Sherlock Holmes

It had been a while and the options were reasonably good so Saturday afternoon was an excellent time to make the journey to the cinema. After some deliberation Sherlock Holmes was eventually chosen as entertainment.

Now I had read about Sherlock Holmes The Movie. The review in my parents' newspaper was not enthusiastic at all. Slightly panicking I had gone to find out what Empire's opinion was. As I generally agree with Empire, I consider them a reliable source. Empire was not overly enthusiastic either with three stars out of five. As the price of cinema tickets steadily increases, one starts wondering whether a three-star rated film is worth the 8,80€.

Unfortunately there is little else to do but to go and see for yourself. Completely in accordance with the two reviews, the new Sherlock was rather violent. He was acceptable although beside my review-based warning, this might also be due to the fact that this was my first Sherlock Holmes experience. Portrayed eccentrically he is definately entertaining especially in combination with his medical side-kick Dr. Watson.

Where Sherlock and Watson succeed, Lord Blackwood regrettably fails. Initially surrounded by mystery and sinister plans, his credibility quickly evaporates and eventually completely disappears as the audience is left with an 'is that all' - feeling. In his freefall from high expectations and excitement to disappointment, Lord Blackwood does not go alone.

He takes with him the entire storyline which is probably not beneficial for the film as a whole. Surprise takes us as what seems like a short trip through London's sewers brings us to Tower Bridge, still in the process of being constructed. Now, in a film by a British director I had hoped more realism. The Houses of Parliament really are pretty far from Tower Bridge and therefore an illusion of considerable time spent in London's waste water would have been appropriate. In the film it is as if one just walks over in five minutes or so.

After this very curious and completely unrealistic moment and aha-Erlebnis-affected action the plot is revealed in all its plain simplicity. As the curtain falls we are left alone with 'is that all' and the question whether we have come to a stage at which it is almost impossible for directors to come up with new ideas to make the action more inventive and exciting. How often would Guy Ritchie have watched Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End or The Mask of Zorro?

Although his creativity in action is somewhat redoubtable, it is not in scenery. It is a real pleasure to see his 19th century London with known and less known streets and places. As it comes across as realistic it is almost like looking back in time. In the end the fun, Sherlocks eccentricity, wonderful scenery and a good soundtrack make the 8,80€ visit to the cinema definately worthwhile.

At the mercy of the bureaucrats part III: benefits

One of the more problematic aspects of being unemployed is of course that one does not have any income which under normal circumstances very quickly leads to financial restraints. So after a few months and staring at a negative bank balance, I have put up with the fact that I might have to apply for some benefits from the government. As was to be expected, that is easier said than done.

The first obstacle has to do with the kind of benefits, no surprises there. Even the employees of the institution in charge are uncertain, due to the fact that I have worked abroad. Of course. After four different people and as many versions to the application process, there is finally some clarity. If you have worked in Britain but have a Dutch passport, you are eligible for the benefits for people who have lost their jobs. That is good news as these tend to be slightly higher than the standard ones for people that have not worked. A job abroad does complicate matters however as information is not registered automatically with government institutions.

After initial registration one therefore receives a letter kindly asking for photocopies of contracts, a number of forms including an end of the year certificate and all pay slips covering the entire period. Attached to the letter is a questionnaire containing the most interesting sort of questions including about one's housing situation, number of visits to the Netherlands whilst working abroad and, surprisingly, the intensity and manner of contact with family and friends at home. I am rather clueless as to why the government wants to know how often and in what way I talked to my family but actually think it is not really their business.

At the mercy of bureaucrats as one is in these matters however, there is little else to do than to obediently fill out the forms, gather all required information and send it off. Then I will once more resort to waiting as you do when dealing with bureaucracy. At least this time I am waiting with a smile about upcoming difficulties. Regarding my end of the year certificate for example. In Britain the tax year runs from April to April. In the Netherlands it's the calender year. That is not the same. That is a problem. O yes I am waiting. Waiting with a smile. For bureaucrats to look at me with big uncomprehending eyes whilst they open their mouth to start explaining the problem...as they do.

The Foreign Affairs Face

Hello World this is Europe calling. Europe's phone number has been unknown for decades as Henry Kissinger famously pointed out years ago. Consequently Europe calls the world. Since yesterday there is at least clarity as to who will be doing the calling. Baroness Catherine Ashton. Appointed High Representative of Foreign Affairs at the beginning of December 2009. A month down the line however she seems still unsure what to call for.

Human rights in China? "[...] human rights sometimes require different approaches." Iran's nucleair programme? "[It is] regrettable that Tehran did not accept the agreement under the IAEA." Gas suplies from Russia? "We need to have a strong relationship with Russia". Israel's dirty politics in East Jerusalem? "The next step in the region is to go where we think we can do more and pull together appropriate solutions." Or worse: the frequently heard "I don't have a solution for this problem at the moment". And these statements are the words of Europe's top-diplomat for foreign affairs. Someone Europe's citizens pay for leading on the EU's foreign policies.

What if there is an urgent international crisis, say, crazy scenario, Taliban succeed in toppling the Pakistani government and want to make a point so they send a few nucleair missiles to various places including Israel and their beloved eastern neighbour. This is your correspondent reporting from Brussels to hear Europe's approach in this extremely difficult situation, Lady Ashton what will be the EU's course of action? "I don't have a solution for this problem at the moment" Hello World, this is Europe calling...now in a position to play a "stronger, more credible role in the world", as the baroness pointed out herself.

If the practical reality of that role is "I don't have a solution for this problem at the moment" I sincerely doubt Europe's credibility. Perhaps there may not be so many phone numbers anymore however when calling, countries are likely to be put on hold whilst Europe's face in foreign policy is filled in on a solution to the problem. In that case it might just be quicker to drop Sarko or Mrs. Merkel a line directly.

A euro-cynic or a political realist would say this was the idea all along as the Member States are not keen on handing over their sovereignty in foreign matters to the EU. If that is indeed the case, we should not be surprised when we find ourselves on the sideline as new emerging powers claim their place in international affairs. The political and economic weight of the individual member states might soon not be likely to convince Brazil, China or India. Hello World this is Europe calling...

I spy with my little eye

I spy with my little eye something starting with N. Nothing starts with N. So does Naked. Like in those new fancy Nacktscanner as the Germans call them. Heard of them? We used to be against them in Europe. We used to be really against them in the United States. Until the Nigerian and the Powder. I'm sure you've heard that story. You know, the one in which there was a Nigerian who taped powder to his legs to blow up an aeroplane just before landing in Detroit.

Thanks to his powder he now has, quite understandably, half of the western hemisphere in an uproar. Him, and the organisation he represented. Al Qaida. I don't think the latter will be happy with him now. They provided professional powder, however the execution of the task at hand was amateurish. Or would the Al Qaida leadership have some reason to feast on an entire sheep after all? Despite failing to kill hundreds of innocent civilians including no doubt a fair amount of children, perhaps our friend with the powder did bring his mission to a reasonably succesful end in the eyes of his superiors.

Al Qaida's executive tool lost his own life. As planned. All right he is not dead, but he is in prison. Arguably that would qualify exactly as 'neutralised' as death would. Hundreds of civilians are still alive. I imagine the Al Qaida brain behind the operatoin is not very happy about that, although quite frankly, I am not entirely sure how much they actually care. After all, even without disaster, Europe and America are in shock and absolutely terrified. So it would seem that the mission has had the desired effect. Because let us not forget that fear and the deregulation of society are terrorism's ultimate goals. Exactly for that reason governments do not negotiate with terrorist organisations as the latter should under no circumstances be influencing political decisions and thereby reaching its goals. When it comes to suicide bombers however, we jump through the hoop by allowing them to limit the civil liberties we are so proud of.

In the face of a risk on death and destruction on aeroplanes due to terrorism, our political leadership has decided that the way forward in a brand new decade is making naked images of people. The problem is, some people tend not to appreciate being seen au naturel. That is private. Especially religious people are very fond of their privacy. And what about children? I used to think it was illegal to make naked images of children. For security however, we are willing to stretch privacy laws somewhat. Anything for safety. Put into percentages however, how much smaller would the chance be that I am blown up on a flight? The Powder-guy might have been arrested before boarding his flight. However, had he used a liquid explosive, that is rather questionable as liquids cannot be detected by the Nacktscanner. I am convinced the Al Qaida bomb-builders know that too.

They are also aware of perhaps an even greater pitfall that is ineffective cooperation and miscommunication between all parties and organisations involved in combatting terrorism. Our Nigerian friend with the powder almost succeeded because vital information was not passed on. His own father warned the authorities that his son should be investigated. Unfortunately no one saw any reason to communicate this information to airlanes and airports. So do I now conclude we are being lulled into a false sense of safety by are own politicians who have to take visible action to calm people down whilst being all too aware of greater and more dangerous problems within the information-sharing apparatus we call 'intelligence'? Is it then correct to state that in the end, civilians are making an offer for an idea of security that is in fact no more than an illusion? Or is it worse than that?

Europe has long been waiting to adopt policies about the use of the bodyscans. However it was prevented from doing so by a pro-privacy lobby. Do European government now grasp the occasion with both hands to go through with the implementation of their plans as fear makes people very willing to give up some freedom for security. If having a computer look through my clothes keeps me alive, fine. If having a computer scan to my phone calls keeps me alive, no problem. If having a computer monitor my internet use keeps me alive, it's all good. I just wonder how far we are willing to go for security. What are we willing to give up? And what do we actually give it up for? Although we like to think of our political systems as democratic and stable, I do think it is essential that we keep reflecting on new 'emergency' policies. Let us not forget that the state of emergency has been abused in the past to repress civil liberties.

So whilst governments play Big Brother and Bin Laden & Co (assuming they are still alive), piss themselves in their caves, millions of people remain at risk of being blown up despite allowing authorities to see what is underneath their clothes. I spy with my little eye something beginning with D. For Danger. The danger of out of fear almost blindly giving up our civil liberties without questioning the need for it.

Happy New Year...

After the afore mentioned New Year's vacuum taking place at 00:05 on January first, an even bigger desillusion takes hold during the rest of that day. Slightly hung over we drag ourselves to the breakfast table to sip coffee. On telly the most traditional orchestra in the world treats us to Strauss and more Strauss during its annual New Year's Concert. They are a conservative bunch as almost the entire orchestra consists of men. Austrian men. Need I say more?

As we slowly feel life entering our bodies we crawl to the shower to make sure we don't miss the ski jumping broadcasted from Southern Germany. I am always amazed about the participating Japanese skiers. Where would they practice I wonder. As the amazement and entertainment is shortlived, after all, they all do the same trick, internet makes it possible to find out what happened in other places in the world during New Year's Eve.

The firework displays in Sydney, Hongkong, London and New York were very pretty. Really very nice. However, the euphoric feeling taking hold on New Year's Eve evaporates quickly when reading the other headlines. Some people in the Netherlands got firecrackers put in their letterbox, they caught fire and their house burned down to the ground. They too wished one another a happy New Year. Dozens more have lost their cars to fire. As in Dutchland fireworks are for sale and people can light them themselves, every year there are children and teenagers who lose eyes and hands. Some partygoers lose their lives.

The first twelve hours of the New Year hardly seem to give reason to be happy. Nevertheless people cross the country to visit family to wish them a happy New Year knowing that for others 2010 has a horrific start. In the course of the day the festive atmosphere disappears completely as things go from bad to worse, or perhaps, return to normal. Ninety-three people are blown up in Pakistan during a volleyball match.

And then, on January second, Happy New Year is no more than an illustion, a dream we briefly had for the last six hours of 2009. Europe's newspapers speak of the attempt to kill the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, the death of three girls in France due to a fire, a landslide in Brazil killing 53 and the Somali pirates striking again, this time capturing a British ship with an Eastern European crew.

Not much Happy New Year if you ask me. Perhaps we shouldn't think too much about these tragic events, especially not during the first days of the New Year. I just cannot escape the idea that all these people and their relatives said Happy New Year to each other. They too had expectations and hopes for the New Year. Expectations and hopes that came crashing down hours or even minutes after they were shared with close friends and family members. Sometimes that is unavoidable I know. Not everyone has reason to celebrate because people are sick, poor, living in a warzone, mourning, you name it. But what if it can be avoided.

Would it be possible to at least not hurt each other? No random killing, destruction of property or deprivation of lives, resources, freedom or rights for a few days every year. Would it be possible not to destroy each other's hopes and expectations for the New Year so that Happy New Year becomes at least one real day rather than one imaginary hour.