Januari 29th, 2008 will reach the history books as the day crime legally does pay.
A hindustan drugdealer from The Hague has been allowed to keep his ‘bijstand’, a fact undeniably righteous.
Until you know the circumstances.

The man (42 years of age) is a known and convicted drugdealer, has been sent to prison for it some 5 years ago. He behaved well during his detention and has been granted a test leave. He did not return to prison.
Over the following 5 years, the man has remained a fugitive from the law, and had to get his bread and butter somewhere. So her presumably took up the drugdealing again, and applied for bijstand at his municipality.
This might seem stupid, but has proven not to be. His application was granted, and he received about €46.000 in monthly payments from the state.

Somehow, someone found out, and put the man back in jail (where he belonged in the first place). Also, the state has tried to get back the 46 thousand euro’s, unrightfully paid to a man running from the law.
The 29th, the judge has ruled the man does not have to pay back the money, as "withdrawal of detention is not a legal ground to refuse ‘bijstand’".
Say what?
Escaping from jail does not nullify your right to receive social income, even while it is suspected the person is obtaining sidemoney through illegal activities?
Moreover: how is it possible that this man goes undetected as an escapee, even while he applied for ‘bijstand’ with his real name and real address?

I’ll probably never understand our legal system, considering the fact purchasing dope can be deducted from taxes. (Dutch link)

When you thought you knew it all, it hits you.
Green energy is, despite the obviously good looking color green which exerts a feeling of wellness and positive attitude, not only good anymore!

Minister Maria van der Hoeven (of Economics) received a list of good and bad biomass (of which green energy is made) from Mirjam de Rijk from Natuur en Milieu. This organization can best be described as a lobby-club, striving for more attention to our environment from the government. An admirable striving, yet the in-crowd attitude of such organizations is revolting. As this list has been compiled very recently, and the appointment to hand such an document to a minister can easily be made about 3 months in advance as miniters regularly are very busy people (on a sidenote: The Netherlands have sent  an ambassador to the state-funeral of Soeharto as all ministers were too busy); yet Natuur en Milieu handed the list to the minister on an appointment made within a week after the creation of the list.
It could be a coincidence, yet I don’t buy that.

Anyhow: after proclaiming energy from biomass is the future for decades on end, there suddenly are good and bad sources of biomass. Naturally, Wind, Light and Water are good, renewable sources but are not included in the list.
Bad biomass are: rapeseed, soy, palm- and sunflower oil, wheat, beet and manure. These generally produce more CO₂-gas than conventional sources of energy and should thus not be subsidized by our government.
Good biomass are: unusable wood from FSC-forests, mown grass from the side of the roads and unusable leftovers from the paper-making industry.
The entire list can be found here.

However true their conclusions, the mentioning of their previous mishap on proclaiming all biomass to be good for our world would be nice. I’m not telling them to be guiltful about the advancing insights: the mentioning of the fact that they were wrong in the past would be nice. The way it is proclaimed now is not nice: the introduction of good and bad into our terminology will lead to unneccessairy complicated conversations. Not to mention any new insights of the future, which might intruduce new categories: good bad biomass or even bad good biomass could be ahead!

I’m in favor of building some new nuclear powerplants in our country, instead of this fancy environmentalist green energy. It costs more, the creation is less efficient and we all can feel less guilty when our energy is indicated to be environment-friendly.
Minister van der Hoeven: build some new nuclear facilities instead of trying to look good with a green image.

Please note: this is my personal rant on the everlasting green-hype.
While this is a real-life scenario I’m not specifically targeting the persons in this post. They just happen to be the direct object of my disaffection.

We all know our world is dying, and we are to blame. Our rigourous spending and consuming behaviour has led to the demise of our ozone-layer and the process of global warming. As Al Gore told us: we’re doomed if we don’t do something about it.

In that light, our government has decided to heighten the taxes on all leased cars (22% to 25% ‘bijtelling’), and lower the taxes on specific car models which have lowest emissions (22% to 14%). Today, there’s 3 models that comply to the new strict rules and are eligible for the low taxing. Obviously, there’s a real hausse going on right now, as 2 of the three models are family-cars (and hybrids), the other is a very small 4-seater with a regular petrol-engine.
A couple of years ago, the tendency to see us as the major pollutors and killers of the world as we know it has lead to the infamous Kyoto Protocol.
Starting in 2005, emissions were to be regulated and more specifically administrated. All large companies had to keep track of the emissions, and had to keep them below a certain level.
Last week, the EU has decided to vote for a new plan: in 2020 a reduction in CO₂-emission of 20% compared to 1990. Note: Kyoto had the agreement to lower CO2 emissions to 5% below the level of 1990. Yes, that’s a 15% extra bonus on the decrease!

The worst part is: it is most likely going to be an EU-only agreement. This puts ‘us’ in a peculiar position: all european companies have to compete on the global market with at least one hand tied to their backs: by adhering to emission-quota which others do not is a competitive disadvantage that is not to be taken lightly. The new rules have the likeliness to cost vast amounts of money, yet the outcome is pretty much unclear.
The goal of the new regulations remain cloudy: what are the effects of ‘our’ reduction can be seen, and on what period in time?

Put shortly: I simply cannot see why rules like these have to be enforced in our economic area only. Global rules are fine by me, as the disadvantages are common among all competitors, and we all are helping the cause.
But why oh why, does the EU have to be, like The Netherlands, the best boy in class?

All for the sake of animal welfare, or so it seems to be nowadays.
For every subspecies that mother nature has gifted our world with, we Dutchies have an action group that strive for the common welfare of the animal in question.

Ducks, chicken, sheep, cows, rabbits; all have certain groups favoring the quality of life of the animals, and on top of that we have several environmentalist groups striving to diminish animal-suffering and consumption of meat.
We know GroenFront!, Partij van de Dieren, and the one I’m discussing here: NVB. The Dutch Society for Vegetarians.

I know, they’re not particularly an animal-rights group judging by their name, but recent plans to make a vegetarian day obligatory in the lunch-halls of governmental organizations suggests otherwise.
Yes, you read it well: the NVB suggests all canteens of governmental institutions (including schools and such) should not serve meat on one day in the week, preferably on Friday.
The reasoning: "We’ll save 40.000 animals’ lives, and it’s good for the environment!".

The thing is: already, about 90% of all concerned canteens are serving vegetarian meals, about half of those do that all days of the week, all year round. About 5 to 10 percent of all meals served is vegetarian; which would forcefully be increased to about 20% when this plan is executed.
Why do organizations think making something obligatory solves the issue, when the relationship between the effect and measure is not unmistakingly proven? Meat is not neccessarily bad for our environment: overconsumption of meat is. Like anyting that is not used sensibly. Apparently, the NVB thinks they can save the lives of about 40.000 animals by merely changing the destination for their meat.
A large quantity of the Dutch meat is exported because of it’s excellent quality, and thus any meat that is designated for the Dutch market, yet remains unconsumed is just sold to someone else.
It could wind up as food for other animals, or even be processed in other, miscellaneous, food-products.

NVB: start thinking please.
I happen to know reddish meat contains a lot of proteïnes which are good for your blood and thus for the brain…