the Russian justice system.
So why would a (relatively) young man like Khodorovski refuse to ask for a pardon which could prevent him for spending most of his life in a Russian dungeon? The risks of doing so are minimal, considering he will be convicted anyway. And Medvedev would have never hinted at it if he was not intending to give such a pardon, at least after a while. Well, Khodorovski himself gave the answer: to ask for a pardon in Russia, like in most other countries, you need to recognize that you were guilty in the first place. There is no way Mikhail Khodorovski will do this any time soon. While the ex-tycoon is certainly no saint and probably did commit some of the infractions he is accused of (and maybe some others), there is also no illusion for anyone that these convictions are purely motivated by the wish of the Putin Clan to rule Russia unopposed.
This has been Khodorovski leitmotiv for the last four or five years and he is unlikely to change his speech. Because that's pretty much all he has left. He lost his freedom when he was arrested then, all his fortune disappeared in the trial or was confiscated by the Russian authorities or distributed as spoils to Russian companies nearer to the Kremlin. All he has left, apart from his life, is his "honor". Likely a thief honor, after all, but honor nonetheless. And in a society such as Russia, this still counts. It is his name, after all. The other thieves are giving him the opportunity to exchange his honor against his life (because he won't ever be free, even out of jail, they will see to that). And he refused.
So here I am, saluting a true man who refuses to bend. Good luck Mikhail. You will need a lot of it.
I read this morning that Mikhail Khodorovski has refused to request the pardon of Dimitri Medvedev, as hinted by the current Russian President. Khodorovski is doing an 8 year jail term in Russia for alleged tax evasion and he is being currently tried for a second set of fraud and embezzlement accusations. This second set is just as likely to end up in a conviction and a maximum 20 year cumulative sentence, considering the level of independence of the Russian justice system.
So why would a (relatively) young man like Khodorovski refuse to ask for a pardon which could prevent him for spending most of his life in a Russian dungeon? The risks of doing so are minimal, considering he will be convicted anyway. And Medvedev would have never hinted at it if he was not intending to give such a pardon, at least after a while. Well, Khodorovski himself gave the answer: to ask for a pardon in Russia, like in most other countries, you need to recognize that you were guilty in the first place. There is no way Mikhail Khodorovski will do this any time soon. While the ex-tycoon is certainly no saint and probably did commit some of the infractions he is accused of (and maybe some others), there is also no illusion for anyone that these convictions are purely motivated by the wish of the Putin Clan to rule Russia unopposed.
This has been Khodorovski leitmotiv for the last four or five years and he is unlikely to change his speech. Because that's pretty much all he has left. He lost his freedom when he was arrested then, all his fortune disappeared in the trial or was confiscated by the Russian authorities or distributed as spoils to Russian companies nearer to the Kremlin. All he has left, apart from his life, is his "honor". Likely a thief honor, after all, but honor nonetheless. And in a society such as Russia, this still counts. It is his name, after all. The other thieves are giving him the opportunity to exchange his honor against his life (because he won't ever be free, even out of jail, they will see to that). And he refused.
So here I am, saluting a true man who refuses to bend. Good luck Mikhail. You will need a lot of it.
21 July 2009
Sarkozy Speech in Le Havre
Dear readers,
As you are probably aware of, if you have followed this blog from the beginning (poor you), I am interested in maritime transport, from a professional point of view. I have worked in various positions for maritime companies or suppliers and I am still currently employed by a container shipping line.
So I had quite some expectations about the much touted new French policy regarding the sea and especially ports. This has been engaged quite massively since Nicolas Sarkozy became President (although in all honesty, his predecessor, Jacques Chirac, had largely began in the same direction). Anyway, last week, during a visit to Le Havre harbor, Nicolas Sarkozy made a rather long speech summarizing the efforts already engaged and defining priorities and concrete actions for the future. As you can imagine, I read it with attention.
First, I'd like to say that I never was a fan of Mister Sarkozy. I didn't vote for him in the last elections and I have no particular sympathy for him neither for his party. He is in general way too conservative for me, focusing largely on security rather than justice, business rather than people and image rather than content. However, I always decided to keep an open mind regarding specific policies, and give him the benefit of the doubt. I have to admit that I have been rather well surprised by this Le Havre speech. As a note, please remember that this policy (apart from a tangential exception) left aside anything related to the French Navy and defense in general. Such topics have been touched in other speeches and documents, unfortunately not to my liking either.
But for the port policy, I must say, Mister Sarkozy had it right. After a short descriptive of the current state of affairs (abysmal, as everyone in the field knows), the French President noted that France has a massive maritime potential, be it for trade (ports, shipping lines, shipping routes and other intermodal potential) fish resources, mineral resources and of course energy and science. He also noted that such a potential was either unexploited, poorly exploited or (in the case of fisheries) exploited in an unsustainable way. This is something that has been said by specialists and scientists for about twenty years, but I have to remind the reader that it is the absolute first time, to my knowledge, that it is admitted at such a high level in France.
So what about the solutions. Well, and that's where it becomes interesting, Mister Sarkozy went in quite some details... at least apparently. First he noted that Paris had to be better linked to Le Havre (its natural entry port) and that a TGV (high speed train) would be build for this. This annoyed me prodigiously. Of course, a TGV is a nice piece of technology. However, most of the needed traffic between Le Havre and Paris is merchandise (oil, ores and mostly containers). Adding a TGV will only make the merchandise traffic more difficult by increasing congestion on the line. But the next paragraph re-insured me a bit: Sarkozy asks indeed for a dedicated merchandise rail link too, and practically ordered RFF (the rail infrastructure company in France) to stop canceling merchandise slots already reserved for freight trains. This is a major new policy in France and could do a lot to change the way freight is moved in the country. At the moment, France relies massively on trucks for transports, which is congesting the roads, polluting the environment and economically stupid.
Nicolas Sarkozy went further on the port policy which is now largely engaged. Le Havre had just finished its negotiations on port reforms (and most French ports already did so in the past months), largely transferring the crane operations and ownership to private operators, as is done in most efficient ports around the world. This much needed privatization will hopefully help improve the disastrous competitive position of French ports. Despite their advantageous location in Europe, on the Asia route, Marseille, Le Havre and Dunkirk all together are not even reaching the level of traffic of ports like Antwerp or Hamburg (not even mentioning Rotterdam, which is a league of its own). This ridiculous situation is largely due to poor public infrastructure, a culture of social conflict and the absence of decent hinterland links to serve other countries via France. But it is also the symptom of a lack of interest in France for its ports and the maritime world in general. This seems to have changed with Jacques Chirac a bit (maybe via his personal links with CMA CGM and Perrigault) but took a new dimension with Sarkozy.
To my surprise, he even mentioned inter-modality, container traffic, train issues, port comparisons, trade routes and so on. Obviously, someone briefed him extensively and successfully on the question. I hope this is more than just words and will translate in actual policies and investments. I wouldn't hold my breath too much though. The "little Nicolas", as he is sometimes dubbed by comics, is used to big media appearances followed by very little or no realizations. But again, I want to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Interestingly enough (and in a domain where I am much less proficient, I am afraid), he mentioned other aspects of maritime policies that are new. For the first time, he refused to blindly defend French and European fisheries and claimed that conservation and exploitation of the sea should be based on sound scientific studies and not local politics (something never done by his predecessors). This is a major switch in France and might foresee other ones... maybe even for the absurd French agricultural policy imposed upon the European Union? One can dream. Sarkozy took a similar approach towards the use of the sea for mineral and energy production. Coming from such a pro-business politician, this was a surprisingly "green" speech.
All in all, if only two of the four main proposal he discussed are actually implemented, this would be enough for me to swallow my opposition to Nicolas Sarkozy. I might not like him, but I would be glad if he at last does something where so many before him never even got informed on the topic.
As you are probably aware of, if you have followed this blog from the beginning (poor you), I am interested in maritime transport, from a professional point of view. I have worked in various positions for maritime companies or suppliers and I am still currently employed by a container shipping line.
So I had quite some expectations about the much touted new French policy regarding the sea and especially ports. This has been engaged quite massively since Nicolas Sarkozy became President (although in all honesty, his predecessor, Jacques Chirac, had largely began in the same direction). Anyway, last week, during a visit to Le Havre harbor, Nicolas Sarkozy made a rather long speech summarizing the efforts already engaged and defining priorities and concrete actions for the future. As you can imagine, I read it with attention.
First, I'd like to say that I never was a fan of Mister Sarkozy. I didn't vote for him in the last elections and I have no particular sympathy for him neither for his party. He is in general way too conservative for me, focusing largely on security rather than justice, business rather than people and image rather than content. However, I always decided to keep an open mind regarding specific policies, and give him the benefit of the doubt. I have to admit that I have been rather well surprised by this Le Havre speech. As a note, please remember that this policy (apart from a tangential exception) left aside anything related to the French Navy and defense in general. Such topics have been touched in other speeches and documents, unfortunately not to my liking either.
But for the port policy, I must say, Mister Sarkozy had it right. After a short descriptive of the current state of affairs (abysmal, as everyone in the field knows), the French President noted that France has a massive maritime potential, be it for trade (ports, shipping lines, shipping routes and other intermodal potential) fish resources, mineral resources and of course energy and science. He also noted that such a potential was either unexploited, poorly exploited or (in the case of fisheries) exploited in an unsustainable way. This is something that has been said by specialists and scientists for about twenty years, but I have to remind the reader that it is the absolute first time, to my knowledge, that it is admitted at such a high level in France.
So what about the solutions. Well, and that's where it becomes interesting, Mister Sarkozy went in quite some details... at least apparently. First he noted that Paris had to be better linked to Le Havre (its natural entry port) and that a TGV (high speed train) would be build for this. This annoyed me prodigiously. Of course, a TGV is a nice piece of technology. However, most of the needed traffic between Le Havre and Paris is merchandise (oil, ores and mostly containers). Adding a TGV will only make the merchandise traffic more difficult by increasing congestion on the line. But the next paragraph re-insured me a bit: Sarkozy asks indeed for a dedicated merchandise rail link too, and practically ordered RFF (the rail infrastructure company in France) to stop canceling merchandise slots already reserved for freight trains. This is a major new policy in France and could do a lot to change the way freight is moved in the country. At the moment, France relies massively on trucks for transports, which is congesting the roads, polluting the environment and economically stupid.
Nicolas Sarkozy went further on the port policy which is now largely engaged. Le Havre had just finished its negotiations on port reforms (and most French ports already did so in the past months), largely transferring the crane operations and ownership to private operators, as is done in most efficient ports around the world. This much needed privatization will hopefully help improve the disastrous competitive position of French ports. Despite their advantageous location in Europe, on the Asia route, Marseille, Le Havre and Dunkirk all together are not even reaching the level of traffic of ports like Antwerp or Hamburg (not even mentioning Rotterdam, which is a league of its own). This ridiculous situation is largely due to poor public infrastructure, a culture of social conflict and the absence of decent hinterland links to serve other countries via France. But it is also the symptom of a lack of interest in France for its ports and the maritime world in general. This seems to have changed with Jacques Chirac a bit (maybe via his personal links with CMA CGM and Perrigault) but took a new dimension with Sarkozy.
To my surprise, he even mentioned inter-modality, container traffic, train issues, port comparisons, trade routes and so on. Obviously, someone briefed him extensively and successfully on the question. I hope this is more than just words and will translate in actual policies and investments. I wouldn't hold my breath too much though. The "little Nicolas", as he is sometimes dubbed by comics, is used to big media appearances followed by very little or no realizations. But again, I want to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Interestingly enough (and in a domain where I am much less proficient, I am afraid), he mentioned other aspects of maritime policies that are new. For the first time, he refused to blindly defend French and European fisheries and claimed that conservation and exploitation of the sea should be based on sound scientific studies and not local politics (something never done by his predecessors). This is a major switch in France and might foresee other ones... maybe even for the absurd French agricultural policy imposed upon the European Union? One can dream. Sarkozy took a similar approach towards the use of the sea for mineral and energy production. Coming from such a pro-business politician, this was a surprisingly "green" speech.
All in all, if only two of the four main proposal he discussed are actually implemented, this would be enough for me to swallow my opposition to Nicolas Sarkozy. I might not like him, but I would be glad if he at last does something where so many before him never even got informed on the topic.
20 July 2009
Mauritania election "fair"?
Dear readers,
I have been following the Mauritanian elections, both via the BBC site and the excellent analysis from The Moor Next Door. So I have been a bit surprised by Le Monde latest reaction to the very expected "victory" of putschist General Ould Abdel Aziz. Of course, Le Monde simply and factually quotes a civil servant of the Quay d'Orsay (French Foreign Office) and adds together the claims of two opposition leaders that the whole thing was a sham. But it doesn't go any further, neither qualifies or measures these claims.
I am not really surprised by the French government reaction. Ould Abdel Aziz, whether this is true or not, is seen in Mauritania and abroad as a French protégé, by Moroccan proxy. Therefore, and after the lukewarm condemnation of his putsch by the French authority, nobody was expecting France to take the side of his opponents. But I am more disappointed by Le Monde's reaction. A bit of analysis is also part of a serious newspaper's work. I know that being factual is a good thing, but not even mentioning the connection between the current winner and the usual "Françafrique" circles is a little bit light for the French evening journal.
When I compare this to the in depth analysis of every rumor in the Iranian vote, I can only say that this is unbalanced reporting... Another sad day for French journalism.
I have been following the Mauritanian elections, both via the BBC site and the excellent analysis from The Moor Next Door. So I have been a bit surprised by Le Monde latest reaction to the very expected "victory" of putschist General Ould Abdel Aziz. Of course, Le Monde simply and factually quotes a civil servant of the Quay d'Orsay (French Foreign Office) and adds together the claims of two opposition leaders that the whole thing was a sham. But it doesn't go any further, neither qualifies or measures these claims.
I am not really surprised by the French government reaction. Ould Abdel Aziz, whether this is true or not, is seen in Mauritania and abroad as a French protégé, by Moroccan proxy. Therefore, and after the lukewarm condemnation of his putsch by the French authority, nobody was expecting France to take the side of his opponents. But I am more disappointed by Le Monde's reaction. A bit of analysis is also part of a serious newspaper's work. I know that being factual is a good thing, but not even mentioning the connection between the current winner and the usual "Françafrique" circles is a little bit light for the French evening journal.
When I compare this to the in depth analysis of every rumor in the Iranian vote, I can only say that this is unbalanced reporting... Another sad day for French journalism.
14 July 2009
Thou Shalt Not Kill
Dear readers,
If the Senate hearings of Sonia Sotomayor weren't in full proceedings, the other piece of news which would be on top of the US and not just international press would be the new Cheney scandal. Apparently, Dick Cheney would have prevented or delayed disclosure of a CIA program to send assassination teams against specific Al Qaeda targets. The whole problem is not the killings, from a legal point of view, but the hiding of the program from the Congress Intelligence Committee. I am not going down this road, because it is frankly of little interest (except if it leads to a Cheney indictment, but I am not holding my breath).
What I am more interested about are the assassinations themselves. First, a bit of irony... Since when did the CIA stop killing people? I mean the right people in the wrong place... or the other way around. ;-) I mean, what is their usefulness if they can't blow up a couple of self designated bad guys (and a bunch of civilians in the process)? You see, the problem is that the CIA switched from a traditional ground operational procedure (practised by nearly all countries and secret services on the planet, regardless of the regime) to the quasi exclusive use of drones. The unmanned aircraft went to be seen as the panacea when in need of safe removal of an annoying terrorist / freedom fighter / politician and so on. This led to the nearly daily use of MQ-1 Predator and later MQ-9 Reaper drones on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, in Yemen and in Iraq (and probably a couple of other places).
However, and apparently (if we must believe Leon Panetta, the current CIA chief), the "new" assassination program began just after 9/11. Although the CIA is covering itself by saying it was never made operational, one can legitimately have some doubts. What could have taken them eight years? I know the US intelligence community is in dire need of Middle-East specialists, Arabic speakers and so on, but still, it took less time for the NASA to put someone on the moon... And it is not like you need these guys to be in constant contact with the enemy either.
Other countries, as I mentioned, have done this for decades: the Russians had and still use special units and killers abroad, while the French have killed or attempted killing their enemies abroad, when deemed feasible. The United Kingdom SAS assassination squad became famous when they slaughtered a couple of unarmed IRA operatives in Spain in broad daylight. The Mossad revenge killing of PLO terrorists after the Munich Olympics has been made a movie. So why not the USA? I suspect there is a certain reluctance in the USA (despite the extreme violence of its society itself) to engage into what the American mentality considers dirty stuff. It's like sex on TV, swearing in children programs or showing tits at the Super Bowl: you just don't do it. After Second World War, the USA were even in the process of dismantling all their war time intelligence operations (not just the special force units), such as the OSS, before the reality of the Cold War pushed them to create the CIA.
Anyway, I personally believe that murder is always unethical. However, I consider (but I would be happy to be proven otherwise) that politics, especially international one, can not be entirely ethical. It is a sad fact of humanity that some people are such remorseless killers that they would wage war on the most peaceful states, only to make their point, kill, rape and genocide, just name it... Most of these are of the ideological type, which means there is simply no reasoning them at all. In the long term, they will get back at you. This is why most decent countries (including the liberal democracies) have used assassination as a latest resort, usually to avoid more carnage. It is not considered pretty, it is not considered honourable and neither is it considered moral. But it is a lesser evil, one you carefully plan to be able to staunchly deny it later.
I think it could have saved a lot of trouble to the USA and the entire world, if this CIA program had been implemented a bit more seriously (providing that the necessary legal information of the Congress had taken place). Instead of invading Iraq (probably the stupidest adventure ever attempted by the USA and UK) or dragging into lengthy and costly operations in Afghanistan, a series of killings, based on sound intelligence, could have improved the situation tremendously. And even if it wouldn't have helped, at least it should have been tried, before engaging in a double war with hundreds of thousands of victims on all sides.
In comparison, I will let you with this little piece of French nastiness in Pakistan. I know all parties involved have denied anything of the like, but the fact is that a couple of Pakistani admirals have been knee capped and the fact is also that the ISI has been known to play for both sides for at least 20 years. The fact is also that French services are known to absolutely always avenge their guys, a way or another. The Syrians learned it the hard way in the Bekaa in the 80's. You don't make war in tutu...
If the Senate hearings of Sonia Sotomayor weren't in full proceedings, the other piece of news which would be on top of the US and not just international press would be the new Cheney scandal. Apparently, Dick Cheney would have prevented or delayed disclosure of a CIA program to send assassination teams against specific Al Qaeda targets. The whole problem is not the killings, from a legal point of view, but the hiding of the program from the Congress Intelligence Committee. I am not going down this road, because it is frankly of little interest (except if it leads to a Cheney indictment, but I am not holding my breath).
What I am more interested about are the assassinations themselves. First, a bit of irony... Since when did the CIA stop killing people? I mean the right people in the wrong place... or the other way around. ;-) I mean, what is their usefulness if they can't blow up a couple of self designated bad guys (and a bunch of civilians in the process)? You see, the problem is that the CIA switched from a traditional ground operational procedure (practised by nearly all countries and secret services on the planet, regardless of the regime) to the quasi exclusive use of drones. The unmanned aircraft went to be seen as the panacea when in need of safe removal of an annoying terrorist / freedom fighter / politician and so on. This led to the nearly daily use of MQ-1 Predator and later MQ-9 Reaper drones on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, in Yemen and in Iraq (and probably a couple of other places).
However, and apparently (if we must believe Leon Panetta, the current CIA chief), the "new" assassination program began just after 9/11. Although the CIA is covering itself by saying it was never made operational, one can legitimately have some doubts. What could have taken them eight years? I know the US intelligence community is in dire need of Middle-East specialists, Arabic speakers and so on, but still, it took less time for the NASA to put someone on the moon... And it is not like you need these guys to be in constant contact with the enemy either.
Other countries, as I mentioned, have done this for decades: the Russians had and still use special units and killers abroad, while the French have killed or attempted killing their enemies abroad, when deemed feasible. The United Kingdom SAS assassination squad became famous when they slaughtered a couple of unarmed IRA operatives in Spain in broad daylight. The Mossad revenge killing of PLO terrorists after the Munich Olympics has been made a movie. So why not the USA? I suspect there is a certain reluctance in the USA (despite the extreme violence of its society itself) to engage into what the American mentality considers dirty stuff. It's like sex on TV, swearing in children programs or showing tits at the Super Bowl: you just don't do it. After Second World War, the USA were even in the process of dismantling all their war time intelligence operations (not just the special force units), such as the OSS, before the reality of the Cold War pushed them to create the CIA.
Anyway, I personally believe that murder is always unethical. However, I consider (but I would be happy to be proven otherwise) that politics, especially international one, can not be entirely ethical. It is a sad fact of humanity that some people are such remorseless killers that they would wage war on the most peaceful states, only to make their point, kill, rape and genocide, just name it... Most of these are of the ideological type, which means there is simply no reasoning them at all. In the long term, they will get back at you. This is why most decent countries (including the liberal democracies) have used assassination as a latest resort, usually to avoid more carnage. It is not considered pretty, it is not considered honourable and neither is it considered moral. But it is a lesser evil, one you carefully plan to be able to staunchly deny it later.
I think it could have saved a lot of trouble to the USA and the entire world, if this CIA program had been implemented a bit more seriously (providing that the necessary legal information of the Congress had taken place). Instead of invading Iraq (probably the stupidest adventure ever attempted by the USA and UK) or dragging into lengthy and costly operations in Afghanistan, a series of killings, based on sound intelligence, could have improved the situation tremendously. And even if it wouldn't have helped, at least it should have been tried, before engaging in a double war with hundreds of thousands of victims on all sides.
In comparison, I will let you with this little piece of French nastiness in Pakistan. I know all parties involved have denied anything of the like, but the fact is that a couple of Pakistani admirals have been knee capped and the fact is also that the ISI has been known to play for both sides for at least 20 years. The fact is also that French services are known to absolutely always avenge their guys, a way or another. The Syrians learned it the hard way in the Bekaa in the 80's. You don't make war in tutu...
12 July 2009
The Witcher review
Dear readers,
Because it is Sunday and I have no energy left for a clever article, here is a review of a video game I am currently playing: The Witcher. Before anyone complains about this review, please have a look at this other blog: Terminally Incoherent, and particularly these posts, to which I subscribe entirely. Let's face it, I consider Morrowind (TES III, by Bethesda Softworks) to be the best RPG video game ever made. I play nearly exclusively RPG's, and mostly not on line, so that narrows it a little.
In general (and quite in accordance with Luke's ideas as developed in the blog above), I like/dislike the following in video games:
* limitless is good. I hate being constrained by character choices, artificial barriers to the game world or artificial moral alignments.
* immersion is good. Anything which breaks the immersion process should be banned from RPG's (the typical example are doors which don't open because they are in the decor only). If you feel like you should be able to do something in the game and you can't, then it breaks the immersion. Alternatively, things that are in the game and should not be also break immersion (the best example being too repetitive dialogs or NPC faces).
* one should always be given the option to play in a first person perspective (i.e. like in most shooting games). I see the world from my own perspective in real life, so my character in game should also see it that way.
* DRM sucks and should not be allowed around any piece of software...
* of course, games should be pretty and artsy and look nice. There should be a good ambiance, lighting and so on.
* last but not least, games should tell a story and I should be able to change the story. That's all an RPG is about. Anything which goes against this is making the game too linear and/or boring. I hate linear games.
* as a detail point, but which should not be overlooked, a game should be exempt of too many bugs and problems. Conversely, a game which lets fans add good stuff and improvements to the game gets bonus points in my books.
So what about The Witcher. Well, it has pros and cons, like most games. Let's tell this immediately, it does not beat, in my mind, the 9 years old Morrowind, despite having been released in 2005. However, and in my world, this is a huge compliment, it comes close.
Let's see the bad stuff first:
* the game lets you no choice about the character, as you can play only one person, the "Witcher" Gerald of Riv, a white haired, amnesia prone, womanizer monster killer with a very murky past. This is bad, but there is however a good reason for this. Geralt of Riv is the hero of a series of Polish fantasy books. These are the basis of the game and the author seems to have participated to the game design. This makes the absence of choice bearable (added to the fact that the hero in question has quite a lot of depth and is kick ass to play), except of course for female players who will probably find his constant flirting (and subsequent shagging) quite annoying. Geralt keeps indeed a "card" for each of his female conquests... ;-)
* the game abuses the "impassable fence" trick, particularly in country side areas, which breaks the immersion. Geralt is not allowed to jump, climb or crouch (the UI simply does not provide anything for it) and I find this ridiculous for a supposed master killer. It is all the more frustrating when you see the intro videos where he does saltos and climbs the crumbling walls of an old castle.
* also about immersion are the rather repetitive faces of NPC's. I can excuse this for generic ones with no quest attached, but it is also the case for main quest NPC's (like the Leuwaarden one in the Wyzima area of the game). This is lazy development, I am sorry to say... :-(
* the game is hard to install and hard to make work on Vista SP1. There are countless bugs that make several tricks necessary just to launch the game and to avoid it crashing every five minutes, even on a solid and recent configuration. Additional point: although there is the possibility to add their own adventures for game fans, these are not included into the main game and must be played "apart". This, for me, breaks half of the interest of such an option.
* I would also like to nag a bit about "game containers", such as barrels and boxes. Unlike in the Elder Scroll series, it is impossible to place something back in a container, and they have no rightful owner. I find this stupid, immersion breaking and difficult to justify anyway. Plant containers (flowers and other bushes) also "grow back" and can be plucked again as soon as you leave and reenter the cell. This is totally unrealistic.
* last very bad point is the impossibility of playing first person. There are no less than three 3rd person views possible. This is ridiculous and should have been avoided. Considering how demanding the game is in terms of graphic resources, having one character less on screen should have been seen as positive.
* as an extra annoying thing, and a consequence of the absence of jump function, the smallest step becomes an impassable barrier too, which makes path finding in the game extremely tedious, even on interior game cells.
Now on the good things:
* first and foremost, the game has a very good story. It is dense, absolutely not easy. There are choices all the time, and the results of these choices have far reaching consequences on the hero, the story and the world. This is great. I would contend that this is even one of the only two cases where The Witcher beats Morrowind. The Elder Scrolls III had a great story, but it was fairly obvious from the beginning of the game. No such thing in The Witcher, where each quest gives very small clues on the main plot(s). The plot has to do with racism (but in an uneasy way), religion, science, ethics and knowledge. I won't say more...
* moral choices are complex. There is often no obvious answer, and ethics does bite you down the road if you make the "wrong" choices. The story becomes different, and the NPC attitude will change. This is very well done and does not feel artificial in any way. It helps bring back a lot of the immersion that was so badly hurt by the elements I mentioned above.
* combats are really cool. At first I found the 3rd person "clicking only" combats quite an immersion breaker. Then I got the trick (waiting the flame pointer) and I realized how visual and good and technical combat is in this game. It still feels a bit too much like rolling dices (no localization of damage...), but the various effects and techniques that can be bought and happen on good strikes are absolutely fun to watch. Combats are difficult in the game, although not as much as in Oblivion. After all, Geralt is supposed to be a master killer.
* I think a very important point is that the game is extremely beautiful. After Oblivion, I was quite demanding. But The Witcher is totally awesome for this. Lights are mysterious, there is art all over, NPC's are very nicely made, their animations are fluid. Monsters are frightening (the Cerber of the first part in Wyzima scared the hell out of me) and well drawn, without being ugly. The game world feels like a fantasy version of Central Europe (obviously not a coincidence for a Polish game). This is I think a second point where Morrowind simply can't compete with The Witcher.
* The passage of time is extremely well rendered and some missions have to be realized in limited time or at a certain time of the day (or night). This helps the immersion and does not feel artificial in any way. It is greatly done and well complemented by the weather effects. Also, some monsters or NPC's will appear only at a certain time, and this forces to some nasty choices too... ;-)
* Although the game had some basic DRM, this has been removed in the latest patch (version 1.5), released 8th July.
All in all, The Witcher is pleasant to play, good fun and a great story. I think it is still below Morrowind in quality, but not by much. If the studio had (would) allow jumping and crouching in the game, plus had removed some of the stupid barriers and modified the game "containers", it would even be better than the Elder Scrolls series. Although the plot is not linear, it is uncool that some areas are simply wiped out after the beginning of the game (such as the Witcher base or the suburb of Wyzima). It limits the freedom unnecessarily. Still I give this game a rank 2 on my list of best video games ever.
Because it is Sunday and I have no energy left for a clever article, here is a review of a video game I am currently playing: The Witcher. Before anyone complains about this review, please have a look at this other blog: Terminally Incoherent, and particularly these posts, to which I subscribe entirely. Let's face it, I consider Morrowind (TES III, by Bethesda Softworks) to be the best RPG video game ever made. I play nearly exclusively RPG's, and mostly not on line, so that narrows it a little.
In general (and quite in accordance with Luke's ideas as developed in the blog above), I like/dislike the following in video games:
* limitless is good. I hate being constrained by character choices, artificial barriers to the game world or artificial moral alignments.
* immersion is good. Anything which breaks the immersion process should be banned from RPG's (the typical example are doors which don't open because they are in the decor only). If you feel like you should be able to do something in the game and you can't, then it breaks the immersion. Alternatively, things that are in the game and should not be also break immersion (the best example being too repetitive dialogs or NPC faces).
* one should always be given the option to play in a first person perspective (i.e. like in most shooting games). I see the world from my own perspective in real life, so my character in game should also see it that way.
* DRM sucks and should not be allowed around any piece of software...
* of course, games should be pretty and artsy and look nice. There should be a good ambiance, lighting and so on.
* last but not least, games should tell a story and I should be able to change the story. That's all an RPG is about. Anything which goes against this is making the game too linear and/or boring. I hate linear games.
* as a detail point, but which should not be overlooked, a game should be exempt of too many bugs and problems. Conversely, a game which lets fans add good stuff and improvements to the game gets bonus points in my books.
So what about The Witcher. Well, it has pros and cons, like most games. Let's tell this immediately, it does not beat, in my mind, the 9 years old Morrowind, despite having been released in 2005. However, and in my world, this is a huge compliment, it comes close.
Let's see the bad stuff first:
* the game lets you no choice about the character, as you can play only one person, the "Witcher" Gerald of Riv, a white haired, amnesia prone, womanizer monster killer with a very murky past. This is bad, but there is however a good reason for this. Geralt of Riv is the hero of a series of Polish fantasy books. These are the basis of the game and the author seems to have participated to the game design. This makes the absence of choice bearable (added to the fact that the hero in question has quite a lot of depth and is kick ass to play), except of course for female players who will probably find his constant flirting (and subsequent shagging) quite annoying. Geralt keeps indeed a "card" for each of his female conquests... ;-)
* the game abuses the "impassable fence" trick, particularly in country side areas, which breaks the immersion. Geralt is not allowed to jump, climb or crouch (the UI simply does not provide anything for it) and I find this ridiculous for a supposed master killer. It is all the more frustrating when you see the intro videos where he does saltos and climbs the crumbling walls of an old castle.
* also about immersion are the rather repetitive faces of NPC's. I can excuse this for generic ones with no quest attached, but it is also the case for main quest NPC's (like the Leuwaarden one in the Wyzima area of the game). This is lazy development, I am sorry to say... :-(
* the game is hard to install and hard to make work on Vista SP1. There are countless bugs that make several tricks necessary just to launch the game and to avoid it crashing every five minutes, even on a solid and recent configuration. Additional point: although there is the possibility to add their own adventures for game fans, these are not included into the main game and must be played "apart". This, for me, breaks half of the interest of such an option.
* I would also like to nag a bit about "game containers", such as barrels and boxes. Unlike in the Elder Scroll series, it is impossible to place something back in a container, and they have no rightful owner. I find this stupid, immersion breaking and difficult to justify anyway. Plant containers (flowers and other bushes) also "grow back" and can be plucked again as soon as you leave and reenter the cell. This is totally unrealistic.
* last very bad point is the impossibility of playing first person. There are no less than three 3rd person views possible. This is ridiculous and should have been avoided. Considering how demanding the game is in terms of graphic resources, having one character less on screen should have been seen as positive.
* as an extra annoying thing, and a consequence of the absence of jump function, the smallest step becomes an impassable barrier too, which makes path finding in the game extremely tedious, even on interior game cells.
Now on the good things:
* first and foremost, the game has a very good story. It is dense, absolutely not easy. There are choices all the time, and the results of these choices have far reaching consequences on the hero, the story and the world. This is great. I would contend that this is even one of the only two cases where The Witcher beats Morrowind. The Elder Scrolls III had a great story, but it was fairly obvious from the beginning of the game. No such thing in The Witcher, where each quest gives very small clues on the main plot(s). The plot has to do with racism (but in an uneasy way), religion, science, ethics and knowledge. I won't say more...
* moral choices are complex. There is often no obvious answer, and ethics does bite you down the road if you make the "wrong" choices. The story becomes different, and the NPC attitude will change. This is very well done and does not feel artificial in any way. It helps bring back a lot of the immersion that was so badly hurt by the elements I mentioned above.
* combats are really cool. At first I found the 3rd person "clicking only" combats quite an immersion breaker. Then I got the trick (waiting the flame pointer) and I realized how visual and good and technical combat is in this game. It still feels a bit too much like rolling dices (no localization of damage...), but the various effects and techniques that can be bought and happen on good strikes are absolutely fun to watch. Combats are difficult in the game, although not as much as in Oblivion. After all, Geralt is supposed to be a master killer.
* I think a very important point is that the game is extremely beautiful. After Oblivion, I was quite demanding. But The Witcher is totally awesome for this. Lights are mysterious, there is art all over, NPC's are very nicely made, their animations are fluid. Monsters are frightening (the Cerber of the first part in Wyzima scared the hell out of me) and well drawn, without being ugly. The game world feels like a fantasy version of Central Europe (obviously not a coincidence for a Polish game). This is I think a second point where Morrowind simply can't compete with The Witcher.
* The passage of time is extremely well rendered and some missions have to be realized in limited time or at a certain time of the day (or night). This helps the immersion and does not feel artificial in any way. It is greatly done and well complemented by the weather effects. Also, some monsters or NPC's will appear only at a certain time, and this forces to some nasty choices too... ;-)
* Although the game had some basic DRM, this has been removed in the latest patch (version 1.5), released 8th July.
All in all, The Witcher is pleasant to play, good fun and a great story. I think it is still below Morrowind in quality, but not by much. If the studio had (would) allow jumping and crouching in the game, plus had removed some of the stupid barriers and modified the game "containers", it would even be better than the Elder Scrolls series. Although the plot is not linear, it is uncool that some areas are simply wiped out after the beginning of the game (such as the Witcher base or the suburb of Wyzima). It limits the freedom unnecessarily. Still I give this game a rank 2 on my list of best video games ever.
09 July 2009
Ireland will vote on Lisbon in October... again
Dear readers,
The Irish government just declared that a new referendum will be hold on the Lisbon Treaty in October this year. Although this time, analysts and polls suggest that the yes should win, the Irish Ministries in charge have left nothing to chance. Most interestingly, they have provided a website to explain the treaty in plain and understandable English.
This is, I think, a great move. It contrasts with the unreadable attempts made previously by the same government but also many other ones (such as France and the Netherlands...). I advise anyone interested in the Treaty to have a look at it. The beginning of the .pdf brochure which can be downloaded on it is very Irish centric, but everything after the Chapter 1 is invaluable information on the way the EU will function in the future, should Ireland, Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic ratify it eventually. Even better, this brochure explains in layman terms what are the goals and common objectives and ideas of the European Union (as per the new treaty) and I found this a great reading. Something, which, I believe, should be taught in schools and published in the press a lot more often...
So, for the sake of it, here it is (from the brochure's Chapter 2):
My apologies for this lengthy quote. And just because I am a nitpicker, here is my only criticism on this title. It writes lengthily about values. I hate this term which has no... value. Value is a relative noun and, as such, should not be used to define fixed referents. Let's speak about goals, objectives, ideas, ethics, but please, not about values! Let's please speak about the (positive or negative) value of common goals and ideas. That would at least make some sense.
But all in all, I highly recommend this white paper. I only regret it comes so late.
The Irish government just declared that a new referendum will be hold on the Lisbon Treaty in October this year. Although this time, analysts and polls suggest that the yes should win, the Irish Ministries in charge have left nothing to chance. Most interestingly, they have provided a website to explain the treaty in plain and understandable English.
This is, I think, a great move. It contrasts with the unreadable attempts made previously by the same government but also many other ones (such as France and the Netherlands...). I advise anyone interested in the Treaty to have a look at it. The beginning of the .pdf brochure which can be downloaded on it is very Irish centric, but everything after the Chapter 1 is invaluable information on the way the EU will function in the future, should Ireland, Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic ratify it eventually. Even better, this brochure explains in layman terms what are the goals and common objectives and ideas of the European Union (as per the new treaty) and I found this a great reading. Something, which, I believe, should be taught in schools and published in the press a lot more often...
So, for the sake of it, here it is (from the brochure's Chapter 2):
The European Union as a Community of Values
2. The preamble to the Treaty on European Union, as revised by the Lisbon Treaty, will include for the first time a reference to Europe’s cultural, religious and humanist inheritance, “from which have developed the universal values of inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law”.
3. The opening articles of the new Treaty seek to establish the nature of the Union as a community of values, on which the Member States confer competences in order to attain their common objectives.
4. Article 1 of the amended Treaty on European Union will eliminate the old distinction between the European Union and the European Community. This article confirms the establishment of a single legal entity, the European Union, which will in formal legal terms, replace and succeed the European Community once the Lisbon Treaty has been ratified. The European Union will have “legal personality”. The Union’s current laws and all other aspects of its legal order remain in force.
5. The nature of the Union now established is further clarified as one “on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives which they have in common” (Article 1).
6. Article 2 further develops the idea of the Union as a community of values in which human dignity, minority rights and equality are given Treaty recognition for the first time.
Article 2
The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.
7. Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union provides that any European State which respects the above values and is committed to promoting them may apply to become a member of the Union.
8. Article 3 describes the Union’s objectives:
Article 3
1. The Union's aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.
2. The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime.
3. The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.
It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child.
It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States.
It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.
4. The Union shall establish an economic and monetary union whose currency is the euro.
5. In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.
6. The Union shall pursue its objectives by appropriate means commensurate with the competences which are conferred upon it in the Treaties.
9. The aim of this article is to set out the Union’s core objectives briefly and in an accessible manner. In the negotiation of this text, particular attention was paid to achieving a balanced treatment of the Union’s economic and social objectives. The reference to “full employment” in paragraph 3 above is a significant change from the existing Treaties which mention only “a high level of employment”. The reference to the United Nations Charter, in paragraph 5, was inserted on the basis of a proposal from the Irish Government.
My apologies for this lengthy quote. And just because I am a nitpicker, here is my only criticism on this title. It writes lengthily about values. I hate this term which has no... value. Value is a relative noun and, as such, should not be used to define fixed referents. Let's speak about goals, objectives, ideas, ethics, but please, not about values! Let's please speak about the (positive or negative) value of common goals and ideas. That would at least make some sense.
But all in all, I highly recommend this white paper. I only regret it comes so late.
08 July 2009
Google Takes on the fight
Dear readers,
Google announced yesterday on its blog the launching of a "new OS", on the netbook market segment. The name of this Android bigger brother is Google Chrome OS. I could not ignore this, as it touches some of my favourite topics: computers, software, gaming and also economics.
But first a couple of comments: Google clearly aims at Microsoft quasi monopoly (although on the netbook segment it is rather a duopoly with Apple Mac OSX). The blog post alludes to MS' recurrent problems with malware and other viruses. It is also a move towards externalizing most applications. Google Chrome OS (Chrome is already the name of its home made browser) is clearly described as browser centered. For a netbook, this is quite logical, but it is also a departure from both the bloated multi-application route taken by Microsoft and from the overpowered choice of Apple.
As a note, some comments have pointed that the Google announcement seems to ignore completely Apple relatively recent successes, particularly in this segment. I doubt this is due to ignorance or despise. But Google is not really aiming at the same range of customers. Apple users are early adopters, who are finding price an irrelevant matter, and who will not only use office applications and communication devices. They are also Photoshop users, graphic designers, and so on... In other words, they are the (very) high end part of the market segment, completely at the opposite of the obvious target of Google: the lowest part of this segment. Google is going for a budget OS.
Like Apple though, Google has chosen a Unix based system. But of course, like with Android, the choice is also one for open source software and Linux kernel. The window manager will be brand new and (although this has not been announced by Google) one can expect this window manager to be completely integrated with Chrome and maybe Google Apps. This reminds me a bit of the old Nautilus system on Gnome. But maybe I am wrong and both pieces of software will be clearly separated...
As for the success of such an endeavor, I can only speculate. But there are basics in marketing as well as in the computer world that can't be ignored. The computer market is driven (in terms of innovation acceptance) by two main engines: the business/company customers and the gamer community. As a gamer and an employee, it seems obvious to me that Google is aiming at the business market only. The future will tell if that's a good approach. For myself, I will stick with my unreliable and buggy Vista for the time being. Until Google convinces me (and graphic card makers and game studios) that its OS can also perform for graphic intensive applications, I see no reason to switch.
Google announced yesterday on its blog the launching of a "new OS", on the netbook market segment. The name of this Android bigger brother is Google Chrome OS. I could not ignore this, as it touches some of my favourite topics: computers, software, gaming and also economics.
But first a couple of comments: Google clearly aims at Microsoft quasi monopoly (although on the netbook segment it is rather a duopoly with Apple Mac OSX). The blog post alludes to MS' recurrent problems with malware and other viruses. It is also a move towards externalizing most applications. Google Chrome OS (Chrome is already the name of its home made browser) is clearly described as browser centered. For a netbook, this is quite logical, but it is also a departure from both the bloated multi-application route taken by Microsoft and from the overpowered choice of Apple.
As a note, some comments have pointed that the Google announcement seems to ignore completely Apple relatively recent successes, particularly in this segment. I doubt this is due to ignorance or despise. But Google is not really aiming at the same range of customers. Apple users are early adopters, who are finding price an irrelevant matter, and who will not only use office applications and communication devices. They are also Photoshop users, graphic designers, and so on... In other words, they are the (very) high end part of the market segment, completely at the opposite of the obvious target of Google: the lowest part of this segment. Google is going for a budget OS.
Like Apple though, Google has chosen a Unix based system. But of course, like with Android, the choice is also one for open source software and Linux kernel. The window manager will be brand new and (although this has not been announced by Google) one can expect this window manager to be completely integrated with Chrome and maybe Google Apps. This reminds me a bit of the old Nautilus system on Gnome. But maybe I am wrong and both pieces of software will be clearly separated...
As for the success of such an endeavor, I can only speculate. But there are basics in marketing as well as in the computer world that can't be ignored. The computer market is driven (in terms of innovation acceptance) by two main engines: the business/company customers and the gamer community. As a gamer and an employee, it seems obvious to me that Google is aiming at the business market only. The future will tell if that's a good approach. For myself, I will stick with my unreliable and buggy Vista for the time being. Until Google convinces me (and graphic card makers and game studios) that its OS can also perform for graphic intensive applications, I see no reason to switch.
So far so near
I have been away far too long from this blog. It is not that I have nothing to say, it is just that I have so little time.
Anyway, I am back from a good French holidays. Two weeks in family, having quality time, relaxing and generally enjoying good summer weather and the countryside.
I am going to start posting again about Europe soon. I might also from time to time drop in some rants about my other hobbies (photography and video games) as well as my work (maritime transport).
Just to treat you after this long time, here is a photo I took recently. Hope you like it. And her is another one from Casblanca (the city and the film...):
Anyway, I am back from a good French holidays. Two weeks in family, having quality time, relaxing and generally enjoying good summer weather and the countryside.
I am going to start posting again about Europe soon. I might also from time to time drop in some rants about my other hobbies (photography and video games) as well as my work (maritime transport).
Just to treat you after this long time, here is a photo I took recently. Hope you like it. And her is another one from Casblanca (the city and the film...):
13 May 2009
Global Voices Advocacy
Dear readers,
This blogger has always been a big fan of Global Voices, an initative promoting blogging in different languages and different regions. Zemanta is a campaign to help special causes to blogger.
I vote for Global Voices Advocacy, because I think it is a major tool and organisation in the fight for freedom of expression. Freedom of expression gets more and more threatened all over the world, through national firewalls, crackdown on journalists and blogger, threats of all kinds on free speech.
This blog post is part of Zemanta's “Blogging For a Cause” (http://www.zemanta.com/bloggingforacause/) campaign to raise awareness and funds for worthy causes that bloggers care about.
This blogger has always been a big fan of Global Voices, an initative promoting blogging in different languages and different regions. Zemanta is a campaign to help special causes to blogger.
I vote for Global Voices Advocacy, because I think it is a major tool and organisation in the fight for freedom of expression. Freedom of expression gets more and more threatened all over the world, through national firewalls, crackdown on journalists and blogger, threats of all kinds on free speech.
This blog post is part of Zemanta's “Blogging For a Cause” (http://www.zemanta.com/bloggingforacause/) campaign to raise awareness and funds for worthy causes that bloggers care about.
19 April 2009
Libertas lies, Libertas lies, Libertas is American
Dear readers,
I have been away for a while. Sorry about that. I'll try to be more regular, although I would make no promise. This post is a reaction to something I noticed while recently using Google Reader.
I was reading feeds from Slate, the Democrat's US news website when I realized what was the advertisement joined to each post (provided by Google Ad and in Dutch). Because it was about politics, Google Ad automatically displayed an animated ad by Libertas, the Irish party turned pan-European. The ad more or less says: "If you wanted to have a say in the new EU constitution, Brussels says NO. Sign the Libertas petition".
So I would like to help a little bit the persons who might have seen his ad and got confused by it. First, I would like to point out one lie spread by this ad: that the currently discussed treaty is a Constitution. It is pretty clear that the previous project, which had some constitutional aspects to it, was shelved. The current one remains only a treaty between sovereign nations. I personally regret it, but that's the way it is. So the ad is misleading already about this. Secondly, it is a fact that Brussels (i.e. the European Commission or the Parliament) has no say in how countries ratify such treaties. This is down to each country's specific constitution. For this reason, saying that Brussels says no is a pure lie. The ones who say no are the member states, which have always been wary about letting "Brussels"becoming too democratic, because it might stop them from haggling together, away from the citizen's watch.
So Libertas is lying. Again. No real wonder for this obscure party, born from the ambition of an Irish businessman, Declan Ganley. Ganley has pan-European ambitions, a paradox for this very Americanized new politician. He claims to want a more democratic Europe, a claim dispelled very quickly once you have a look at Libertas website, which recycles al the old anti-European themes, falling in the most basic populism and demagogy.
Hence the title of my post, inspired by one of old War-time BBC French speaking slogans aimed at the occupied France. "Radio Paris ment, Radio Paris ment, Radio Paris est Allemand". Libertas funds and backing is indeed tightly linked to Ganley's personal fortune, born from very good business in then Bush led USA. Republicans have notoriously been fearing a too powerful Europe. No wonder they might have helped an initiative aiming at undermining European affirmation.
I have been away for a while. Sorry about that. I'll try to be more regular, although I would make no promise. This post is a reaction to something I noticed while recently using Google Reader.
I was reading feeds from Slate, the Democrat's US news website when I realized what was the advertisement joined to each post (provided by Google Ad and in Dutch). Because it was about politics, Google Ad automatically displayed an animated ad by Libertas, the Irish party turned pan-European. The ad more or less says: "If you wanted to have a say in the new EU constitution, Brussels says NO. Sign the Libertas petition".
So I would like to help a little bit the persons who might have seen his ad and got confused by it. First, I would like to point out one lie spread by this ad: that the currently discussed treaty is a Constitution. It is pretty clear that the previous project, which had some constitutional aspects to it, was shelved. The current one remains only a treaty between sovereign nations. I personally regret it, but that's the way it is. So the ad is misleading already about this. Secondly, it is a fact that Brussels (i.e. the European Commission or the Parliament) has no say in how countries ratify such treaties. This is down to each country's specific constitution. For this reason, saying that Brussels says no is a pure lie. The ones who say no are the member states, which have always been wary about letting "Brussels"becoming too democratic, because it might stop them from haggling together, away from the citizen's watch.
So Libertas is lying. Again. No real wonder for this obscure party, born from the ambition of an Irish businessman, Declan Ganley. Ganley has pan-European ambitions, a paradox for this very Americanized new politician. He claims to want a more democratic Europe, a claim dispelled very quickly once you have a look at Libertas website, which recycles al the old anti-European themes, falling in the most basic populism and demagogy.
Hence the title of my post, inspired by one of old War-time BBC French speaking slogans aimed at the occupied France. "Radio Paris ment, Radio Paris ment, Radio Paris est Allemand". Libertas funds and backing is indeed tightly linked to Ganley's personal fortune, born from very good business in then Bush led USA. Republicans have notoriously been fearing a too powerful Europe. No wonder they might have helped an initiative aiming at undermining European affirmation.
24 October 2008
European marine defence
Dear readers,
As you probably know, Europe has no defence forces, stricto sensu, and of course even less of a navy. Of course, the European Union website will tell you otherwise, and I am aware of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CSFP). But such a policy is very deceptive in its name as well as its definition. First, it is not really as common as it says it is, and, second, it is more an intention of a policy than a real policy by itself. Let me explain.
The CFSP, or PESC in the French EU jargon, is primarily a voluntary coordination effort by member states who are not militarily neutral. It is also a prevention system and an anti-terrorism information exchange forum. But it is not a common army, and though multinational units do exist, they can not be engaged on an order from Brussels, even if it was backed by the EU Parliament. In other words, it is a nice beginning but not a real policy. There is also a generally agreed guideline on military purchase contracts, but I dare say that it does not prevent or discourage EU countries to buy military equipment without coordination with their neighbours nor does it prevent them from buying equipment outside of the Union, even if the price tag is higher.
The result we all know. While the EU has some powers in terms of economic and monetary policies, and while it certainly has a strong common environmental policy, it is looked upon with derision by other major powers. And with good reasons. There is no "big stick" to paraphrase Roosevelt, to back up the European soft words. OK, I'll give you one or two successful common missions in the Balkans and a half success in solving the Russo-Georgian war. But let's face it, the Eurocorps is a sad joke (no offence intended to its brave members, but I am sure they are as disappointed as myself about their forces), there is no EU navy or Air Force and countries like the Netherlands, Poland or the UK have absolutely no European solidarity when it comes to military spendings. They simply buy what the USA tell them to, regardless of the price or the actual need for such equipment.
Recently, I have to admit, some light seemed to show at the end of the dark tunnel of the CFSP. France led initiatives seem to be pushing in a better direction. First, under Jacques Chirac presidency, France and the UK decided to develop a new generation of aircraft carrier together. This was a major decision for both countries and the result was a common design platform for modular ships (three to be exact). Unfortunately, while the UK kept their end of the bargain and ordered their two units to host their future JSF aircrafts, France is still mulling over its decision to buy a replacement for the already shelved Clemenceau. Though it is for budget reasons, the decision of delaying the decision might in the end cost a lot more to France. This is one of the miracles of the National Accountancy system that France uses for its budget. It is a system which, unlike normal accountancy principles, counts only the current year for expenses and revenues, ignoring future expenses for the next year. It means that, technically, a measure can be taken which actually will cost more to the tax payer, but, in the short term, will weight less on the yearly budget. It's completely stupid, but, let's face it, French civil servants and politicians are not the brightest lot.
Anyway, to come back to the topic, there is one area where France is pushing in the right direction, and it is the navy. Just yesterday, France hosted an initiative aimed at gathering an EU rapid reaction force of naval units. France has allegedly the biggest navy of the EU (at least until the UK carriers are build) and would probably contribute the most to it, hence the location of the meeting. But interestingly enough, the real reason behind such an interest is the usual one: EU countries have a common enemy. It is not Russia, not Iran, not China or Syria. The common enemy disrupting vital marine supply lines is a bunch of African pirates, operating from the war torn area of Eyl, between Puntland and Somalia proper.
These strange mix of Punt mafia and Somali Islamists is motivated by greed and power and raids everything moving between the Somali barren coast and the Seychelles islands. They are disrupting a major oil and gas tanker route, as well as a container route from Asia to Europe and from the Middle-East to Europe (not counting several secondary routes to Africa). So French navy units and other EU ships have began policing the area, first as secondary operation zone for the NATO forces protecting the entrance of the Persian Gulf, and now as an operation by itself (FR). The operation had yesterday its first success, with the arrest of a dozen pirates on a boutre loaded with RPG launchers and assault riffles. They were duly delivered to Puntland coast guards who are also beginning to show their own teeth lately. We will see where all this leads. But I hope that we will see more of these operations in the future.
I also hope that European countries will eventually begin to purchase weapons, ships and vehicles together, even if I know that it is not for tomorrow...
As you probably know, Europe has no defence forces, stricto sensu, and of course even less of a navy. Of course, the European Union website will tell you otherwise, and I am aware of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CSFP). But such a policy is very deceptive in its name as well as its definition. First, it is not really as common as it says it is, and, second, it is more an intention of a policy than a real policy by itself. Let me explain.
The CFSP, or PESC in the French EU jargon, is primarily a voluntary coordination effort by member states who are not militarily neutral. It is also a prevention system and an anti-terrorism information exchange forum. But it is not a common army, and though multinational units do exist, they can not be engaged on an order from Brussels, even if it was backed by the EU Parliament. In other words, it is a nice beginning but not a real policy. There is also a generally agreed guideline on military purchase contracts, but I dare say that it does not prevent or discourage EU countries to buy military equipment without coordination with their neighbours nor does it prevent them from buying equipment outside of the Union, even if the price tag is higher.
The result we all know. While the EU has some powers in terms of economic and monetary policies, and while it certainly has a strong common environmental policy, it is looked upon with derision by other major powers. And with good reasons. There is no "big stick" to paraphrase Roosevelt, to back up the European soft words. OK, I'll give you one or two successful common missions in the Balkans and a half success in solving the Russo-Georgian war. But let's face it, the Eurocorps is a sad joke (no offence intended to its brave members, but I am sure they are as disappointed as myself about their forces), there is no EU navy or Air Force and countries like the Netherlands, Poland or the UK have absolutely no European solidarity when it comes to military spendings. They simply buy what the USA tell them to, regardless of the price or the actual need for such equipment.
Recently, I have to admit, some light seemed to show at the end of the dark tunnel of the CFSP. France led initiatives seem to be pushing in a better direction. First, under Jacques Chirac presidency, France and the UK decided to develop a new generation of aircraft carrier together. This was a major decision for both countries and the result was a common design platform for modular ships (three to be exact). Unfortunately, while the UK kept their end of the bargain and ordered their two units to host their future JSF aircrafts, France is still mulling over its decision to buy a replacement for the already shelved Clemenceau. Though it is for budget reasons, the decision of delaying the decision might in the end cost a lot more to France. This is one of the miracles of the National Accountancy system that France uses for its budget. It is a system which, unlike normal accountancy principles, counts only the current year for expenses and revenues, ignoring future expenses for the next year. It means that, technically, a measure can be taken which actually will cost more to the tax payer, but, in the short term, will weight less on the yearly budget. It's completely stupid, but, let's face it, French civil servants and politicians are not the brightest lot.
Anyway, to come back to the topic, there is one area where France is pushing in the right direction, and it is the navy. Just yesterday, France hosted an initiative aimed at gathering an EU rapid reaction force of naval units. France has allegedly the biggest navy of the EU (at least until the UK carriers are build) and would probably contribute the most to it, hence the location of the meeting. But interestingly enough, the real reason behind such an interest is the usual one: EU countries have a common enemy. It is not Russia, not Iran, not China or Syria. The common enemy disrupting vital marine supply lines is a bunch of African pirates, operating from the war torn area of Eyl, between Puntland and Somalia proper.
These strange mix of Punt mafia and Somali Islamists is motivated by greed and power and raids everything moving between the Somali barren coast and the Seychelles islands. They are disrupting a major oil and gas tanker route, as well as a container route from Asia to Europe and from the Middle-East to Europe (not counting several secondary routes to Africa). So French navy units and other EU ships have began policing the area, first as secondary operation zone for the NATO forces protecting the entrance of the Persian Gulf, and now as an operation by itself (FR). The operation had yesterday its first success, with the arrest of a dozen pirates on a boutre loaded with RPG launchers and assault riffles. They were duly delivered to Puntland coast guards who are also beginning to show their own teeth lately. We will see where all this leads. But I hope that we will see more of these operations in the future.
I also hope that European countries will eventually begin to purchase weapons, ships and vehicles together, even if I know that it is not for tomorrow...
23 October 2008
Manhattan
Dear readers,
Sorry for yesterday. I didn't post because I was in bed with a terrible back ache. As an apology, I would like to treat you today with a series of pictures: Manhattan.
I think this is a great set by famous Russian blogger Drugoi, on LiveJournal. It shows New-York in a very refreshing and different way. The eye of the beholder, they say...
Sorry for yesterday. I didn't post because I was in bed with a terrible back ache. As an apology, I would like to treat you today with a series of pictures: Manhattan.
I think this is a great set by famous Russian blogger Drugoi, on LiveJournal. It shows New-York in a very refreshing and different way. The eye of the beholder, they say...
20 October 2008
Rotterdam gets a new (Muslim) mayor
Dear readers,
Rotterdam got this week-end a new mayor. Ivo Opstelten, the former VVD (conservative) mayor was leaving, and the gemeenteraad (city council, in Dutch) chose for a man from its main party ranks, the PvdA (Labour). Usually, debates on this type of choice turn around the fact that there is no popular vote for mayors under the Dutch grondwet (constitution). But this time, it's a whole other sort of criticism that erupted. You see, the new mayor is Morrocan born and double nationality holder Ahmed Aboutaleb, Amsterdamer, Muslim and former State Secretary for Social Affairs.
And that was a bit too much for the second Rotterdam's party: Leefbar Rotterdam, an ultra-conservative and anti-immigrant group, heir to the late maverick character, Pim Fortuyn. It was clearly his shadow that was hovering above the town hall this week-end, if you believe his angry supporters. Right wing Marco Pastors and Ron Sorensen both were angrily reacting to the nomination (and very likely confirmation by Queen Beatrix) of the new mayor. To say that they have difficulty to swallow such a choice is an understatement. In terms carefully chosen to avoid any accusation of racism, they both denounced the nomination.
For both of them, the convenient excuse is that Aboutaleb would probably never have been chosen as mayor, should the choice be made by popular vote. And they do have a point there. The choice of mayors in the Dutch system never was very democratic (despite recent attempts) and is more a soup of tit for tat agreements between the ruling coalition parties. Aboutaleb choice is that too (he hadn't got the Ministry he was looking for during the current government negotiations). But it is clearly also a lot more. Beyond the obvious symbol and the controversial message sent to the (massive) immigrant population in the Netherlands that they are welcome indeed, there is also the choice for a very strong, popular and skilled character.
Aboutaleb might be the Muslim son of a Moroccan imam, he is also very articulate and well educated, a long time journalist and civil servant, later becoming a politician. He is certainly not new to politics, having fenced on the seats of the Twede Kamer (the Dutch Lower House) against PvVer (extreme right wing) Gert Wilders or VVDer "Iron" Rita Verdonk. He was also already famous for having publicly and strongly declared that young immigrants (regardless of their culture of origin) should accept Dutch culture, ways and mentality or "pack and go home". A declaration, made after the gruesome assassination of right wing film maker Theo van Gogh by a Moroccan terrorist, that hadn't win him much slack with most Muslim fundamentalists but had won him the respect of most Dutch people.
I don't know Aboutaleb personally, but I certainly know his reputation and his ideas. While I might not agree with him on everything (he remains a socialist and a Muslim, after all), I certainly appreciate the choice of a skillful and courageous politician as new mayor. It is clearly also a very good choice for a city which has alledgedly a majority of its population coming from abroad (me included). So, Ahmed Aboutaleb, welcome to Rotterdam and go for it!
Rotterdam got this week-end a new mayor. Ivo Opstelten, the former VVD (conservative) mayor was leaving, and the gemeenteraad (city council, in Dutch) chose for a man from its main party ranks, the PvdA (Labour). Usually, debates on this type of choice turn around the fact that there is no popular vote for mayors under the Dutch grondwet (constitution). But this time, it's a whole other sort of criticism that erupted. You see, the new mayor is Morrocan born and double nationality holder Ahmed Aboutaleb, Amsterdamer, Muslim and former State Secretary for Social Affairs.
And that was a bit too much for the second Rotterdam's party: Leefbar Rotterdam, an ultra-conservative and anti-immigrant group, heir to the late maverick character, Pim Fortuyn. It was clearly his shadow that was hovering above the town hall this week-end, if you believe his angry supporters. Right wing Marco Pastors and Ron Sorensen both were angrily reacting to the nomination (and very likely confirmation by Queen Beatrix) of the new mayor. To say that they have difficulty to swallow such a choice is an understatement. In terms carefully chosen to avoid any accusation of racism, they both denounced the nomination.
For both of them, the convenient excuse is that Aboutaleb would probably never have been chosen as mayor, should the choice be made by popular vote. And they do have a point there. The choice of mayors in the Dutch system never was very democratic (despite recent attempts) and is more a soup of tit for tat agreements between the ruling coalition parties. Aboutaleb choice is that too (he hadn't got the Ministry he was looking for during the current government negotiations). But it is clearly also a lot more. Beyond the obvious symbol and the controversial message sent to the (massive) immigrant population in the Netherlands that they are welcome indeed, there is also the choice for a very strong, popular and skilled character.
Aboutaleb might be the Muslim son of a Moroccan imam, he is also very articulate and well educated, a long time journalist and civil servant, later becoming a politician. He is certainly not new to politics, having fenced on the seats of the Twede Kamer (the Dutch Lower House) against PvVer (extreme right wing) Gert Wilders or VVDer "Iron" Rita Verdonk. He was also already famous for having publicly and strongly declared that young immigrants (regardless of their culture of origin) should accept Dutch culture, ways and mentality or "pack and go home". A declaration, made after the gruesome assassination of right wing film maker Theo van Gogh by a Moroccan terrorist, that hadn't win him much slack with most Muslim fundamentalists but had won him the respect of most Dutch people.
I don't know Aboutaleb personally, but I certainly know his reputation and his ideas. While I might not agree with him on everything (he remains a socialist and a Muslim, after all), I certainly appreciate the choice of a skillful and courageous politician as new mayor. It is clearly also a very good choice for a city which has alledgedly a majority of its population coming from abroad (me included). So, Ahmed Aboutaleb, welcome to Rotterdam and go for it!
16 October 2008
Tax and economy
Dear readers,
Thanks to Kathy Gill, from US Politics, I ran into this excellent series of charts by Karmanaut. While these charts and the discussion on the blog specifically refer to both current US candidates tax plans (and are therefore doubly irrelevant for this blog), I think they are extremely interesting from an other point of view.
These graphs show that the understanding and perception of any economic policy are extremely difficult for the general public and biased by journalists often poor understanding of both mathematics and economics. Mathematics and particularly statistics are not a trivial thing. They are a tool to describe our reality and ultimately, in this case, to base politics. However, statistics can be presented in very different ways because they weight a specific indicator in function of various factors. If you weight the population factor, you end up with a graph about uneven population distributions, which is politically loaded. If you weight the contribution factor (to taxes or the economy), you also get a politically loaded graph.
This comes from the very weird way our perception works: if we see a phenomenon as affecting one group more than any other, we tend to unconsciously perceive it as being unfair. It takes an effort of the mind to realize that such inequality might very well be a good thing for the whole society (and therefore for all its constituent groups in the end). It might even be fair, ethical, good policy. There is no way to know, unless you understand the background behind the graph itself.
Thanks to Kathy Gill, from US Politics, I ran into this excellent series of charts by Karmanaut. While these charts and the discussion on the blog specifically refer to both current US candidates tax plans (and are therefore doubly irrelevant for this blog), I think they are extremely interesting from an other point of view.
These graphs show that the understanding and perception of any economic policy are extremely difficult for the general public and biased by journalists often poor understanding of both mathematics and economics. Mathematics and particularly statistics are not a trivial thing. They are a tool to describe our reality and ultimately, in this case, to base politics. However, statistics can be presented in very different ways because they weight a specific indicator in function of various factors. If you weight the population factor, you end up with a graph about uneven population distributions, which is politically loaded. If you weight the contribution factor (to taxes or the economy), you also get a politically loaded graph.
This comes from the very weird way our perception works: if we see a phenomenon as affecting one group more than any other, we tend to unconsciously perceive it as being unfair. It takes an effort of the mind to realize that such inequality might very well be a good thing for the whole society (and therefore for all its constituent groups in the end). It might even be fair, ethical, good policy. There is no way to know, unless you understand the background behind the graph itself.
15 October 2008
Day against poverty
Dear readers,
Which better day to use to relaunch this blog than the Blog Action Day? So this is a post about poverty in the world.
I am not going to annoy you with whining comments about how the North exploits the South or this kind of typical bullshit. I am going to talk about poverty in front of our own doors. The people we pass in the street but don't really see anymore. Our fellow citizens who are not lucky enough to afford the good things you and me can afford. I assume that you and me do not fall in this category, because, let's face it, if you read this, that means you have access to a computer. And I do.
Poverty in Western countries with social welfare (which includes pretty much all of Europe) should in theory not exist. I don't mean the poverty of just having difficulty to make month ends, no. I mean the abject poverty of the truly homeless, the often sick men and women (sometimes children) in our streets. Our welfare states are supposed to cover for the most dire situations and to offer some kind of "umbrella solution" to the unlucky ones.
And yet, many are falling through the holes in the system, still unable to grasp even the safety net carefully disposed by our modern administrations. But I believe that this is precisely the problem. Administration is not the proper way of dealing with issues which are essentially human and psychological. These people, our brothers and sisters, are often wounded, always ashamed and sometimes psychologically unable to help themselves in the most basic situations. Yes, the safety net exists and should be, if not enough, at least a temporary solution. But many are actually unable to even go to the proper office, to fill in the right paper to read the appropriate form. Some are illiterate, others simply don't know that there are solutions for problems which terrify them. They don't open their post any more, because the envelope might contain another blow to their already fragile state. So they are often hit unaware when they are kicked out of their apartment and end up in the street.
Governments are notoriously bad at dealing with this, because the answer is all too often a human one, not more forms and bureaucracy. Nearly always, the solution could be less costly for society if it was not a standard one but a humanized one. Because extreme poverty means extreme situation, exception to the rule, not generalizations.
Have a good day!
PS: just so you know that I am not talking in the air, I would like to remind the readers that I myself worked for an organization that is dealing with people from the street to offer them support, work and training.
Which better day to use to relaunch this blog than the Blog Action Day? So this is a post about poverty in the world.
I am not going to annoy you with whining comments about how the North exploits the South or this kind of typical bullshit. I am going to talk about poverty in front of our own doors. The people we pass in the street but don't really see anymore. Our fellow citizens who are not lucky enough to afford the good things you and me can afford. I assume that you and me do not fall in this category, because, let's face it, if you read this, that means you have access to a computer. And I do.
Poverty in Western countries with social welfare (which includes pretty much all of Europe) should in theory not exist. I don't mean the poverty of just having difficulty to make month ends, no. I mean the abject poverty of the truly homeless, the often sick men and women (sometimes children) in our streets. Our welfare states are supposed to cover for the most dire situations and to offer some kind of "umbrella solution" to the unlucky ones.
And yet, many are falling through the holes in the system, still unable to grasp even the safety net carefully disposed by our modern administrations. But I believe that this is precisely the problem. Administration is not the proper way of dealing with issues which are essentially human and psychological. These people, our brothers and sisters, are often wounded, always ashamed and sometimes psychologically unable to help themselves in the most basic situations. Yes, the safety net exists and should be, if not enough, at least a temporary solution. But many are actually unable to even go to the proper office, to fill in the right paper to read the appropriate form. Some are illiterate, others simply don't know that there are solutions for problems which terrify them. They don't open their post any more, because the envelope might contain another blow to their already fragile state. So they are often hit unaware when they are kicked out of their apartment and end up in the street.
Governments are notoriously bad at dealing with this, because the answer is all too often a human one, not more forms and bureaucracy. Nearly always, the solution could be less costly for society if it was not a standard one but a humanized one. Because extreme poverty means extreme situation, exception to the rule, not generalizations.
Have a good day!
PS: just so you know that I am not talking in the air, I would like to remind the readers that I myself worked for an organization that is dealing with people from the street to offer them support, work and training.
14 June 2008
It's NO again...
Dear readers,
So that's it! The Irish have voted against the Lisbon Treaty, the text of which should have replaced the defunct EU Constitution (that they had previously approved). The text of the treaty was more or less similar to the Constitution, only the non institutional aspects and the state symbols had been stripped from it. This was to take into account what the Dutch and French has said they didn't like (or at least what politicians had said they didn't like). All these efforts have been in vain. Obviously, the situation changed between the two series of ratification and the Irish have voted against elements completely different from the French and the Dutch ("the constitution was [supposedly] too pro-business and not social enough"). The Irish are afraid of the supposedly (again) attack against their sacrosanct neutrality, and more generally of getting their voice diluted in the new system.
The fact that both reasons (the previous ones and the current ones) are totally imaginary is irrelevant. People rarely vote for rational reasons. Mostly they vote "with their guts", for the guy who is more eloquent or demagogic (thanks to the Sin Fein...) or simply because they are angry or happy. It does not matter much. I can't help feeling betrayed, as an EU tax payer, by the ungratefulness of most Irish people. After all, they have benefited my generosity for so many years, that they could have made the effort to read the treaty and realize that what a handful populist were saying was a big pile of crap. But I am not feeling that bad against them. They have excuses, just like so many others.
Their excuse (and one major flaw of both the Constitution and the treaty) is that these texts have been discussed in closed chambers, by lawyer and specialists and are the result of tit for tat negotiations between politicians who have everything in mind but their fellow citizens interests. So maybe this time, our politicians will understand that they have to consult the people of Europe to ask them what they want. My guess is they would tell them that they want more transparency in Brussels like in the various capitals, more accountability from the politicians at all level and more democratic decisions. But of course, instead of this, they will continue the blame game: taking credit for all the good things (mostly discussed in Brussels) and blaming Europe for their own failures. I would also hope that this time, they try to create a simple text, easy to explain in layman's terms to everyone. But I know that the Danish, English and other Polish politicians will add a dozen of opt out and conditions so that the text become unreadable again and making sure it is (again rejected).
Fair enough, we have the politicians we deserve. But frankly, sometimes I despair from both the politicians and my fellow citizens... Who is the most ignorant or stupid is not always easy to find out.
So that's it! The Irish have voted against the Lisbon Treaty, the text of which should have replaced the defunct EU Constitution (that they had previously approved). The text of the treaty was more or less similar to the Constitution, only the non institutional aspects and the state symbols had been stripped from it. This was to take into account what the Dutch and French has said they didn't like (or at least what politicians had said they didn't like). All these efforts have been in vain. Obviously, the situation changed between the two series of ratification and the Irish have voted against elements completely different from the French and the Dutch ("the constitution was [supposedly] too pro-business and not social enough"). The Irish are afraid of the supposedly (again) attack against their sacrosanct neutrality, and more generally of getting their voice diluted in the new system.
The fact that both reasons (the previous ones and the current ones) are totally imaginary is irrelevant. People rarely vote for rational reasons. Mostly they vote "with their guts", for the guy who is more eloquent or demagogic (thanks to the Sin Fein...) or simply because they are angry or happy. It does not matter much. I can't help feeling betrayed, as an EU tax payer, by the ungratefulness of most Irish people. After all, they have benefited my generosity for so many years, that they could have made the effort to read the treaty and realize that what a handful populist were saying was a big pile of crap. But I am not feeling that bad against them. They have excuses, just like so many others.
Their excuse (and one major flaw of both the Constitution and the treaty) is that these texts have been discussed in closed chambers, by lawyer and specialists and are the result of tit for tat negotiations between politicians who have everything in mind but their fellow citizens interests. So maybe this time, our politicians will understand that they have to consult the people of Europe to ask them what they want. My guess is they would tell them that they want more transparency in Brussels like in the various capitals, more accountability from the politicians at all level and more democratic decisions. But of course, instead of this, they will continue the blame game: taking credit for all the good things (mostly discussed in Brussels) and blaming Europe for their own failures. I would also hope that this time, they try to create a simple text, easy to explain in layman's terms to everyone. But I know that the Danish, English and other Polish politicians will add a dozen of opt out and conditions so that the text become unreadable again and making sure it is (again rejected).
Fair enough, we have the politicians we deserve. But frankly, sometimes I despair from both the politicians and my fellow citizens... Who is the most ignorant or stupid is not always easy to find out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)