Kroniek

2003-12-11T09:37:00.000-08:00

Bright Ideas

After the idea to open a Robin Hood account was shot dead yesterday a new and even brighter idea surfaced. This one offered a solution to fight the evil high school students that are skipping class. The best way to do this is to sent them to prison for a weeks. So if a student is stupid enough to miss out on even a single class he will have to miss out on another three weeks worth of classes. Offcourse during these weeks in prison these children will be disciplined and taught the morals & values that we hold dear. In light of all this I'm looking forward to psychological studies into the young teen mind as to what brings one to skip a class. Since the crime is usually the result of some form of unhappiness or mistreatment from the past right? This idea looks to get killed even faster than the Robin Hood bankaccount, since it violates a law that forces children below 16 to attend school.
Another bright idea was derived from a survey among car driving Holland. It seems that a majority would welcome more police on the road that actively check for speeders, provided they raise the maximum allowed velocity. Solve the crime by raising the speedlimit above what most speeders use and increase cops supervising that at the same time. Sometimes you wonder how much those people get paid to come up with this kinda stuff.

2003-12-09T22:46:00.000-08:00

Robin Hood

Just when you think the government doesn't get any weirder it does just that. After the Central Planning Bureau published their calculations for the budget as implemented by the coalition parties the opposition has been falling over each other in their disgust with it. Apparently there's a tiny group of chronically ill that will lose about 8% of purchasing power. To compensate for this ill fated group, GroenLinks known for their bright, smart but never usefull ideas has come up with something new. The Robin Hood tax. Simple and yet effective. Every Dutch citizen that is already being every tax like he/she is supposed to that makes over 100.000 euros a year will have to pay 500 euros extra. These 500 euros will be used to compensate the people worst off, meaning chronically ill and single mothers on welfare. The idea got shot down pretty much right away seeing as everybody with 100k salary or more is already paying 52% of that to the state's treasury. Furthermore the coalition doesn't want to take money from the rich simply because they have money. It would dissuade people from wanting to become rich believing the government then takes it all in the name of being social anyway. However the idea obviously gathered support from the not so rich. As a compromise a special Robin Hood account will be opened by the government. There anybody with money to spare can make a donation (which will be tax deductable!) which will proceed to the very people the government is screwing over. As a counter suggestion somebody noted to the GroenLinks parliament members to donate money theirselves. Which is a very good suggestion seeing as how a parliament member gets a nice monthy figure which is around 6500 euros. Where as most households have to make due with 2000 or less. Maybe it'd be best to start with yourself and give the good example.

2003-11-26T14:19:00.000-08:00

The European Onion

There's another threat to the existence of the European Union and specifically the Euro this time. While these threats have always caused damage, it's never been enough to break apart the Union which this probably won't either. But it will have consequences. The Euro came with a Pact, a set of rules and goals which had to be met for the euro to be a strong currency. The two biggest countries France and Germany are now breaking those rules in order to finance their tax reductions. The reason for the tax reductions is their decreasing popularity. Offcourse this is very harsh on the governments who made the necesary budget cuts in order to meet the demands of the Euro Pact. Our financial hero Gerrit Zalm has taken it upon himself to fight the good fight for this pact. He wants France and Germany to abide by the rules and change their budget. However a few promises on their side to have it straightened out by 2005 have convinved a few of the other euro nations. Since a 2/3 majority is needed for taking legal actions (think fines here mostly) this now looks to be a hopeless cause. There is however another problem.
The European Union is in the final stages of a new constitution which is to apply to all 25 members. This would mean laws, security and a few key other issues will de dictated through the EU (read France, Germany and Italy for the most part). The problem with this is that in a lot of countries there will be a vote on wether to accept this constitution or not. With all the discontent against the Euro and the fact that the Netherlands pays way more money to the EU that it receives makes for unhappy Dutch citizens. These unhappy citizens will most likely vote against more EU influence since they feel it will waste more of their tax euros. It's similar in the Scandinavian countries who are also upset with the attitude of the bigger countries. The downside to them breaking the pact apart from the obvious consequences is the lack of trust. Even if there is a new constitution will France and Germany cast it aside whenever it suits them as they do with the pact? The Euro Pact (which was made when everything was peachy) was intended to be the last line, and then unthinkable that any country would not abide. It took a less than two years since it's introduction for it to be cast aside. While the governments are on the one hand aiming more and more for one big happy european family. The other side is that the people find themselves just wanting to be Dutch, French, German and so on. This makes for a complicated situation, one that will not be resolved very easily. A good step would be to set rules and everybody follow them.

2003-11-16T12:06:00.000-08:00

Big Bad Bullies

Both fun and sad at the same time best describes a recent news item in the ever entertaining Netherlands. The story about a young girl, named Joyce, who after nine weeks off freshman year in high school just couldn't take it anymore. The thing thing she couldn't take where the constant jokes from her fellow classmates regarding her weight problem. General comments ranging from hey fatty to they should slaughter you so they can feed africa for a month. Now it seems this hurt Joyce so much that she couldn't take it, called in sick and was never seen there again. She went to a special high school where they deal with traumatic children and teens. However she didn't last very long there either suffering from anxiety attacks and nervous breakdowns. She spent the last three years at home with her parents, of which her father is living off a WAO (worker's disability fund) check since he is afraid to go out to the streets. Why they made the news? Because the father is sueing the high school for not putting a stop to the constant bullying of his daughter.
Interestingly enough there are people who support their case. I'm not one of them. It's high school and you're a freshman. Everybody gets bullied or teased with something at first. You just deal with it. During class the teacher will stop it and just makes you shut up in general to begin with. The jokes while not pleasant to hear are pretty standard phrases to be used against fat people. To blame their problems on a school they left after nine weeks already is just pushing it. The problem here is with the parents. The father hasn't been out on the streets for nearly eleven years. Normally parents would tell you to let it go and just go to school, these parents made it worse by pampering the girl and feeding her fear. The educational inspection has started their investigation as to how this girl could be home for over three years avoiding the rule that all beneath 16 years old must follow an education, unless graduated from high school. It will be interesting to see what they come up with. In the meantime the one thing this article has been good for is getting attention. Specialists have offered to help the girl with her problem (which doesn't include getting some healthy exercise) and a solution to bring her up to speed with people her age is being looked into. The biggest thing that I didn't get is why these people agreed to have their face in the papers and on the news. I doubt that'll help the girl in her life. Time will tell.

2003-11-06T13:48:00.000-08:00

Funerals

One of the suspects in the Anja Joos murder trial (the women that got beaten to death for suspected robbery, check a few entries back) went missing. A very valid question would be how do you lose someone that's in police custody? Apparently the boy's father passed away and he was allowed to attend the funeral. Fortunatly for the boy there was nobody available to escort him. Instead of tough luck for the boy he was then released on his own and promised to be home when it was over. He's been missing for two days now. A wise lesson should one get arrested in Holland, have a friend or relative pass away and ask to attend their memorial service and hope nobody's available to escort. And politicians still wonder why the Dutch have lost faith in the police, judges and the Justice Department in general.

2003-10-30T09:57:00.000-08:00

The importance of skin

It's a sunny afternoon in the summer and a guy and his girlfriend are enjoying a drink untill they find a man staring at the girlfriend. Asking him to stop doesn't help so the good old headbutt is tried. The man screams to kill the couple when he gets back and storms off. The threads came acros as serious enough to call in the police (who actually arive on time for a change). Then the man returns with a knife (or rather a big old meatcleaver) and starts running towards one of the cops. Now this is in a rather narrow space so the cop has no means of escape. He asks the man to put the knife down but he refuses and keeps going at the cop. When the man gets within about 5-6 feet of the cop he fires a single shot. This shot pierces the left lung and artery which proves to be fatal.
Now this is a pretty obvious case of self defense, the cop is attacked by man that doesn't respond to reason and has a knife big enough to kill the cop. Furthermore because of the narrow corridor he was with other people as well there wasn't a chance to escape. At that point the cop can chose between his own life and that off the attacker. He chose the attacker which in this case was somebody that was ready to kill two people he hadn't met untill a few moments ago. So what's the problem?
The problem is that the cop involved was white and the attacker was not. The attacker was of Moroccon descent and thus this isn't a matter of self defense but a hate/race crime. Now whenever a cop fires a gun reports are filed and an (internal) investigation follows. The investigation reached the same conclusion: self defense. However a part of the moroccon community as well as the family of the attacker demand an independant investigation and want to charge the cop for murder. The basis for their accusations? Well the cop could've shot him in the knee.... Narrow corridor. No escape. Big old cleaver approaching at high speed. No response to requests to drop the thing. Man and cleaver within 6 feet. This all happening in a few seconds. Hardly time to aim a gun at a non vital area. Furthermore a man in such a rage could have enough adrenaline to still attack even with his knee shot.
It's situations like these that really put on the pressure on the multicultural society here. Had the attacker been white nobody would've even suggested murder. Hell if the attacker was black it probably wouldn't have happened either. It's this part of the moroccon community that is putting on the pressure. Especially when claims are made that the attacker didn't even have a knife to begin with (though that quickly changed after about 50 eye witness reports). Considering the evidence I doubt this will lead to a conviction or even a trial for the cop. But still one of the few times the cops do show up and save the day and they go to trial for it.

2003-10-28T10:34:00.001-08:00

Football Violence

A nice change of pace this time as it wasn't about rival fans fighting it out but rather the players themselves. PSV vs Ajax ended in a draw (2-2) in both goals and casualties. According to the PSV players the reason for the heated battle was Ajax coach Ronald Koeman. Koeman had stated that if Kezman (PSV's top goalscorer) would not be suspended before this match it would damage the integrity of the competition. This apparently made the remaining PSV players so angry that they lashed out at every chance. Or so the media will have you believe.
After adding it all up and seeing it on TV things weren't really that bad. There were 2 elbow incidents where a PSV player hit an Ajax player. The result was one stitched eye brow and a red card(expulsion) since the ajax player in question couldn't controll himself after and kicked a PSV player that was on the ground. And one concussion and an injured shoulder on the PSV side. The thing about it is that most of it wasn't done on purpose but more in the heat of the battle. The only one that lost control was boy wonder Rafael van der Vaart, but that is no surprise following his (unpunished) jawbreaker on a Groningen player two weeks ago. Boy wonder van der Vaart has been struggling with his form lately and now it's time for him to grow up.
All in all the reaction in the media was greatly exagerated as per usual. However the thing that gets to me at times like that is the word Respect. The match was a showcase of lack of respect for each other. It's football, it's one of the few games that in the Dutch competition that matter and there's added pressure. When there isn't any passion, the media complain. Now that there was passion and plenty of it, the media complain about a lack of respect. I fail to see the connection between wanting to win at every cost, giving it your all and the lack of respect for your opponent. If anything the fact they had to go that far in order to try and win is a sign of respect.

2003-10-28T10:34:00.000-08:00

Football Violence

A nice change of pace this time as it wasn't about rival fans fighting it out but rather the players themselves. PSV vs Ajax ended in a draw (2-2) in both goals and casualties. According to the PSV players the reason for the heated battle was Ajax coach Ronald Koeman. Koeman had stated that if Kezman (PSV's top goalscorer) would not be suspended before this match it would damage the integrity of the competition. This apparently made the remaining PSV players so angry that they lashed out at every chance. Or so the media will have you believe.
After adding it all up and seeing it on TV things weren't really that bad. There were 2 elbow incidents where a PSV player hit an Ajax player. The result was one stitched eye brow and a red card(expulsion) since the ajax player in question couldn't controll himself after and kicked a PSV player that was on the ground. And one concussion and an injured shoulder on the PSV side. The thing about it is that most of it wasn't done on purpose but more in the heat of the battle. The only one that lost control was boy wonder Rafael van der Vaart, but that is no surprise following his (unpunished) jawbreaker on a Groningen player two weeks ago. Boy wonder van der Vaart has been struggling with his form lately and now it's time for him to grow up.
All in all the reaction in the media was greatly exagerated as per usual. However the thing that gets to me at times like that is the word Respect. The match was a showcase of lack of respect for each other. It's football, it's one of the few games that in the Dutch competition that matter and there's added pressure. When there isn't any passion, the media complain now that there was passion they still complain. Then again that's why they're there.

2003-10-08T13:12:00.000-07:00

Let's blame Prince Bernard!!

It's time for another chapter in the ongoing clercks vs robbers saga. Following up the heroics of the AH employees and the trouble with the petty criminal (see previous blogs) is the first casualty. A 43 year old woman was caught stealing beer and cat food in a supermarket. A few clercks tried to apprehend her but she made a run for it. A few blocks down they catch up to her and a few punches and kicks are handed out. The woman is left hurt on the street while the clercks flee the scene. Police arrive and have the woman taken to a hospital since she has breathing problems not much later she dies. While an autopsie still has to confirm the cause of death judgements are passed left and right. The extent of the violence is unknown so far since the police has yet to make official announcements. What's the most interesting here is the reactions to it.
In a society that preaches and raves about respecting people and their property to such an extent that it becomes ridiculous we still have hart for a thief. While we were cheering for the AH employees and Prince Bernard for supporting them not too long ago we are now holding him responsible for this tragedy. Prince Bernard as a public figure should've known better than to encourage store clercks to beat up robbers. See the woman only stole some beer and food for her pet. So what? Is that worth being killed over? It certainly isn't. However since the cause of death is unknown at this point it's premature to bring that into this matter. Furthermore even if the cause of death was the excessive force used by the clercks it is still her own fault. First off she shouldn't have stolen the beer and food. Secondly when she got caught she should've accepted her punishment instead of trying to escape. Third and final when the clercks caught up to her she should've surrended right away. Let's look at it from the clercks' point of view. The police are too busy doing who knows what (this isn't a joke either, with the enormous amount of unsolved crime one can't help but wonder what they do all day). In the past week alone the clercks had to deal with several robberies without police assistence. So when you catch one again who makes a run for it you might snap a little along the way. If you wanna blame anyone in this matter blame the police and a failing government. When people have faith in the police they won't go after criminal themselves but rather have the police arrest them down the line. But now that it's pretty obvious the police won't arrest them some people feel the need to take matters into their own hand. You can't stop those people since they'll pop up when a situation forces them too. The only way to prevent it is to have the police solve more crimes have them patroll the bad parts of town and in the shopping districts. Take whatever actions it requires to restore the people's faith in the police and you'll prevent clercks beating robbers to death.

2003-10-04T08:41:00.000-07:00

Mabel Wisse Smit

Just when you thought the Royal Family would move to the background it's reclaimed it's rightful place in the spotlights. The member in question is none other than our prince Johan Friezo. Once the topic of a heated discussion asking wether he was gay or not. This went on so far as that an official press conference was held to deny that Johan Friezo was a homosexual. Which would've been a nice move towards the acceptance of homosexuals. However since word got out he wasn't gay and was even spotted with some high class girl, the press lost interest. However now that this high class girl may have been lovers with a rather infamous criminal the spotlights are back on Johan Friezo once again.
The girl is in her thirties and the criminal was killed back in 1991. So she would've been in her early twenties or late teens back then. Is this relevant at all? Sure she might have shagged him a couple of times but as long as she wasn't part of his organisation what's the point? The point it seems is that she's trying to marry a public figure, a prince in this case. And that the government has to give a letter of approval for Johan Friezo to keep his rights to the throne. Another point is that she has denied an intimate relationship. Stating she saw him a few times but nothing special. Now crime reporter Peter R. de Vries dug up an ex bodygaurd in Chili saying he remember this girl that spent a few nights on his yacht and his quarters with him. The funny thing is that Peter R. de Vries was close friends with a different crime lord that died recently and attended his funeral proclaiming that the two were good friends. Obviously he didn't care about the nasty bit of executions and drug running done by his close friend so why dig up a bodygaurd?
It's all rather messy but maybe that's exactly what the government wants. They've requested consideration time for giving the letter of approval stating a thorough investigation is in order. This will have the media speculate over the matter untill the conclusions are brought forth. Meanwhile this takes off attention from the strikes that are going on left and right to protest against the budget cuts. The health insurance package which is further degraded while is costing more and more to the point where it doesn't pay to have one anymore. If this is the reason for this then so far it's working. It'll be interesting to see how this turns out.

2003-10-01T22:06:00.000-07:00

More Democracy...

After years of trying D66 has finally done it, we're getting to elect your own mayor. No matter how small the town, come 2006 there will be elections. And yes it will be open to anyone. While it's certainly very democratic, it's also rather pointless. The, elected, city council has all the power in the area. While the mayor could do something about it, they never do. It's pretty much just like our queen. She has the power in theory but never uses it since doing so will make the politicians push for abondaning the royal family.
Furthermore given the lack of enthousiasm for the local elections (just over 50% shows up) which actually mean something, one has to wonder how these will turn out. You're essentially just voting for the face that cuts ribbons somewhere and expresses sympathy for whenever a tragedy happens. It could become interesting if some public figures decide to run for it. Especially popular ex-football players could do very well in their hometowns or the towns of clubs they played for. There aren't that many celebrities that could do well though it would be fun to see a soapstar running for it. All in all at a time when the people's concern is their ever slinking social securities while having to pay more and more for it the chance of chosing your mayor will mean nothing at all.

2003-09-30T13:22:00.000-07:00

Inflation

According to the CBS (Central Bureau of Statistics) the inflation in Holland has been around the 3 to 4% mark for the last few years. After the introduction of the euro many people felt that prices were raised much more than that. The government refering to the statistics provided by the CBS denied these allegations. Now different research states that the prices have gone up nearly 50% over the past 5 years. The reason for this rather big difference? The products used for the calculations. The CBS has a list of things that they purchase each month from the same stores. The differences in price makes up the inflation. However this isn't limited to food, drinks and everyday products. It includes audio and visual equipment ,audio cds and even dvds.
This leads to the rather big inaccuracy in the inflation. A simple example would be DVDs at it's introduction they were priced at 30-35 euros. Now the common price is around the 20 euro mark. This has little to do with in or deflation but more with the market expansion allowing cheaper prices. Same goes for televisions. Widescreen TV's were prices around 2000 euros however since the introduction of projection, flatscreen and plasma TV's the price has dropped to about a 1000 euros.
The alternative research limited itself to the everyday needed. Vegetables, bread, milk, drinks, tooth paste, cleaning products. The stuff people have to buy regardless, the basic requirements of life. People mention this left and right, product X used to be 99 cents (guilder) and now it's 79 cents (euro) just a quick note 1 euro = 2,20371 guilders so in this case it went from 99 cents to 1,74. That's quite the increase, the reason for this is psychological pricing. The government get's the blame for this since they promised the euro would not lead to price increases. However no investigations were made. The lack of manpower for this is no reason. Tell people to keep their receipts from the year before the euro and after the euro. Then just have them compare the 2. Open a phoneline where they can report such things and send out somebody to hand out a fine. Make the fine large enough so shops won't even think about it and there wouldn't have been any problems. It also would've prevented the huge loss of credibility of the government, something it doesn't have much left off as it is.

2003-08-07T13:19:00.000-07:00

The public has a right to know

The local government of Wassenaar (home of the rich and very rich) issued a law that prohibits any photography taking place around prince Willem-Alexander's Mansion. Upon inspection this law even prohibited the prince himself from taking pictures from his own yard. The reason, a noble one, to give the newly weds and their upcoming child some privacy. Adding to this was the 'no-fly' zone which meant no aircraft was to fly over the mansion below an altitude of 600 meters. Instead of giving the prince his privacy a few journalists intensionally broke said law, got arrested and took to court.
Who cares about privacy when there's the 'freedom to gain news'. Which means that if a reporter finds it necesary to strip you from your privacy because he or she thinks it's newsworthy he or she may do so. Offcourse later on after all the harms been done you can sue them for around ten thousand euros and get a rectification. Which recently happened to Paul de Leeuw when a photographer took pictures off him and his adopted son in his house accros the street. His arguement? Well he could see them through the window so it's not private. At least they didn't tolerate that much.
However the arrested reporters found a judge who agreed with them and as such photographs can once again be taken freely. I wonder if that judge reads any of the tabloits who have the most interest in this. Selling a few hundred thousand extra copies at the cost of a mere ten to twenty thousand euros plus loads of extra attention is never a bad deal. Yet this measure went too far and prohibited the 'freedom to gain news' which apparently is a constitutional law. Afterall the public has a right to know. Though it translates more into a we have the right to make a profit out of it.

2003-08-06T09:51:00.000-07:00

www.pedofiel.nl

An internet provider took down an internet site after it discovered it's contents. It was a website about pedophiles. Now it had nothing graphic nor a FAQ with hints and tricks in it. Instead it wanted to bring about a discussion which would lead to the acceptance of pedophiles. The three people behind the website even used their full names to show that it was nothing to be ashamed off. Some men like women, some like other men and then there's a few that just like children. It's a sexual attraction thing. Which is something you can't controll at least in the case of gay people according to the government at least. It wasn't too long ago that homosexuals were the outcasts of society much like the pedophiles, but religion is on it's way back, people are more open minded and as such we're now forced to accept homosexuals. This goes up to the point where civil servants who refuse to marry gay couples on the grounds that their religion forbids it are fired. So these three feel that pedophilia can go through a similar development.
So is this bad? Is it evil? Well if you think it is, would you take down this site or keep it up? I'd keep it up in that case. These three are very open about it and push others to do the same. At the least you'll be able to compile a nice list of people to watch out for or 'deal with'. I don't think it is any less evil than homosexuality or SM. You can't decide what attracts you or turns you on at best you can surpress it. Which is what pedophiles have to do most of the time. Will it ever get accepted? Well homosexuality is and some people though they'd never live to see that day as well. It won't be in the near future but after that who knows?

2003-07-25T13:58:00.000-07:00

Amstel Beer (for each other)

One of the things that's started to improve over the year is advertising. From being annoying as hell and a great moment to see what's on the other channels (which was the same damn commercial break most of the time) we're actually getting some very funny ones now. One of the better on going themes was one of Amstel which involved a group of three friends and their antics which ended with them drinking beer and having fun. One of the funniest was recently banned in Spain after airing a mere two weeks for being discriminating.
The commercial has one of the three walk up to a blond girl from behind and asking her a question. The question he asks is in fact a football situation drawn out in beer pulls. He wants to know what it's called. The girl answers correctly; it's offside (note: as a rule women do NOT know the answer to this). The guy politely thanks the lady and heads back to his friends simply saying 'it's a guy' and the three enjoy their beers while nodding. The blond girl is played by an transvestite and has caused zero uproar here. In fact it was voted the best commercial some time ago.
While Holland is certainly one of the more open minded countries (or at least that's what it likes to believe) I fail to see the discriminating in the commercial. It's a transvestite and the three were merely checking that fact. It'd be similar to some village people look a like being asked if he was gay or not. It's not judging it as it is merely pointing it out. Well alas for Spain as they're missing out on one of the funnier commercials out there that and it's a football minded country so the joke wouldn't have been lost on them. It does however amaze me that a few protests from some gay and transvestite groups can cause this. Maybe it instigated by a rival beer company though.

2003-07-23T15:10:00.000-07:00

Problem solving

Following up on the Tilburg Tragedy in which an 18 year old lost his life over a bike is the question as to how to stop this. The solution can be very simple if executed consequently. Seeing as how our nation detests this 'meaningless' violence why not show that in the punishment we hand out to these people that commit it? The death penalty certainly comes to mind here, and let's be fair. If a person can take the life of another with no reason what so ever which is the type of case we're discussing what right do they have to live? Yet even without the death penalty there is still one perfect solution which is Life imprisonment. That way our society will be protected from such people. Will this put a stop to 'meaningless' violence? I believe it will. The rate of crimes being solved is around 7% according to a recent survey, it's a fact some criminals don't even appear before court while others are given a fine because our jail capacity isn't sufficient. People know these things, well it isn't a cause for them to do it. It does however lower the resistance to doing it. If you can commit a crime and there's a 93% chance you'll get away it is a lot more tempting than when you'll know there is a 93% you'll get caught and have to do time.
The current prevention matters aren't helping. What good is a security camera with nobody watching it? What will a few lamp posts provide? The police aren't coming unless your speeding so who cares if you're visible or not? Best off all should a fellow member of society come to aid and overpower you, you can just press charges against them for abuse and go home free. The thing that keeps sticking out in these cases is that these people are still given rights. RIGHTS. People that brake into our freedom, causing us to be afraid at night or even during the day now. People that through their actions ruin the lives of entire families are given rights. There are rights but they come with a rulebook, break the rules lose the rights. At least that's how it should be. Implementing these changes and having our police fight criminals instead of chasing after traffic violations will help make our nation a little safer again. But as long as the police budget performance contract talks about the number of fines handed as opposed to a crime solving rate and crime prevention rate there is little hope for the future.

2003-07-22T14:40:00.000-07:00

Breaking News

Paul Bosvelt is gone, off to Manchester, England where he'll play for a large amount of money. With him goes the symbol that is Feyenoord. The man that embodied the Feyenoord and Rotterdam spirit of working as hard as you can and never giving up. A man with heart for the team, the fans and a natural leader is no more. So why'd he leave? Money is the most likely reason, though his relationship with the coach probably made his decision easier. Will Feyenoord miss Paul Bosvelt? The answer lies with his successor. The most likely candidate for that would be Jorge 'Kike' Acuna. From what I've seen from him the past six months I say we won't miss Paul Bosvelt. Simply because Acuna has the same if not even more drive than Paul has but has a better technique and speed to boot. However the results will play some role in this as well though that's more of a coach issue than anything. Less than four weeks till the start of the season. Less than four weeks to see if Feyenoord can conquer the world. As for Paul, you've been a fan favourite and rightly so, may you get what you want from Manchester City and kick that annnoying Ruud van Nisteldicks' ass. Here's hoping that Acuna can step up to the plate.

2003-07-21T11:55:00.000-07:00

Let's blame the parents!

Past friday saw another victim to 'meaningless violence' here in Holland and again a nation is in shock. Well it wasn't entirely meaningless this time; it was about a bicycle. Three guys walking home being stopped by four other boys that have a knife and demand money and cell phones. The three comply since that's usually the safest option till one of the four notices they have a bike as well and demands this. The boy declines and gets stabbed in the chest for it. He died on saturday morning. I was gonna propose a solution to the problem but this was stopped by a coworker. Off the four people that did this three were 18 years old and one was 20. The victims were around this age as well. My coworker suggested that these children had been raised badly, coming from bad parts of town and thus lack respect in general and specifically to respect other people's property.
Just to get this out of the way quickly. A poor person will commit a crime more often than a rich person. Why? Because he is poor, thus very few of his desires are met, while the rich person can easily afford to fullfill his desires. Also those rich bastards have so much it doesn't hurt to steal some from them since they're also insured most of the time. This has nothing to do with character it's simply a situation. I can afford rent and food. Somebody that can't will have to resort to crime. I decided to go along with it just for fun.
After extensive research it is revealed that the crimes and wrongs we do in life can be blamed on our parents (or guardians or whoever raised us). Now with the parents being responsible they should be punished when their child screws up right? Furthermore the child can't be blamed since it's really the parents fault. The only thing the child needs is rehabilitation not punishment. We need to undo the bad parenting and replace it with respect for everybody and love for plants and animals (or something along those lines). At this point I'm presented with one confused coworker. So time to turn it up a notch. Given that the parents are responsible for how the child turns out shouldn't we test the parents? That way we can filter out the parents that won't be able to raise a child properly and castrate them while we're at it to be on the safe side. To make it fair we will judge parents individually so that one of the two isn't punished for the other's shortcomings and can look for a new mate. Maybe they can bring these cases into contact with each other since there would be a good database. This would solve the parents are responsible part.
However my coworker (still a bit dazed) pointed out that it's also the neighbourhood, other children and the teachers. Again extensive research ensues and this is all proven. So we take the basic plan we had for the teachers and apply it here. We take all the people that could be a bad influence and stuff them some place up north far away from our children. We castrate all off them while we're at it and they should wither away in no time. Whenever a child is born it will be raised to be a loving, respectfull person and be a productive member of society.
Now this obviously wasn't what my coworker had in mind. It was never the intention to punish the parents and make them pay for the crime of their child. Yet when you bring that up as a cause for the crime that's how it should be dealt with. Well... should we still blame the parents?

2003-07-18T13:08:00.000-07:00

End of Round 2: Game Over??!!

One of the biggest murder trials in Holland has reached the end of round 2 today. After round 1, which ended in an 18 year jail sentence for Volkert van der G for the murder of Pim Fortuyn, both parties were displeased thinking the sentence was too long (defense) and too short (prosecutor). Well round 2 ended in a sentence of (drum roll please) 18 years! Now considering that both parties were rather unhappy the first time around it's rather strange they are both content now. If you're unhappy with getting 18 dollars at first, would you be happy after a long debate that your still geting 18 dollars only for different reasons? Probably not.
Yes the wise judges came to an 18 year sentence but used, slightly, different arguements. They've taken into account that Volkert is being treated harshly. I'm not sure how we should treat a man that has murdered an immensily popular politician and the hope with it but he seemed in good health to me and still alive at that. They should try letting him go outside and see what happens. Considering the security around the courthouse they are well aware of that. So why take his harsh treatment into consideration? Another reason is that there have been some nasty articles on poor old Volkert. These articles mainly talked about his days as a nuisance to farmers and breeders around Holland. Volkert started lawsuit after lawsuit based on the most vague rules out there in order to stop the horrible abuse against nature, or something like that. While most articles did have contempt for Volkert they were based on facts and it's not hard to see why people get annoyed with a man that's basically out to ruin the hard work off these farmers.
Yet these are rather trivial, the big one comes in the fact that unlike the shrinks at the Pieter Baan Centrum (where they do psychic evaluations on criminals) the judges have reason to believe that given the circumstances Volkert could kill again. In Holland this is the deciding factor in wether somebody gets a jail sentence of anywhere between 10 and 20 years (based on prior convictions) or Life. Now my simple question is why not lock him up when you're convinced he'll do it again? Even more so since we are talking polical figures here. I wonder if any country would release a man that murdered a high profile political leader of their country after about 12 years of jail time (only 2/3 of the sentence have to be carried out here unless you're attacking prison gaurds on a daily basis)??
But putting aside the weirdness of the reasoning behind the sentence is the fact that both parties appealed against the sentence which remains the same now except it's brought differently. The fact that both parties are pleased by a different dress to the sentence is alarming. Since the change of dress doesn't do anything to the judgement that's been passed. It still is 18 years of jail time. Maybe it really is time to kill all the lawyers as some tipsy english writer once said.

2003-07-11T15:18:00.000-07:00

Losing it

Following up the saga of the two brave AH clercks is the tale of more arrested robber-stopping-clercks. A known petty criminal was kicked out of a shopping district a few days ago and ended up in the hospitol severely injured. Though witnesses reported that he was just 'escorted' away from the district with a little push as he drove away on his bike. Two clercks have already been arrested, with the third getting picked up as soon as he returns from his vacation to france. With all the recent commotion about changing laws or not and the fact that members of our society were out helping the police this is a turn for the worse.
If these three clerkcs get convicted while the criminal walks it'll complete the criminal paradise that is Holland. With our gedoogbeleid where we basically accept a large number of crimes due to not enough police/judges/cells to handle the problem and now the arrest of civilians making arrests by force this sounds like the plot of a bad movie. But perhaps like in a movie things should first escalate before even The Hague catches wind of the problem and decides to not deal with as usuall. With all this keeping up I'm really considering the life of a criminal.

2003-07-10T15:02:00.000-07:00

Trouble in Paradise

Feyenoord barely started training or there is trouble everywhere. Starting with Shinji Ono whose injury is worse than assumed and is out for another 3 to 4 weeks. However the big 'shock' came when captain Paul Bosvelt turned in his captaincy today. The reason is that Bosvelt is unhappy with the sale of Pi-Air, the man responsible for winning the UEFA Cup, and coach Bert van Marwijk remaining at the helm. While I can follow Feyenoord on wanting to sell Pi-Air I can't understand why they keep Van Marijk as head coach. Ever since he started this job he has been under pressure at least twice a season because of bad results. However every time the upcoming game was do or die, Feyenoord won a few games and the pressure would subside. The results however speak for themselves. In three years time Van Marwijk has won but one prize, the UEFA Cup. Which wasn't won on tactical ingenuity but because players like Bosvelt, Ono, Paauwe, van Persie, Kalou, Emerton and the free kicks from Pi-Air van Hooydonk were enough to beat the opponents. With the competition failing to impress as well Feyenoord should've nabbed some prizes. The reason for not doing so is completely on van Marwijk.
Last year was one of the best squads Feyenoord has had in the last decade. Except for the left back position, there were two players of equal ability for every position. Yet instead of using the obvious choice, van Marwijk chose to throw the team around in favour of certain players that failed to deliver. With Schalke 04 actually wanting van Marwijk as their coach, Feyenoord had the perfect chance to get rid of van Marwijk. When your coach is failing in every way and you can get rid of him without paying take the damn chance! While the only candidate for the opening is Ruud Gullit even the two assistent managers can do the job van Marwijk has done and probably better too.
Paul Bosvelt in all his years with the team has never, openly, complained about players or staff. He was the one that lead the team in battle, like a true general fighting head on. For him to give off a signal like this definatly means trouble. With van Marwijks impopularity among fans, having the fan favourite turn against him as well really turns on the pressure. Failing to win the season opener at home against NEC, who had an impressive run last season finishing a very nice fifth place, might result in an uproar which could mean the end for van Marwijk.
At last the footballless period is over.

2003-07-08T13:49:00.000-07:00

The suffering ends.

After four weeks of living your life on the auto-pilot it's good to have the centre of it all return to you. Feyenoord had its first practice session yesterday infront of around 5000 people which kicks of the preseason. No more ramblings about 'sports' such as tennis and all other irrelavant 'sports' which goes on during the footballless period that is summer. And what better way to start preseason by selling off three of your core players? Well it's not so bad when their successors are ready to take their places and you can earn a few million euros.
Bonaventure Kalou, came to Feyenoord about 5 years ago and has been a fan favourite since the start. The way he made a fool out of every defender alive was great to watch. His downfall is that after fooling five defenders he fools himself along the way as well. Overcome that and get more goal orientated and you have a striker that eats Ronaldos for breakfast. You were one of the few attractions we had untill last year so it seems fitting you'd leave us now. Go conquer France, history proves it's quite easy.
Brett Emerton, made his way up from Down Under 3 years ago. Brought back the physical aspect to the game which seemed lost here after the era of Fraser, de Wolf, Metgod and Van Gobbel. Is unstoppable once at full speed. Brett you just need to realise you don't have what it takes to be a midfielder. Just be the best damn wing back and proud of it. Michael Jordan didn't insist on playing center either. Enjoy your Promised England, though you'll learn Rotterdam rules all.
Pi-Air van Hooydonk, his free kicks is what got us knocked out of the Champions League but brought us the UEFA Cup instead. I wasn't around at the 1970 final in Milan, but at least I was there at the final in Rotterdam. The best damn final there'll ever be. You made it into a success with your two goals. For that alone you deserve a statue. If only you'd be able to keep up with Robin van Persie, Thomas Buffel, Leonardo and Shinji Ono. A shame your leaving Feyenoord for something like Turkey but to each his own. May you find what you're looking for.
If only I could've written something about coach Bert van Marwijk here I'd be one happy trooper. For now I'll limit myself to the one player they brought in.
Dirk Kuyt from FC Utrecht to the big league. It's said FC Utrect is a smaller version of Feyenoord, which is giving them too much credit but I can see the reason why. Just work your ass off like you always do and you'll do just fine. Your work ethics combined with your ability to play good football will result in an even more dangerous offense than last year. With Thomas Buffel and Shinji Ono behind you and Robin van Persie and Leonardo at your side it just can't go wrong.
As for the other two successors? Well Chong-gug Song has already proven a better defender than Brett Emerton and while lacking his physical power he does hold his own and has a better technique. Kalou's successor is none other than his little brother Salomon which is rumoured to be all that his brother his and more since he doesn't forget the other 10 people on the team. Only five weeks of preseason before the real deal starts. It's good to be alive again.

2003-06-28T13:40:00.000-07:00

Provocative Law

Following up on the recent incident in which two clercks beat up a robber and were rewarded with a 8 man strong arrest team including dogs. One of the LPF members offered to pay the fine for these clercks should they get convicted. The minister of Justice mister Donner wasn't happy about. Saying something along the lines of famous people encouraging violence by doing this. However this wasn't aimed at our Prince who did so the first time (judging by his reaction mister Donner clearly forget about that). The LPF member proposed to make some slight changes in the law regarding situations like these. He wanted to protect the brave few people that actually stand up for themselves.
This met very heavy resistance. The best qoute came from the ever unintelligent miss Vos from GroenLinks. Saying that such a thing would promote violence. We have a winner!! That was exactly the point to these changes. Since people now have the idea that stopping a robber by force (it's been proven that asking politely doesn't help) is actually worse than robbing a store. That and there is only so many fines paid for by celebrities before it gets old news and they won't do it anymore. Changing the laws to provide protection for the brave few that stand up to these criminals is whats needed. If such a change would increase the number of people standing up to robbers then what are you waiting for?!
Furthermore why do we insist on protecting known criminals?? Suspects need to have some kind of protection untill it's certain he/she comitted the crime. However people caught in the act are guilty, there is no doubt, no other party involved. They should be stopped by any means possible. Since the police are busy handing out speeding tickets having some brave members of our society do it should be rewarded with a medal at the least. Instead we give them a fine and let the robber go because he got punched in the stomach.

2003-06-20T14:36:00.000-07:00

Scandal Time

One of the biggest non political/royalty scandals is happening right now and nobody seems to care about. The reason for this is that our beloved Maxima (wife of our prince Willem-Alexander) is pregnant. Reason enough to spend the first three pages of every newspaper on this 'news' for the past few days. It makes you feel bad for the kid already. However onto the scandal in a shocking part of the Netherlands. Though it is funny that nobody ever expects anything to happen outside of the big cities while it should be clear that the real freaks all hide out by now. The scandal started in april when PSV-director Fons Spooren was arrested on the charges of sex with a minor. A few charges have been added seeing as how the dear director had unsafe sex with minors while being a carrier of the HIV virus oh and he also paid the lads. Apparently there is a rather well known parking lot in Eindhoven where gay men can pick out nice young boys to have sex with. These boys are in the age range of 16-20, which is the legal age to have sex here, however it is not untill you are 18 that you can get paid for it. So a few of these 16 and 17 year olds have been arrested. Considering how big this operation is and how much workforce involved it raises an important question. Why the hell are policemen wasted on nearly adult boys that are having sex out of free will and getting paid for it instead of dealing with the ever increasing violence and robberies?
A possible answer comes from the fact that these boys are earning a little money on the side. It seems the gentlemen that use the services of these boys are mostly married men and often with children (Fons Spooren was married and has two children so this was quite the shocking, unexpected story). So after taking their money for having sex with these men they'd then procede to demand hush money. They'd ask for loans to buy something and made excuses to not pay back while knowing these gents wouldn't go to the police in fear of having their identity exposed as well as being charged for sex with minors. I fail to see the evil in this. Quite frankly the only reason this can be pulled off is because these gents don't wanna come out as gay. If they still like their family that's fine but going to have sex with males, boys or just having an affair in general involves the risk of getting caught. Some people still think they can have it all.
Yet the plot sickens or thickens. In a nearby town (somewhere in Limburg, where nothing ever happens, except pointless violence resulting in death) something quite similar goes on. According to sources from the Gay Krant the political figures over there have regular parties with these young boys. Everybody is offcourse denying involvement even upto the point they'll get arrested and convicted. However again these boys weren't forced to become prostitutes or sleep with the male gender. They did it for their own reasons and out of their own free will. The gentlemen involved may or may not have known some off these were 16 or 17 years old, since that sort of thing is hard to tell. The little extortion that went on on the side is nothing more than these gents paying the price for their sex while having the whole family thing going on at the same time. This is no reason for so many resources to be spent on while public transport is barely safe and we're confronted with train terrorism. The only crime that should be handled here is that of having unprotected sex while you are aware that your infected with HIV.

2003-06-15T13:46:00.000-07:00

....and Justice for All (aka Pro Choice part 2)

In sticking with titles related to music this one comes from Metallica. There aren't that many lawsuits here that involve getting damages that run into high figures. It's seen as 'too american' here and us rational Dutch people want no part off it. Well we'd like to be the one receiving sure but then there is the risk of having to pay up. This makes the latest case all the more interesting. A woman that had her doctor insert an anti-pregnancy thingy into her body is demanding a million euros. It seems the good doctor made a slight mistake and the woman is now pregnant. The million euros are for the expenses that come with raising a child as well as some compensation for her suffering. I'd offer a much more simple solution which is to have an abortion. It's fairly obvious the woman didn't want a child so why not have it removed? The cost of such an operation is far less and it's more practical than raising an unwanted child. There haven't been that many details giving out in this case so there may be a reason for her keeping it. However what could those reasons be? Either you want or don't want the child. If you want the child then there is no reason to demand money for malpractice. If you don't want the child you have it removed. Either your religion won't let you or your afraid of operations. As for the operation part, well giving birth isn't all that pleasant either. If the case is religion and the woman wins it's going to be a very wrong signal. Practicing your religion is fine and dandy but as long as you do it within the law. In this case if you want to honor your religion and thus refuse abortion don't demand somebody else to pay for that decision. It'll be interesting to see how this one turns out, at least to see if we Dutch aren't going all 'american' now.

2003-06-14T04:41:00.000-07:00

'And I know they killed our heroes too..'

The title comes from a song by Marilyn Manson called The Death Song (from his Holywood album). Last year two Albert Hein (one of the biggest supermarkets in the Netherlands) employees raced after a man who had just robbed their store. The robber was carrying a knife, yet these two employees ran after and eventually caught up to him. A fight followed which was won by the two employees, who then held on to the man for the cops to arive and take the robber away. Well not quite. It seems the two employees hurt the robber in the process. While not getting a thank you for your efforts is fairly common but getting prosecuted over it is new. This offcourse had pretty much the entire nation in an uproar since when people actually decide to not put up with crime anymore they get branded as criminals. The high point came when prince Bernard said he would pay the price these two brave employees would have to pay. It ended with a 300 euro fine, which the prince paid. It happened again this week. Same two employees though different robber. They spotted a man stealing a beer and went in pursuit. This time one of the employees punched the robber in the stomach while trying to apprehend him. The robber pressed charges against him for abuse. On a side note this beer robber had a quite extensive history of criminal offenses. Offcourse a politician has already said he'd pay any fine resulting from this.
Just how far gone are we when we start punishing our heroes for being heroes? The police is too busy writing out parking tickets to handle the crime on the street. However they can be bothered to arrest two people that help capture a criminal. Did you ever stop a criminal by politely asking him to wait for the police to arive? Probably not. While the gesture is a nice one by the politician (and not in the least a way to get good publicity for a few hundred euros) it isn't enough. If they really support employees actively protecting their company then a change in the law is required. Make it so that anybody can stop a criminal while not killing him. If you're going to stop a criminal you'll have to fight him it's that simple. If you wanna win that fight you'll have to deal out quite a few good, hard punches or kicks. This will hurt the criminal pretty bad otherwise he'd just run off. Change the law so that instead of getting a fine these people get a reward. While your at it make it so that these repeating criminal stay behind bars for the the rest of their lives since they obviously haven't learned from their stay.

2003-06-10T06:32:00.000-07:00

Drugs, Alcohol & Smokes (ciggies, pipe, cigars etc.)

All three of these substances are highly addictive and very bad for your health (at least that's what they want you to believe). However only one of these is illegal, the other two can be bought quite easily. For arguement's sake I won't make a difference between hard and soft drugs just like I won't make a difference between a beer and 160 proof Stroh Rum. Both get you either high or drunk it's just the speed and severity that differ. Now the most logical one to be illegal would be smoking. This because when you drink alcohol the substance goes into your body. Same goes for most of the drugs. However with smoking you're releasing those harmfull to the body substances in the air and the ones near you. The harmfull effects caused by your smoking affects others. These are all things the government acknowledges to such a point even that it is now illegal for the industry to advertise and all sorts of rules are imposed about where one can and cannot smoke. The thing is that if it is as bad as they say it is why isn't it illegal? There's two answers to that one. The first is that the government does want to make it illegal but won't since the population that smokes is way too big. Think what happened when alcohol was illegal in the USA in the 1920s that did NOT go over well. The second option offcourse is that they don't want to make it illegal at all. They simply balance the half of the population that does smoke and the other half that is complaining about it. While earning around 6 billion euro's from tariffs in the process (recent budget cuts were 15 billion, imagine if they'd have to come up with an additional 6 billion as well). So that covers smoking.
Moving on to alcohol. This can cause some rather problematic behavior hence that commiting crimes when drunk are punished more severely. Trying to make this illegal will be rather hard to do considering the aforemention USA attempt didn't work. That and most people only have two or three beers a night or a glass of wine with dinner and there isn't much harm in that. So the government compensates it again with tariffs (not as high as the smoking ones, but consider that 4 off the 6 euros you pay for a pack of cigs are tariffs). All things considered alcohol is treated fair enough. A small tariff to pay for that liver operation down the line, no drunk driving and an age limit. The one thing that is interesting to me though is that alcohol releases your inhibitions. Basically when drunk enough you'll actually become your true self and act the way you would. While sober we are limited by all the rules society, family and we ourselves have imposed on us. Maybe we should all be drunk and see what happens?
Then comes drugs. Frankly I don't see the difference between drugs and alcohol. Both can make you act a little different than normal depending on how much you use and both are just as addicting. Like the people that drink a couple of beers there are people that smoke a joint. Which can have a similar effect. Sure there are the hard drug addicts but don't forget that there are quite a few alcoholists too, should we ban it just because some people can't control themselves? The biggest problem the government and ignorant masses seems to have with drugs are with the addicted ones and the crime that comes from it. The simplest solution would be to legalize drugs. If you'd allow people to grow/make the drugs professionally (you can set rules for this just as with any other type of industry) and have stores sell them it would solve crime. How many beer mafia families are there? Or triads controlling the fine french wines? The prices would drop considerably and this will allow the more addicted people to still get enough without having to resort to stealing. The big gain for the government would come in the form of tariffs so they can earn a few extra billion euros to cover the gaping holes in their budget. Considering the large amount that uses drugs and the lack of control there is now this might be a viable solution. Offcourse I could be ignorant and the government has already done this just hasn't informed the public about it.

2003-06-04T14:52:00.000-07:00

Suicide

While most of them come as an utter shock to their surroundings (meaning they were too involved with their own lives to notice) some make sense and some fail. It's the ones that fail that are the most interesting. Taking your own life isn't that hard since there are so many ways to go about it. While it's never a pleasure to stumble on a corpse especially that of a loved one it is better than when the person jumps infront of a train taking the mental stability of the driver with him. Those attempts hardly fail. It's the hanging, overdose of old medicine, wrist slicings that tend to fail. The funny part is that these attempts usually occur when somebody is bound to come home. A neglected housewife that attempts to kill herself around 5:30pm when that's the time her husband comes home is clearly just crying for attention (though in a very wrong way). Suicide in itself is not bad nor sad. It's a choice made by that person who executed it himself. Sure you may miss that person but it's their decision leaving you no choice but to accept it and move on. The ones that are bad are the failed attempts. Or rather the ones that have interventions. Imagine you walk into a room and you see somebody hanging himself, would you stop the hanging? It's not saving a life, because that life is theirs and they obviously don't want it anymore. Who the hell are you to tell them they should keep on living? The only rightfull thing to do in that case is to get the hell out of that room. Just a comparison what if you walked in on somebody that's reading a book. Would you stop them simply because you don't like that particular book (or books at all for that matter)? You probably wouldn't since you regard as that person's decision and not yours. Yet if that person makes a decision to end their life you would force your decision onto that person by stopping them. It's because of that reason why I don't get people 'saving' the lives of people trying to kill themselves. You have to be pretty unhappy with your situation in order for you to end it. Either that or you're just bored out of your mind and fed up with the rules of a human society that won't even allow you to do what you want. Yet as with euthenasia we're perfectly fine with forcing people to keep on suffering in the spirit of 'at least he's alive.'
As for the attention getters like the previously mentioned neglected housewife. Just let them be succesfull as well. If you see no other way to get attention than by attempting to kill yourself you have no right to live. While the current laws prohibits us from taking such matters into our own hands we can always just come home later so that the neglected housewife has bleeded to death by the time her husband comes home. Or when you stumble in try to sneak out undetected before they abort their attempt themselves in order to seek their promised attention. Having voiced this opinion before I got asked if I did not care for human life. I simply replied that nobody cares more about a person's life than that person himself. If that person doesn't care anymore, neither should we.

2003-06-01T15:23:00.000-07:00

Blah Blah Woof Woof

Last year all of Utrecht and the neutral fans were in mourning as FC Utrecht had their Cup victory stolen by a rather clearly offside equalizer in the dying seconds and losing in overtime. The poor (well not poor, it was clear as day, the type even women can make out) linesman that's responsible is banished into Hell and shall remain their forever. The FC Utrecht were crying their hearts out and made rather bold statements about not ever wanting to win a cup that way. It's always nice when those words come back to haunt you. Enter this year's final. The game was pretty even throughout with a few small chances for both sides. A lucky shot from a deflected corner put the FC Utrecht up just before halftime at a time when their opponent was gaining the upperhand. A few minutes into the second half, Patrick Paauwe makes a mistake not seen in even the kiddy leagues and the result is a 2-0 lead. The opponent then starts to get his game together and pushes forward. The result is the 2-1 goal. However the referee denies it and gives a freekick. This was an all accounts a valid goal, no penalty made no reason to deny it. Only a few minutes later another goal is scored, it's the 3-0. This goal however is very very invalid as somebody had just been offside (by about two yards, ironically the same distance as last year) however the linesman (a different one considering last year's remains in Hell) who was in a most excellent position to see it didn't call for offside. Now the opponent doesn't give up yet and scores the 3-1 which surprisingly wasn't denied for some obscure reason. With a mere 15 minutes left everything is played on the offense and it's starting to work. Enter Mariano Bombarda making his way to the goal when two defenders of the FC Utrecht knocking him to the ground inside the box. The only possible outcome should be a penalty with possibly one of the two being sent off. The result? Well it's in line with previous decisions, the penalty is denied. Paul Bosvelt the captain of the opponent gets rather infuriated after getting screwed over yet again in this game and touches the referee (it's like a push only so soft it's not since the referee didn't fall back by it) the result? The captain gets sent off. So with no penalty, one man short and still down 3-1 the game is now over. The end result becomes 4-1 which really doesn't matter anymore. Three very game crucial calls (or lack there off) all in favour of the FC Utrecht. Justice for last year? Perheps but they said it themselves they didn't want to win it like that. The talk after the game? 'We were lucky with the calls especially since before the 3-0 it could've gone either way but overall I think it's deserved.' That was actually the most honest response we got from a FC Utrecht player. The others just gave cheap excuses about the referee's calls. It's not wrong for them to enjoy their victory (even with the way it was achieved). Just don't whine about justice and such crap when you lose and complain that the opposition is celebrating. As for the referee in question I hope he never gets to use his whistle again unless it's jammed very far up his rectum.

2003-05-31T14:28:00.000-07:00

Nuon

The thing with trends is that they come and go as they please. Though the returning usually take a decade or two. After the great hype of having a company's workforce comprise of the exact percentages as the population (gender and race wise that is) so far so that there's in fact a law for that (effective for companies that have over 35 employees). This hype started in the 1990s under the once praised (though now that the results are visible, very much hated) coalition of PvdA/VVD/D66 or simply Paars (purple). While it was near impossible to see that reflected into the ministers, senate or parliament members of the parties the rest of the Netherlands were bound by it. However at a time when we're more concerned with what the 'top-managers' are making this former trend is reappearing, in a most interesting way as well. What's the situation? Nuon (one of the mayor power companies here) announced the plan that (top)managers were to lose their annual bonus if they fail to have 10% of their employees are of non-dutch origin. Right now their average is around 6%. While the bonus comprises about 15% of their annual income. Which is quite the motivational factor for these managers. Offcourse if it didn't motive then the managers wouldn't care let alone implement it. The two papers that I read as well as the TV news all seemed to be in agreement that this was a good development.
It's a very bad development. The worst thing that can happen is that this becomes a trend and the other large companies start doing this. There's several reasons why this is bad and most have to do with the timing. Firstly there is a rather large riot going on here now that's been found out that the high up managers that lead the big companies have seven figure salaries plus bonus package. At a time when all that's being said is to freeze the salaries hearing that your boss is making a fortune doesn't help much. Some political parties have jumped on the bandwagon with talks about implementing a 'you earn too much tax' of 100% for salaries that have seven figures or more. This situation in itself is bad enough, companies adding to this with bonus cuts based on race hiring practices isn't going to help much.
Secondly there is the rising unemployment combined with the social securities that are being trimmed down. For the people insecure about their jobs (which amounts to a considerable amount of the workforce) this does not help much, well unless you are of foreign origin offcourse. It's not very hard to imagine what will happen when perfectly qualified people start getting turned down for jobs because they and their parents have lived their lives in the Netherlands (think Germany 1930s). It should at all times be the best (wo)man for the job. Both for the job that's being performed as for the credibility. These kind of antics have resulted in several law suits dealing with people that felt were rejected for a job because of their appearance (wether race or religion). Up untill now the sueing was done by the foreign origin people, won't be long for the first white Dutch male files one if this becomes a trend.
Then there is our multi-cultural society that is already falling apart into the harsh reality. With increased tension caused mostly by young Morocans that in turn feel oppressed the situation is highly explosive as it is. Adding policy for or against their position is very unwanted with right extremitism on the rise in the suburbs which have only recently been introduced to the multi cultural society. While the development in the suburbs has been good now that the multi cultural society is no longer the worshipped Holyness. Instead the people that have had to actually deal with it in the big cities are all pretty much against it, it's no surprise the people in the suburbs feel the same way. This is a problem created by the government since they refused to speak about the issue. Except for maybe promote laws forcing you to hire a certain amount of each race and gender. In that respect this initiative from Nuon is an excellent oppurtunity for the new government to signal where it wants to go with the multi cultural society and start correcting the mistakes made in the past. Starting with rejecting this Nuon initiative.

2003-05-27T17:22:00.000-07:00

Anti-Social

Joshua Livestro, an assistent to some EU position who writes columns for a national newspaper on occasion as well, wrote an interesting piece on the current economic situation specifically dealing with the European and the US situation. The main difference is the level of social securities involved. He believed that because the US laws are mainly designed for enterprises to get a good clean start in order to make a healthy profit while the EU imposed all sorts of regulations, taxes and social securities which makes the step to start a business that much bigger to take. It's because of this the US would recover that much faster than the EU. Being the supporter of the work for your vacation and luxury principle I appreciated the column. You know a column is good when it triggers angry responses like this one did. Some man wrote in complaining that Livestro worshipped the US and called them anti-social. It's not calling somebody anti-social that bothers me, it's the way it's used in this country.
All the valid points Livestro made were swiped away by that single notion of it being anti-social. The PvdA, GL and SP form their entire opposition to the new coalition on that notion as well. It's anti-social, the weaker ones in society have to suffer. Well we all have to suffer it's just that if you only have a 100 euro's a month, every single euro extra spent hurts more than when you have 200 a month. While I think it's anti-social to leech off hard working taxpayers and complain you can't afford that Bahamas cruise, that's not the point of this arguement. It's more about what being social is all about. Why do we help people? There's a few basic answers to that question. Firstly you could be forced too, like in a robbery when you have a shotgun pointed at you, you'll likely help that man just to get rid of him and out of fear to get your head blown off. Later on when the cops come you're more than happy to help them so they can get the prick that robbed you and most likely because you'll feel it's your duty to do so. There we have the two basic reasons why we help. We're either forced to do so or want to do so. A possible third is a deviation from the first one in that feeling it's the right thing to do means you don't want to do it but your conscience forces you to help.
When you help somebody because you are forced to do so are you being social? Not in the least, or, using the previous example, you'd be arrested by the cops for helping that robber. If you help somebody out because you feel you are compelled to do so be it by religion, how you were raised or because of your conscience than is that being social? No, you are helping because of yourself. You feel it is the right thing to do and so do it. When you help somebody out because you want to is that social? Again you are doing it for yourself or a promised reward. Then what is being social? It's when you help out with no other interest in mind other than to help that person. How many times have you done that, when there is no conscience forcing you or no promise of a reward whatsoever? I've never done it. I've helped out people but mostly because they are my friends or family and I consider helping them out to be a part of that. Knowing that they would do it for me helps with that as well. In that respect I'm a selfish bastard, though the people around me don't think of me that way. So the whole social/anti-social thing? It's a matter of perspective. But taking the implied meaning into account you'd be hard pressed to find a lot of 'real' social people.

2003-05-24T05:54:00.000-07:00

Time Travel

This is just an exercise to try at home and it doesn't require a geeky machine to do. Ever noticed that the more aware you are of time the slower it goes? This doesn't mean you are bored however. The last few minutes of an exciting match always seem to last as long as the time played uptill then. Then consider the fact that a large part of our brain is still unexplained. They haven't figured out what it does, or some people have and refuse to share it with the rest of the world. Leading to my theory that if you can become hyper aware of time you would be able to freeze it or at least get to the point of 'Bullet-time' tm. Or at least for you it would seem frozen, since the other people aren't as hyper aware they won't notice a difference. This also works in reverse. By becoming hyper unaware of time, time would race forward in your perception while others probably won't notice a difference. Since this is all relative to yourself. That way you could travel forward in time.

2003-05-20T14:04:00.000-07:00

Pro Choice

With abortion being legal in the Netherlands for some time now it's interesting to note people's reactions to it when it becomes an issue. People tend to associate abortion with those underaged girls that got pregnant. However there is a far better and controversial use to it as well. The first one is actually an issue right now in Belgium where future parents are using abortion as a way to get the desired gender of the child. This caused quite the outrage amongst the politicians and easily shocked people which are now trying to prevent abortion on the basis of gender. So much for pro choice. While this is not China where you can only have 1 child, some people only want the one child. And they want that one child to be a boy (or girl). If both parents are in agreement about this why stop them? Why force them to have a child they do not want. Simply because you think it is wrong?
Enter our more controversial reason. With the current tests you can run during pregnancy the health state of your child is no longer a total shock. They have tests to see if your unborn child has Down Syndrome, mentally or physically handicapped amongst a few others. Suppose they discover this concerning your unborn child. You now have the choice to prevent that child from being born thus saving it from the very difficult life. A rather blunt friend of mine told her doctor about her intention of aborting the pregnancy should the child have something very wrong with it. The doctor's response? "You'll have to make do with it incase of a disability." followed by something along the lines of a 'The hell I am, I want an abortion if that is the case. Welcome to the present were we can see these things in advance and act accordingly.' This made me realise that pro-choice is mainly associated with those unwanted pregnancies which is the underaged young girl or the rape victim. Other reasons simply don't enter people's minds. Present this scenario to people you know and watch their reaction.
Again where it comes down to is a 'you can't do that to yourself because I think it is wrong.' It's pro choice, it's legal (for now) and if both parents are in agreement who the hell are you? It's those parents that have the responsibility to raise the disformed child which is a much heavier burden than having many healthy children to raise. Even when the reason is about gender or if it would be about hair colour that is their decision. How many people do you know that would've killed to have a son but after having four daughters they simply couldn't because they can not support any more children. Should we deny those parents the son they want? If we do then we might as well force people to adopt the poor little orphanes to they have a home as well. Since it appears we have the right to decide about what children you have.

2003-05-19T14:27:00.000-07:00

Train Terrorism

Created by boredom comes a new breed of terrorism; the train terrorist. Taking a break from those suicide bombers which seem to be popular again we are now presented with a new kind of terrorism. The motivation is not based on religion but on boredom. Having nothing better to do than annoy people on a train while wrecking it in the process. The profile for these train terrorists? White male, age between 16 and 18, speaks in a most annoying amsterdam accent and looks very bored. While there are also quite a few foreign terrorists involved, the media focus for now is on the angry young white men. However this is how those type of things are handled here. The high point of the train terrorist situation was reached when the terrorists were confronted with their actions after having their heads on the frontpage of the biggest national newspapers. Instead of commenting on their sins they complained about the size of the picture, saying they now were viewed upon as terrorists which is a bit much. A criminal being pissed off because people are looking at him in the way they would look at a criminal.
While watching this unfold in the media is certainly very entertaining and a new source for some great jokes the fact that this is happening is very disturbing as well. These guys didn't vent their boredom this last week no it's been going on for a long time. They know the little brats that did it, they have plenty of witnesses, they have every opportuniy to pick them up (it's the same route that gets targetted). How is it possible that these terrorists have been allowed to terrorise for this long? It's come to a point where the Dutch Railways have trouble finding personel still willing to work on that particular route and even in that area in general. With the way these people get treated even by the less bored passangers it's safe to assume these terrorists certainly earn that name. Instead of these young terrorists crying behind bars they are now bragging about making the front of every major newspaper while still enjoying their wonderfull freedom. It's bad enough that they wasted all that man power in the S.E. Fireworks case but that is no excuse to not pick up a few little pricks that are clearly out of line and give them a proper spanking. Unless they are trying to boost terrorism, i mean tourism with this behavior.

2003-05-14T15:36:00.000-07:00

Emancipation

With the forming of the new coalition at the end stage the exciting times of figuring out who will be a minister is upon us. Though it's only really interesting when there is a scandal involving one of the future ministers or state secretaries. While the number of ministers varies on which gives the most favourable number to divide amongst the coalition parties it appears this term will have 16 ministers of which only 2 would be female. That brings us to our first 'scandal' involving ministers. Being the oh so progressive Netherlands it's pre-historic to only have 2 female ministers. All the feminist organisations are already protesting and are getting back up from all sorts of progressive members of society (politicians, journalists, celebraties). It's even gone as far as the call for a law which dictates at least half the ministers are to be female. Since that would be a better reflection of our population (about half is female afterall).
This ties in with the positive discrimination that was popular here a few years ago, I thought we had gone past that. The argument of reflecting it's population is invalid for one simple reason; best person for the job. If that person happens to be a white male then that's that. If that is the case for 14 out of 16 minister positions should we want people that aren't as capable simply because they are female? Then we would also have to look at the number of muslims and have a muslim minister, a catholic minister, an atheist, perhaps we should also look at age as a criteria? Given the huge responsibility and importance of a minister one should only be judged on his abilities. Not gender, age, race, religion or even worse hair colour.
The thing that I find very contradicting with both the emancipation as well as the positive discrimination thing is that they point out they are not equal. If man and woman are truely equal then it does not matter what the male/female count is. It would be as silly to point out as pointing out that 14 out of 16 ministers have brown hair and the blondes are not represented well enough. Would an article proclaiming the importance of hair or eye colour among ministers (or other high up positions) be treated seriously? Not a chance, the reason for that is simple it's a non issue. Nobody cares for hair or eye colour except for maybe personal taste. So why do we care about male/female? Is it because we acknowledge the fact that they are indeed different?
Finally, if there are indeed only going to be 2 female ministers, then that's all the female ministers the Netherlands have to offer. Nothing scores more points than a female minister. The women and all their feminist organisations are happy. They get to push the whole being progressive thing. Plus the male population much prefers attractive 30-35 year old female ministers to the mostly grumpy old men we're stuck with now. Add it all up and you know they'll push in as many females as they can, but there has to be some quality control as well. Though as long as Femke Halsema is considerated to be the most attractive politician, I've lost all hope for attractive women in politics. Might as well go with the best man for the job then.

2003-05-11T09:09:00.000-07:00

Social Securities

Something that's very well taken care of here in Holland are the social securities. The lowest form here is Welfare. The amount you get on welfare is 70% of minimum wage. If you have children under age 12 and in some other cases you can get an extra 20%. So most of the people on welfare will get 90% of minimum wage. Another big one is the WW (unemployment benefit), depending on how many years you have worked you will receive 70% of your last earned wage for at least 6 months which can last up to 2 years. After that period you will get the same as welfare with the bonus that they won't force you to sell your house or empty your savings account for another 3 years. Lastly there is the WAO (workers disability fund) which is again 70% of your last earned wage which can last from 6 months to 8 years depending on your age. After that you will get 70% of minimum wage plus a little extra depending on your age again. The formula is something like (Your Age - 15) X (last earned salary - minimum wage). Note that allmost all employers have an insurance policy which covers the setback for the WAO so that even after the initial period you still get 70% of your last earned wage. Pretty good right? I know I feel secure.
Which is also the problem. For years the government has been complaining that so few people enjoying those social securities are reintegrated into the active workforce. They actually wonder why too. Incase you are wondering as well, it's because it's too secure. If you've been unemployed for a while or were handicapped/sick/unable to work for a long time employers won't offer you a six figure salary and company car. You'll likely have to accept minimum wage. Which means your working 40 hours a week for 10% more money then if you were on welfare or unemployed. Assuming you've gotten used to living off that much money it's easy to see why people aren't rushing back to work. Minimum wage in Holland is enough to get you into a decent appartment, eat properly and have money left to either take a vacation abroad, drive a decent car, or go out once a week. If you are good at what you do you'll most likely get a few raises here and there making it worthwhile to get back to work, but the initial push isn't there. Even moreso for the WAO cases, they'll most likely get a salary that is lower than what they get already. While they at least still pay the difference in earnings again you're basically just a volunteer since you're not doing it for the money. With money being the main and often only reason we have to get a job it's no wonder those people aren't jumping at the chance to get back into action.
The solution to this problem is quite simple you lower welfare and the benefits. Make it 50% of minimum wage that way you provide a financial reason to get back to work. Most people will argue that there aren't that many jobs available. However there are usually only two reasons employers aren't picking up new employees. They have no more work to be done or it's cost. With the resourcefulness that is certainly present here in Holland it's mostly costs (just look at the recent cuts in employees by large firms such as KLM and KPN). Lowering social securities also means you can lower the premiums that employers have to pay. Currently the social securities add up to around 25% over the salaries paid. Overall it comes to about 15% of personel costs, cutting it back by half means you'll free up about 7,5% in their personel budget. With that new available budget they can hire more personel which will generate more income allowing them to hire even more.
Another idea would be to force these people to become either a teacher or a nurse. Considering the huge shortage on teachers and medical staff already and with it only becoming bigger why not put these people to work there? The government is already paying for these people might as well make them productive. While certainly not everybody would be suitable with around 2 million people enjoying these social securities there should be plenty of capable people found to get rid of these shortages. Now a lot of 'social' people might object to this idea of forcing people to do a job. Well tough luck, it's how society works. You have to get a job in order to get money which you need for basic necesities (food, water, clothing and a shelter) the only other option is to live in the wilderness and feed off bugs. I'm not working because I like too, but because I need money. I'm certainly not working and paying taxes so that a whole bunch of people can sit on their ass all day doing nothing. Especially when we have personel shortage in such critical areas. Offcourse these are simple minded solutions and the problems are much more complicated. Which is in fact a bunch of crap. The only thing that makes it complicating is tjat it would affect 2 out of 10 million voters which would cause quite the uproar amongst them and the rest who take great comfort in knowing they can fall back on these great social securities when they get ill or get fired.

2003-05-10T08:13:00.000-07:00

White illegals

A recent issue that has been brought up again is that of the white illegals. These are people that have been staying in Holland illegally for a very long time (five years or more). During this time they have been working, living, going to school, paid taxes and usually speak decent Dutch. Now apparently the only solution to this problem is to send out a pardon and give them a (permanent) staying permit. The reason it's seen as the only reason is that these people have built up a (social) life here and haven't really harmed anyone. While this is all true and a very good reason, there is an even more important reason why not to do this. The thing everybody seems to forget is that they are here illegally. Thus they are breaking the law which makes them a criminal. While there are evil criminals and lesser evil criminals and this does fall under the lesser evil part, it is still a crime. The last thing you want to do is reward their crime. If I would repeatedly try to rob a bank without using force or endangering anybody (banks are insured so they aren't really hurt) should the government then decide to give me the money I am after? Granted it would be a revolutionary tactic to fight crime and a sure fire way to get famous but it's not wanted. Perhaps a different example since I would most likely be in prison after my first failed attempt. Let's say that in my basement I have a rather large collection of guns, swords and explosives. I have no intention of using them against people, it's part of my hobby. Obviously this against the law (since I have no such permit) but I'm not harming anybody and I have had those weapons for such a long time already making them part of my life. Should those reasons take away from the fact that I am commiting a crime? I knew I was wrong when I got my first weapon, just as those people were wrong the second they got here illegally. The fact that people accept those reasons as being more important than the crime that is committed is the reason we are in such a mess to begin with. For a nation that demands action instead of words and to fight crime at every level it comes off rather strange to give pardon to a large group of criminals.

2003-05-06T15:14:00.000-07:00

Rotterdam and the 6th of May

Untill last year may 6th was a very special day to Rotterdam. It was on this day in 1970 that Feyenoord beat Celtic in Milan through a Kindvall goal. That goal meant Feyenoord would be the European Champions and it meant the first time a dutch side claimed such a title. I wasn't around at that time so I have to make do with old TV footage. That and a grumpy parental unit who was pissed at my grandparents for not allowing him to go to Milan. Perhaps even more impressive than the game itself is the reaction of the fans afterwards. The large mass of Rotterdammers and Feyenoordfans all ecstatic over such an unthinkable victory. However alongside that joy now stands the death of Pim Fortuyn. A man who was not a politician but more a concerned Rotterdammer that saw what was happening around him. And boy was he not pleased with it. So he did the only thing he could do he entered politics. The newspapers like to claim Pim Fortuyn belonged to the people of Holland. I say he belonged to Rotterdam. Pim Fortuyn loved this city more than anything and that love was mutual. Nearly a hundred thousand people signed the condolances' register at the City Hall. That's about 1 out of 10 of the Rotterdam area. It's 1 out of 6 if you just count the city only. Then note about half the population is of foreign origin and was pleased with his death. Just to give an idea of how much impact he had.
With today having mostly those standard memorial programs on the telly there was one interesting bit that gave me an even greater sympathy for Pim Fortuyn and made me realise even more what we have lost. The footage was that of an emergency meeting last year between Pim Fortuyn and the leaders of Leefbaar Nederland. At that time Pim Fortuyn was the leader for that party which had been making quite a name for itself in the local elections, with Pim Fortuyn coming in to lead them for the 2e Kamer elections it seemed like a perfect match. However it only seemed that way. As the rebellious Leefbaar Nederland turned out to be just as political as the ones it was rebelling against. Cause for the meeting was an interview with Pim Fortuyn which ran in the Volkskrant (one of the bigger national newspapers). In this interview he wanted to get rid of the first law in our Constitution (Thou shall not discriminate) since it hindered the third law which was freedom of speech. His argument was about how you can't talk about a criminal being of turkish or marocon origin while statistics have proven that the majority in fact is. This amongst other reasons made Pim Fortuyn question about getting rid of that law. What followed was that the current politicians and most journalists jumped at the chance and publicly crucified Pim Fortuyn over this statement. While Pim Fortuyn proudly stood by what he said and calmly explained what he had meant (freedom of speech is more important that protecting against discrimination. Which isn't that strange since the sixth law does that as well, you can discriminate against race, sexuality or whatever based on your religion) the party Leefbaar Nederland didn't. They wanted to distance themselves from the constitution mix up and claiming that Holland was not full (just very busy).
The thing that got to me were the emotions of Pim Fortuyn. He wasn't a politician defending his arguement. No he was a fed up citizen who saw the problems around him and wanted to do something about it since others clearly weren't going to. The frustration in his voice as he talked about the young (mainly) turkish and marocon criminals robbing the senior citizens in broad daylight and causing a lot of Rotterdammers to no longer feel safe on the street. The frustration about our government not only failing to deal with the problem but not even acknowledge it to begin with. The big threat he perceived the Islam to be for not only Holland but the rest of Europe as well. It's a frustration that many people recognized to be their own. That's why Pim Fortuyn was as popular as he was in such a short time. That's why the emotions ran as high as they did the day he was killed by some treehugging hippy. It was that footage which all in all was only a few minutes since the rest involved the other people present talking like the silly people they were (Leefbaar Nederland 'fired' Pim Fortuyn as their leader who went on to form his own LPF. They got 2 seats in the may elections and none in the last one so the party is pretty much dead now). As time passes that's the footage that will stick with me the most. More so probably than seeing his body on the parking lot in a pool of blood. The ultimate proof that Pim Fortuyn not only stood by what he said, but he firmly believed in it and was going to fight for it no matter what and with him over one and a half million dutch people.

2003-05-04T12:04:00.000-07:00

Memorials

With today being the day we remember those that died during WW 2 and tomorrow being the day we 'celebrate' being freed from those evil bradwurst eaters and the latest addition is the day after tomorrow to remember the day democracy was killed. It's time to take a look at those memorial days themselves instead of what they want us to remember. Being a member of generation Y myself I only got the history book/discovery channel feel of WW 2. The only real connection that I have with it are my grandparents who were in their teens when it happened. While I am certainly glad those bradwurst eaters were removed from my country I have nothing with memorial days like this. I just fail to see the point in have a silence that lasts two minutes, the queen dropping off some flowers and it interrupting the broadcast channel so that I have to wait till 11pm instead of the usual 7pm to catch the football highlights. This isn't meant as a disrespect to the ones that died trying to protect my country. It's about questioning the need for such days as time passes by. I imagine the feeling with these two days will be even less for the generation after mine since not even my parents care too much for it. We've often watched a movie during the two minute silence since nothing good is on tv that evening. Now may 6th will be different since this is a year after it happened so everything is still fresh (especially with the political selfmockery going on). However give it a few years and it will have lost it's impact since people will move on. Another thing I have against it is caused by the recent reactions to the Iraq situation. The way some countries (read France, Germany, Russia and others including Holland) reacted was very similar to the 1930s when they let a man called Adolf Hitler systematically broke the Versailles Treaty which eventually resulted into World War 2. That's right the war we are about to remember here. Ever since history class I have never stopped wondering how they could've been so incredibly stupid as to let Hitler break rule after rule without anyone squashing him while they still could. I now have a pretty good idea. It's that realisation that really makes me question these memorial days. Because obviously we haven't learned from out history. Only time will tell if we will eventually drop these memorial days though the fact that may 5th (liberation day) is no longer a national holiday may be a first indication. They took away the only good thing about these days already might as well take the rest.

2003-05-03T13:03:00.000-07:00

The right to vote

Everybody that's considered to be an adult in their country has the right to vote. No difference for gender, race, religion and so on, no just age. Now is this a good thing? Well it's pretty much essential for having a democracy but other than that? In Holland over a million people (out a 9 million work force) receive a monthly payment from the WAO (workers disability fund), around half a million gets an unemployment payment and then there's the ones on wellfare. So it adds up to around 2 million, while the voting population is 10 million. Currently all those payments are linked to salaries, minimum wage goes up so does welfare. Is there a collective pay rise in the sector of your last job (for workers disability and unemployment) luckily that goes for you too. Any politician looking to seriously cut back on those ridiculous social securities loses over 2 million voters in an instant, not counting the ones that have strong ties to such a person and thus not vote either. It's their good right to not vote for the person that's about to take their montly income away, but who pays for all of this? The other 8 million people, well not even that many considering students and retired folk. Well those other 8 million can vote on that person thus insuring a large majority. No politician is stupid enough to cut away 20% of their possible votes. So small changes will be made but nothing major in such areas. So should we exclude people that leach off the government from voting? Amongst others yes. Because they are depending on the government they'll want to make sure it stays that way at the taxpayers expense.
However I propose something far more drastic. You design certain criteria in order to achieve the right to vote. The first and by far most important criteria is knowing what each party that you can vote on stands for. While it's quite difficult to find out their true standpoints on key issues it is essential to voting. Voting for somebody purely because he's cute (just look at how grumpy ugly Melkert got 24 seats while charming Bos got 42 with exactly the same standpoints a few months later) while it is currently in your right to do so, it is far from wanted in order to get the best government out there. There have been numerous polls showing that people barely know what they are voting for. The popularity of the 'which party suits me best' sites and quizzes during the last elections only made it more clear. Especially given the results the people got back. If you claim to be a left winger at heart there is no way you can end up with the VVD (right wing) as your recommended choice (since the questions/answers were accurate in that respect). So if somebody believes he is a left winger and votes accordingly while his stances on issues are in fact right wing do we want them to vote? No wonder no government has ever met the expectations, people had no idea what they were voting on.
Which brings us to the second criteria which is intelligence. Even if you are down right stupid and your answer to the question what is 2 + 2 would be green you can vote whichever way you like. If you fail to answer such a simple question how can you possibly answer the question of which person would represent you the best way. Though not just excluding the obvious mentally challenged people but demanding a certain level of intelligence as well. This is not measured through your high school grades or whatever degrees you scored after that. It's about being able to analyze the points made by the various politicians and coming to a conclusion of which is the most suitable for you and that you can actually defend that choice with good arguements.
This covers the most basic and important criteria being that you know the facts and are able to analyze those and come to your own conclusion. You can offcourse go into further detail such as the government dependancy mentioned earlier on. That would go for people on welfare/social security as well as the people that work there. Are you allowed to vote who your boss is at your company? Though that might not really be an issue considering what government employees I have seen so far. They wouldn't make it past the first two criteria. Furthermore one's past certainly is important as well. People with a criminal record may want to be excluded. This depends on your beliefs in the ability to rehabilitate them through our justice system. Keep in mind though that having a criminal record (or a relative/close friend with one) means you cannot work for the government. You can make the list of criteria as long as you'd like really.
We're not voting people off an island or selecting the new Idol we're deciding which people are fit to be our government. People that will try to improve the country in ways we would like them too. Especially considering the touchy & taboo subject matter since this is so important but most politicians chose to avoid it in fear of getting burned and losing many votes. Having the voters consist of intelligent, well informed people capable of making a sound decision is as important as the results itself. That is why we need to make sure that is what the voting population consists off.

2003-05-02T14:03:00.000-07:00

Devil's Advocate

I'm going to be very barbaric today and promote the Death Penalty. Even when left wingers have so far succesfully outlawed this sentence from Holland and most (if not all) of Europe and it's officially a taboo subject. There are two main arguements against the death penalty presented by those that oppose it. The first one is what if the person who was executed was innocent? I've never seen a firm reply to this question while there are quite a few good ones to chose from. Firstly do we not trust our judges to pass the right judgement? A judge will have to be very convinced by the presented evidence in order to have somebody executed. It's quite a heavy responsibility. But it also raises another question namely the lower the punishment the more room for error? Surely sending somebody to prison for a year or more would require conclusive evidence? Or can you give somebody a few years of prisonlife if you have a good feeling he's guilty? Let's hope not.
Onto the second (and main) arguement. It's inhumane, uncivilized, barbaric, ... (the list goes on). Well that should suit the people who get such a sentence quite nicely. We're not going to execute somebody for speeding (yet). I'd like to see the death penalty for murderers, rapists, child molesters to name but a few. The type of people our civilized society shouldn't have and certainly doesn't have a place for. But which is more barbaric? Executing the man who raped and brutally murdered your 17 year old daughter or putting him into our comfy (think spoiled rich kid's bedroom: TV, playstation, 1 person to a cell) prison. Then realise that your paying taxes in order to provide the man that raped and murdered your daughter with a playstation, food, drink and whatever else he needs/gets in prison. A single bullet is a lot cheaper and would solve our jail capacity problems. Should society have to pay taxes in order to sustain its criminals so that they can rot away behind bars? These criminals have no respect for the laws that has helped our society be as great as it is. Why should society have respect for them, let alone support them? They shouldn't. What better way to keep society safe from such dangerous criminals than by disposing off them? Cruel, harsh sure I'll agree to that but wouldn't it be more cruel to have your loved one killed by such a criminal?

2003-04-30T12:15:00.000-07:00

Queensday in Holland

The day when the streets are covered with blankets holding the junk thats been uncovered from early spring cleaning waiting to be sold. With a few roundabouts, aircastles and asorted attractions for the little ones. Though a few streets will be clean since the Queen and her entourage pass through a lucky town looking very silly in the process (that's queen and townspeople). Since everybody gets the day off while still getting paid (national holidays rule) whats better than to have some mindless fun? It works as long as it doesn't include that rainy dutch weather. It did today. So after about 20 minutes of queensday fun it was pouring and the only fun was in taking cover. After waiting for a bit we decided to head back home using the subway. The newest danger around the subway is actually being pushed infront of it as it approaches the station by some goofball who 'can't remember anything' yet ran away like hell. Luckily we got on safely and with no annoying beggars it should be a fun trip. It was when the subway ran into some mechanical problems shortly after passing Wilhelminaplein. So the standard ritual of lights going off and on ensues. After about 15 minutes though some people start to lose their patience and bash through the glass covering the emergency swith for opening the doors. People start getting off the subway and tracking back to the station. Seconds later the driver informs us that there is a mechanical problem and opens up the doors for us while asking to please head back to the station. This was a first for me since normally they always make it to the nearest station. It's quite fun to walk through a tunnel even if it was a short distance. That and catching up to the people stupid enough to bash in the glass with their bare hands which were now covered in blood and apparently hurting quite badly. Even more fun is the people complaining about that shitty public transport company that is never on time and always makes them late. It's what you get for cutting it so close. Can't afford to be late? Leave well in advance then. Just like your car the subway does get mechanical problems every now and then. Like an employee of the public transport says there are travelers and passangers. Travelers just enjoy the service while the passangers always bitch about us. The joy of public transportation.

2003-04-28T13:52:00.000-07:00

The Moral High Ground

Every single life is precious and every effort should be made to save it. While you can debate if that holds true for the criminals, rapists, murderers, dictators and terrorists it is a very morally correct standpoint. So it's time to put it to a test. There's a person stuck on the tracks with a train fast approaching which will hit and kill that person unless you do something. You cannot remove the person from the tracks and the only means of stopping it is by putting your car on the tracks which will cause the train to stop. Morally speaking you did the right thing afterall human life is worth so much more than your Subara Impreza (well maybe some cars are worth more). Different tracks, 5 people stuck on it this time with the only way of saving their lives is by pulling the switch which will make the train go to a different track. The only catch is that on the different track 1 person is stuck (note all people involved are total strangers to you). Would you pull the switch or rather would you sacrifice 1 to save 5? There are no loopholes or ways around it. Either 5 people die or 1 dies and the choice is up to you. With all life being so precious the only correct decision is to pull the switch (legal issues resulting from doing so are left for another discussion). Same 5 people stuck on the track again. This time you're on a bridge above the tracks and next to you is a very fat person. Fat enough that if you push him off the bridge and onto the tracks he'll stop the train and you save those 5 people again. Technically it's the same decision that you made with pulling the switch or not, you sacrifice 1 in order to save 5. Yet pulling a switch is very different from pushing somebody on the tracks. There was a recent study into morality in the human mind. While there is a basic sense of right and wrong most of it comes from what we are taught. Hence that people who would pull the switch would not push the fat guy. Simply because in this scenario you get to see your victim and isn't you part of a little equation.
Are these the same people that oppose the iraq war? The regime lead by Saddam executes upto numerous people a year for various reasons. Now factor in the actually very few casualties in this war so far. Surely those few outweigh the lives that are saved because the dictator and his regime have collapsed? Would they let 5 die because they couldn't sacrifice that single 1 person? Like the situations involving those unlucky 5 people in Iraq there was no loophole, Saddam wasn't going to retire and turn it into a democracy. Yet the few sacrifices are horrible while neglecting the lives saved.
Sure this isn't a fair scenario but then again what is in real life? You consider every life to be precious yet you are willing to let 5 die, 4 more than that need to. Which makes you the better person, morally speaking?

2003-04-25T14:47:00.000-07:00

Democracy the 66 way

With the recent turn of events here the safest bet for now seems to be that D66 will join CDA/VVD to form a coalition. Now for a party with 6 seats they're sure being picky and mostly about more democracy (which seems to work out since CDA nor VVD cares much for it). In addition to elections for 1e and 2e Kamer as well as the local council we'll be seeing a whole bunch more if D66 gets their way. A chosen Prime Minister, Mayor, ones for big impact decisions involving the EU (where was D66 when the euro was forced upon us causing inflating to sky rocket???) and a few others that I for one won't care about. The question is though while it without doubt improves democracy is that what the Dutch want? The short answer is NO. The fact that D66 is the only party that actually campaigns about these issues and gets a mere 6 seats (out of 150) shows that it's not that important to people. Furthermore theres the 3 aforementioned elections here which take place every 4 years providing a coalition doesn't collapse which forces new elections. The election for the 2e Kamer is the one that's deemed worthy enough to vote for. During the last elections in january about 80% of the people that were allowed to vote did so. However the elections for the 1e Kamer didn't even see 50% of the voters show up. The elections for the local councils got just over 50% with Rotterdam getting 60% which was mostly caused by people who normally wouldn't think about voting chose to do so either in support or against Pim Fortuyn. Now if less than half the voting population shows up it would be time to start questioning the validity of the resuts. Though these elections are quite essential and since the other half doesn't seem to care about it anyway it might as well be valid. What it should at least be doing though is point out that people don't want more elections. While this should be the biggest concern for wether new elections should be implemented (afterall what good are elections without voters?) there are a few others as well.
With regards to a chosen Prime Minister the biggest problem is who gets to run for it? Let's take a look at the results of january's elections. CDA has 44, PvdA has 42, VVD has 28, SP and GL around 10, LPF 8, D66 6 and the christian parties 3 and 2 respectively. Then take into account that the coalition will most likely be CDA/VVD/D66. The Prime Minister will come from one of those 3 parties. Yet if D66 has their way Wouter Bos (PvdA) could've been chosen as Prime Minister. Bos would've been forced to lead the ministers of a coalition that he despises (or CDA at least). Or would that mean a coalition should be formed with PvdA at the center? You would have to have these 2 elections at the same time simply because they change at the same time. The trouble with having one after the other is the aforementioned problem. With the election results pointing towards a CDA/VVD/D66 coalition and a vast majority against such a coalition what would that do to the Prime Minister elections? The opposing voters could decide to go with the most likely candidate (PvdA/Bos in this case) and he would win the election since CDA/VVD/D66 voters will most likely vote for a man from their party.
Taking all that into account why are D66 so pushing these issues with CDA/VVD? Is it because nobody really seems to care about it other than D66 so they can 'score' easy points here? This means they can't be too demanding on other issues they might have and severely weakens their negiating position. Surely D66 know the poor turnout off the elections so why push it and put as a demand for the coalition to work? I'm glad these guys don't have more than 6 seats. Afterall democracy is dead anyways.

2003-04-21T11:24:00.000-07:00

Religion vs Science

It's interesting that even today we still have quite a few religious people (not talking the senior citizens here) and so fanatical ones at that. Interesting because science has been killing gods over the past couple of millenia. In the early BC years people had gods for just about everything that wasn't under their control. So if a crop was ruined it was because they hadn't pleased god X. If it rained for days on end god Y wasn't pleased and if there was another type of natural disaster god Z was displeased. Later on as mankind began to understand the weather concept (understand not able to predict since they still can't do that) these gods became redundant. Same for the natural disasters it had nothing to do with displeasement of god X it was just nature. Enter the modern day where science has provided quite a few answers to questions we used to answer with a god. So what we're left with is the one god that sits high up in heaven watching over us all (like a Jerry Springer show probably) and passes judgement on us like Judge Judy over wether we spend eternity in flames or in paradise when our time is up.
Taking the role of religion throughout history it has always been used as a way to explain the unexplainable. As advanced as we are today some things simply are unexplainable. Think about the accidents involving young children or the loss of loved ones because someone was drinking that night. We know the physical cause of death but that doesn't answer the why question we are left with (afterall everybody that died was such a kind, gentle, loving person). What is more comforting than that God works in mysterious ways or God has a plan and that aside you will be reunited in paradise and live happily ever after. It beats some cynic saying he died get over it, life is short enough as it might as well enjoy it.
Then there is the God as my imaginary friend thing. Whenever we are troubled we pray to God and he shall aid us. God listens when your friends and family wont and he doesn't charge you 100 bucks an hour to hear you out and ask the irrelevant 'How does that make you feel?' questions. Besides talking to a wall is kinda pointless it would be so much nicer when there is in fact somebody up high that listens to us.
Finally there is that one certain event in our life that will happen as soon as we are conceived; death. Not to worry though if you've been a good person you can spend the rest of eternity in paradise (which i image will be quite crowded by now or hell is maybe both even). Death is probably the most difficult thing to accept since there is no way around it (as far as the public is told at least). Thinking about all the things that will happen after your death it'd be nice to at least get a seat to see how it plays out. Yet with religion this is where a contradiction comes into play. The way every single life on earth is cherished while being worthy of praise is highly illogical. Afterall what is a 100 years on earth compared to eternity in paradise? From what we're lead to believe it is paradise and with all the poverty, hunger, wars and dramatic decrease in value of stocks wouldn't it be much better to just get to paradise asap? Now commiting suicide isn't allowed and will bring you to hell (most commendable otherwise the suicides wouldn't end with paradise mere seconds away, though would solve the overpopulation problem on earth anyway). Then why the protests against something like euthenasia? Why force a terminally ill person that is in great pain everyday to make it through day after day for upto a year when we could just end his suffering and let the person enjoy paradise? Unless offcourse that is the modern version of the Purgatory. For that reason why be against wars? The many lives that takes only means that those people get faster to the afterlife they deserve. In fact why mourn the loss of life at all? Unless it is instead being envious that they already got to enjoy paradise why you yourself are left stuck on this miserable earth.
It seems science has done all it can do in this matter. The question that remains now is will people evolve beyond religion. Will there come a time when each individual is strong enough that they do not need God the imaginary friend nor God the reason for the death of our loved ones and finally not be in fear of death so much they need the idea of an afterlife to keep on living. The way things are going now they probably won't. Evolution only works if changes occur forcing the ones unaddapt to the new situation to become nothing more than a history book entry while the ones that are addapt will live on. Yet such event can occur for one (or several) person(s) while for the masses it hasn't. Seeing as how little atheists there were at the start of the 20th century compared to the start of the new millenium. Perhaps religion will slowly fade away to the point where the now holy texts make for amusing fairy tales.

2003-04-19T06:55:00.000-07:00

One step closer to Anarchy

CDA and PvdA have apparently burned all bridges and won't be forming a coalition. I say apparently since this is politics and well let's face it how many honest politicians do you know? After the VVD had been screaming at the top of their lungs that opposition would be the only way for them it's amazing how quickly that turned into taking our responsibility seconds after Bos and Balkenbende called it quits. As noted before a left wing coalition won't be happening so it's upto CDA/VVD and a third party. After LPF and D66 a third choice has presented itself (literally) SGP and ChristenUnie who combined have 5 seats which would result in 77/150. Normally I'd rule it out right now but with the weirdness that goes on at the moment I wouldn't be surprised. The suggestion of new elections was offered but only the SP voted in favor of that motion. So it comes down to the two serious options D66 and LPF or the third long shot option of the christian parties. What was interesting was that while Balkenbende was praising the LPF, Zalm (VVD leader) was flirting with D66 and badmouthing the LPF. Time for a brief look at both of them. I'm not bothering with the christian parties because I don't think it'll happen and still believe that religion has no place in politics.
First up is D66 who had been part of Paars (coalition of PvdA/VVD/D66) which ruled between 1994 and 2002. During the first period they had around 24 seats while the second they got 13. The reason for that loss was because the '98 elections were mostly about the question of who would be prime minister Kok (PvdA) or Bolkesteijn (VVD) since it was a given that Paars would continue. So a lot of voters went with PvdA to help Kok get the majority which he sadly got. The may '02 elections resulted in 8 seats while the latest january edition left them with 6. One of the main reasons for this was their choice of leader. Hans van Mierlo was a leader, he had some charisma and was able to handle himself well. The recent leader Thom de Graaff lacks everything needed for political success. The only point he made that still sticks with me is his story of Anne Frank after Pim Fortuyn offered to get rid off constitutional law number 3 (which protects against discrimination) saying it hindered the first law (freedom of speech). That comment sticks with me because of the sheer irrelevance to the matter showing that D66 (and it's leader) failed to get one of Pim Fortuyns points (again). One thing you want to do as a leader of your party is to make known what you stand for (and why you stand for it would be nice) instead of appearing on numerous game shows. The other main reason is that D66 was associated with Gedoogbeleid (Gedoogbeleid is the opposite to the Zero Tolerance policy to give you a rough idea). Now this was actually something to be excited about but so was Paars. A year before the election it was again about who would be prime minister this changed with Pim Fortuyn who wrote a book explaining just how Paars had failed in just about everything. The assault of Pim Fortuyn on Paars and it's policies like Gedoogbeleid and the Poldermodel (allowing companies and workers unions to have a say) which hurt all of Paars but since D66 wasn't as established as say PvdA or VVD the blow was quite large stripping it down to only their most loyal of followers. Realising this D66 proclaimed it wanted into the opposition (like they had a choice) with mister Gedoogbeleid Boris Dittrich now at the helm following De Graaff stepping down. However it is politics so now D66 is willing to form a CDA/VVD coalition provided they get their way in a few things.
Then we get to the LPF which seems to be the preferred partner of JP Balkenbende. The LPF (Lijst Pim Fortuyn) came to be last year after Pim Fortuyn was kicked out of Leefbaar Nederland following the constitutional law mix up. Leefbaar Nederland were arrogant enough to think they could claim the seats even without Pim Fortuyn and have paid dearly for it (they don't have a seat now). Since you can't run in the elections on your own Pim Fortuyn created his List. It wasn't intended to be a party but rather Pim Fortuyns followers with the leader gone chaos ensued as different people wanted to raise to be power. Matt Herben seemed to have it together pretty well after the death of their leader and so succeeded him. However the members of the LPF weren't satisfied with what he negotiated creating some painfull moments. Then a few others took charge which combined with the never ending fighting betweenn LPF ministers Heinsbroek and Bomhoff gave the CDA/VVD the brilliant idea to dump the LPF and force new elections so that they together could form a coalition. After a few different leaders including fan favourite minister of Immigration Nawijn Herben is now the leader once again. The most striking about this is that Herben is the opposite of Pim Fortuyn who had more charisma then all previous politicians ever had together. Herben is more like on of those hard working background guys that you don't get to see but are important. In that aspect it's nice to see one actually take the spotlight but somehow feels inappropriate for the LPF. The main problem that the LPF has is that it wasn't a party but a group of followers. Nobody cared for who they were when Fortuyn was around, people voted for him not his little children. Adding to the problem is a lack of a strong charismatic leader. Nawijn would've been able to pull it off since he at least got the controversy sells idea right (with his controversies finding favor amongst the large right wing group of voters). Another candidate is Joao Varela the 27 year old that will likely just be remembered for being an emotional mess after Fortuyns death. Pim Fortuyn obviously saw potential in him since he placed him second on the list after only himself. Varela did have some witty things to say and with 8 years of learning the ropes from Pim could've made a worthy successor. While Herben is a capable leader he doesn't have the ability to attract votes. Which is something that all current leaders seem to have except for maybe Wouter Bos who is immensily popular among the female population. (Fortuyn actually suggested to the PvdA to get rid of cranky old Melkert who lacked charisma and replace him with 'hotty' Wouter Bos) The LPF doesn't argue with each other but finally with others again and appears to be stable.
Despite the flirting of the VVD the most logical option would be the LPF. Simply because the LPFs train of thought is similar to that of the VVD and Balkenende seems to prefer them over D66. With Balkenende complimenting on their recovery and pleasant dealings in the now demissionair coalition which continues to rule the country till a new one is formed. I can't see Balkenende welcoming the D66 since they are quite far away from his train of thought as well as their Gedoogbeleid which goes against his wishes for a more strict approach. It would be nice to see CDA and VVD argueing over who the third party would be. Since if this coalition fails the only alternative to anarchy would be a third election within the year.

2003-04-18T08:58:00.000-07:00

HELEMAAL NIETS!!

After the constant and annoying praises on ajax it's nice to see the start of their demise caused by none other than Feyenoord. With the media glorifying the recent little succes ajax has had this is a most welcome change. After the golden age of the 'Sons of God' during the mid 90s including the European Cup and losing in the final the following year came the well wooden years at best. With that age also ended the never ending list of superlatives used to describe a never ending list of all the good things about ajax. For every one that isn't ajax that's pretty annoying. Hell probably for the ones liking ajax it is as well. (Last year as Feyenoord claimed the UEFA Cup the press suddenly praised us and it was 'in' to be a Feyenoorder it annoyed the hell out of me. Feyenoord fans aren't just there when it shines they are there when it doesn't stop pouring as well. It's what seperates us from the capitol afterall.) The past few weeks they could not shut up about ajax fighting on three fronts. Eventhough in the same page they refer to PSV as the new champions with a lead that can't be overtaken. Now Feyenoord have just burned another front that of the Dutch Cup (or Amstel Cup as it's called) leaving just one last front: The Champions League. Anyone that thinks ajax will win that one needs to be shot, driven over with a train, shot again and then decapitated and burned to be sure that person is dead. When all goes well AC Milan will handle that situation next week and then ajax will go from winning the treble to nothing at all (or in dutch Helemaal Niets!!). Then all that's left is for ajax to slump to a third place and they will have a season that in the end was a complete failure apart from the few million euros they made in the Champions League.
Something that might be a sign of improvement is the way things were handled after the game. Pi-Air was sent off over something that only Luinge knows and it looks like he'll be acquited. Normally a red card for a feyenoord player = 4 game suspension. It gets even better an investigation will be made regarding Sla Dan Ibrahimovic and Christian Chivu. The first for elbowing Gerard de Nooijer resulting in the latter bleeding (should be a dead give away for the referee but not Luinge) and Chivu for trying to knock out Chong-gug Song with a jawbreaker which luckily for Chivu like everything else he does missed. At least he could try boxing since his football career won't get him far.
Feyenoord beat ajax. It's one of the greatest joys in life.

2003-04-15T15:49:00.000-07:00

The Verdict

Well round 1 has ended and it might even be the last one as well. The sentence was 18 years for Volkert van der G. Surprisingly the prosecutor wasn't unhappy, while Fortuyns relatives were very much unhappy. It surprised me since Life actually means Life here where as an 18 year sentence actually means 12 years of doing time. That's right only 2/3 of the sentence has to be carried out unless the inmate is behaving very anti-social and aggresive in prison which is the only case one has to sit out his entire sentence. With Volkert already spending a year in pre-arrest he'll be out in 2014. No wonder Fortuyns relatives and followers were upset. The gap between, basically an 11 year sentence and Life is rather big for the prosecutor to be not unhappy about it. He will have to appeal within 14 days so we will know by then if this was indeed the last round.
The residing Judge Bauduin said the murder only caused a rimple in democracy from which it recovered (obviously he isn't following political news in the least) and he doesn't think there's a chance Volkert will repeat the crime. There is truth to the saying 'Justice is blind' afterall. The last one is a give away since you can only kill somebody once. The democracy standpoint is a touchy subject which the judge clearly didn't want to touch (hence the easy way out). However it is a crime with a big impact and one on a prominent member of society. The thing I don't agree with is the chance of repeating. Volkert made a rational decision, he saw him as a thread that couldn't be stopped in another way than murder. He knew of the consequences but disregarded these as he thought he wouldn't get caught. Simply put should another policitian make a big impact which is perceived as a threat by Volkert he might be killed come 2014. Now I'm obviously not alone on this (Fortuyns relatives & loyal followers) so why doesn't the prosecutor announce he'll appeal? Probably politics again... sigh... hopefully to be continued.

2003-04-14T13:32:00.000-07:00

End of Round 1

Tomorrow is the day of the verdict in the Volkert trial. With the prosecutor aiming for a life sentence and the defence claiming that 14 years max is the only acceptable sentence it's safe to say that whatever the verdict there will be an appeal. So as interesting as tomorrow's verdict will be it may very well change. While channel surfing yesterday I saw some old footage from Pim Fortuyn and it made me realise something. Shortly after his death last year two lawyers (Spong & Hammerstein) pressed charges against several journalists (including annoying left winger van Dam and even the editors of the NRC a 'respected' newspaper) and even some politicians (including Thom van de Graaff leader of D66 at the time). It caused quite the uproar among the media and politicians (mostly because the charges were pointed at them afterall) and it ended with a fizzer. However Volkert van der G. confessed the crime and stated that his motivation was that Pim Fortuyn was a threat to society. The exact words of our Prime Minister at the time Wim Kok, who at every chance he got told us of the danger that was Pim Fortuyn and to vote with intelligence (read PvdA).
Now at the time of those charges I felt the wrong people were targetted or rather the most prominent ones weren't and leaving out some crucial quotes. The most important one offcourse was Wim Kok. As Prime Minister your words will not only be heard by the masses but will also have plenty of credit (especially Wim Kok who is still highly regarded) and thus plenty of impact. For him to come up and repeatedly warn us off the danger that is Pim Fortuyn even after several violent incidents and numerous death threats has proven to be a fatal mistake. While still alive Pim Fortuyn even commented on this several times saying that Wim Kok was his Prime Minister as well. Adding that the politicians who were waging a war on his persona would be responsible should something happen to him. It's a bloody shame it did.
The answer as to why such an attack was executed on Pim is again quite simple. Never before has one man alone made such an impact on the polical scene. He wasn't afraid to break taboos and openly questions imigration(holland = full, need to integrate the ones present before opening up) ,health care (waiting lists upto a year for an operation are unacceptable more money invested hasn't resulted in anything need a restructure before additional funds), social securities (1/9 of the work force is in the WAO, need to get those back to work and abolish WAO) and backroom politics (secretively discussing matters and not sharing with the public, Pim was extremely open, so open that on a talk show a viewers question was if he shaved his pubic hair as well upon which Pim responded by inviting all attractive boys/men to have a look for themselves, which politician can you see that asked to let alone answer it in such a way?). Pim not only completely trashed the accomplishments of Paars (the coalition of PvdA/VVD/D66 that ruled for 8 years) but did it with style and in plain Dutch, no fancy vague talk but simple words making it clear to even the dumbest of folks what he meant. This offcourse found a great appeal as well as heavy resistance. However he did get people interested in politics again because he made it understandable. The leaders of the parties at the time (Melkert (PvdA), Dijkstal (VVD), Rosemuller (GL), Marijnessen (SP), de Graaff (D66) only stood by and watched painfully losing every debate with Pim Fortuyn that they had. The only smart one was JP Balkenbende of the CDA (which is why after his death they won the election, they were the only party that didn't openly hate Pim Fortuyn). So unable to counter his points in a debate, unable to attack him on his agenda (when the only arguement is 'That's anti-social' it doesn't get you very far) they attacked his person. Making comparisons to the Nazi's in WW2, Haider, Mussolini and even Hitler is just low blow tactics especially when Pim Fortuyn wasn't discriminating he was simply addressing the problems within our multi cultural society and possible islam threat (he warned about the islam threat way before 9/11) especially since a taboo was placed on these issues by left wing parties so that trouble has been brewing there since the 70s. It's easy to see that somebody who never bothered to actually read into what Pim Fortuyn said considered him a threat.
Unfortunatly Wim Kok will never be confronted with these facts. The worst thing off all though is to see them mourning his loss and speaking of a great loss while minutes before his death they were warning off the danger he presented. To see the aforementioned political leaders show up at his funeral was the final disrespect they showed towards him. So tomorrow will be the verdict on the man that pulled the trigger, but sadly not the ones responsible for the cause behind the action.

2003-04-12T16:35:00.000-07:00

Anti Semitic

With the upcoming semi-final between Feyenoord and Ajax tensions rise for law enforcement, media and politicians. For once it's not about hooligans and violence but it's about flags, banners and what's being said. The problem is both simple and ridiculous Ajax fans have chosen to dub themselves as Jews. A regular heard song is (translated into english) 'Who doesn't jump isn't a Jew' while frantically jumping up and down. Feyenoord fans hating ajax with a passion (and vice versa) in reply to ajax fans calling themselves Jews brought in the jews enemies. This results into a tame 'Who doesn't jump is a jew' or 'Jews always run away' to the more politically incorrect 'Hamas, Hamas all Jews to the gaschamber.' This has been going on ever since i was an eight year old and reguraly visited Feyenoord matches (both home and on the road) and probably before that too. I didn't think anything off it other than it was part of the feyenoord vs ajax thing. Now twelve years later it's a hot issue. With 'serious' news shows having some big shot jew in their program proclaiming it's Anti Semitic (who were so annoying one could actually become Anti Semitic from just watching that).
There were two events that triggered this. First is when the mayor of the capitol (home of ajax) orders the two trains transporting about 1500 Utrecht fans to return home on the ground of..... offensive language (i.e. Anti Semitic) , which song it was i'm not sure but it was probably the Hamas one. Funnily enough I've been on a similar train (only with Feyenoord fans) about five times before that singing the same songs as we pass through numerous train stations, never have we been sent back. Then again there never was pressure on a city/team to have the game go ahead without incidents (a week before ajax fans stormed numerous camera teams and other officials in a fury). Having to play Utrecht is the worst (after Feyenoord) that could happen. By sending back the train they neatly avoided this. Had there been trouble, which would've occured for sure considering the history between those two, ajax would've been forced to play their remaining games in an empty stadium. Media is offcourse all over it, but things cool down with the world cup, Feyenoords UEFA Cup triumph and the Pim Fortuyn murder. Then however after the World Cup the press is confronted with a huge problem. For the first time there are zero transfers to be speculated about let alone one actually happening. Normally during the summer this is all that fills the sport pages. So what to do now? Luckily during the traditional presentation day for Feyenoord off the 70000 people present around 50 sing the Hamas song. Guess what's on every cover the following day and appearing on the eight o'clock news? So the media have solved their problem and now continue to write about the horrible things football fans say.
Now they've even gone as far as banning all israel, palestinian flags, banners and anything remotely connected to it. At least Feyenoord had the sense to realise that it wasn't anti semitic but actually just a response to ajax fans calling themselves jews. If ajax fans instead had chosen for palestina then no doubt Feyenoord fans would be the ones waving israel flags(though that image is really disturbing for all fans involved). Feyenoord and ajax are opposites that really don't like each other it's only natural that when one starts associating itself with something the other side will go against that. The amount of 'intelligent' people that wasted so much of their time on this subject is pretty shocking and really makes things clear as to what a journalist is interested in: a big story that sells. Hopefully there will be plenty of transfers to speculate about so we don't have to read about crap like this during the summer. Lack of football is bad enough.

2003-04-10T13:21:00.000-07:00

Phedofilia

Ask people about this and you'll usually end up with a that's sick answer. Not too long ago when asked about homosexuality you'd get a similar reply. It was a disease and something to be ashamed off. However it's the new millenium and homosexuals can now even get married. Yet the opinion on pedophelia hasn't changed and I can't stop wondering why. Afterall it's a matter of being attracted to someone and not a disease at least that's what they said about homosexuality. Men like women, some however like other men, some like little girls, some like little boys and there's the rare one that likes animals (same goes for women offcourse). So why is it only the first two groups are accepted while the latter are considered criminals?
Naturally the first two involve adults (or ones of similar age) and when the subject of affection that doesn't feel the same way it can just walk away and go after whoever they fancy. This situation becomes a bit more complicated for the little boys and girls. Let's just think Michael Dougles and Catherine Zeta-Jones. The age gap is about 30 years. Now he's about 60 and she's 30 something. Both adults. However what happens if they'd meet when he was 45 and she was 15. Better yet say he was 35 and she 5? The age difference remains the same. So it's not the difference in age nor gender so we're left with the age of the other person. Again pretty difficult considering that when two 10 years old make out it might upset the parents but nobody goes to jail for it. Unless the parents kill each other. Given that it's probably the combination of age difference and age of the subject of affection. Which ties in nicely with all the age limits we set for voting, drinking alcohol, smoking and watching different kinds of movies. However few kids abide by those rules. They drink and smoke while watching a movie they aren't supposed to. What if these little children approved of the adult performing sex acts with them? They might enjoy it, it's not till later they are let to believe that they were taken advantage off and it's something terrible to be ashamed off. Yet even if that is the case the adult still gets to see life behind bars. Which is where the contradiction comes into play.
They imprison him and after a while he is released with the hope that he doesn't like little children anymore. Still few parents with young children want such notorious ex-cons living near their children. These parents tend to not be convinced he doesn't fancy little children anymore and why should they? The only thing that 10-20 years or jail life might have accomplished is that the adult will contain him or herself knowing the short pleasure it gives just leads to life behind bars again. A man that went to jail while being a homosexual won't come out finding himself prefering women. Leading to the question why people can't be consistent.
The only natural thing is a man/female relationship simply for procreation. Name a homosexual species if you know. So homosexuality isn't really natural but it's now accepted for being out there and much like race we don't discriminate against (well aren't allowed to anyway). Yet for being an active pedophile one get's a jail sentence. While I can't see it being any different from homosexuality. Both are unnatural, both however do exist and can't be changed. This leaves me to wonder if pedophilia will ever be viewed as a disease or get accepted as is homosexuality or will it ever change? Seems this arrangement is working out... for now.

2003-04-08T15:35:00.000-07:00

Anarchy '03

Who could've thought that a high level of democracy can lead to anarchy. The answer to that is quite simple and provided by none other than The Netherlands. Here any party (i.e. list of candidates under a name registered somewhere) that gets 30 signatures of support in all the voting districts gets to run in the election. This resulted in about 15-20 parties in january's election all hoping to get as many seats of the 150 available. (un)Fortunatly not all of them got enough votes to claim a seat (I for one was hoping Tsjakka guru Emile Ratelband would get a seat, the thought of him yelling Tsjakkaaaaaa!! and generally annoying politicians for 4 years had me laughing already). So we're left with 10 orso parties that have a number of seats. Now there's always a few parties that get along (ie have a few common points and few if any principle differences), however in this particular election no such a group claimed a majority.
With CDA (christian-democrats lead by Harry Potter.. errr JP Balkenbende) getting 44 and PvdA (social-democrats lead by Wouter Bos, proving once again that elections CAN be won by appealing to the large demographic of 30+ year old females on appearance offcourse) getting 42. Combined 86 of 150 seats and you have a good coalition, provided you get along. Which they don't. The stance on the Iraq conflict was down right moronic; political support, not military with both CDA (military support when US asks for it) and PvdA (no military support) giving different meanings to it. When they debate for a few days and can only come up with something so meaningless while both have different interpretations you know it's not leading anywhere. The arguements over the budget only made this more apparent. Now it wouldn't surprise me one bit if this eventually led to a coalition, a shaky one at that, which would no doubt supply the media with plenty to talk about.
It gets interesting if it doesn't work out. CDA wanted to form a coalition with VVD (right winged liberals) but since VVD only got 28 seats it won't work (74 combined). They'll need a third party which leaves only two options (if that) D66 (retarded democrats) who have 6 seats and the LPF (what remains from Pim Fortuyns followers) which have 8. Seeing as how D66 has basically become a left wing party and that CDA/VVD dumped the LPF (may '02 elections resulted in CDA/LPF/VVD coalition with over 90 seats, CDA/VVD crashed it, forcing new elections in the hopes of getting a combined majority to rule together and lose the LPF, talk about backfiring). The PvdA however has even bigger problems with GroenLinks (hippies led by a dumb woman) and SP (fake communists who want 70% income tax for everybody living above average standards) not resulting in a majority. Though even if it did, while all left wing parties they do have their differences and seem to argue more with each other than the right wing. Another election would be too much since that would make the third in a year's time. Having the resigned government officials reinstated would then be the last resort to prevent anarchy.
In this case people forming their own party just because they have a different viewpoint on a few issues can lead to too many parties which forces the forming of a coalition. This is where irony also pops in. Since forming a coalition is nothing more than give and take. You accept some things from the other party and you get to have your way on others. So in the end a government by e.g. PvdA/GL/SP would be little different than them united as one party and internally working out those difference. The upside would be that they don't argue so damn much and chase voters away to other parties. Though seeing as I can't agree with any of those parties on the major issues best to let them stay this way. With luck I'll soon be reporting anarchy.

2003-04-06T15:51:00.000-07:00

Bossen it didn't work!!

Ah the joy of winning when everybody thought you lost. Those wins tend to be more rewarding than just flat out crushing your opponent. Though yesterday Feyenoord seemed to do both. The ease with which Feyenoord held off De Graafschap during the first half was pretty rare considering the crappyness of our defence. It really showed the difference in rank (third vs last). Add in two of my favourite players scoring (van Persie & Buffel) and it was looking to be a laid back evening. That changed in a span of 10 minutes.
First there was the 1-2 showing off just how shitty our defence can be. This didn't have me worried, the following expulsion of Buffel after his second yellow card didn't trigger that either. For the record it wasn't a schwalbe. Bossen should've just let the game continue instead of booking Buffel, especially after the annoying theatrics of van der Kruis in the first half. It doesn't stop there, de Nooijer pulls down the attacker and gets the red card. It was a correct decision, pitty Bossen made this call questionable later on. So now it's 11 rednecks vs 9 Feyenoorders with the score 1-2. The resulting freekick however was neatly placed in the right corner for the equaliser (keeper should've had that one). Our incompetent coach takes out van Persie(attacker) and puts in Loovens (defender). Loovens screws up right away leading to the 3-2 (though I'm wondering wether that graafschap player used his hand to control the ball). Though Loovens did play pretty well after that and should be a first team regular. That's after 10 minutes.
Going from laid back to really wanting to kill that Bossen. However we have Bonaventure Kalou. Scoring the 3-3 and gotten run over in the box for a penalty (which should've resulted in a red card as for De Nooijer making that call questionable). That's the second time in two weeks that we nearly lose due to the referee (hence the title). Pi-Air offcourse converts the penalty kick and then your leading the game again 3-4. Held on pretty well with Shinji Ono and Kalou really giving it their all, very impressive. So after a string off 6 victories mostly from a superior offense it's nice to see the good old fighting spirit is still there. PSV didnt get more than a draw today so the championship still hangs on a thin thread. We might just be able to pull it off, hopefully PSV will screw up.

2003-04-04T08:59:00.000-08:00

Volkert.

The man who murdered Pim Fortuyn last year and thus crushed the hope of about 1.5 million dutch people for more open politics. Putting conspiracy theories aside, he is responsible for the awfull bickering between the cristian and social democrats. Pim wouldn't have stood for it. Which leads to the dilemma the judge faces with Volkert's trial. Obviously the murder of a politician has a much larger impact on a nation than that of John Accountant (unless it was Enron's accountant maybe). Now does a greater impact justify a heavier sentence? In this case Life imprisonment instead of the 10-14 years which applies to a single murder without criminal record here in the Netherlands. The defence naturally thinks it doesn't, the prosecuter does. I'm siding with the prosecuter on this one.

Despite what the moralistic far superior left wing parties want to believe the reason we imprison people is to punish them while keeping society safe from a criminal. It is not meant as a means to prevent the crime from happening. Volkert knew damn well the murder would have a big impact since it's his given motive for the murder. He feared Pim Fortuyn would win the elections of may 2002 and that this would cause suffering for the animals, poor people, minorities and helpless trees and plants. This however is exactly the same as if Volkert decided to kill his neighbor for stepping on ants. At least thats what the defence wants us to believe. What the defence failed to see (or ignoring) is that Pim Fortuyn was shot for his beliefs, his ideas and proudly standing by them. It wasn't just a murder of Pim Fortuyn but of his ideas as well.

That's where the defence screwed up.

If Volkert had murdered Pim Fortuyn because he didn't like his taste in clothing it would've been a different story. Namely the murder of an individual, not of an individual who for many meant the actual freedom of speech, even on taboo matters like foreigners, minorities, crime, health care, educational system and the unbelievable workers dissability compensation. As a nation that is proud off its openmindedness (e.g. gay marriage, euthenasia, soft drugs policy, religious freedom and the multicultural society) it can not tolerate a murder on a member (and a prominent one at that) of its nation for voicing his opinions however controversial they may be. Even if that means making an exception and saying that yes a murder of a politician is a bigger crime than murder of a John Accountant.

2003-04-03T13:45:00.000-08:00

Got pointed to this site by a friend and figured i could use a space to dump some random thoughts. Picked a good time too with all thats in the news; forming of new government, biggest murder trial ever, the pride & glory allmost losing to moldavia and oh yeah theres a war too. Yup its exciting living in the Netherlands, especially when the national football team is crapping up. Why'd they crap up? Mentality. I'm not gonna blame the coach for once, as much as i disagree with some of his picks those players are still good enough to beat moldavia 10-0. The reason they didn't is because they thought so as well. Now there's nothing wrong with self-confidence and knowing your abilities, don't just label that as arrogance to make you feel better about not having that. It only becomes a problem when you forget that eventhough you can win it 10-0 you can also lose the game (though not by that much). Superior skills are good, but you have to be able to use em. In football as the lesser skilled team all you have to do is compensate by working harder than your opponent. Cause if you get to the ball before he does his skills become useless. So that means even the far superior teams will have to work hard (as hard as the opponent anyways) to win like they're expected too. Which apparently was too much too ask for. Now it's not just the Netherlands. More countries have crapped up this way during the past week making them look ridiculous; Denmark (0-2 against Bosnia), Germany (1-1 against Lithounia), Russia (1-3 against Albania) and even Ireland who arent all that skilled, but make up for it with one of the finest mentalities out there (0-0 albania again). Note albania is utter crap, there's no way they can beat a self-respecting football nation unless that nation stuffs up. Which is the point of this first rant of mine. So it's time for the dominant nations to get with the program already and start earning their pay by working hard on the field so they can claim the ball and dominate like us fans want to see it. Then all we need is the right players (i.e. Makaay, van Hooydonk, Bosvelt and yes Robin van Persie) to replace the totally wrong players (i.e. Seedorf, Reiziger, Zenden, de Boer and Kluivert) and accept that van der Vaart is a talented player but nothing more! So get over it already. And the Netherlands can then become European Champions 2004 in Portugal.