Category Archives: Law

January 13, 2016 · 20:23

To do or not to do

Weirdly enough, the act, the thought and the interest is not new. The ‘wisdom’ has been seen as early as the 60’s in public toilets.

Socrates tells us that “To be is to do”
Jean-Paul Sartre states that “To do is to be”
Frank Sinatra taught us: “Do be do be do”

Socrates, or So Crates as Keanu Reeves called him, started the thought, yet in the 19th century French philosopher, Sartre, who also dabbled in playwrights, novels, biographies, literary criticism was also a political activist. In his philosophical views, he share the view of Existentialism, where philosophical thinking begins with the human subject, hence, we can ask whether he should be on the side of So Crates. Even as Existentialists are often seen as ‘too abstract and remote’ from concrete human experience, we might wonder, because of the actions of Sartre whether he was a true Existentialist. Perhaps he was an academically inclined individual on the path of applied logics in the evolving field of pragmatism. His view on Phenomenology, or over simplified ‘taken intentionally as directed toward something’, as some might see it as ‘the hammering of a nail’, yet in all this, does one consider that the nail ‘just’ is?

So where is this going?

Well this is about a BBC article titled ‘Did Sean Penn break the law with El Chapo interview?‘ (at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35228910).

The quotes that are in question is “In his Rolling Stone piece, Mr Penn talked about the use of burner phones and other methods used to escape detection by authorities. Many people have wondered whether Mr Penn broke the law with his reporting – and whether or not he could be prosecuted“, so is there really a ‘group’ of many people, or is there a select group of some people in specific positions? By the way, burner phones are used in a massive amount of ways by people in many circles, the financial circle for one, the intelligence circle as another side and both have been illuminated by novels, TV shows and movies in a massive way, so why mention this part at all?

The quote ““Simply having contact with a known narco-trafficker is not the basis of prosecution,” said Daniel Richman, a professor of law at Columbia University and a former federal prosecutor” is equally important, because as is, why place this article in such light? Because some people are as the quote gives “his interview has made people uncomfortable“, really?

Why is that? You see, many people (many thousands) in the UK have been extremely uncomfortable with the Tesco affair and the involvement of Pricewaterhouse Coopers, how many people have shone a light on this within the BBC, or any other large media outlet for print or multimedia?

Would the answer be Zip or Zilch?

The last quote in the article is actually interesting “As Cesar Diaz, a former senior special agent who worked on investigations of Pablo Escobar, a Colombian drug trafficker, said: “If I was a Mexican authority, I would want to know: How in the heck did Sean Penn know where El Chapo was and we didn’t?”“, most likely he is deceiving the listener with his statement, you see, very likely El Chapo knew exactly where Sean Penn was, not the other way around and as such, one was brought to the other, Cesar Diaz actually knows this. Perhaps he is steering away from the issue that CNN gave light to (at http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/15/americas/mexico-corruption-el-chapo-escape/) on July 16^th 2015. Where we see “but a series of scandals in the past year already had top Mexican officials in the hot seat. And Guzman’s escape, experts say, shines an even harsher spotlight on a problem that historically has stretched from police on the streets to the highest halls of power“, which is nothing new really, we have seen it in many sources, now, we might agree that not all sources are reliably honest, yet when we see a ‘random’ 3465 articles regarding corruption, how many would we need to show that there is a massive issue in that regard? In that view, is it equally far-fetched that El Chapo got a phone call from the airport where a young lady with a warm voice states “Senor, your movie star friend from New York La Guardia has arrived 10 minutes ago, tener un día maravilloso!” That would have been the start for a mere pick-up job. Cesar Diaz knows this, there is little mystery here.

Yet as we see all the speculation and worded effort to try to show that something is here, how come that the BBC and all other players are taking a wide berth around the issues of Tesco and the 3 billion drop in value? I gave a little light towards this yesterday, there is little to no action, what scares them?

Now it is time to get back to my slightly lower than basic feel of philosophy. If we accept that Phenomenology is ‘the study of the structures of experience and consciousness‘ how would the press be valued as we see the structure of ‘morality and values‘ regarding the interview of one person regarding another, let’s say, a person with an arts direction and his observations and interactions with an escaped drug baron, perhaps ruler of a drug empire would be better, yet in that same light, the professional press will not step anywhere near Pricewaterhouse Coopers regarding their involvement in a scandal that broke Tesco in little pieces, an involvement as shown by their peer Deloitte we see a version that forces us to ask additional questions regarding the acts that PwC was involved in, so in all that, the press stays away? How can we remain conscious, or better evolve consciousness whilst the press, regarded historically as the evolving factor of our opinion of events, how can we rely on that press who can to a larger extent no longer be trusted in their assessment of what is an issue?

In a similar light, as we see Existentialism as a view where we see that humans define their own meaning in life, and try to make rational decisions despite existing in an irrational universe. As such, is Sean Penn defining meaning in life? Is he giving us a view where we get to see how the world in some places are managed and arranged? Is that the view that scares Cesar Diaz? Is that the view that scares the ‘uncomfortable’ people? Many know the reality that life for some people in some continents are very different to the one we face.

In that same view, as Existentialism believes that we are free to do, to be and as we must take personal responsibility for ourselves (and our actions), which act is the most immoral one, the path Sean Penn took, or the path the UK press at large refuses to take as they seem to cater to the need of their advertisers and not regarding the path the people are entitled to be informed on? When did the newspaper become the projection of presentation, when did it stop to be the critical informer of events as they happened? So as the press answers that their Existentialism comes with angst, we need to ask regarding the type of angst, angst regarding their income, their career, or their boss. How many of these flags would it take to see them not as journalists, but as mere cowards with some writing skills and decent punctuation? I am just asking!

No, as I see it these facilitators ignore the outside sources, deny angst and move to the music and dance (off the beat) as Sinatra sings ‘Do Be Do Be Do’.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as BBC, Cesar Diaz, CNN, Columbia University, Daniel Richman, El Chapo, Existentialism, Frank Sinatra, Jean-Paul Sartre, Keanu Reeves, Pablo Escobar, Phenomenology, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, PwC, Rolling Stone, Rolling Stone magazine, Sean Penn, Socrates

January 10, 2016 · 20:49

One in six before this court

The Guardian had an interesting piece yesterday. The article (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/09/netxflix-murder-whoddunit-petition) with the title ‘Making a Murderer spurs 275,000 viewers to demand pardon for central character‘ is centre in all this. The first thing that came to my mind was the question: ‘Are people stupid, or is Netflix just brilliant?‘ takes a centre stage. You see, we seem to hang onto this notion given by movies and books that wrongful convictions happen all the time. Yet, where is the reality? First of all, the reality is getting buried by pretty much all parties. The best I could initially find was a 2013 statistical highlight. 172,024 matters were received involving 113,893 defendants. The document does have a lot more (at http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2014/09/22/13statrpt.pdf) and I hoped to find a more recent one, but these 121 pages should be enough to get you started. You see, the issue becomes when we try to get a deeper view of the issue, one that might not be in the interest of the U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for United States Attorneys, but when we see on page 8 that 2013 had 61,529 cases files, and we see the claim on page 9 “The rate of conviction remained over 92 percent, as it has since Fiscal Year 2010“, which gets us 56,607 cases.

This document is important for a few reasons, you see, Netflix has created a monster in a few ways. First of all, this is not a legal piece of work, it is an emotional one. An emotional presentation. One would think like many other reality shows bombarding emotions. This would be the first mistake for anyone making that jump. It is a documentary, a presentation made in the best light any camera could do. The view of cars in decay might have meaning, but the mere view is that is, is a view of written off ‘rust’. It all starts with the fact that a person was freed after 18 years when DNA proves him to be innocent. We immediately feel for this person, a sex crime one of the most heinous crimes we would all love to clobber a man like that to death, like a fur dealer kills a baby seal, with a nail board. But then, we are confronted with innocence. This man never did that, so how did he get convicted? These are the thoughts many will have in the first 6 minutes of the pilot. Most will be hooked, I myself saw this and was captured. We get even more turmoil when we consider ‘The wrongful Convictions Blog‘, which has Contributing Editors like Justin Brooks, Professor, California Western School of Law, who is in addition to that Director of the California Innocence Project. I feel certain that Netflix (read: the makers of this documentary) did their homework on this project, so why is there an issue?

The series is brilliant because this could be the first time that this series is sparking the need for a true total overhaul of the American Justice system. As I see it, it is a first that we see ‘more than 275,000 viewers have signed a petition asking President Obama to overturn Avery’s conviction‘ on a scale to this side. Yes, Netflix created a monster, but is it a bad one? When we see numbers like 5,000 – 10,000 wrong convictions, when we realise that 5-10K out of 56,607 represents 8.8%-17.6%, now we get one in six to one in eleven gets wrongfully convicted.

Footnote: This is based on two sets of numbers, there is no clear picture on how many wrongful convictions there are in 2013, giving a debatable number (just making sure that you understand that my numbers remain debatable).

Now the issue shift, it shifts strongly in a direction we cannot predict, because until the numbers were clear we were all (me including) how often does this really happen, so when we see a jail movie where someone states that he was framed, he was innocent, the numbers tell us that one in eleven (lowest denominator) actually could be. When it is a parking fine it is one thing, when it is 30+ days it affects a life possibly forever, the American people now have an issue.

Now we get to the other part. The quote “In a statement, the White House said action in this case would need to be taken at state level – in this instance, Wisconsin. A petition directed at Wisconsin’s governor, Scott Walker, on Change.org has 6,300 supporters, but the governor has said that he will grant no pardons“, we see that the White House parked this on the state level this needs to be on, and the response by governor Scott Walker will not help the White House any, but that is the law, the man got convicted. Yet in that our emotions also play up, because when a person is convicted wrongly once, that state better make damn sure that all the evidence is truly Hunky Dory, because two wrongful convictions of this nature can break a government (and their bank account). Yet in all this we see presentations, presentations from all parties. When we see the claim “Two years after DNA evidence was used to clear Avery of sexual assault in 2003, and as he was starting a claim for $36m in damages, he was accused of the murder of Halbach, who had visited his property to take pictures of a vehicle for Auto Trader“, so is one truly linked to the other? You see, my thoughts take me in a partial other direction. Would any woman go near a man convicted of a sex crime? Even if that man was found to be innocent? Doubt will always be in play there. Now consider the location and the date, October 31^st, aka Halloween. Over that day and the day that follows, we see 12 to 4 degrees Celcius, There is sweat, DNA. There is a premise of planted evidence, what is more interesting, why is there sweat from Avery under the bonnet on a day when it is 12 degrees? Summer, we all get, but late October? Was her camera that heavy? Yet in all that defence, we must also voice the quote “Prosecutor Ken Kratz last week accused the programme’s makers – Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos – of withholding important evidence that led a jury to convict Avery and his nephew, Brendan Dassey“, which is at the heart of the matter. Netflix gives us a presentation and calls it ‘documentary’, which does not make the accused innocent, yet as evidence is allegedly withheld from the documentary, what do we have now? A mockumentary with a taste of legality? #JustAsking

I cannot tell, because I see one side.

So as we all see that outrage is what Netflix wanted to create, we see a job decently done, but is that all it is? Because I reckon until before this series, the one in six part was never that visible. The issue of innocently found guilty is not a new term, but it was a term that was never so widely known in the US. Making a murderer changes all that in a big way, once larger places get on the bandwagon for advertisement reasons, we will see a few more million getting emotional on the one in six group, as they should. Edward Helmore does give us the vital clue in this article “this is not a trial, but the truncated representation of one by journalists” and as I see it they always have their own agenda, does the viewer realise this?

Yet it isn’t just the image or the presentation, one part of the power that Making a murderer holds is the fact that Laura Ricciardi (one of the two makers) holds a JD from New York Law School and an MFA in film from Columbia University School of the Arts, which gives for the extra bang for the buck, but it does not take away that this remains a presentation, call it a new open presentation by ‘the’ defence; which is happening AFTER the conviction took place.

So will this start a legal change for America? The one thing that does in addition stands out is that the US is too bankrupt to be anywhere near considering a 35 million payout for one in six. That will impact the US in ways it cannot survive, so as Netflix brought a monster to life, we could see a massive change in prosecution and legislation, which if it happens would propel Making a murderer into the historic annals of TV presentations.

We should also take a look at the opposition, one who got his visibility through FoxNews (at http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/01/08/did-making-murderer-get-story-wrong). Here we see “Head of Investigation Discovery Henry Schlieff believes important elements of convicted murderer Steven Avery’s story were left out of the 10-hour Netflix documentary “Making a Murderer,” leading many viewers to draw the wrong conclusion about the crime everyone in America seems to be talking about“, which in my view is not unexpected. Henry Schlieff passed up on the high ratings show, as did HBO. Here lies the issue, part of the response ““We just didn’t feel it right for us in terms of the length,” Schlieff told FOX411. “I think something like this will work really well for Netflix”“. So when was the last time a network passed up on the chance for massive advertisement space opportunities? You can count those occurrences on one hand and you would not need any fingers.

HBO, Henry Schlieff and a few others missed out on a winner, more important, even though there are clear issues with the series, it does something that has not been achieved before; it gives a national and even international light to the massive number of wrongful convictions. Even when taking the lowest number of 5,000, which would not be low, we get close to one in eleven, we might state that one in nine could be closer to the speculated truth, so how many wrongful convictions will it take to overthrow the US justice system as is, as some regard it as a failed system? That conversation is now happening in many US living rooms. The Justice Department might think in way too many households, which will become a much stronger issue down the line, especially when the governor comes up for re-election, even the next presidential election will feel the impact, in an election where every point counts, 10 points come with a bigger bang than what a fair amount of states can offer, so this will become a growing issue sooner rather than later.

In the end, the paths that the series skates on is the implied issue of planted evidence, which is an option but not a given. The pending issue of 34 million gives weight to this, yet in all this most of our minds are stating that this was a rare occurrence. Which many groups are now debating, when a one in six number gets approached the consequence of large claims and the fact that most state coffers could not survive more than a dozen of those. The numbers if even taken at 50% correct give us no less than 4,000 possible cases, which in an equally distributed world implies 75 per state. If even half of that makes it to court, the bulk of the states would go into receivership overnight, the ultimate nightmare scenario.

An issue Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos might hope to steer to as an ulterior motive, but in equal measure we must look at the direct impact. One, was Steven Avery guilty? In light of the previous false incarceration the main question on the mind of most Americans watching that show and if any clear evidence is ever brought to light that there was reasonable doubt, we will see an escalation unlike any we have seen before in American politics and American jurisprudence, because the 275,000 petition at present will be the mere tip of the iceberg, at that point the anger the people will hold can, could and possibly will topple whatever administration is in control at that point.

Which could have been the intent all along! In my personal view, I think that there has been intent all along. It might not have started out in that way, but after the Michael Iver Peterson Case, after the documentary the Staircase and in succession the events of 2010, I think at this point, both Ricciardi and Demos must have realised that their pet project had the opportunity to turn into a legislative and political Behemoth, and they were the only ones with the footage and the cooperation from the involved parties, they basically had the winning ticket to a lottery no one comprehended its existence.

I believe that part of that is shown in the recent interview that the couple had on Vulture dot com (at http://www.vulture.com/2015/12/making-a-murderer-directors-on-steven-avery-case.html). The quote at the very end: “Demos: One of the experiences we hope will come across is what it’s like to be accused in this country, what it’s like to go through this system. The hope is that with firsthand experience, people will think differently about the criminal justice system: what is working and what is not working, and the role each one of us plays in that“.

I think that the Stephen Avery case is the one straw that can now break the camel’s back. If this plays out correctly (for Ricciardi and Demos), if enough doubt can be created we will see a movement towards justice change unlike anything the US government has ever seen before, because two strikes against one person would be met with opposition never seen before, this is at the centre of many places like ‘The wrongful Convictions Blog‘, they will give rise to the issue of ‘the Justice system and what isn’t working‘.

Make no mistake, in the end Avery does not need to be innocent, in the Netflix presentation they would only need to show enough doubt to get a political ball, the size of a wrecking ball rolling in many unpredictable ways.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Brendan Dassey, California Innocence Project, California Western School of Law, Columbia University School of the Arts, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Governor of Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker, Henry Schlieff, Justin Brooks, Ken Kratz, Laura Ricciardi, Making a Murderer, Michael Iver Peterson, Moira Demos, Netflix, New York Law School, President Obama, Scott Walker, Steven Avery, Teresa Halbach, the Guardian, The wrongful Convictions Blog, U.S. Department of Justice, Vulture, vulture.com, White House, www.justice.gov

January 7, 2016 · 21:20

Comprehension

At times, I am at a loss. This is one of those times, and it started as I was confronted with the article ‘Treat surrogate parents as sex offenders, says Italian minister’ (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/06/treat-surrogates-sex-offenders-italian-minister-angelino-alfano). You see, here I have two levels of confusion.

Let me explain. The first level involves the women that do this. I do not mean this in any negative way! I get it when it is family, but even then, there is part of me that does not quite grasps it. There is nothing as noble as ‘to give thine own body’. You see, no matter how noble it is, I could never fathom a surrogate mother, not her way or her intent, but the fact that once the baby was born that she would have the strength to part with it. We see and read on how teenage girls offer children up for adoption, mainly because they were not ready and they are unable to care for the child and the child might end up having a much better life. In those instances we try to be understanding, but we all realise that this could eat away at the soul of the young woman who did this. There have been many books and many movies, yet the reality is that only that mother can truly state and express what it felt like.

I think it would not be a pretty picture.

So in that light, understanding that a surrogate mother might actually be capable of raising that child, the willingness to part with it is incomprehensible to me, and I need not comprehend. In all this, I never looked negative against the woman who made that choice. So when I read ‘Angelino Alfano says ‘wombs for rent’ should be punishable with prison, as he suggests new laws will make it easier for gay couples to use surrogate mothers‘, I wonder what kind of an idiot Angelino Alfano actually is. Is he just anti-gay, is he anti-surrogate? From what I read I feel certain that he is anti-intelligent!

Now we get to the religious part, because Italy is all about Catholics. At times I think that Italy is all about Catholics, food and adultery, but we get to that soon enough. So, you’ll see some scriptures, but again, reasoning later.

So Angelino Alfano, answer me this, of all your friends who committed adultery, Leviticus 20:10 “If any man commit adultery with the wife of another, and defile his neighbour’ s wife, let them be put to death, both the adulterer and the adulteress“, so how many of those ‘friends’ did you put to death? Or perhaps we should take a look at his actions as stated by the Financial Times on October 2nd 2013 (at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a142b3a8-2b46-11e3-a1b7-00144feab7de.html#axzz3wXhbQy5b), where we see: “the young Sicilian lawyer has been compared to Judas Iscariot in leading a betrayal of his long-time mentor“. Interesting, so who was that Judas Iscariot person? I wonder if there was a punishment for treason, so in all that, it should be clear that Angelino Alfano should not be making too many statements for a few reasons (read: I will not remove his freedom of speech, just request he keeps a centre of discretion with all his alleged transgressions).

Now, for the other side.

In the Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Philippians 2:3 we see “Let nothing be done through contention, neither by vain glory: but in humility, let each esteem others better than themselves“, it seems that the happiness for the others is taken in much higher regard. In following there is Timothy 1, where at 6:18 we see “To do good, to be rich in good works, to give easily, to communicate to others,” and finally in Corinthians 10:23-24 we see: “All things are lawful for me, but all things do not edify. Let no man seek his own, but that which is another’s”

At face value women who did this have done a Samaritan act of sacrifice and goodness against their nature but not an unnatural one. In a tale of two villages where a storm destroys the bakery of one, should the other baker not make available the oven so that the other village will not perish? Is that such a far stretch? So in that same light should a man of such hypocritical disposition not be shunned for his words and actions? When we read “Treating couples who use surrogate mothers as sex criminals, as Alfano suggested, would entail harsh penalties“, you see the subtext ‘couples who use surrogate mothers‘ is part of this and he seems to be driven to label this as ‘forms of human sexual behaviour that are crimes‘, are they? You see, legally speaking, the intent was given as ‘who use‘, yet this is not the case, the surrogate mother volunteered, which is not the same, she offered and was not used. This now gives us the path he might try to walk which is ‘Treating surrogate mothers who volunteer assistance to same sex couples as sex criminals‘. It seems to get a little dicey now, doesn’t it! As any Samaritan act of good intent is usually not prosecutable. So what started this?

You see, surrogacy is illegal in Italy and that, even if some would considered it to be ‘the act of a non-enlightened nation‘, it is the legal premise that Italy is allowed to make, so when Angelino Alfano comes with the quote “We want ‘wombs for rent’ to become a universal crime. And that it is punished with prison. Just as happens for sexual crimes”, we should all question what is in his mind, perhaps it is the voice of some obscure cleric from Sicily (his origins) who has a massive anti-gay agenda. Perhaps this is not about any of that! Remember the Financial Times part? That is a while ago, but his position is nowhere stable, in addition, in Politico we see “Last month, Angelino Alfano, Italy’s interior minister, described as a “symbol of victory” a plane carrying 19 young Eritreans from Ciampino airport in Rome to Luleå in Sweden. Italy, he said, would send an additional 100 people “in the next few days”” (at http://www.politico.eu/article/why-eu-refugee-relocation-policy-has-been-a-flop-frontex-easo-med/), the UNHCR reveals that on December 31^st 2015 153,600 refugees had arrived in Italy, 97,584 on Angelino’s island of Sicily (read: 63.53125% roughly). So is this really about the surrogacy issue, or is he just making waves especially as he heralded a new home for 19 of those refugees (aka 0.000012369%) with the additional 100, meaning he got a solution for 0.000077473%, yes we can all see where the importance of Angelino Alfano is. It is in the smallest of margins where we see his actions, so as I read this, I am not convinced it is his ‘anti’ approach in all this, it is his need for visibility as I see it and he is not doing it in the most intelligent way imaginable.

Instead of an actual effort to solve the logistics of the refugee tsunami that hits Italy and his island Sicily, we see a surrogacy and an anti-gay tainted pass ono a group that can find a sheltered solution outside of Italy, so instead of solving the problems Italy does have (aside of the 2,230,198,602,275 € debt Italy has at present), we see another politician waste time, space and energy on a topic that is not his to solve and one that has absolutely no solving value for Italy at all.

In all this I feel decently certain that even the Bishop of Rome would side with me that although it is a discussion worthy of the Cardinals Conclave, these women might be beautified for their divine compassion 100% sooner than Angelino Alfano ever will.

Now for me, I have always been leaning towards man-made or positive laws. I feel that the interpretation is important and that we do not always have the wisdom to properly interpret, which is why I have always been a fan of Dr BJ McEniery’s article ‘Physicality in Australian patent law’, which was published in the Deakin Law Review. You see Intellectual property has always been under powerful evolutions, yet the fact that long ago there was a clear understanding that physicality was something that would evolve and the law had no way off seeing how and towards what is always in the back of my mind. Ignoring Natural law is therefore equally stupid. As a Catholic I tend to be more Christian than Catholic, where it is important to see and weigh the intent on the person, so even as I do not rule out the less Samaritan paths a surrogate mother could be on, the powerful drive within any mother would counter this strongly whenever possible, which gets me to the positivity of their act against the trivial and self-righteous mindset of Angelino Alfano and on that scale he does not fare well.

So even if you disagree with my choices of bible passages, there is almost no way where you can consider in favour of the trivial path Mr Alfano is on. I would hope that his holiness the Bishop of Rome would sooner rather than later (as well as several members of the curie) would consider speaking out that the need to solve the suffering of 153,600 refugees take a massive priority over the possible issue that a handful of surrogate mothers might bring, especially when they are openly and voluntarily offering their Samaritan womb on this. So if Angelino Alfano ever (in a legal Samaritan way) rescues the plight of 1536 refugees (aka 1%), only then if any energy is left should he look at small and insignificant issues. but by that time his political reign has ended and the press will not have any time for him as they will be wanting to hear from the next elected official.

There are many issues that plague Europe, some we might never fix, some we can possibly fix and some can be fixed, do we really need to look at issues that do not presently require fixing?

I will let you be the judge of that, but for those who do have a Christian background they still adhere to remember the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (7:1) “Judge not, that you may not be judged, for with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again“, which is good advice, advice that might be a little too late for Angelino Alfano if we are to believe the Divine Comedy. For was it not Antenora where the transgressors of treason of party and nations ended up, to be frozen in ice up to the neck? Now, let’s be fair, Mr Alfano is no Count Ugolino della Gherardesca, yet as we see the credits he heralds in whilst Italy remains in dire need and he voices his view to a ‘universal solution’ where Italy has no problem, where is his actual allegiance and as such is that not utterly detestable? Yes it is, which does not make it treason or treacherous, yet as Italian Minister of the Interior, his responsibility is for internal security and the protection of the constitutional order. As such he can prosecute surrogacy within Italy, yet it does not mean that it is his job to waste time for the change of a ‘universal solution’, especially as surrogate mothers are in no way an internal security issue, yet the 153,481 (if he ever got the additional 100 towards refugees towards Sweden) might be. As I see it, the refugee logistics fall squarely in his lap, an issue he does not seem to be addressing, which we should regard as a failed level of comprehension on his side.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Military, Politics, Religion

Tagged as adultery, Angelino Alfano, Antenora, Bishop of Rome, Cardinals Conclave, catholics, Christians, Corinthians 10:23, Count Ugolino della Gherardesca, Deakin Law Review, Dr BJ McEniery, Epistle Of Saint Paul, Financial Times, Italy’s interior minister, Luleå, Philippians 2:3, Physicality in Australian patent law, Politico, Saint Matthew, Saint Matthew 7:1, Sicilia, surrogacy, surrogate mothers, Sweden, the Divine Comedy, the Pope, UNHCR

January 4, 2016 · 21:38

By what standard

An article appeared several hours ago that brings forth questions. The Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/03/saudi-execution-call-for-west-to-condemn-killing-of-shia-cleric), gives several causes for concern. The first one is in the title ‘Saudi execution: call for west to condemn killing of Shia cleric‘, why? The subtitle ‘UK Treasury minister describes the killing of Nimr al-Nimr as a ‘worrying development’ as tensions escalate‘ is cause for additional concern. In my (simplistic) viewpoint, why is David Gauke, financial secretary to the Treasury speaking here (read: quoted)? Why is this not voiced by the UK foreign office (and the Home office for that matter)? THEY are spokespeople in this case, well the Foreign Office more than the Home Office in this case, but the home office would be voicing the ‘home front’ feelings. No, it is the financial secretary to the Treasury, whose voice does not count in this situation that is the view that is voiced.

You see, Saudi Arabia is a sovereign nation where the use of capital punishment is based on Shari’ah (or Islamic law). I did not study Shari’ah Law and as such I cannot answer the legality in this, but Saudi Arabia is a sovereign nation with its own set of laws and it is time for people to start understanding that other cultures have other rules and laws. For me, I am still amazed on how capital punishment is not in existence in Commonwealth Law, in addition, I am amazed how targeted killing is still not a legal option, an absence I still believe is more an act of cowardice than anything else (I will address this part later in this article).

So Saudi Arabia has the death penalty, this is not new, it is a given. Yet, what people seem to forget is that when you look deeper into Islamic Banking and Finance that this system is not greed driven, that what is regarded as Sharia compliant finance. It approached the view where Sharia prohibits acceptance of specific interest or fees for loans of money, whether the payment is fixed or floating, which as I understand it implies any excess compensation without due consideration (absent of time value of money), which implies (without deeper investigation, cannot be stated as for certain by me) that the hedge funds nightmare that Wall Street bestowed upon the world would never have happened under Shari’ah Law, I will let you contemplate that thought by yourself!

Let’s get back to capital punishment! When we look at an article by Elizabeth Peiffer (at http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1132&context=wmjowl), we see the following on page 508 (page 3 of the article), “The harsh punishments required for hudud crimes are intended to deter those who might commit crimes that are dangerous to an Islamic society“, in additional support there is something I should add from the Catholic Education Resource Center (at http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/social-justice/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment.html), where we see “At no point, however, does Jesus deny that the State has authority to exact capital punishment. In his debates with the Pharisees, Jesus cites with approval the apparently harsh commandment, “He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die” (Matthew 15:4; Mark 7:10, referring to Exodus 2l:17; cf. Leviticus 20:9)“, in addition I offer “The last case of an execution by the Catholic Church was that of the schoolmaster Cayetano Ripoll, accused of deism by the waning Spanish Inquisition and hanged to death 26 July 1826 in Valencia after a two-year trial” (at http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/805877-196/daily-twip—the-spanish-inquisition-executes.html).

We seem to impose ‘our’ values on every nation, yet we do not take responsibility or repair the damage we allow others to make under either a Christian or atheist guise, how just is that?

Let’s get back to the issue that started all this, you see Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr was sentenced to death. The BBC (at http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29627766) gives us “he was found guilty of seeking “foreign meddling” in the kingdom, “disobeying” its rulers and taking up arms against the security forces“, ‘taking up arms against the security forces’ could be seen as insurrection at best and treason at worst, when I point back to the issue shown in the article by Elizabeth Peiffer we get ‘intended to deter those who might commit crimes that are dangerous to an Islamic society’, is that not the case for both insurrection and treason? Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr was himself a cleric, so how was the consequence a surprise? Because he was regarded as ‘popular among youth’? The sovereign nation of Saudi Arabia has a set of laws, this is known, so again, why do we read that David Gauke sees this as a ‘worrying development’? Shouldn’t the man be playing with an abacus and solving the UK economy issues (the UK has plenty of those)? In addition, he represents South West Hertfordshire, which is part of Hertfordshire, where less than 1% is Muslim, a county where 90% is either Christian or has no religion (27.3%), so again, what gives, personal interest or unofficial messenger?

The blunt cold issue is that a cleric went against the established order and Shari’ah Law intervened directly and definitively, which I admit is my rather simplistic view on the matter.

In an age where culling over 30% of the planets population could solve food issues, housing issues and several other issues, we seem to embrace the solution that does not get us anywhere. Now it is time to get back to an earlier statement and explain my reasoning. In our day and age, capital punishment should not be seen as a bad thing, we should see this as the ultimate form of accountability. Consider the News in Brisbane where “Cole Miller, 18, was allegedly struck in the head from behind as he walked with a friend through the Chinatown Mall about 3.35am yesterday (AEST)” (at http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/01/03/07/16/young-man-randomly-king-hit-while-walking-through-brisbane-mall-overnight). Why not ‘reward’ Armstrong Renata and Daniel Maxwell with the death penalty for such a cowardly attack? I feel certain that after a few of these executions teens will get hit in the head from behind a lot less. Why was he attacked in the first place? That is still for a court to decide, but too often and for too long the victim and its family gets to suffer whilst the courts ‘go soft’ too often on the transgressors and it is not because there are so many jobs or there are so many apartments available. As stated, it is for a court to decide and there is of course the need for evidence, because we know how it ended, but how did it get started? I do not have the facts, but that is an important element in Common Law, I am just no longer willing to see that the abolishment of capital punishment is a good idea.

I also mentioned cowardice earlier, for this I need to address the issue of targeted killing. You see, the law as is seems to revere ‘non-permanent’ solutions. In all that people are faced with dangers and risks. Consider that 70% lives in a legal way, no crimes committed, now we get 29.9991% that does have a criminal side, for that we have the law, I do not oppose this, they are criminals of all kinds, from pickpockets, to robbers to murderers, for those we have the law. There is a very small group, 0.0009%, this group is so malignant, so violent (read: extremely fanatic or terrorist), that their presence is a direct threat to the people and to our way of life. In all this, we ‘hide’ behind Common Law and its settings, like it is a Golden Calf (I am referring here to Exodus 32:1–6), how dare we revere a book to that level whilst knowingly endangering the people we swore to protect, are those victims in that same view not degraded to simple human sacrifices for the existence of a book of rules? How can we sacrifice those lives and are we not willing to take the lives who are knowingly and intentionally threatening those innocent (and some less innocent) lives? Are we not bound to protect the people in any accountable way we possibly can? It is the word accountable that should have opened the door to targeted killing a long time ago, I am not referring to 9/11; I am referring to events even before that. To the days of Baader Meinhoff and the Rote Armee Fraktion. Italy had the Red Brigade, Japan the Red Army and that list goes on for a while. We seem to focus on Islamic groups, yet we forget that the Ku Klux Klan, White Power groups as Christian groups and most other religions have their terrorist organisations, groups with members focused on extreme violence against a specific group or a nation in general, as such, when that government has a direct responsibility to keep its citizens safe, where is the logic to not pursue these extremists with all options, including terminal ones?

So by what standard are we judging?

We seem to push our standards onto others, whilst in most western European nations we have only succeeded in making a bigger mess, whilst not holding anyone accountable for anything, as I see it, Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr decided on a course of action, here (Australia, UK, Canada, sometimes the US too) we all believe in freedom of speech, yet In Islamic nations there seems to be an interpretation that ‘crimes that are dangerous to an Islamic society‘ are strictly dealt with by holding that person accountable. Please consider that I am voicing a view based on the ‘facts’ as I see it published, I am not stating on the ruling of the specific court case of Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr as I do not have all the facts on that case. And consider again, why is the voice of David Gauke quoted and not from the Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP? In this case it is his voice as Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that sets the tone of how we as a Commonwealth (read: United Kingdom) shall deal with our allies, our connected nations and our enemies, not David Gauke. In Australia Foreign Minister Julie Bishop stated today that the Australian government is deeply disturbed by Saudi Arabia’s mass execution of 47 people that same approach was taken by Canada where Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion condemns Saudis over Mass Execution (including the execution of Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr). So why did the article by Martin Chulov not mention the big names from Canada and Australia within that article? OK, in all fairness, the response from Julie Bishop was only voiced a few hours ago, but the Canadian voice was given yesterday, plenty of time to include that one, it seems to me that the article is about careful ‘voicing’ what does not really matter for the political field that becomes a lot less maneuverable over the coming year, another fact conveniently ignored.

All this regarding the standard a sovereign nations holds. We might not agree and we can voice that, but we must equally accept that every nation has its own rights in dealing with transgressors, even if we are too unwilling to do this ourselves. Consider that hypocrisy is knowingly not practicing what you tell others to do (like having just laws against crime and for victims), now consider that Irony is becoming a judge after illustrating the failure of law.

So is this a mere case of Hypocritical Irony?

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Armstrong Renata, Baader Meinhoff, Brisbane, Catholic Education Resource Center, Cayetano Ripoll, Cole Miller, Common Law, Commonwealth Law, Conservatives, Daniel Maxwell, David Gauke, Elizabeth Peiffer, financial secretary to the Treasury, Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, Foreign Office, Home office, hudud crimes, Iran, Julie Bishop, Ku Klux Klan, Liberals, Martin Chulov, Muslims, Rote Armee Fraktion, Rt Hon Philip Hammond, Saudi Arabia, Shari'ah Law, sharia law, Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr, South West Hertfordshire, Stephane Dion, white power groups

December 29, 2015 · 11:19

Ignorance is not an option

Moments of scandal within the IDF are rare, but oh boy, when they do happen, they don’t seem to be light ones. That was the first thought I had when I updated my news brief last night and the news ‘Israel’s armed forces shocked at dismissal of missile defence chief‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/28/israel-armed-forces-shocked-dismissal-missile-defence-chief-yair-ramati) caressed my pupils. Yair Ramati an Israeli veteran was sacked for a “grave breach of information security”, the added quote “Israeli media reports said Ramati had broken protocol when he transferred documents to his computer, making them easier to steal” was an additional reason for concern. Israel, a nation that has been under attack for decades, where Muslim fanatics will seek any way to get a hold of information that can further any anti-Israeli cause got a little help when Yair Ramati transferred documents to his personal computer. Now the issue is not that simple, because I myself tend to hold much higher levels of protection on my own computer than the corporate networks tend to have, as such it would be safe, but infrastructure and the rules on them are clear in most networks, even more so in the slightly less trusting environment of the IDF, so what gives?

In the world of cyber, ignorance is no longer an option, ignorance can quite literally get you and your friends killed. Socially, Financially or actually killed in a death certificate kind of way, the IDF (read: Mossad Cyber division) is very aware of that and for a person like Yair Ramati to make a mistake like that, is it complacency or just plain stupidity?

Well, I am less on the side of stupidity, because stupid people do not head the Iron Dome project, they just remain janitors; so should we ‘over-analyse’ this? Yes we should, mainly because complacency is a massive issue. We all do this at times. Any person who states no is either lying to you or will soon be lying to you. We all drop the ball at times, the error might be small and it will not be to the extent of copying files to a personal computer, but those moments will happen. Phishers, hackers and others are all awaiting you to make that basic flaw one day. The only excuse where such a flaw might be excused (to some extent) is burnout. We get to be too exhausted and in one moment we think ‘oh whatever’ the moment you endanger it all.

That is the moment we need to worry about, because it will always happen.

ABC had an interesting quote “Three people familiar with Mr Ramati said, on condition of anonymity, that he had improperly handled classified documents but was not accused of criminal misconduct like espionage“(at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-28/israeli-missile-defence-director-dismissed-over-security-breach/7056400). From the data I have on Yair Ramati I feel like I should explicitly agree (not that my view can be expertly vetted), but a man like Yair Ramati with decades of loyal service does not commit espionage as I see it, the state of Israel will use his services again and again and with the last three years of missile attacks, I reckon burn out set in and Yair Ramati had his ‘oh whatever‘ moment. This event is a wakeup call for the Israeli security services in more than one way, because this situation could have more than one person in such a predicament. Some of the boffins at the IDF are in dire need of some mental health support, not in the way that they are unbalanced, they actually are, as some of them are exhausted!

A side Hamas and Hezbollah might be hoping for at present, you see when the really good ones are too tired mistakes are made and those mistakes will be exploited. And these exploitation might be on an additional side too. You see, as ABC reported “Israel has received hundreds of millions of dollars in US funding for the three missile defence systems, whose private contractors include Boeing Co, Raytheon, and Elbit Systems“, what happens when its main conductor is no longer creating the symphony? What will that mean for the product at large? We might focus on Iron dome, but the stretch goes a lot further than this. Consider places like Ashot Ashkelon Industries Ltd. People like Haim Defrin and Julian Cohen, unlike the board with people like Avi Felder, Yoram Shechter, Yehuda Gai et al. Haim and Julian are in the thick of things. With additional military pressures and of course the responsibility to get the highest quality, they are under constant need (read: pressure) to deliver, when were they taken aside, to unwind, educate them on common cyber sense and when were their stress levels reduced? Not to mention their parent company IMI (Israel Military Industries). For every organisation, there tends to be an In Bitching Mode overall whining umbrella corporation, nes paz?

So in that light, it is not entirely impossible that Udi Adam and Avi Felder at IMI could be facing dilemmas of a similar kind within their infrastructure, the question becomes, is it happening, is it containable and unlike the step made now by sacking Yair Ramati, can a solution be found to reinvigorate the soul of the loyal population that has been pushed and pushed again and again?

You see, some might see the transgression by Yair Ramati as a part of legal and security (not debating that), but we all forget that Common Cyber Sense is equally Operations, Strategy and HR. HR has a much bigger role to play, because if this is stress and burnout, than it is clear in my view that HR failed the people who have been loyal to their infrastructure, success all the time is an illusion, a person will fail to some extent, the issue is to make sure that the damage is averted. I cannot state whether this was an option for Yair Ramati due to the size of the transgression, but certain questions are asked to the lesser extent. It is the Guardian quote “The former director of the Israeli atomic energy commission, Uzi Eilam, told Israel Radio he had known Ramati for 30 years and found the news hard to believe“, in a place like Israel, when a person with 3 decades of knowledge has an issue, my view is that the dismissal might not be an overreaction, but the issues leading to this are a lot more important than we realise and another set of proper investigations (by the right people) is an essential next step.

Ignorance is not an option and the question becomes was that ignorance just in the court of Yair Ramati, or had that ball been dropped by his superiors in another field at an earlier stage?

It is not a question I can answer with the information I have, but there are enough indicators to ask that question out loud, now it is up to the right people over there to ask a similar question and it is up to them to do some proper investigations.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Military, Politics, Science

Tagged as ABC, Ashot Ashkelon Industries Ltd, Avi Felder, Boeing Co, Elbit Systems, General Udi Adam, Haim Defrin, IDF, IMI, Iron Dome, Israel, Israel Military Industries, Julian Cohen, Raytheon, the Guardian, Udi Adam, Uzi Eilam, Yair Ramati, Yehuda Gai, Yoram Shechter

December 24, 2015 · 09:33

Where the insane runs the asylum

The Guardian had an unsettling article yesterday (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/22/david-cameron-us-america-refuses-british-muslim-family-disneyland). Now we all know that US protocol is not completely up to scrap. It gets enforced by people and certain systems are updated by people, so things will go bump into the night. For a family of 11, trying to get their Christmas dream in play, that fact must be overwhelmingly unsettling. You see, they were refused to get to the US. The issue “a family party of 11, about to embark on a dream holiday for which they had saved for months, were approached by officials from US homeland security as they queued in the departure lounge and told their authorisation to travel had been cancelled, without further explanation“.

On the one side… No scrap that!

There are two sides, either there is a genuine issue and in that case DHS would have had to have updated the British security services. If that is not the case than we have a first case of evidence that the DHS data systems are now so garbled it can no longer distinguish between friend or foe, which is another matter entirely.

So “Stella Creasy, the Labour MP for Walthamstow, has written to the prime minister she is concerned that a growing number of British Muslims are saying they have had similar experiences of being barred from the US without being told the reasons for the exclusion“, this is indeed an issue.

Friedrich Nietzsche: A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything

First we must acknowledge that the US has not given a reason, so we are merely speculating, yet why avoid tourist income? Well, the Canadian Star had reported on a similar issue in March 2015, here we see the following quote: “United States Customs and Border Protection refused to comment on the Al-Rawi incident, but said travellers are responsible for proving their innocence“, so a tourist is regarded as guilty until proven innocent? How does that relate to the Law that is unless the Supreme Court states that presumption of innocence does not apply to tourists and Muslims and that should be a barrel of fun for everyone all over!

From my side, I always tend to keep an open mind, but here I have too many questions. refusal means flags, flags means data, that data should be shared with British Security services, if not, then why are we allies with America? Because they are so powerful? They remain utterly bankrupt in my eyes, the fact that they buckled a few times and the fact that the press is now looking at Russia as the possible salvation for the Syrian situation should be ample signs that America has outlasted their power base. The fact that the Canadian example involves a physician from Toronto General Hospital gives way to even more questions as this was not some plumber with a small business, it was a doctor with a position and a solid foundation for the future of his family, the idea that he wants to throw that away for an uncertain live in a nation now ruled by bigotry is not really that reliable a source, is it? I would choose live in any town in Canada over any city in the US any day of the week, but that’s just me!

Havelock Ellis: The place where optimism most flourishes is the lunatic asylum

“The MP, having “hit a brick wall” in her own attempts to get answers from the American embassy, has asked the prime minister to press US officials for an explanation for the Mahmood family’s exclusion“, which is interesting, the fact that an elected official is not receiving any answers leans towards the fact that the issue is not founded and that the lack of foundation implies unreliable data.

You see, an individual might not get an answer, an elected official (in this case Labour MP Stella Creasy, would have had access to a higher echelon of staff, meaning the answer ‘security flag’ could have been received. It will then be up to the British Security Services to resolve this (or investigate this). At which point the mere notice “We apologise, yet information has been obtained that regards you and your family a possible risk“. Now that might not be nice to hear, but that also means there is something to work from. As British Security Services are on average 300% more efficient than the US alphabet teams, more info would have been begotten. In my mind the question now becomes, if US data is unreliable, how come, who has been filling up that part of the system? The old ‘Garbage in Garbage out’ applies, even to today’s systems (even a little more when you see some of the assumptionary techniques Palantir Government allows to use). That last part needs a little explanation, actually Palantir has a good handle on it. You should read ‘THE POKÉMON PROBLEM: A NEW ANTI-PATTERN‘ (at https://www.palantir.com/2009/03/the-pokemon-problem/). As I see it (read: assumption), some analysts have been rehashing data, iteration upon iteration. So as such, some given elements will become the anchor while it should be nothing more than a passing event that is linked to an ACTUAL anchor. You see the article has ‘the’ solution with ‘the visitor pattern‘, yet consider, when someone makes these files, using temp files (as any analyst will do), now consider that those temp files are not properly managed and over a set of iterations that value was saved in the file for speed reasons. So the end of that article reads: “We now have easy re-factoring, no resource leaks, and have simplified calling code. And finally: there are no new bugs to be introduced by callers that aren’t sure how to use our resource. Looks like we caught ‘em all!”

True, there were no resource leaks, they were possibly written in a temporary variable by an analyst and not correctly wiped when needed. In this instance groups of people are wrongly classified, more irritating is that it could also clear people who should not have been. This solution is nothing more than an indication on how easily a mere flag can go wrong. The US manages bulk data on a massive scale on a daily basis, so one mistake is not an assumption, it is a guarantee, a system drained, stretched and under resourced is leaving a mark, now on people in different ways, a massive problem for the US government no matter how you slice it.

James L. Petigru: South Carolina is too small for a republic and too large for an insane asylum

The quote “Mahmood said neither he nor his brother, Mohammad Zahid Mahmood, had ever been in trouble with the police. They have been told by the airline they were to travel with that the £9,000 cost of their flights, for which they had been saving for many months, will not be refunded” gives way to even more issues. Not only were they deprived of status, they are deprived of funds. At which point we could see either an immediate refund, or if not given an overhaul of the US tourist industry. You see, the US would be required to give mandatory answers before the flight is paid for, that means that any interest in travelling to the US must be met with clearance, so not the 25,000 travelers, no the 354,000 interested parties must be vetted, which means that the DHS would run out of resources almost instantly, implying that they become useless even before they are needed. In addition, it also seems that they have a brother in Southern California. Perhaps there is an issue with data there (too)?

So how does this sit with the Prime Minister?

A Downing Street spokeswoman said Cameron would consider the issues raised in Creasy’s letter and respond in due course, which is of course fair enough, immediate response would not possible without all the facts and the US Embassy does not seem to be given any.

From the view I have, I don’t have one perse! You see data is at the core of this, but beyond the core there is the policy and the policy in play has been broken for some time now, the issue is that even in a broken policy, or should I say especially in a broken policy things will go wrong and the wrong people are labelled, it happens and for this family that is unfortunate, yet in all this the equal stress is that those who should be labelled are not, because that is a reality the US might not be properly investigating, mainly because it can’t, the data could realistically have become that cross contaminated.

How much value should you hold to my view?

Oscar Levant: There’s a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line

My knowledge of data got me partially here, my knowledge/experience part of that way, you see on one side you do not go lightly with such rejections, not even the US, so we should expect smoke, but the two examples shows clear questionable issues and I do not believe that this is only two instances, the real amount will be much larger, especially when we consider the UK, Canada, France and a few others. So how to use a data system where the data is no longer reliable? Because that is the question that is currently in question. If it turns out to be mere policy than the US will be in more problem than they realise because discrimination of that magnitude will not go unanswered for long.

So can this still be a mere security issue?

Yes, that remains possible but in that case another response should have been voiced by more than one party, no matter what, the cancellation of funds in excess of £9,000 will be another topic still, because the cancellation was not due to any fault of the travelling party, which is an issue the UK Watchdog should address and they should address it very soon.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as Al-Rawi, British Security Services, Canadian Star, David Cameron, Friedrich Nietzsche, Havelock Ellis, James L. Petigru, Mohammad Zahid Mahmood, Oscar Levant, Palantir, Stella Creasy, Stella Creasy MP, the Guardian, Toronto General Hospital, UK Watchdog, Walthamstow

December 13, 2015 · 21:50

It really is Cricket

I just got hit by news from last Friday. It is not about Marine Le Pen, or about the Russian tour that could hit Turkey soon enough, or even anything like a video game. No, this is me trying to plug an idea that allows us to ‘use’ the BBC to save an industry for no other reason that our love of a game. You see nature tends to hit everywhere, it tends to hit the just and unjust alike, such is the premise of nature and when nature hits there will always be a victim.

So, here I am reaching out to all those who love Cricket to make a real difference.

For this we might need the consent and support of Yogita Limaye, who brought it to my attention. In all this I want to make certain the banks cannot move in and take away a legacy, for them to move in and ‘offer’ a deal that will change the game. No, I am here to plea with you to make a difference.

So what do I have in mind? For this you need to watch the small article (at http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35070666), you see floods have ended a proud event. The production of Cricket bats. Now, the industry can recover but it will take decades to do that. Yes, we can watch and wait and see how some other brands move forwards and up the price, some people will never be able to afford that. I might have had an English Willow bat once, but not all can afford it. So this article got to me. An industry given a massive body blow through nature, it happens!

The man is pleading whether there are options of a 0% loan from banks so that the industry can be revitalised. I am going one better (in light of many banks not being that trustworthy).

What if we had a brown gold scheme, one with a difference?

Would that help?

In my view I am appealing to all the cricket fans in the world. We are millions! So what if we see if we can keep Cricket alive in a place in the world where for them Cricket is more important that Soccer is to the UK or Rugby to Australia and New Zealand? What if we make our own investment?

Now, be aware that this is an investment with a danger, you could lose all your money, but the price you are about to lose is no more than the purchase of a Willow Sapling. A sapling gets placed and as the article showed you, it will take 30 years for it to mature. You reward would be a genuine Jammu and Kashmir bat (plus the cost of shipping). Perhaps an investment present for your son or grandson, something that made a difference. Is that such a far-fetched idea?

The banks will be out of bounds and we all will have done something for the spirit of Cricket, what a thought.

So, is this idea far-fetched? I do not believe this to be the case. By buying a sapling now, we support the game, we support a green earth and we support an industry. Yes, it is in India and there should be plenty of people in India doing this, but why leave it to others? To buy a sapling for no other reason than our love of the game. Knowing that we gave support to families who have been working on the Cricket legacy for generations, that is something worthy to settle a few coins for, isn’t it?

Now, how to proceed forward? Well that is easier said than done. You see, I am an honest person, but you do not know that and the world is full of people claiming to be of good spirit, so as I see it, why not let the person who alerted us to all this make that start. I reckon most cricket fans will have enough faith in Yogita Limaye if she sets this up and appeals through the BBC will only rally the lovers of Cricket even more.

Now at the end of 2015, we see one more act to show the greed driven industry that greed is not the way and that an industry can be saved without resorting to exploitation. The goal as I see it will be 30,000 saplings. It will not be the overnight drive to restoring bat production, but it will be the helping hand that should ensure long term security.

So how safe is this? Well this is harder to predict. You see nothing is without danger and nature can be a spiteful and whimsy mistress to say the least. So, if you are tight in the budget, you should not do anything, the question becomes how much is needed and donating a sapling might not be the drain on the pocket and will be a restoring factor in karma and the goodwill should be good for the soul.

In the end, this might be just the crazy idea of a blogger who has a passion for Cricket, but aren’t the crazy ones those who set the first movement that makes a real change? I do not have all the answers, just a small crazy thought to give support to those behind the game. You see, the world isn’t all about some risk reward concept. I do not see the issue of high risk and earnings. I see an option to support my game and if it all works out, someone will end up with a nice cricket bat (I expect to be dead in 30 years).

So in that regard, the investment option, when considering the Time Horizon makes it a bad choice (for me), because the time that I have my investment in there will outreach my time to remain alive and I can’t take my Cricket bat with me where I am going to go.

The element of Bankroll is when we consider the options of Risk Tolerance, when I look at this, I expect my loss to be 100%; does that make it charity? No, because I am doing this for one element of Cricket, plain and simple. I could argue that I am making a really bad investment if profit is my business and we know from Wall Street that this is not illegal, they are not making any money out of this and I can really love that idea. We are not looking at leveraged trading, as some industries rely on losses that could exceed the investment, I (and those joining me) are only investing on the purchase of a sapling. Depending on the setup, we will buy an expensive sapling (to allow for maintenance), but in the end, our investment is brown gold, the making of a bat. Now those who have one look at your bat and consider the thought ‘My dad sponsored the tree that got me this bat‘, how awesome would it be when that is really the case!

I have no kids to leave it to, I will not be around to see the bat be made, and I am merely offering a thought where an industry in Jammu and Kashmir will not be drowned out, were we aid it to survive past a flood.

What will you do? Perhaps the better question is, if your sport got hit to this extent, what would you be willing to do? That is the karma enhancing question behind all this, for the simple reason that governments can no longer afford to do certain things, some governments were never willing to do anything and the commercial world only moves to the waves of profit and ROI, options never good for any sport unless it profits from mainstream advertisements and even then they will only move when it truly benefits them.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

Tagged as Australia, BBC, Cricket, Cricket Bat, English Willow, India, Jammu and Kashmir, New Zealand, Risk Tolerance, Time Horizon, UK, United Kingdom, Willow, Yogita Limaye

December 10, 2015 · 20:49

Defining progress, a deadly process

Something really dangerous was announced today. The Guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/dec/09/council-tenants-lose-lifetime-right-to-live-in-property) gives us: ‘Council tenants lose lifetime right to live in property‘, which in itself might not have been a bad thing, yet the text “new secure tenancies with local authorities forced to review contract at end of term” might be a lot more dangerous than people are realising at present. In this I am taking a rare position, which is in support of labour. Now, it might very well be that we are both doing it for different reasons. I agree with David Cameron who stated at the time: “There is a question mark about whether, in future, we should be asking when you are given a council home, is it for a fixed period? Because maybe in five or 10 years you will be doing a different job and be better paid and you won’t need that home, you will be able to go into the private sector”, which is fine. I will not oppose that, yet instead of making the council tenancies linked to an income with a grace period, setting them to 5 years for all will give huge problems (not just logistics) down the line. In equal measure (which was my issue) is that these temporary tenancies could open up the door to hungry developers to sneakily move in and grow their influence and take over block by block. There have been too many stories (many of them not confirmed) where property developers have had too much influence in areas, not just in the UK. With the greater London area in so much turmoil, adding the dangers of diminished tenancy, those dangers will grow and grow. The problem here is that by the time people act and stop certain acts from being done, too much danger has been imposed to the people who used to live there. So I have an issue with this approach. It is clear that changes are needed, even from the governmental standpoint to grow its own portfolio of affordable housing, but this is not one of those moments as I personally see it. To emphasize on this danger I am taking a look back at the past, the year that Windows 95 became a hot topic of discussion, some regard windows as what was on a PC, but when you look through an actual window, those people in Birmingham got a little more than they bargained for. The article (at http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/behind-the-birmingham-scandal-1609640.html) gives us the dangers that could become a reality again. The quote “This year, the Birmingham urban renewal budget was £38m – for both public and private housing. The problem of matching supply and demand is complicated by the latest variation in housing legislation. Anyone who applies for a grant – on a statutory form – must receive a response from the council within six months. The Government’s object was to take the initiative for urban regeneration out of the hands of councils and their professional planners. The result was a free-for- all in which the self-confident, the articulate (and invariably the prosperous) went to the head of the queue and monopolised the scarce resources” has a front seat here. So Birmingham ended up having two problems. An abundant amount of Ashton Villa fans being the first, the second one was that the brass and the articulate got to have a free go at the Birmingham Piggy Bank. The biggest fear is not the issues that have happened, but the schemes that cannot be stopped because they are still legally valid, so to say, the options that the government did not prepare for. Is that a valid fear? That is the question that matters and my answer is ‘Yes!’. You see, until 2009 we never knew that almost Draconian law would be required to keep bankers in their place, soon we will learn in equally drastic way that tenants are placed in immediate danger, yet with people and housing the problem becomes a lot more pressing and this new 5 year tenancy limit will soon become the danger because of something a member of parliament ‘overlooked’, which is why I side with Labour this one time.

In my view, that danger could have been thwarted by offering the following

A 5 year extension if no equal alternative would be available.
The clear side rule that the 5 year tenancy becomes active when the income has risen more than 30% in the last 3 years (which would still give that person access to rule 1).
An option to become the home owner, which must go to the home owner first and must be public in the second (no under the table deals for developers).

Yet when we see the quote “The new legislation forces councils to offer all new tenants contracts of between two and five years. At the end of the fixed term, local authorities will have to carry out a review of the tenant’s circumstance, and decide whether to grant a new tenancy, move the tenant into another more appropriate social rented property, or terminate the tenancy” is that not what is on the table at present?

You see linked to all this is one part that gives a little credit to Labour, specifically to Shadow Housing minister John Healey. The Financial Times reported “The national auditor is considering whether to investigate the government’s programme of subsidies for home ownership, after Labour raised concerns that it is a waste of public money” (at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/05703522-9dc7-11e5-b45d-4812f209f861.html#axzz3tuDm7ySX). You see, there is my issue to some extent, in light of the tenancy ruling point’s one and two always made sense, there is no argument here. My issue is that ‘buy to own’ is noble in thought, but as I see it, it is a shadowy entrance point for developers to quietly sneak in and start acquiring the area. Yes it take a fair bit of money, but the returns once the plot is complete is too massive to ignore. In my view this was the option that opened doors we tend to ignore.

There are good guys in this field, we will not deny that, but for every 5 good guys there is one that is a lot shadier than we bargained for. What happens when the overly positive calculations get some of these people to consider a BTL (Buy To Let) option, only to see in year 6 (or a little earlier) that the yields are worse than imagined, when these are ‘sold’ through, who picks up the bonus parts and who got the misrepresented losses invoiced?

They might seem like a different thing, but they are not. This is why I mentioned the issues in the same way I mentioned the Birmingham 1995 event. I believe that unless the legislation is a lot stronger here, the dangers become that these social places become reaping fields for ‘entrepreneurial’ (read exploitative) commerce and the people who always relied on a safe place to sleep will end up having no place at all.

This is where the road between me and Labour differs. You see shadow housing minister John Healey wrote to Sir Amyas Morse, The National Audit Office auditor general “a short-term windfall for builders and buyers at a long-term cost to the taxpayer”, a part I do not completely agree with. I think that the underlying text is “a short-term windfall for builders and buyers at a long-term cost to the taxpayer, which will transfer to developers at a massive loss to both the Treasury and the tax system as a whole”, which is not the same. I agree if someone states that it is my speculation and that John Healey does not go into speculation. To that person I state ‘You are correct, yet in equal measure that legislation should have been intensely tested for optional shortcomings towards developers and exploiters, has that been done?‘ It is my firm believe that it is not. We might all agree that this is not what legislation is about, yet legislation is about setting safety moments and a clear denial of transfer of ownership or a limit to the options any developers has in councils. A side we saw exposed by Oliver Wainwright (at http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/sep/17/truth-property-developers-builders-exploit-planning-cities) in: ‘The truth about property developers: how they are exploiting planning authorities and ruining our cities‘, you see, personally I am not convinced that this has been addressed. It is even possible that certain councils are even more toothless than they were a year ago and that is a bad thing. When you look at the article, take another look at the image with the caption ‘A scale model of London on show at this year’s Mipim international real estate fair in Cannes‘, you think that they gave a second glance at the tens of thousands of pounds that this scale model costs? The returns on that invoice are so massive it is a mere drop on a hot plate. In that environment the Conservatives changed lifetime tenancy. I agree that something had to be done, but the timing is off on both logistics and legislation surrounding this, that is what makes the event a lot more dangerous than parliament bargained for, which is at the heart of my issue here. Some will see “the Royal Mail Group has proposed a fortress-like scheme of 700 flats, only 12% of which will be affordable” as an issue. I think that the quote “The mayoral planning process is based entirely on achieving the maximum number of housing units on any given site, aimed at selling to an international market. The London-wide target of building 42,000 new units per year is predicated on a lot of very high density developments that don’t even comply with the mayor’s own policies on density” shows that the entire issue is greed driven and is not likely to yield anything affordable, which the 5 year tenancy that is likely to change even further. It is very possible that these moves allow the affordable housing to be placed on an income scale, which I would partially favour, but at present as the math does not take realistic economic values in mind, that scale will be based on 10 year old values, which means that the cost of living could be off by 35%, making food not the issue it already is. So in that view affordable housing is there for those who never need to eat, making the tenant deceased in more ways than one.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Ashton Villa, Birmingham, Boris Johnson, BTL, Buy to let, Cannes, Conservatives, David Cameron, Financial Times, John Healey, labour party, Mipim international real estate fair, Oliver Wainwright, Royal Mail Group, shadow housing minister, shadow housing minister John Healey, Sir Amyas Morse, the Guardian, The Independent, The National Audit Office auditor general

December 5, 2015 · 22:30

A citizen of the stars

There is a game in development, the title is ‘Star Citizen‘, I am unlikely to play it at present as I am a console player and I do not have the PC needed for decent gaming. Yet, I have always had a good view on games and gaming. As the news on this game is getting hyped in a weird way, it is time for me to step in and let me give you, the people (the readers) a view that matters.

First of all, my initial exposure to the game Star Citizen was about 4-5 months ago. The game seemed decent in a graphical way. It showed to be buggy as hell (read glitched), but in itself that is not a fair assessment. You see, the game was still in development, it was not even an Alpha version. I kept that in mind as I was looking at what I call to be, a product that is not in a reviewable position. The first view you must take comes from Bluedrake42 (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0pqkf8WXPE).

You need to see this to the end, because there are a few views that matter. Like him I understand game development. He goes on about Cry engine versus Unreal engine. I stand in the middle, yet his view ‘they made massive progress‘ and ‘they are close to making a decent finished product‘. This is a view from October 4^th 2015 (yes, World Animal Day). He then compares towards Elite Dangerous and No Mans Sky. His view: ‘it will be good in its own right‘, which is a fair assessment. He moves towards the issue of the expectations of the people. I personally think that he is trying to address the hyped expectations of an emotionally pushed audience, which is not the same. That is the part we cannot win, because it is an illusionary view that is not in league to the things that matter here.

So what to think of the views, the scandals and the illusion of the funded crowds.

For that we need to take a view on Forbes (at http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2015/10/04/star-citizen-developer-threatens-lawsuit-against-the-escapist-demands-apology-and-retraction/). It refers to the escapists issues that seems to be an issue on several levels. When we step back, there is an issue on communication and project management. When we take a step back we can see that there is an issue. The question becomes, do we keep on building or do we finish a part and then move on? David Braben opted for solution 2 with Elite Dangerous, which does not invalidate option one. I am not having a go at Chris Roberts or at Cloud Imperium Games. Why should I? I play on consoles and I am happy that universe based games are growing. You see, with Star Citizen around, both No Mans Sky and Elite Dangerous will up their game to make that game an even better game and I the gamer will win, you the gamer will win too.

So what is this about the escapist?

The following quote matters: “Star Citizen is an ambitious space simulation title from industry veteran Chris Roberts. The game began as a passion project, drawing inspiration from Wing Commander and Freelancer. Star Citizen promised a triumphant return to the space-sim genre by combining a huge universe with multiple gameplay options, a massive variety of ships, and no subscription fees“, this sounds interesting and it seems a little like Elite Dangerous. That part matters when we consider the next two quotes on the article “It’s never been done because it can’t be done. – Several sources” and “The popular consensus among most of the people who reached out is that Chris Roberts is not intentionally a con man; “He doesn’t set out in the morning to screw anybody over. He’s just incredibly arrogant,” CS2 stated“.

Now to take a look at the previous two quotes. You see ‘it cannot be done‘ is the first part we can burn down. Not only is Elite dangerous doing what Star Citizen is achieving (when you include Elite Dangerous Horizons), the parts that were promised can be seen at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ccKp1n13jQ. Which shows things that Elite Dangerous cannot deliver at present. In addition, what the movie shows is pretty amazing. Star Citizen shows an overwhelming approach Elite could not do when it was initially made (48Kb is not enough resources). Elite Dangerous is trying to get close what the current video is delivering. I will not step away from Elite Dangerous, but what the movies show makes me want to have a decent gaming PC.

It is the second part that is now an immediate concern, which is “consensus among most of the people who reached out is that Chris Roberts is not intentionally a con man“, so is this about defamation? ‘Most of the people who reached out‘ is an issue now. You see, the game has been in development for 3 years. This is no longer a mere simple space game. The FPS part of the game is like an upgraded version of Mass Effect in first person view. Better stated it is a very much upgraded version of Half-Life in space. So yes the game is still in development, it is in an Alpha version and it shows elements of Elite Dangerous, elements of Half-Life and elements of Mass Effect.

Have things been overpromised? It is hard to tell; when I consider the progress that I have seen over 4 months, that part is massive. An open sandbox of the universe which could be seen as a true open space MMO is pretty amazing. In opposition the allegations against the team and more important Chris Roberts is pretty far out there. Especially when we consider the growth, the evolution and what seems to be working at this very moment is just too overwhelming. So why is there a growing anti-Star citizen here?

It is a crowd funded game. The fact it drew in well over 80 million is a little big, but the game is growing towards the levels we are not used to see. At this point, the alpha looked better and more stable than Assassins Creed Unity did after it was released. So why the anti-CIG mode? There are all kinds of allegations out there, yet actual evidence is still to be shown. CIG has been very communicative (as far as the pages show me) and in addition, Sandi Gardiner and Chris Roberts have been on a mission to create something unique and so far the intense growth makes me wonder where the anti-movement is from. The fact that this independent product is coming from crowdfunding, whilst several triple A developers have not been that successful either, apart from the usual examples I have used makes it all more questionable. In this case I would like to mention Drive Club, a Sony game that was supposed to blow us away in 2014, which is likely to end up becoming the free PlayStation Plus game no one wants to download.

In my view, No Mans Sky will be the amazing product we hope it is and the designers will unveil it when they are ready and this is stated to be in June 2016. I will await that moment. Star Citizen is the game that will be released at some point and is already showing to be an amazing experience. Elite Dangerous remains my choice and it delivered the upgraded game on a massive scale that the CBM-64 version could never deliver and in all that the game experience transferred in an amazing way. The movies show Star Citizen to be on par with other space game Sims and I feel that it is decently certain that whomever crowdfunded this will end up with a copy of the game that they will love (from the game-play movies I saw), which makes it a game that might become a legend in its own right.

In all this, where does the escapist magazine remain? Well, there remains the view that the article shows (if no proper evidence is shown) that they could be in a defamation mess. In this, additionally I must state that there is enough evidence out there that that the game will become a reality, which does not mean that serious questions should not be asked. Yet, is that bad?

You see, through crowdfunding they needed 2 million and it seems that they ended up with ninety million, so the scope of the game has grown almost exponentially, this is not a bad thing. It does however come with a new dimension in problems. You see a 90 million game would be massively different in scope than a 2 million game. This implies that you the reader should keep a massive amount of skepticism in view of the allegations, especially when no one is willing to put a name with those claims.

As a game reporter, I have issues. I am not a fan of crowd funding, yet Elite Dangerous was done through that and is the success the players are loving. There are a few other successes, but for the most it is not a stable choice to make. Now Star Citizen is likely to be next success. With that we get another game where we get to become gamers who become citizens of a star system far far away, something many of the big developers were never able to do.

So I am ending with one more side, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gawRjeZisYY shows a pre Beta game with responses from gamers. A 1^st person part that is amazing (remember: pre Beta). Just one ship, flying around, walking around, which indicates that, even though delayed, the people who are on the Star Citizen train are about to get an experience that gaming has never delivered before, is that not what gaming is about? I will remain an Elite Dangerous fan, yet I can clearly see that this game will end up with a fan base that is massive, I have no doubt about that. Consider all the titles I mentioned in this article, how many of them allow to EVA to a derelict spaceship? None of them!

Realise that and consider where any of the valid anti-Star Citizen arguments remain.

Consider the elements:

A crowd funder has no rights to decide the company’s course.
A crowd funder is entitled to a finished product.
Crowd funders are entitled to updated communications from the makers.

And if there is one valid part of opposition in all this, than it is the part on management. Yes, as far as I can see, errors were indeed made, errors in the scope that are made all over the world on a daily basis. When you suddenly learn that you got an additional 88 million to grow your game, you will make a few more errors. Yet these people are not that ‘vocal’ when it is not ‘See Eye Gee’ that is making the errors, but another three lettered company that has had its share of bungles and screw ups all over its corporation (costing millions in the process), It is called ‘Eye Bee Emm’.

Cloud Imperium Games has done element three, it is working on element two and so far we see can see element one is not in play. So please do not give in to hypes (positive or negative) and consider the sources of any scandals implied and keep whatever thoughts you have and await the playable demo that is either Beta or a final version. I can only wish Cloud Imperium Games the best of luck and I look forward to take a real testing look at the finished product.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, Law, Media

Tagged as Bluedrake42, Chris Roberts, Cloud Imperium Games, Drive Club, Elite Dangerous Horizons, Elite: Dangerous, Forbes, Freelancer, Half-Life, Mass Effect, No man's sky, Sandi Gardiner, Star Citizen, Wing Commander

December 5, 2015 · 11:13

Perception

Perception is an essential need for all of us. Yes, it is used in videogames where the power of perception allows us to see our foes approach earlier (Fallout series), or it allows the game to play with our minds as floors become ceilings and where statues follow your every move (Eternal Darkness: Sanity’s Requiem). Just two of many options, but this is not about gaming or about a videogame. You see perception allows us to perceive the events as they take place. From my perception it is clear that the events in Martin Place were never terrorism, it was merely a case of a mental health crises with a hostage situation and that person happened to be a Muslim.

The events in France were clearly terrorism, it is that clear view that we could all watch that diminished whatever terrorism claim existed over Sydney, and perception does that.

But what about San Bernardino?

You see, that is not a question, it is not THE question, but it is an essential question. The guardian (at http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/04/san-bernardino-shooting-tashfeen-malik-isis-connection). Here we see that the FBI is investigating this shooting as an act of terrorism.

To their support we should consider

Suspects attempted to destroy ‘digital fingerprints’
Tashfeen Malik allegedly made pledge of allegiance to Isis in a Facebook post on day of the attack
FBI director James Comey said that there was “no indication that the killers are part of an organised larger group or form part of a cell. There is no indication that they are part of a network.”

In the first three elements, it is important to realise that the first one gives view to premeditation.

These three need to be kept in mind, yet the main issue is not just those three, now I need to push a few quotes together, so you see the view that I also perceive to be.

“Tashfeen Malik, 27, swore fealty to the terror group in a Facebook post on Wednesday, the same day she and her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, committed the rampage” is part one, which we now connect to “David Chelsey, a lawyer for Farook and Malik’s family, said many details “do not add up”. “There are a lot of disconnects and there are a lot of unknowns and there are a lot of things that quite frankly don’t add up, or seem implausible,” he told CNN. “It doesn’t make sense. No one has ever seen Syed with any of the things – with some of the things found on the scene, they’ve never seen them with him. The pipe bombs, for example. No one had ever seen him use or have anything like that,” he said“.

Now we get the issue at hand. If we accept David Chelsey’s words as absolute truth, we are faced with at least two scenarios that are a lot harsher than you might consider at present.

In the first, is David Chelsey in absolute lawyer mode? So to say, if the families Farook and Malik require isolation from the events, this is the play to make, which means that his clients might not have told him the truth. They might not have been lying, but that is not the same. Yes, it is possible that they never saw a pipe bomb, but that does not mean that they have not been privy to eccentricities like buying goods in the middle of nowhere when you can buy the same items 15 minutes away from their home. The lawyer might just be doing his job, but in equal measure he is aiding in changing a view from realistic to an intentional attempt to misinform the federal authorities, or more precise his clients are. It is an additional view towards premeditation in the worst case, and an intentional act to colour the glasses of those trying to sway the public.

Why am I stating this?

Consider you are a parent and your child picks up a gun and kills fellow schoolies and teachers, how would you react? When we have a mental health case like Sydney that view is one we can all understand, but what if your child shouts allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, now it becomes a different game, now the parent does whatever he/she does not to lose their own sanity. Can you blame them?

So is the FBI confronted with a case where the family was unaware, in denial or hiding their involvement/ we can state that the lawyer is not helping any of it, but that is not his fault, the FBI’s job does not get to be any easier!

In the second, when we consider the acts from Malik, who was born in Pakistan and travelled on a Pakistani passport, and recently lived in Saudi Arabia. She apparently met Farook online. In addition, the participation of Syed Rizwan Farook now ups the ante in all this. In addition we read “Christian Nwadike, who worked with Farook for five years, told CBS that his co-worker had been different since he returned from Saudi Arabia. “I think he married a terrorist,” Nwadike said“, so here is the issue, how did Christian Nwadike know? I am not stating he is right or wrong, I am asking, what signs were there? You see, I am going somewhere with this. Was Syed Rizwan Farook groomed for terrorism during his engagement period? It seems he lived an isolated life, which goes a long way towards making him an easier mark, yet in that, from the little I know of Muslims, one woman alone could not have done this, which implies that he’s had additional conversations with a Muslim Cleric, one he met whilst in Saudi Arabia, possibly with contacts before and after he came back, which would have gone a long way towards move for extremism, which makes destroying the digital fingerprint essential and possibly that part, if successful is part of the problem because that method can be employed again and not just in the US.

So is that all?

You see, this opens the door to the issue the FBI has been puzzling over for the better part of a decade. Home grown terrorism was always a worry, but the extent shown in San Bernardino gives view that part of all this remained under the radar of the FBI, which is the perception issue they have. They knew they had it, as they were trying to find options on how to deal with this, but in all this the reality is that perception is the only initial weapon a person have to counter the imagination of an extreme fanatic, yet is that enough and what else could there be?

It is not something that is easily answered. You see as FBI director Comey said, there are elements of evidence that will not make sense, but is that because the picture is distorted or is that because elements are missing. That is part of the puzzle that both the FBI and Homeland security are facing at present. This now gets us to the next perception, is this in part Lone wolf terrorism? The act here might not be, but the ‘support’ system behind this, is that part lone wolf terrorism? You see, part of these answers are not here yet and perhaps it will take a while for this to surface, but when we consider the pipe bombs we are also left with other questions. If this was a one way trip, why did the police find the dozen pipe bombs? KSNV, News3LV reports (at http://www.news3lv.com/content/news/story/12-pipe-bombs-thousands-of-ammo-found/sf3rLM0bzEWOxM3pBXLpZA.cspx), “Authorities have revealed 12 pipe bombs and more than 3,000 rounds of ammunition were found inside the San Bernardino suspect’s believed residence“, did they expect to start shooting, get away, go home and load up for the next round? You see, in all this perception is key. Now consider the elements that are required to buy and make these pipe bombs. Are you telling me that this does not get noticed? Well, apparently not. I can go to www.bulkammo.com and get myself 500 Rounds of 7.62x54r for the FN FAL for a mere $241, or $240 for 1000 rounds of 9 mm, which means that they had left for well over $750 in ammo at home. In addition, if they kept a certain lifestyle (spending), were no flags raised by the shifting of purchased goods? If we consider the other elements in play, where did the money come from? Perhaps his job allowed him to prepare to this extent, yet in all this questions come to the surface, a rational mind would expect that this was decently certain to be a one way trip, so why leave bombs and ammo at home? The part made no sense, unless they were not alone, perhaps another party was going to be in attendance but they bailed out at the last moment and as such this act was more hastily executed. It is mere speculation on my side, but that speculation comes from my own perception of the events seen. They could be very wrong!

You see that view is in opposition from the very last quote in the News3LV report “They were equipped and could have committed another shooting but we intercepted that“, did you really? Consider that the San Bernardino Police Department is a mere 3.5 miles away, at normal speed that is 10 minutes, at full speed and sirens no more than 3.5 minutes. That is all the time they would have had because there is an option that patrols are on scene, so getting back home was never truly realistic, so why leave it all there?

Were they head cases to begin with or is the FBI missing a few clues? Clues that David Chelsey is helping to muddy. Not by his choice, because he is representing his clients the best way he can, so I am not having a go at him in any way, shape or form. In addition, the weird act of their landlord to give the press access to their home is actually giving us additional questions. The house in the way it looked, was that how they lived? Did they never have guests and as such was the wife intentionally isolating her groomed co-shooter from the very beginning.

If that is the case, than how does the response from the family as voiced by David Chelsey make sense?

You see perception is an essential element, what we perceive, what others should have perceived and what the authorities perceive from all the data that they are receiving this very moment. How does it all fit?

At present it does not seem to fit at all, apart from the timetable and the fact that they either took no time at all for the ‘first’ shooting being able to get past South Waterman Avenue which then lead to the 4 hour manhunt. Again, this is not to place blame (in this case on the San Bernardino Police Department), but to get us to the question, that as the shooting had passed, how did the couple expect to get back home to pick up more bombs and ammunition? I asked it before and with the added information you too should consider the thought on how they could have gotten back to their homes to load up for more? It merely gives us the question mark and the idea that this was likely never meant to be a party of two. If we accept that speculation we will get to the final question, who else was involved (were more people involved) and what comes next?

What is your perception on this case?

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as bulkammo.com, Christian Nwadike, David Chelsey, FBI director James Comey, FN FAL, France, ISIS, James Comey, KSNV, Martin Place, Muslim Cleric, News3LV, Pakistan, San Bernardino, San Bernardino Police Department, Saudi Arabia, Syed Rizwan Farook, Tashfeen Malik

Category Archives: Law

Recent Posts

Archives