Category Archives: Law

May 18, 2014 · 12:07

Are we getting played?

I have been away for a little while, which happens! We all have priorities a times and for the most of us (including me), when we are not directly involved in an issue, we tend to ignore them. This applies for me too. Yet, the news as I saw it last night was a little more then just uncomfortable. Last April (the 15th), I wrote the blog article ‘Facts, Fiction or Fantasy‘. I got two responses on how ludicrous the ideas were and as they were just filled with profanities, I decided to trash the messages (it is my prerogative to do so). In the article, I mentioned on how Greece had started to sell bonds again. Their credit rating seemed to have gone up just ever so slightly. Now I read that over the last two days that bank shares have fallen 5.66% and 5.79% respectively. The first complaint that I am likely to hear is how these two are not the same and one does not mean that the other is true, which is correct, but consider the following. A bond is nothing more an ‘I owe you’ between the seller (the Greek government) and the buyer (the investor). The investor relies on information like credit ratings (from places like S&P and Moody for example) to make an assessment on how realistic the investment is. The fact that almost a month later the quote ‘Greek lenders are likely to face large losses over the next two years’ is seen, gives rise to the question whether any upgrade to the credit rating was valid.

Basically, the values of bank shares have diminished by 11% in just two days. How are we getting played? Consider that the banks are dependent on governments, consumers and others to survive. The fact that they went down 11% in two days in a month after the government sold another 5 billion in bonds is not unrelated. The fact that we got informed by the IMF (a ‘prediction’ which is bogus in my view), on how economies were getting better (they stated: “17 out of 18 economies would be positive economies in 2014”), was already not realistic, now we see the Greek bank shares drop and next, in regards to current credit ratings, Ireland now ‘suddenly’ gets a small upgrade.

The question becomes whether rating offices (like S&P and Moody) engaged in what I personally regard as a ‘criminal endeavor to perpetrate a fraud’ against the people of these nations? More important, are they servicing the American banking moguls in that respect? Let me elaborate on this thought. No matter how the American economy is seen, the USA treasury coffers are far beyond minus 17,000 billion (= 17 trillion). The interest on that must come from somewhere and the USA is not likely to be able to afford any level of paybacks for a long time to come, especially considering that this administration has been unable to achieve any kind of balanced budget from the moment they came into office. This is nothing compared to the total USA debt which is somewhere between 50 and 70 trillion (I have no reliable source on what that actual amount currently is). The idea that the EEC might fall apart must be a Titanic sized Wall Street nightmare at present. UKIP is growing (for now) and the French Front Nationale is definitely on course to become the leading French party. Both parties, as well as the Dutch PVV are all in favor of segregating away from the Euro mess and if that happens, the American goose is truly cooked. If they (the financial institutions) are playing a game where too many nations have added even more debt, then the chance of moving away from the EEC is less likely as it would become too unrealistic in regards to the costs that would be incurred on the French and British coin when the total EEC debts are spread around, which might be the game that is currently being played.

It is likely that my thoughts are completely wrong and so out of whack that they only belong with the conspiracy theory magazines. Yet, when we see the debts these places are in, then upgrading any level of credit is just utterly insane to begin with, so I might have something here.

It is not just the issue on ‘how’ or even ‘if’ there is any form of economic growth, the issue is that the outstanding debts are a local responsibility and in stead of push it forward to the next government in place, these governments (all EEC nations) have a sworn duty to stop handing debts onto the next generation. They have a solemn duty to lower the debt. It is not their responsibility to enable multimillion-dollar bonuses to financial groups. They must lower debts. We as people are not here to cater to a group of what I regard to be as flaccid US economists, we all need stronger economies and increasing debts are no way to get to these stronger economies.

Here in Australia we see the objections on the harsh measures that are now being taken by treasurer Joe Hockey. I agree with him to a larger extent. I have zero sympathy for the honorable Bill Shorten (The initials BS are interestingly fitting), on how campaign promises were ‘broken’. He should remember that it was HIS side that had overspend by hundreds of billions. Money their side did not have, so after dumping a car mess and debt mess on the Liberals, they are now crying in opposition. The added mentions by Chris Bowen are equally a joke as this is a Labor mess that the ALP members are now trying to resolve. None of them seem to mention that it was THEIR party in government that had spend the money they never had. Perhaps Labor should consider answering questions on how these issues, which were known long before the election started, should have been resolved before the election started. They will not have any answers there. They overspend and WE (the taxpayers) are now burdened with fixing these issues! In that regard Australia seems to be taking a leaf out of the book or Chancellor Merkel, who through massive austerity directives got the German economy in a much better shape. I feel relieved (even thought it hurts me too), that the ALP is now fighting to get the Australian economy stronger and the coffers of the treasury out of debt. Personally I still believe that when (not if) the US Dollar collapses after the first loan defaults, any nation in massive debt will learn the hard way, the price it faces when the debt is due. Those without debt will get to call the shots for the future and personally I will be happy when we will be sitting at the global governing table where we can choose what will be best for us. Those at the table without a coin should remain silent at the table, those holding the loan slips will get to decide the future for all others, a lesson that is likely to be humiliating and no fun for the citizens of the involved nations in debt.

In the end no matter how good an economy is, the upcoming profit will go to whomever they are indebted to for a long time to come.

It is not a nice solution and in these times it will never be a nice solution, but it must be solved and whilst we might see the insulating joke scandal that had cost money and lives are another side how the Australian Labor party had failed the Australian population. This is not just me bashing the Australian Labor party (no matter how entertaining that exercise is), Bowen is an economist and as such he should in my eyes know better then to proceed on the outspoken track he seems to be. The question in this regard is who Labor was listening to whilst Labor was governing with the fighting twins at the head of that table (Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard). I feel certain that during that term someone was advising the treasurers Wayne Swan and Chris Bowen (which would be a perfectly valid act), who were the advisors in those years? We can all agree that even though overspending by hundreds of billions is a really bad idea, claiming it was only the treasurers act is just folly! Someone had an advisory plan and the Australian people has a right to know who that was, especially as it is Chris Bowen (former treasurer), now claiming that current affairs are so out of touch with reality that he is rallying the people against the ALP at present. I do think that some cutbacks are too harsh, yet, as I see it, Labor has no right to speak out, as these matters would not be the issue if they had not overspend all these billions.

This is at the heart of the matter; it is about the advisors behind the screens. We need to see and hear those names! When we seen the list of advisors in that regard (on a global scale), we might be able to start painting a picture. There is even a chance that this picture is a lot more incestuous then a global view of Market Research, but we will decide on that when the picture is drawn.

We can all agree that governing parties are in need of advice and as such, they draw a plan, which is/was executed. So where did the debt come from and who did not close the wallet in time? If that was just the treasurer, then Chris Bowen has in my view no right at all to be this upset as he was the previous treasurer. That part is exactly part of the pain that is playing in Greece and perhaps soon in Ireland too. Where are the people behind the screens? If Sky News is to be believed then the prospect that ‘Greek lenders are likely to face large losses over the next two years‘ shows that upgrading the credit rating of Greece and the subsequent selling of billions in bonds was more then just a really bad idea. It boils down to another example of bad news management. I wonder whether investors would have a claim if they lost money on the purchased bonds only one month ago. Should my case be proven, it should also be clear that we should see the names of those ‘advising‘ on increased credit scores. I do not mean the names of the companies, but the names of the individuals who signed off on that news. Just like the names of the EEC economists that claimed that 17 out of 18 economies would grow in 2014 (mentioned in my blog on May 8th called ‘Public Naming‘).

It is time to shine a light on those who are the cause of many governments overspending their budgets by a lot and on those ‘analysts’ who seem to decide on how much an economy ‘should’ grow, especially as they drop the value of Twitter, who grew revenue by 119% (an amazing feat), which amounts to almost a quarter of a billion dollars. In my view, we the people are getting played by a select group of ‘economists’, who seem to be making more per person per month post taxation then most of us make in a year pre taxation. If you think I am kidding, then consider that the $5 billion in Greek bonds from last April represented a bonus value of $50 million; do you still think I am kidding? When Ireland ‘suddenly’ starts selling bonds, remember that someone will end up with up to 1% of that amount in commissions.

We are all getting played to some extent and it is high time that this stops before we end up paying the bills of other people’s overspending spree! Getting out of our national debt should be our only concern until this is achieved. A goal that should be shared by all the EEC nations as well.

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

Tagged as ALP, Australia, Bill shorten, Chancellor Merkel, Chris Bowen, credit rating, credit ratings, EEC, Germany, Greece, Greek bonds, Greek government, Ireland, Joe Hockey, Julia gillard, Kevin rudd, Labor, Twitter, Wall Street, Wayne Swan

April 19, 2014 · 10:11

Limitations of the law?

It is an interesting, yet disgusting twist on the laws that involve freedom of speech. In Europe, the commonwealth as well as America, most of the nations in these groups have always championed freedom of speech. Yet, should there be a limit to that? Some argue that this should not be the case. The Netherlands has seen a first limit as it should exist in my mind. Those who have studied the law might be familiar with the Grudge Informer. It was one of my first law essay topics. Should unjust laws be accepted? This was at the heart of the matter, but what does this have to do with the freedom of speech?

In the Netherlands a case had proceeded through the courts involving what some call the freedom of speech, but what should be regarded as the dangers that is represented to children. The case went from court to the highest court, the Dutch equivalent of the UK Court of Appeal (US Supreme court). In there it was decided yesterday that the organisation ‘martijn’ is to be dissolved. (NOS News, April 18th 2014).

So what is the issue? Even though the case went on in regards to ‘freedom of speech’ and even though Mr Jon Schilder, Professor of Dutch constitutional law (Hoogleraar staatsrecht) is speaking academically that this is a dangerous development, the issue is that the organisation was about the protection of paedophiles. I did not go and utterly refuse to visit the site; I will not mention the location here either. The parents who took on this task after their child of three had been sexually abused have won the case after 4 years. They were appalled that the organisation had a website which, as it was stated that glorified paedophilia as well as handed insights into avoidance of prosecution as well as instruction on how to minimise a person’s forensic footprint.

I cannot fathom the issues that play in regards to the freedom of speech as it casually endangers children. This goes far beyond the issues of accountability that I have always championed. The fact that a national constitution has such a draconian level of freedom that anything goes is beyond my comprehension. (at http://nos.nl/artikel/637394-advocaat-van-martijn-teleurgesteld.html) The words from Lawyer Bart Swier are even more unsettling “Mijn bezwaar is dat er slechts sprake is van een denkbeeldig theoretisch risico, en niet van enig concreet gevaar. Dat zou eigenlijk de maatstaf moeten zijn voor een dergelijke vergaande inbreuk op de vrijheid van meningsuiting” translated: “My objection is that there is only an imaginative theorhetical risk and there is no concrete danger. This should be the measure for such an intense breach on the freedom of speech“.

I understand that Mr Swier is representing his customer, but can anyone even consider any level of ‘rights‘ when the foundation of such rights are a direct danger to the health and welfare of children?

When we look at the article at http://nos.nl/op3/artikel/637506-pedofielenvereniging-nu-echt-verboden-wie-vindt-wat.html, where we see the following: “Een groep van 49 wetenschappers, acteurs, schrijvers en andere bekende gezichten deed twee dagen geleden in de Volkskrant een oproep om Martijn niet te verbieden” translated: “A group of 49 scientists, actors, writers and other well known faces made a plea in the Volkskrant (a Dutch Newspaper) to not make the organisation illegal“.

Even if I could agree to the Freedom of Speech to the extent that the Dutch would like it to be, this organisation is for people with a sexual preference for children. In my mind it is the most horrific crime possible. It goes beyond anti-Semitism or Genocide. This is about the mental and physical destruction of a young life, which has no defence and will continue through life physically damaged, mentally broken and often far worse than both. It is utterly unacceptable in my mind. Although I have a good grip on the need for a freedom of speech, any act, consideration or even contemplation that can be regarded as a danger to children should not just be disallowed, those involved should be prosecuted beyond what we consider ‘correct’. Be mindful that I phrased ‘can be regarded as‘. Any danger to any child is not to be allowed EVER! If this world is to continue in any way, then this can only humanely happen if the safety of any child is set above all others.

Any law that endangers a child should be seen as unjust and therefore should not be abided to, which was at the centre of the Grudge informers. In a similar light, we should consider the US with their Jessica’s law, a law that had been championed by Bill O’Reilly to be passed into law. The official version is ‘The Jessica Lunsford Act’, (H.R. 1505 of the 109th Congress). It was never voted on and the law did not pass. There was some opposition and controversy, yet at the heart this act was to protect children under 12, by setting a massive verdict on any adult who sexually engaged with a child under 12. In my view Mr O’Reilly had the right sentiment and the 109th US Congress who had led this slide should reconsider their point of view as they failed to better protect children. I will admit that there are likely legal issues that are true issues to resolve, yet the foundation is that this was about protecting children. Like the Dutch verdict which showed a rarely seen danger in regards to the freedom of speech. It is more fitting that this concerns both Civil Law and Common Law. How can the law be so ‘tolerant’ towards the dangers to a child?

A legal failing to a group so unable to defend itself is a failing to the Justice system as a whole; there is my link to the Grudge Informer. The question becomes whether the law has failed, or is failing the protection of children. It is a hard verdict, but from these two points, that failing is a yes, however, there are two sides to this. On one side, I feel uncertain to additionally act against a Paedophile with new laws, as this would complicate the entire prosecution under the Mental Health Act, as this is dealt with through the DSM-V (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). And my reasoning is that I would not like to introduce some weird loophole giving them additional legal escape routes. Yet, this should not stop the legal groups to add additional protection to the child as well. If we consider the Dutch case, then the existence of the organisation, gives a clear view that there is premeditation, which in itself should allow for additional protection of the child. Even though the organisation is now illegal (as per yesterday’s verdict), these people will find other ways and it is almost a certainty that they will ‘connect’ online. This should give the law makers a direction where the ‘hunt’ should start. Although hunt is an incorrect legal word (the sentiment is however very correct), the need for a shield that protect children on a global level is an essential one and should be regarded as a first priority for lawmakers everywhere. Consider in that part the article (at http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42108748/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/massive-online-pedophile-ring-busted-cops/), there was no date given in that article, but the fact that this involved 70,000 members is something that should scare lawmakers and parents alike.

We as adults all have a sacred duty to keep all children; no matter who’s they are safe from the dangers of such predators. In my personal humble opinion, in regards to the Dutch sentiment on the freedom of speech in this particular case, I hereby state: ‘freedom of speech be damned!‘

The protection of a child should always be first!

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Politics

Tagged as 109th US Congress, Bart Swier, Bill O'Reilly, freedom of speech, Hoge raad, Jessica's law, Jon Schilder, martijn, Netherlands, NOS, paedophiles, The Jessica Lunsford Act

April 10, 2014 · 12:57

One debt too far?

I feel interestingly happy today. It is almost like I got the big role in the new Alice in Wonderland play. As i am a guy, some will think it is the role of the Mad Hatter or even the March Hare (there is supporting evidence that I am mad as a hatter and nuts as a Hare), but no! Those are not the leading roles. The leading role (apart from Alice) is the Cheshire cat, who was guiding Alice down the path.

The reason for these, are the events as I saw them this morning in the news. These events all took me back to my article on the 19th of June 2012 called ‘The accountability act – 2015‘. My quote ‘This is about stopping those walking out with non-existing virtual profits, turned into real money, and leaving others behind to clean the mess‘, is at the centre of that all.

This is all linked to a number of things, which by the way will have bearing on the Ukraine as well. The first is the article that we saw on Sky News (at http://news.sky.com/story/1239678/imf-warns-investors-over-rock-bottom-rates).

We see two quotes. The first gives us the warning “Investors are becoming dangerously reliant on rock-bottom interest rates, with many becoming so indebted they will face serious problems when borrowing costs rise, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has warned“. The problem is that these investors include several governments. When we see in that same article “the amount of cash spent on leveraged loans – the high-debt instruments with financial problems – now exceeds the level in 2007 before the crisis“, we are starting to see a clear pattern. In my view this pattern is that those who were in charge are doing it again. Those who wielded certain options are now doing it behind the screens. They are servicing a ‘population’ of what I consider to be not too bright members of a government executive branch and as such the fallout will be well beyond what we considered possible before.

The last quote “The IMF said it was also concerned about the levels of debt in the emerging markets” is the one I leave in the middle for now, I will however get back to this one later in this article.

The second article comes from the IMF themselves (at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2014/POL040914B.htm) “Across advanced economies, the pace of fiscal consolidation is set to slow in 2014 as focus shifts to how to best design fiscal policies supportive of both further consolidation and a still uneven recovery“.

This reads as ‘In the US, EEC and Japan, the pace of reducing government deficits and debt accumulation will slow as governments are staring at designs of new fiscal plans for consolidation in the near future’. There could be other explanations, but consider that these three players have been utterly unable to close their wallets. They keep on overspending many billions (in the case of the US and Japan up to a trillion) of money they do not have. Over the last several months we have witnessed bad news management on many PRESS levels, whilst not actually looking truthfully at certain events. I will not insult the reader’s intelligence by quoting the LA Times in this case, but the headline that ‘the Global Economy is strengthening‘ reads like nothing less than a joke. The article read like a promotion page, with no real value, other than the percentages they were ‘boasting’ about. For the record, the US leading the way with less than three percent whilst Chinese growth is set at well above 7% might be correct, yet in the second part the US was leading as one of the developed nations, implying that China was not a developed nation, go figure!

The issue (as not shown by the LA Times) is that there are delays with the US for the IMF. In a quote from Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey, the following was phrased by ‘the Australian‘ “Senator Ted Cruz said that the package would unfairly raise US contributions while undermining its influence” (paraphrased).

This reads wrong in several ways. Is the IMF not supposed to be impartial in all this? The mission statement of the IMF (at http://www.imf.org) states “The IMF’s main goal is to ensure the stability of the international monetary and financial system. It helps resolve crises, and works with its member countries to promote growth and alleviate poverty“, it might just be me, but does that not require an impartial approach? If the US has too much influence here, how can stability be achieved, or is this the world according to ‘the US congress’? (I will steer away from blaming the White House here, as the IMF is supposed to be a long term planner and the White House is a short term location, in sets of 4 years).

It is however interesting how little there is to find on US Congress and the IMF, even by the larger newspapers. I was able to find http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/07/us-imf-reform-britain-idUSBREA361BX20140407. This article was published two days ago and it is interesting to see how many newspapers veered away from this Reuters article. Reuters had this quote “The failure of the U.S. Congress to ratify the agreed IMF reforms is bad for the institution and bad for the international community“. The additional part “A bid to get Congress to approve reforms of the IMF was dropped last month amid concerns that it could hold up a bill providing aid to Ukraine” as well as “The White House has been urging Congress for a year to approve a shift of $63 billion from an IMF crisis fund to its general accounts, as agreed by the U.S. government in 2010” are cause for concern. These payments were due for the IMF long before the Ukrainian crisis was on the map. So is this about not having any influence, or is this an early signal that the US has completely run out of money?
Yet a Chinese site (at http://english.cntv.cn/2014/04/08/VIDE1396947727947648.shtml) shows us that in their view with “The Spring gathering of the International Monetary Fund is approaching. China, Russia and other major developing nations are angry about a delay in reforms that give them more voting rights at the IMF. Now the countries are pushing forward with the reforms without waiting for the United States“, so now we get another view on the matter, Was Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey playing nice with the Chinese, or is there more? I personally do not think that he was ‘just’ playing nice. I have predicted before that the time with the US as a superpower would end. I have stated this for almost a year now. No matter where the interest of Texan Republican Senator Ted Cruz are and I have no doubt that his interest is Texas first, America second and his family third. Before you the reader thinks or even accepts the allegations by some that he is some newly formed version of the infamous McCarthy, then think again! When I did the math in a previous article called ‘Biased Journalism on USA shutdown?‘ which I wrote on October 1st 2013. Here we saw that Texas is one of only three states that could shoulder the national debt if it was evenly spread. So, to keep Texas strong, Ted Cruz has a fair point in regards to the IMF influence, but that is not what the IMF is about and it is Washington DC that went along with that, which means his hands are slightly tied.

The IMF article has set out that people are playing profit or government bail-out again (they did not state that, but the article implies it to some extent). The governments are not speaking out against these acts and as such we could face another massive economic setback in early 2015. In a minimal defence for Republican Ted Cruz it must be said that the IMF and the EEC are on a dangerous course. The Guardian is filled with messages on how the crises seems to be over and on how Greece is turning a corner towards better times. This is done at a time when it still needs another 8 billion; unemployment rates are at an all-time high and with European incomes remain dwindling down, Greek tourism is likely to remain far below levels for another 2-3 years.

It is the Catholic charity Caritas (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/27/europe-economic-crisis-worse-caritas-report) stating “disturbing levels of poverty and deprivation being noted among children and youth“. This is at the centre of the issues that are enveloping Spain, Italy and Greece. In addition a 114-page inquiry into the human cost of the crisis also mentions Cyprus, Ireland, Portugal and Romania. This might not be at the centre of the mission statements that the IMF goes by, yet these industrial nations rely on workers, the fact that these nations are in such a state is a clear signal that several governments are not up to speed to give the needed aid to those people. This is not in regard to the intent a government has, but the IMF signals seem to be lacking certain reporting flags at present. the Catholic report is a first clear signal that those ‘happy happy joy joy‘ reports that economies are getting better are basically skating around the issue that is holding many down and for some considering the statement that ‘these two issues are not connected‘, should consider standing in a corner staring at the wall and feeling ashamed for even considering the thought to begin with.

Now, I promised to get back to the Ukraine as I stated in the beginning. When we consider last year’s BBC article (at http://www.bbc.com/news/business-13366011), we saw that between 2009 and 2012, Germany was the ONLY nation who had its budget set correctly. The rest was short between 1% and 10% of their budgets. It is nice that these nations speak on percentages, because those shortages go into the hundreds of billions for some nations. The twelve nations represent over 53% of the entire EEC giving a summed deficit of 13.2 percent. This in itself is not a fair assessment, so let’s turn this around into a number. This number comes down to minus 546 billion, which is just the deficit for 2013. So, the governments are not keeping their balance in any way, in addition, we now see that investors are slowly playing their ‘games’ again. There was a rush on Greek bonds, because the evidence is coming that these people will get their money no matter what. So, why do we have any form of bail-outs? It is clear that overspending is not punished, so the entire Austerity posturing seems like an empty threat. I am all for helping out those in need, but it seems more and more clear that those ‘in need’ are not doing their part in cutting down on spending in any way, shape or form. So when (not if) the train goes off track, those smaller nations will be left to their own devices, ready to get exploited by all bigger companies to get their dividend. With the larger players India and China, it seems that US companies and bigger players want cheap nations for whatever market they want to get to. In such sights is it even a wonder how areas of the Ukraine are now in fear of what comes next?

That part is shown in several ways. Even though there is now such a boasted evidence of corruption in the Ukraine as the involvement of the ‘former’ president Yanukovich. Yet, if we accept and use the paper by Anna Yemelianova and is called ‘A Diagnosis of Corruption in Ukraine‘ (at http://www.againstcorruption.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/WP-14-Diagnosis-of-Corruption-in-Ukraine-new.pdf), which I mentioned on March 18th, then there is no way that corruption is limited to one side of politics. Corruption in the Ukraine is too wide spread and any player above a certain level has to be tainted to some level.

It is still puzzling why the EEC and the US are so set on the Ukraine. Why set yourself up for these levels of costs? Why get in bed with the Ukraine, whilst the bulk of the EEC has overspent by well over 500 billion. Is it any wonder that some Ukrainians are frightfully running back into the Russian arms? If we believe the Russia Today, with their headline ‘US wants to destroy Ukrainian ‘bridge’ between EU and Russia – German intellectuals support Putin‘ (at http://rt.com/news/germans-support-putin-ukraine-265/), then we see the view of a struggling USA, who reports a nice number, but when payments are due, America will only be able to do so by taking another debt ceiling hike, which places them well over the edge of bankruptcy. I have some issues with the article for other reasons. Yes, the EEC wants to keep a good relationship with Russia, if only for the reason that most of Europe relies on cheap Russian Gas, which, when absent will push the bulk of the European middle class squarely into the poverty bracket. I am just wondering whether retired German Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jochen Scholz was hoping to get a free training course in flying the Sukhoi T-50 stealth fighter, making him the first NATO officer to ever be allowed in ‘new’ state of the art Russian equipment (this is an insinuated assumption on my side). The article has a few more issues that are slightly too vague, but the sentiment is not incorrect. The American Anti-Kremlin approach in an age of non-accountability in the era of finance is an issue for too many people. So here is me, the Cheshire cat, all smiling and smirking on events currently playing out.

If the accountability act was indeed a reality on all Common Law nations, certain games would not be played and as such nations (the US, all EEC nations as well as Japan) would be in actually movement out of a ‘debt abyss’ and not at the whimsy of high stakes investor poker games where when it works they get a large bank account, if it fails they will get bailed out by the governments in some unnamed way, which does not seem to get a massive amount of press visibility.

So here we have it, what I evangelised from the very beginning or my blog. The world can be a better place, especially if people are held accountable for their actions. That part gets even more visibility when we notice a lack of press visibility ion some regards. When we see the Standard, a UK newspaper (at http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/press-freedom-debate-royal-charters-are-medieval-piece-of-nonsense-8898388.html) where it is all about the issue as “Media heavyweights have branded the government’s proposed royal charter for press regulation a ‘medieval piece of nonsense’“, yet only a little over a week earlier when the Telegraph reported (at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10720237/Malaysia-Airlines-crash-Suicide-mission-theory-of-MH370-investigators.html), how the MH-370 was a ‘suicide mission’. A piece that was so bad that it’s journalistic value was less than the photo that the Sun used to publish on page 3. This happened before the plane was found, without a black box, lacking in facts, but with a photo of a cabin crew member on page one of the newspaper. At the same time, the issue of the US Congress in regards to the IMF reforms, as stated by Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey has not made any non-Australian papers. So, again, as I have always stated, there should be freedom of the press, but there should also be accountability, which is exactly what Lord Justice Leveson had advocated. Perhaps some regulation would not be too far out of context as we see a lack of informative journalism and a still unhindered tsunami of paparazzi based articles.

If we are truly one debt too far, is it not time for accountability to step in?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Alice in Wonderland, Anna Yemelianova, Cheshire cat, China, CNTV, Common Law, EEC, government, IMF, International Monetary Fund, Japan, Joe Hockey, LA Times, Lieutenant Colonel Jochen Scholz, Lord Justice Leveson, national debt, NATO, Republican Ted Cruz, reuters, Russia, Russia Today, Senator Ted Cruz, Sky News, Sukhoi T-50 stealth fighter, Ted Cruz, Texan Republican Senator Ted Cruz, Texas, Ukraine, Yanukovich

March 27, 2014 · 20:31

Setting the stage

The Ukrainian escalation is slowly seeing some events, but not in a good way. We have seen several speeches as well as actions against certain heavy weight big wigs in-crowd at the Kremlin. Will these actions hold weight? Time will tell. I went over several facts in the blog article ‘Strongarm, Intimidate, Terrorise‘ which I published on March 18^th. I also made a coalition mention in my blog article ‘Foreign and Domestic‘ on September 12^th 2013, where I stated at the very end “that view might partially depend on the steps the growing New World Order coalition of Russia, China and India will take“. In the last two days we saw the following events.

1. India, Russia to sign deal for anti-tank ammunition (source: The Indian Express, et al) for $2.4B.
2. Crimea Crisis Pushes Russian Energy to China from Europe (source: Bloomberg) for $350B.
3. Private Chinese firm to buy 100 regional Sukhoi jets (source: Reuters, et al) for $3.5B.
4. ONGC, Russia’s Rosneft may join forces on oil flows (source: Reuters).

This is just in the last two days. So, yes, we might think that we are putting economic pressure on Putin, but are we?
The last mention is that if we persist, there is every chance that the cheaper gas meant for Europe could be redirected to the Indian consumer. That is exactly the fear I voiced in the story involving the Crimea (Strongarm, Intimidate, Terrorise). The Reuters article also states “Rosneft said it had also agreed with ONGC they may join forces in Rosneft’s yet-to-be built liquefied natural gas plant in the far east of Russia to the benefit of Indian consumers”, which implies that Russia will get additional Dineros (aka loads of money) to build that plant, or at least parts of it.
Europe basically has agreed to a spitting contest which could cost them. There are still moral sides to consider, both sides states that they are correct and Crimean’s who saw a loss of income for thousands of households and desperately tried to save them to remain with Russia. The Ukrainian top really did not think that part through (as I see it). Did they think that forcing Russia to Novorossiysk, leaving the Crimea without one of their biggest consumers would not have an impact? I still have questions on the legality of the ‘transfer’ from Ukraine to Russia of the Crimea region, but I do not have a proper view on the legitimacy of the referendum as such (from a pure legal point). The fact that this is what the Crimea people themselves want (for a massive part) is largely ignored by the press. I will state that the NOS at least tried to talk to a few of these people and many wanted to return to their Russian past (they were also very assertive in not letting others talk on their Ukrainian view).
So what will happen next? Let’s face it, 4 deals do not make for a Chinese, Indian and Russian summer party, but these are massive deals and this shows that the coalition growth I expected is now showing more rapid growth, likely because of the Ukrainian events. For me, I am a business man and as such, I have downloaded the Sukhoi S-100 PDF’s and see if I can start a trainings company to train the Chinese crews on using the flight and navigation instruments of the Sukhoi S-100 (just me trying to get creative). 100 planes mean at least 400 crews, which is 800 pilots and 400 engineers, so 1200 prospective trainees to train. At $750 a day, I could be employed for at least 3 years. So that might be an option as life in Sydney is pretty expensive. People might snipe at this thought, but consider the ego contest we see growing in west versus east. There is every indication that energy prices are likely to rise by unacceptable amounts soon enough. We see that governments are more and more selling off their healthcare and other services to meet budgets, which means more costs for the consumer soon enough. A step by the way for which a government cannot get faulted, but we the consumer still get to pay the bill.
As unemployment rates are still growing to the extent it does, we will have to look at alternatives. If we are willing to work hard, then it is not the worst idea to consider Russian companies like Sukhoi and Chinese companies like Huawei. The next wave is for those who are willing to put in the hours and as several businesses want to grow into several domestic markets, which they will one way or the other.
So getting out there and set the wave so you can be there at the beginning and get to the higher level of the pyramid when it grows above the others is never a bad idea.
Should you get questioned on basis of morality of choice then consider the powerbrokers of Wall Street who got millions after the 2008 crash, The events around Silvio Berlusconi (not the intimate ones), Karolos Papoulias, President of Greece who was in office when the Goldman Sachs creative accounting event was discovered. It is not the question whether he knew what was going on, as president the Euro will stop at his desk in the end. The Finance ministers over that period were Georgios Alogoskoufis, Yannis Papathanasiou and Giorgos Papakonstantinou. Giorgos Papakonstantinou was the person revealing what had happened before he took the office and negotiated the initial 110 billion Euro loan, which makes his acts the one of high moral fibre. The list goes on and on and on. So, consider that many high elected holier than thou politicians have often taken the coin road as this was not illegal or criminal, it is just the cost of doing business. When it comes to businesses there are even more questions. When we see the bad deal the people at Boeing got, as reported by several media outlets in January 2014 as well as the technical issues we see popping up with the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. We have been looking at American companies for too long, perhaps it is time to look at areas where the runner up is hungry to become the biggest one, as they could be the source of your next good meal. So several elements are slowly setting the economic stage for 2014 and 2015.
If your livelihood is in jeopardy, where will you look next?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Military, Politics

Tagged as bloomberg, Boeing 787 Dreamliner, China, Europe, Georgios Alogoskoufis, Huawei, India, Karolos Papoulias, reuters, Rosneft, Russia, Sukhoi, Sukhoi S-100, The Indian Express, Wall Street, Yannis Papathanasiou and Giorgos Papakonstantinou

March 25, 2014 · 12:17

A grand injustice

As we see the news this morning on the G8, the nuclear top and flight MH370, another piece of news is largely ignored. As the news hit me, I was left with the impression of an injustice of massive proportions. When we look at any issue involving the Muslim Brotherhood and Israel, I tend to take the side of Israel every time. Some will call me biased, yet I think that people forget that Israel is a nation that has been under attack since the day it was founded. That changes a lot of perspectives. Yet, what is happening in Egypt at present is very disconcerting. I believe that former President Morsi made large mistakes and some acts might be regarded as ‘un-Egyptian’. The result was that he was deposed a president of Egypt. What is happening at present is too extreme to accept.
The NOS reported last night that 529 Morsi supporters had been convicted to death. The news was also on Sky News (at http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=960966). It does not just stop there, when we consider the following quote “Of the 529, only 153 are in custody. The rest were tried in their absence and have the right to a retrial if they turn themselves in“. How is this ‘a good thing’? I am no Muslim Brotherhood supporter. They have had too many terrorist ties (specifically terrorists out to end Israel) and as such I will not take their side. Can anyone who believes in the law and in justice of any kind see this as justice in any way shape or form?
Egypt is not a common law nation. It is like many other nations ruled by a civil code, in this case the Egyptian Civil Code, which is based on the French civil law model. They used the foundations and skipped the ‘Crime Passional’ part I reckon (Egyptians tend to get way too passionate about their religion).
I did not study Civil Law, so it is hard to find any legal premise in these events, yet, if I take the information by Amnesty International where it is stated that the death penalty in Egypt is currently reserved for crimes under anti-terrorism legislation, as well as ‘premeditated murder, rape and drug related offences‘. We have a first impression that the 529 sentenced to death is not only illegal; it seems to be unlawful by Egyptian standards too. We see an additional quote at http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/egypt-more-500-sentenced-death-grotesque-ruling-2014-03-24. The quote “Egypt’s courts are quick to punish Mohamed Morsi’s supporters but ignore gross human rights violations by the security forces. While thousands of Morsi’s supporters languish in jail, there has not been an adequate investigation into the deaths of hundreds of protesters. Just one police officer is facing a prison sentence, for the deaths of 37 detainees” is an added dimension.
It is not just the sheer numbers, the fact that the Egyptian court is faced with the setting of premeditated murder. That is near impossible to prove from either the police or protesters side. In any heated demonstration things will happen and there will always be the fear of escalation. That in itself forms some version of absence of premeditation in any death. These protesters are not innocent, that is decently clear. Yet, the leap from battery or even grievous bodily harm is a long leap from premeditated murder. That is a fact in nearly every court, civil or common law based.
If we take another look at the terrorism angle, of which the Muslim Brotherhood had been accused in several events, it is perhaps easier to take a look at the US code (for common law purposes). I took a look at U.S. Code § 2656f where I found the following: “(2) the term ‘terrorism’ means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;”
It reads a little ambiguous. From this definition, any religious rally that gets out of hand and where a fatality falls might apply. This rule could apply to the KKK or a Westboro Baptist Church rally. The list goes on and on. From what I have read, the people of the Westboro Baptist church are not overly gifted with academic intelligence, yet that does not make them terrorists. The Muslim Brotherhood could fall in the same category. They have been seen as terrorists in their acts, support and assistance against Israel. Their protest against the deposing of former President Morsi might not be seen as such an act.
It is still possible that some elements in these events were less innocent, yet that is not evidence of guilt. Judging 529 people to death in these matters, in a trial, that according to the press lasted less than an hour, with hundreds of them in absentia. The case gets an even weirder dimension when we consider the following quote (from the Guardian): “A judge in southern Egypt has taken just two court sessions to sentence to death 529 supporters of Mohamed Morsi for the murder of a single police officer“, not only is this about the issue of injustice, this is a verdict involving the death of one person, which makes this trial illegal and unjust as the reality of the matter is that at least 520 people are unlikely to have interacted with this one police officer. In a time setting where we saw how police officers were firing on protesters, killing around 30 people and wounding over 100 people, 500 are sentenced for the death of one police officer, how is this legal or just?
As stated before, I am no fan of the Muslim Brotherhood, but to act with such a lack of legality is unacceptable. In the end this could backfire on the Egyptian government when these 529 people end up becoming martyrs to millions of Muslim Brotherhood supporters.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Civil Law, Egypt, Israel, Mohamed Morsi, Morsi, Muslim Brotherhood, NOS, President Morsi, Sky News, Terrorist, US Code 2656f

March 19, 2014 · 23:00

Any sport implies corruption!

Yes, I agree that this statement is over the top, but at present, I have had it with sports. Whenever we hear about any sport, we are likely to hear doping, corruption or treason. When was the last time you watched your favourite sport and one of these three elements were not in play? Even if this is the case, when you Google your sport with the keywords ‘crime’, ‘corruption’ or ‘investigation’ you will see a list of events that is tainting your favourite sport.

I am originally Dutch, which means that cycling, skating and Soccer make the list for most Dutch people. I (being a statistical outlier in all this) do not really care about those three. If I am at such an event I will enjoy watching it, but I usually do not really bother watching it on TV, unless it is a special event (like a semi-final or final for a world cup or something like that).

So, when I saw on TV that Qatar had won the World Cup host for 2022, I was just happy for Qatar. I was happy, because a thoroughly European sport would go to the Middle East, hopefully inspiring more people and more nations to take up the sport, which is always a good thing. I also considered that the location would show the ‘smaller’ nations had an opportunity to host the ‘big’ boys in soccer and show them that they too can wield the torch of hosting pride. I had no negative thoughts at all. Although I realised that this was a very warm place, it would be nice for other teams like Qatar, Cameroon and Mexico get to play with home field weather advantage, which was pretty much it for me.

So when I got the news this morning that another corruption scandal had hit FIFA, I pretty much lost it on the spot. I remember the Final games of the 1978 world cup. It was NOT the final that was fixed; it was the match before that. What I still consider today as a match-fixed battle between Argentina and Peru, where the hosts needed to win by four goals to reach the final when they slaughtered Peru with a score of 6-0. I saw how Argentina passed on the left, passed on the right and the Peruvian team played frozen, like zombies in a Haitian Dance festival. In my personal view Argentina made it to the finals on false grounds. Yes, the finals were in my view honestly won, but they did not get there honestly and as such the Dutch were robbed of their final victory.

So when I see sports and corruption I tend to go slightly mad. The allegations against Qatar can best be found at http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/oct/03/world-cup-2022-fifa-qatar.

In my view the hosting game needs to get changed. I am so sick of these corruption events. In my view the following needs to happen. When a person is found guilty of corruption, those nations, in this case Brazil, Paraguay and Cameroon are barred from getting officials into FIFA and the IOC (International Olympic Committee) for a term no less than 16 years, furthermore, they cannot become a host nation for that same amount of time. For the first upcoming World Cup, those three nations are then prevented from entering. There is of course a small chance that their families will slightly suffer when Soccer fans go a little nuts at that point, but who gives a fuck? (Pretty please pardon my ‘French’ here.)

I have seen too much corruption and treason and it had too often got settled with a ‘reprimand’. These two transgressions are now often seen as legalised gambling. You have no risk, you get money and perhaps a fee and a slap on the wrists if you get caught. It would be nice to see these people run for their lives. I foresee that sport corruption could take a steep dive towards a 0% sport crime rate, which is good for sports overall.

To be quite honest, until the article in the Guardian, I was willing to ignore the stories. In my personal view, the Telegraph tends to be a less then academic levelled source of information (they usually lay it on a little too thick). I even contemplated the option that all this were false allegations through media giants as the timing and temperatures might result in a shift in dates to play, which could result in a loss of advertisement coinage no less than 1 Billion Euro on a global scale, not to mention the merchandising that might make a sizzler, all that because the Qatarian time zone could shift the games to less civil times for many of the European TV viewers.

Yet the Guardian shows another story. The one passage I do have a slight problem with is “Mohamed bin Hammam, from Qatar, at the time the challenger to Blatter’s presidency, was found by the court of arbitration for sport last year to ‘more likely than not’ have brought cash to two meetings in May 2011 which was then handed to FIFA delegates”

The more likely than not is a bit of an issue for me. It is more likely than not that I do not have the purest of thoughts when I see Olivia Wilde (or Laura Vandervoort, Leslie Bibb, Natasha McElhone or Olivia Munn for that matter). That is a sentence that holds ground (not grammatically). In regards to funds it does not really hold any ground (unless there is a better quality of tangible evidence).

I desire a woman? (Yes and it is not illegal!), I desire money? (To some extent, a definite yes if it gives me access to desire group number one and again it is not illegal), Will I be corrupt for it? Very less likely, however I might be willing to falsify my medical records if it gets me access to my initial group one. The last would actually be illegal and it is covered in Criminal Law, so I am definitely not willing to pursue that avenue.

Why the previous rant? It is about evidence and ‘more likely than not‘, just does not cut it in my book when it comes to these levels of corruption. Even though it is a Civil Court requirement and has been in UK courts since Miller v. Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372, which was stated by Lord Denning, former Lord Justice of Appeal and former member of the House of Lords and Master of the Rolls as “more probable than not“, yet when we regard the world as it is today, more probable then not is in my personal view no longer a valid reasoning when it comes to larger amounts of money. It is too easy to frame a person; in the electronic age it is too likely to be falsely processed and when you consider the Bitcoin issue of February 2014, was it stolen or actually lost? More likely than not is very probable to imply involved parties in acts of fraud and theft and less likely that a data files were corrupted and through this misplaced into nothingness.

So there we have it! Is there guilt? I am not sure whether this can be easily proven. If certain people are missing out on a billion in revenue and securing it would require blaming three people of taking a few million, is framing three people so far-fetched? I personally think that this is not the case, or stated under the legal premise ‘it is more likely than not that three people were falsely set in an illegal light so that several unnamed persons could walk away with many hundreds of millions of Euros‘. This is a lot easier to sell in many civil courts.

So which scenario is correct?

I honestly do not know, but it still bothers me that no matter what the truth ends up being, and in hindsight when we look at FIFA, the IOC as well as groups that offer global events had to be revamped in several ways for well over two decades. Consider the ‘old boys’ brigade as it was in the UK between WW1 and WW2. In today’s global setting of fast paced events, where this approach just does not cut it.

2 Comments

Filed under Gaming, Law, Politics

Tagged as 2022, Bitcoin, Cameroon, corruption, FIFA, IOC, Laura Vandervoort, Leslie Bibb, Lord Denning, Mexico, Miller v. Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372, Natasha McElhone, Olivia Munn, Olivia Wilde, Qatar, Qatar 2022, Soccer, the Guardian

March 18, 2014 · 06:14

Strongarm, Intimidate, Terrorise

As we see the news of sanctions hitting our eyes via the news on TV, the Newspapers and the internet, some will conclude that the third cold war is now officially starting. Yet, some might have the question within their minds ‘who has the moral high ground?’, or better yet, what brought these escalations about?

Now, I have missed the cold war, whether you stare through a sniper scope overlooking Lakhta air base in a video game, or those who needed to take another look at the Arkhangelsk naval base because they serviced the Typhoons (in 1983 a genuine bringer of nightmares to NATO). The Cold War was a war, but one with its own rules, regulations, needs and wants.

But is this the same as the first or the second cold war? The first cold war was in itself about a disagreements in Ideology, there was however another side to it all. This was basically a pissing contest between the Kremlin and the White House on who was trained better, tools were the best and who got away with the most. The 70’s as it was depicted by John Le Carre with ‘the Circus’ and the after the fact knowledge that several members at the top of MI-6 had a better knowledge of Russian then those living in Moscow. Even with that set back, I always felt that the NATO side was victorious! I missed most of it and did not get hit with events until 1982-1984.

This new cold war we are about to face is something different. This is a lot less about ideology and a lot more about the greed of a chosen few. Let us take a look at the Ukraine and the Crimea region. Most will not remember the original Crimean War, even though one of the most famous names in history had her origin there. It was Florence Nightingale; slightly less famous was Mary Seacole who also earned her a place in the history books. In those days the direct reason for the war that was there was all about religion, specifically on access of the holy places in what is now called Israel (an area that was in those days part of the Ottoman Empire). It is the one time that the Russian Navy got it hide tanned (not the best moment in Russian Naval History), even though it held out for a year, dealing with England, France and the Ottoman Empire was a cake that turned out to be slightly too large for them.

I think it is important to ‘trivialise’ that part. It should also be noted that Russia started this fight with the Ottoman Empire because Russia held that it had a right to protect the Orthodox Christians. These events are important, as those contained the darkest days for the Russian Navy.

Now when we go to today we have other issues to content with. Crimea has always been a cultural hot potato. It will take too long to explain the issues (and I am not an expert in that regard), there are several ties that were severed when Khrushchev placed it all within the border of the Ukraine; he never considered the idea that Ukraine would be anything but part of the ‘Russian brotherhood’.

It is the changes in the Ukraine that are at the centre of the Crimean escalation. As I see the Russian side, it seems to me that this would happen no matter what. The entire issue with the Black Sea navy has never been regarded positively by the Ukraine. The issues there have been going on for almost 7 years now, even though Ukraine has valid reasons for ‘demanding’ certain changes, it is a little far-fetched for Russia to accept the security of its Navy (the Black Sea Fleet) thought the Ukrainian security services. If America has any objections in that regard, then consider the issues several people had in the past with the ‘idiots’ patrolling and guarding at the US part of Soesterberg Air base, I had more than one issue with a few US guards, even though I was on the other side of the fence wearing a Dutch uniform.

So, we can agree that like the Americans, the Russians will not trust the guarding and protection of their defence forces by ‘outsiders’. This is one of the issues, which are at the very heart of this. The second one is one I discussed in an earlier blog named ‘Hot air for the Ukraine‘ on March 1^st. The EEC is too much about adding new members and not about maintaining and setting a stable financial and economic platform. That part has been proven by many, but the issue goes wider (at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2014/car030514a.htm). The IMF is still finalising the fact finding mission and the amount needed for the Ukraine substantial. Another issue in this regard can be found at Reuters where we see the following quote “If the West wants Ukraine to align with them rather than Russia they will have to offer a carrot and the carrot could be better terms on the debt” (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/17/us-ukraine-crisis-debt-idUSBREA2G0E020140317)

And why does the west want this, Economic prosperity? Ukraine has a massive amount of debt! The only consequence many will initially see is that Ukrainians will suddenly relocate by droves of thousands to get that better future in the west (which is fair enough). That pressure gets added to the issues already dragging many down in Western Europe which are still unstable at present, so adding nations with bad budgets whilst the rest remains in a bad shape is just bad politics and bad judgement. Another view from the IMF can be seen in the Reuters article (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/25/us-ukraine-crisis-imf-idUSBREA1O1DT20140225)

“The IMF has consistently said that Ukraine’s economic policies would create unsustainable large external and fiscal imbalances. It has called on Kiev to cut its large fiscal deficit, phase out energy subsidies, strengthen the banking sector, and allow the exchange rate to fall. A freely floating hryvnia currency and higher domestic gas prices are unpopular steps previously rejected by the Kiev”

So they want money, but are unwilling to do what needs to be done? How is this in any way a good deal in any shape or form? I will grant that energy prices will always be unpopular, but this is all about a change where the government does not want change to begin with.

Now we get to the good stuff, namely intimidate and terrorise. These are basically synonyms for strongarming, and now it is the west doing this. Sky News reported that more sanctions are in place (at http://news.sky.com/story/1227143/ukraine-sanctions-target-putin-aides)

So basically, individuals are now targeted for alleged involvement of government actions. Is this even legal? It is interesting that these events are calling for sanctions. Consider that in the US one in seven lives below the poverty line. Now also consider the events as we saw the hard working people at Wal-Mart getting hit financially, needing food stamps and needing government support, whilst the owners are multi billionaires. Unless the Honorable African American in charge in the White House (aka President Barack Obama) is a coward, I hereby officially demand and he should officially call for similar sanctions which are to be placed against the members of the Walton family! I understand that sanctions are a tactical choice, yet to ignore your home base, whilst going after a few individuals (whose guilt is still officially in question) is nothing less than a joke. The fact that the advisors are hit with sanctions, yet, the person in charge (President Putin) is not getting any sanctions makes the joke even more pathetic.

Another issue we should not ignore is that the bulk of the people in Crimea WANT to be part of Russia. Now, that would never be my personal choice and I believe it is the choice of many non-Crimean not to go that path, but the idea that their choice is not the choice of the USA and the EEC and therefor rejected is a laughing matter, where is THEIR freedom of choice? In opposition, I do have an issue with the legality of that part too. I do acknowledge that Crimea is part of the Ukraine, yet the Ukraine is ‘only’ 72 years old. The issues we now see in Belgium as that nations is likely to split into two parts, whilst that nations is a lot older then the Ukraine is not causing this level of concern (mainly because it hasn’t happened yet). In my view, it seems a lot more legal if Crimea became independent. Consider the immediate consequence of that act. If the referendum is regarded as illegal, what will happen and what will the reaction be as referendums are called over the next 3 years as parties decide to secede from the EEC/Euro, as these requests are called for by Nigel Farage (UKIP/UK), Geert Wilders (PVV/NL) and Marine Le Penn (FN/FR). Will we suddenly see calls for illegality by the USA and the IMF? Consider that, because these steps are likely to push the EEC and therefor the USA over the edge of bankruptcy.

As a ‘supporter’ of the cold wars, tactically the entire escalation works nicely for NATO. If Ukraine does enter the EEC, then it comes with a nice ‘free’ naval base in a perfectly placed tactical position, with direct striking capabilities on several Russian fronts (still surprised that Russia is so against it?).

My issue remains that the power players in this game are all motivated by greed. You do not give out 35 billion unless you get 70-135 billion in return. The Ukraine does not have such economic prospects in any near future. Consider in addition that once this happens, the cheap gas deal that the Ukraine currently has will then is also be null and void, which means that the people in the Ukraine will have to content with an energy price hike of at least 20%. Look at your own heating bills (especially in the UK). How does it feel to pay 20% more?

The last side to the Ukraine is one that will hit all Europeans (and Americans). Please do not take my word for that, the paper was written by Anna Yemelianova and is called ‘A Diagnosis of Corruption in Ukraine‘ (at http://www.againstcorruption.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/WP-14-Diagnosis-of-Corruption-in-Ukraine-new.pdf). You see, the big business boffins currently whispering into the ears of government officials in the west tend to ignore issues that do not cause THEM any grief, but those who pay their taxes and small businesses alike will get to deal with this to some degree in one way or another. From the very beginning of that paper where we see “Ukraine is a country is with wide scale and systemic corruption which makes a crucial influence on the economic, political, social and other spheres of public life“, it will be clear that whatever you pump into their economy, a percentage will end up with a man like Semion Yudkovich Mogilevich, a man who should be regarded as one of the most powerful men (some state the most powerful man) in the history of the Russian Mafia. Consider the end of the report where it states “21% of respondents in Ukraine reported paying a bribe in the past 12 months according to Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2009“.

This gives a clear indication, I might even state, this is in my personal view clear evidence that the numbers reported towards the IMF in regards to the economic support is underestimated by at least 30%. I will be bold enough to take my view one step further. When the Russian powerbase walks away, the floodgates that minimised some of this form of damage will be gone completely. It is a side that so many ignore, yet, when people in the News in the UK and the Netherlands read about these ‘Romanian gangs’, take heed for what happens when the Ukraine is added to the mix. These events are easily ignored by the power players as they remain out of reach, but the rest of the people in those area’s (99.98443213% roughly) will become a target one way or another.

Am I against the Ukraine joining the EEC? No, as I stated, it is about the freedom of choice. I do however have several reservations on why certain elements want to Ukraine to become part of the EEC no matter the cost. They have certain intentions and the press seems to be taking extreme care not to go anywhere near that part of the equation.

So who is strongarming, who is intimidating and who is terrorising? Three answers that call for a name, an entity or an organisation. So who exactly are the players and why are we seeing way too little on certain sides in the press?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as Anna Yemelianova, Arkhangelsk, Barack Obama, Black Sea Fleet, EEC, Florence Nightingale, Geert Wilders, IMF, John Le Carre, Lakhta air base, Marine Le Penn, Mary Seacole, MI-6, NATO, Nigel Farage, Ottoman Empire, President Barack Obama, President Putin, reuters, Semion Yudkovich Mogilevich, Sky News, Soesterberg Air base, Ukraine

March 14, 2014 · 13:14

Yesterday’s news, today’s politics

This is the initial view I had when the NOS reported on a debate in the chambers on a case that had occurred 14 years ago (at http://nos.nl/artikel/622822-teevendebat-loopt-met-sisser-af.html). In the first 7 seconds I was hit by two questions that my mind raised

Does this have any current bearings?
Why, is the person who was involved not part of the proceedings?

Let’s take a look at what happened.

In 2000 Fred Teeven, who was the District Attorney at that time made a deal with Drug criminal Cees H. a deal which ended the criminal with a nice pay check, no taxation and no prison. The tax office knew nothing of the deal and this case was given a prompt wave of visibility.

This is pretty much it. There were additional loops of misinformation on how this was all about 5-6 million, which was countered that the total amount was 2 million (750,000 of this amount was kept by the Dutch government as a settlement fee).

This all got started by the current Dutch opposition. This entire case shows the same level of nonsense that Australia is currently getting from the Labor party. All wind and no real case (Australian Labor left huge bills, no resolutions and no prospects), not unlike the Dutch opposition they are crying like little girls because they are not at the governing table. They squandered by in-fighting and now they are all on the sidelines.

Why am I having this debatable point of view?

This is always a good question. This all started for whatever reason with a case that is 14 years old. Seems like an initial way to be a whiny little politician, whoever started this). Yet, that is not the whole truth either. When we consider the source (at http://nieuwsuur.nl/onderwerp/622023-geheime-witwasdeal-teeven-en-crimineel.html) other facts come to light. Here we see “Als je naar de richtlijn kijkt waarin duidelijk staat dat er afstemming moet plaatsvinden met de Belastingdienst” this was stated by the Dutch Professor Zwemmer from the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam (translated: “If you look at the guidelines, it is clearly stated that an adjusted view is set together with the taxation services”, which might contradict the statement, yet, a guideline is not set in stone. what does the law state?

The case was when Article 20b of Dutch Criminal Law allowed for it. That legal option of making deals with criminals was scrapped in 2001, but the article was in active in 2000.

There is another side to this. When we consider the following paragraph from Nieuwsuur, we see the following: “Advocaat Jan-Hein Kuijpers bevestigt vanavond in Nieuwsuur dat de deal volgens alle afspraken is uitgevoerd. Omdat Kuijpers zelf niet van witwassen beschuldigd wilde worden, moest het geld via een justitie-rekening verlopen. Kuijpers: ‘Ik had voorgesteld en ook wel bedongen dat het geld uit het buitenland eerst naar justitie zou gaan en dan naar die vriend van mijn cliënt, waardoor het spierwit was. Sowieso, of het nou wel of geen drugsgeld was of zwart geld of grijs geld of wat dan ook.’ Uiteindelijk is er een bedrag van tussen de vijf en zes miljoen gulden daadwerkelijk via deze constructie overgemaakt, bevestigt Kuijpers“.

(Translated) “Lawyer Jan-Hein Kuipers confirmed in Nieuwsuur that the deal had been processed according to the accepted arrangement. As Kuipers wanted to avoid accusations of laundering, the money would be processed through an account of the Justice department. Kuipers: ‘I had proposed and stipulated that the funds from abroad would first go to the Justice department, after that to my client’s friend, making the funds snowy white. Whether it was drugs money or not, whether it was black money or grey or whatever’. In the end an amount between 5 and 6 million was transferred via this construction, confirms Kuipers“.

This all leaves me with a few questions. What on earth is a Lawyer doing spilling the beans to this extent on a talk show? As well as the fact that we have two sides to the amount, was it two million, or 5 to 6 million? If we accept what Nieuwsuur mentioned: “Vervolgens zal het OM het geld via een rekening van het Openbaar Ministerie ‘terstond aan H.’ overmaken. En dat alles onder de expliciete voorwaarde van ‘volstrekte geheimhouding’ waarbij ook ‘de nationale en/of internationale Belastingdiensten en/of Fiscale autoriteiten’ niets van de deal mogen weten”

(Translated) “After that the Public Ministry will transfer the money via an account of the Public Ministry ‘swiftly to H.’ all this under explicit conditions of ‘complete secrecy’, whilst keeping the national and international tax offices unaware of the deal”

So, again, why is this Lawyer Kuipers singing like a canary on a talk show? Even more questionable is how international tax offices are kept in the dark, whilst they knew that the money came from non-Dutch accounts. It seems weird that international tax evasion could be part of this deal in 2000.

We can waste time on whether these events were all known or not and whether this was all legally arranged or not. It is a 14 year old case and the facts could have been checked before the House of Representatives booked overtime which might cost the taxpayers even more. I am not debating whether it was right or wrong to proceed, but in the view I have, this was another goose chase by the opposition to bring embarrassment to Minister Opstelten (who is the current minister of justice and Security) as well as secretary Teeven of Justice and Security, who was the District Attorney in those days and would not have been politically responsible anyway (which answered the second question I initially had).

I remain on the fence, even though I still see this (to some extent) as an exercise from the prissy opposition, the questions remain valid. Yet, what was the point to take a case, which could have been easily defended in the House of Representatives to begin with. What was the end game and why is there a discrepancy between 2 and 5-6 million?

That last part is still an issue of some debate. There are additional questions that rise when we consider the Dutch article (at http://www.vn.nl/Archief/Justitie/Artikel-Justitie/Teeven-sloot-al-in-1998-deal-met-Cees-H..htm), which gives a lot more validity for the opposition to call for a debate in the Dutch version of the House of Representatives, yet the fact that this is coming to light 14 years later is also quite weird. That side is shown to some extent when we look at the last lines of the article “Dat alles is weliswaar geen sluitend bewijs dat Cees H. nog steeds in criminele zaken zit, maar bij justitie kijken ze in ieder geval met argusogen naar de handel van de beroepscrimineel. En dat plaatst de ‘gift’ van Fred Teeven uit 2000 toch in een vreemd daglicht“.
(Translated) “Al this does not lead to evidence that Cees H. is still criminally active, but the Justice department is looking with an eagles eye towards the wheeling and dealing of this professional criminal, which places the ‘gift’ from Fred Teeven in 2000 in a strange daylight”

When we look back at this, then we see a seldom seen application on the cost of doing business. The talkative lawyer (who seemed to forget the meaning of complete secrecy), the muddy view on the exact amounts of money involved (the difference between 60,000 and 20,000 bills of 100) and in rear sight the time passed before certain people started to ask questions. Consider that all but the heaviest category of crime can still be prosecuted (5th category), other crimes would have passed the prosecutable expiry date, in that light, why bring this case forward?

For political points against a District Attorney who, according to the issues, had acted within his scope of abilities? Nieuwsuur does report an issue in the way the deal was pushed through after the fact (2 months after the fact) and the signature came from Ben Swagerman, who is in the Dutch version of the House of Lords and he is the head of corporate security of the Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM). I do agree, that certain questions should be asked, yet, they should have been asked at least 6 years ago, not now. At this point there are several points that imply that this was about something else, not just about this case. So will the Dutch audience get treated to a second round of ‘sudden revelations‘ in a later episode of the program Nieuwsuur?
Time will tell, but when they do, I will take another look at this case.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Politics

Tagged as Advocaat Jan-Hein Kuijpers, Ben Swagerman, Cees H., District Attorney, Fred Teeven, Ivo Opstelten, Jan-Hein Kuipers, KLM, Nieuwsuur, VN, Vrij Nederland, VVD

March 9, 2014 · 17:39

Is gender equality too futuristic?

This is not an article for many. Some will be livid, some will be outraged and many will be angry. Yet, will my view be wrong? This is at the centre of what some call the future of women in high positions.

If I compare it to Law School, then we have our share of women, most of them highly intelligent, many of them no less to Law savants. The last one might be regarded as a cheated achievement, as they usually come from parents with law education or even law practices. They do have a benefit, but to make it in Law, you cannot get by on daddy’s (or mommy’s) tailcoats. You are either truly good, or you won’t pass past your first case. For me in most cases, it almost feels like cheating, as I would be a 1^st generation law graduate. I had to do it alone, no daddy to help me (thank god that the alcoholic is dead). So, there is no anger or envy towards these male of female co-students. As we see how these women are now growing the ranks of the senior, partner positions and the silks of the bench, we see how women are not just up and coming, they are growing the waves of the future benches of the courts. This is not a negative issue for me. As the women had grown in the legal profession from the 80’s onwards, they are now becoming the future of the high courts. In that regard I recall my first year mentor. She was not just bright, she was part of a team that wiped the floor (OK, the proper term is victorious) against the Oxford Law team. even though India won, the fact that both groups outdid Oxford should give you a clear view on how good you need to be. If we see the perception of many students, the regarded rankings like Oxford, Harvard and Yale (as we see Ivy League schools), then the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) did a mighty fine job.

How is all this connected?

I am getting to this. It is first important you see the views I have and the way I got to my view.

So what started all this? Well, yesterday the following tweet passed my screen:
“UK Prime Minister @Number10gov Mar 8
Tomorrow is International #WomensDay – see how UK govt is supporting & celebrating this year’s #InspiringChange theme http://ow.ly/ulkZ4“

It came right after a tweet By Neelie Kroes (@NeelieKroesEU)

Her headline on Twitter is “I am Vice President of the @EU_Commission leading @DigitalAgendaEU and #ConnectedContinent plans. I am fighting like hell for a EU you can believe in. Global (based in Brussels) – bit.ly/KroesNeelie“

I remember her as a politician (when I was living in the Netherlands). I never saw eye to eye with her views, but I do no hold that against her. What is important is that she is extremely intelligent. I reckon that if Albert Einstein would have been around when she turned 21, his words would have been “Whoa girl, you’ve got skills!” Let’s, be certain about the fact that he would refer to her political skills, not her skills in physics. Basically, she is one clever lady is the view of many.

My issue is all about the International Woman’s day as some ‘portray’ their support of it! I am not against it in any way, but let us take a look at the other side of this.

This we see at http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/adfa-skype-scandal-cadets-sentenced-avoid-jail-20131023-2w0hz.html, where we see the quote “The woman told the court last week that she had been bullied and ostracised across the ADF after details of the Skype affair became public. She said she was offered little support, and was referred to as “that Skype slut” by her peers. The victim said the incident destroyed her life and forced her to leave her dream job in the military.“

The two men got a 12 month good behaviour order. The interesting part is that the media seemingly buried it after August 19^th 2013. Interesting how little exposure these issues get. I found two more items as they were places after the August date, yet this one (at http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2013-11-09/adfa-cadet-daniel-mcdonald-sacked-over-skype-sex-scandal/1217280) seems to add one more item. The quote “Today, Defence released a statement saying McDonald had been told it intended to sack him in mid-September and after giving him an opportunity to respond, his services were terminated as of last night“

So how should that be read? He was offered to walk or get booted?

This is not an isolated case for the military on a global scale. The header ‘Conflicting accounts open U.S. Army general’s sex crimes trial‘ (at http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/07/uk-usa-courtmartial-sinclair-idUKBREA260OK20140307) gives a clear view that we are not anywhere near ready for an International Woman’s day. As we see these transgressions go on and on. In addition, as we see the media staying as blasé and diminishing the exposure of such events, then you tell me how fair it all is. When we see a celebrity drink too much, EVERYONE shows it off to the maximum of the gettable coinage possible, which includes the Washington Post, the Guardian, USA Today, the Huffington Post, Reuters and such large ones. When we see the General being accused of these acts, the amount of newspapers that make it to Google page 1-3 is pretty laughable (even though the big ones mentioned earlier are also there). Why the military? Well, it is pretty much the last bastion of testosterone. When women get an accepted place without the psychic and physical assault dangers, then we are truly entering a new area. If you want to disagree with my view here, which would be fine, then compare the hits you get when you compare the allegations between Brigadier General Jeffrey Sinclair (US Army) and PR guru Max Clifford (UK publicist), so even though the UK is only 20% of the US, Mr Clifford gets 500% more hits on Google. As this goes into the millions I decided not to look at all of them, but is there any value to the conclusion that a PR guy is bigger coverage, or that the media does not ‘regard’ the alleged transgressions as such important news. The General did plead guilty to having an extramarital affair with the captain.

So why do I have this issue? As mentioned before I illustrated the evolution of Law staffing. A Dutch research showed only a few days ago, that the incomes are changing. Within the younger population, income between the younger populations of gender has changed. The women are now ending up with a better pay package. This is in my view clear evidence that not only is there more equality; the game is changing in a better respect for all. If both sides of the gender path will get the same chance to get the high coin, then we are entering a competitive field where the victor takes the spoils, no matter what gender the victor is, it ups the game and all will become better competitors because of it.

Yet, if we see the article CNN placed last year (at http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/15/opinion/chemaly-tech-leaves-out-women/) we see a clearer view on why I think that there should be an International Woman’s day, but at present there is no reason to party on that event. I must state that I do not completely agree with Soraya Chemaly on her article ‘In tech world, women ignored‘. The reason for this is because as I got my training and degree in IT, the amount of women I saw was a massive minority. When I got into the data game in the 90’s, the women represented a presence of a mere 5% would have been overstating their presence. If getting to the top takes 12-15 years, then it will be at least another decade until we see a visible level of female presence in the tech world. There is however another side to this. When we consider tech PR companies like ‘Panache PR‘, we would see that the founder Cathy Campos is regarded as a global authority in the gaming industry. I met her in the days of Robert Maxwell, as she was the visible side of the marketing of Mirrorsoft (1989) and her drive to market the visibility of games by the visionary Peter Molyneux were ground breaking. She is not just accepted by all, I reckon the newbies in this field will consider an internship with someone like Cathy as the start of a possible golden future.

One of the statements I do not agree with is “The tech industry has a well-documented pipeline problem, one largely the result of gender stereotypes that reach into the educational system” Really? When I was into gaming, meeting any woman who was into games was regarded as a joke, both genders thought of games and gaming as uncool, nerdy and not worth the effort. That view only seriously started to change around the time the Xbox 360 was announced to become the hot potato of the future. So, basically, in that tech field women are less than one console generation old. When we look back to the early years we see the names like Roberta Williams (Kings Quest and a few others), Jane Jensen who worked with Roberta Williams on KQ6. Dona Bailey, who is an Atari Legend as she was one of the founders of Centipede, which is still regarded as one of the better arcade games of all times. Lastly there is Graner Ray who worked on Ultima VII (my favourite RPG series). She entered this field late in the Ultima series, but giving it artistically a unique view. So, when we consider these 4 women to be at the foundations of gaming, is it a wonder that the female population in this tech field is still small? Nowadays, we see a much stronger female representation in the gaming field, and many of them are outstanding in their own rights.

This is why I do not completely agree (not opposing either) the view we see at http://www.polygon.com/2014/3/7/5408194/how-smarter-schools-can-help-break-the-game-development-boys-club. I personally have never cared about who wrote the game, only that it was a good game. Consider that Kings Quest was one of the first PC games I loved. It was made by a woman and that never mattered.

So is it about the game or the developer? This is why I opposed the quote from Soraya Chemaly “Controlling women’s access makes men keepers of speech, keeps sexist status quo“. No! The gamer wants a good game, value for money, so anyone can get into this field with a good product. I reckon that especially in places like India, women could grow into this field as they offer originality in gaming through iTunes (iPad) or Google play (android). I reckon that 6 successful new female developers are all it takes to prove my hypotheses in this case. As additional female developers enter the field from MIT game lab and UTS (and other universities of course) we will see a clear shift. I do have a few questions to my own train of thought, which was caused by the quote I read (at http://www.polygon.com/2014/3/7/5408194/how-smarter-schools-can-help-break-the-game-development-boys-club) “Indie developer Mike Bithell tells us the lack of women in development ‘monumentally embarrassing’ for the games industry“. It raises my concerns on how wrong I might be, but is that because of the games developed, or by the games that get funding? You see, I focused on the gaming side, because that side I know from various sides. As I see women in Law proceed to the high places, I feel that my views remain correct. The ones who now will get the high posts are the ones I study with at University and they are truly good at what they do. That view is to some extend reaffirmed by the NY times (at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/opinion/great-expectations-for-female-lawyers.html). The quote “Of course, the attrition rate is high for men, too — but not nearly as high; in American law firms, the overwhelming majority of partners are men” shows that even though the men are in a massive majority, these are the partners that came from law school 12 years earlier. It took a while for new generations to get into these seats and as such the women we study with are likely to be the majority of high law ranks as they continue their law careers over the next 10-15 years.

When we get back to gaming we could see a correlation with the evolution of high placed women in gaming. If we accept the quote in the previous link affirms my position “Women make up only 11 percent of the total of those pursuing a career in the games industry as of 2005“. So, women do not select this track, which means that it will take some take until the top of gaming has an equal female representation. Yet, is there unfairness in this? When we see a current coverage of only 11%? So as time progresses we see 1 in 20 making it to the top, not because there is inequality, but because only 5%, which is half of the coverage proves to be that good and the math is on my side as I see it. That same math which predicts that over the next 10 years the women in high law positions will likely double, that same curve will apply to the gaming industry as women pursue in several fields they will take the lead as times passes. The issue that many ignore is that this evolution has been just a little over 2 generations and as we see the gender changes in fields, the growth of women in the area of visionary and evolutionary powers, moved to equality to encompass middle managers, which now leads to upper management, this is not a bad record.

As for International Woman’s Day, I am not against it, or against the visibility. The issue is that the field remains unequal, especially when the media is handing us a ‘stacked’ deck. How eager they are to steer away from certain trials, whilst in most of these cases they just spout the same ‘average leveled‘ information. The stacked deck is not in the direction that the BBC shows (at http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-18187449). As I stated my view, that over time the percentages have shifted and they are shifting even more, but consider the issues as we saw it in regards to Jimmy Saville, not just what he did, but as alleged how those around him are stated to have reacted and how the matter was dealt with for several decades, that part seems to be ignored to a larger extent. Even now as we see the events unfold, we see the Saville jokes, we see the investigation, but the ‘support system‘ around Saville, as he got away with the amount of events does not get the media scrutiny it is supposed to be getting. So, this is not just about the women in general, but the ‘old boy’ groups as they remained around for too long a time. This is the case that many articles made, but I personally see this as the ‘wrong side’. I would much rather see how we see that now in Law, and how women in new fields, like Technology, Gaming and other new areas can more easily inhabit these areas and they could be ruled by the best in the field, no matter what gender. That is the side that does not get enough visibility. It should and the media should use moments like International Woman’s Day to show what is possible, because if it is about inspiration, it should be about where opportunity lies, not just where some ‘stated’ view on the places where the uphill battle remains. This does not mean that I am now opposing my own words, but that it takes time to get women in these top positions, which they achieved within 2 generations (banking examples: CEO Westpac and Christine Lagarde, IMF). When we look at a new field like gaming, which is only now entering its second generation, women are on an equal field, as there is little to no historical entry to content with.

In the end a true visionary will always be successful and get funding, simply because being the first implies that this person is the best and new fields are always ruled by the visionary (closely followed by the evolutionary visionary). Consider this last point; would it have made any difference to the success of Facebook whether it was Mark or Marcia Zuckerberg who invented it?
I feel certain that this would not have made any difference to the global change it brought.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as Albert Einstein, BBC, Canberra Times, Cathy Campos, CNN, Dona Bailey, General Jeffrey Sinclair, Graner Ray, International Woman’s Day, Jane Jensen, Jimmy Saville, Law school, Mark Zuckerberg, Max Clifford, Mirrorsoft, Neelie Kroes, NY Times, Panache PR, Peter Molyneux, polygon, Radio Australia, reuters, Robert Maxwell, Roberta Williams, Soraya Chemaly, the Guardian, the Huffington Post, the Washington Post, Twitter, UK Prime Minister, USA today, UTS

February 26, 2014 · 12:42

Fearing gays

I had to pause for a moment to see what the impact was on a law so unjust and in its foundation so evil that the impact will not be clearly seen for some time. What happened?

President Yoweri Museveni has signed into law making it illegal to be homosexual. The Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014 (Anti-Homosexuality-Act-2014) is now a fact in Uganda. When a person has been successfully prosecuted for the first time the consequence would be incarceration in prison for up to 14 years, after that a person could be jailed for life.

This is not all, this morning it got to be a lot worse. A tabloid named ‘Red Pepper’ released the names of what they call the top 200 Homo’s. There is little validity to their act. One might say that this is the act of a closet case individual, what kind of closet case he is, remains the question at present.

The issue gets to be worse and worse by the hour. As Gays are hunted and prosecuted all over Uganda, whilst at the mean time people claim that this makes their children safer, we see a strange escalation. It is catching me unaware because other than the hypocrite stand many Americans have, the prosecution we see now in Uganda is not unlike the prosecutions we have seen in Russia. The quote “fail to be attracted to all these beautiful women and be attracted to a man” is also something that must be considered. So what about Lesbians? They do love their women, are they safe? Nope! The act states “An Act to prohibit any form of sexual relations between persons of the same sex“, which means that they are in the same dangerous boat at present. The issue as Yahoo News stated it in the quote “Homophobia is widespread in Uganda, where American-style evangelical Christianity is on the rise.” This gives us pause to think does it not? American style Christianity! This takes another turn when we look at the following facts.

This view can also be seen at http://digitaljournal.com/news/religion/us-evangelicals-helped-write-draconian-uganda-anti-gay-bill/article/364543 where we see the quote “This is a piece of legislation that is needed in this country to protect the traditional family here in Africa, Bahati said”

If that is true, then who is this Bahati? That part is found in the second quote. “Bahati is a member of ‘The Family’ also known as ‘The Fellowship’, a secretive and powerful U.S.-based evangelical sect that has been sending money and missionaries to African nations, including Uganda, to promote anti-gay public sentiment and legislation.”

So, if America is all about the freedom of speech and the truth, then who is behind this? As we find this info, we need to take another look at this ‘family’. NPR gives us some information (at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120746516). So even if the book exposes a group of sanctimonious Republicans at the centre of this, there is a side we should expose. Because if the funds are used for discrimination and prosecution, there should be legal consequences, even if this is happening outside of the US. It was MSNBC who gave us that scoop yesterday (at http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/religious-freedom-or-discrimination). It is interesting to see these events unfold, especially as we see a lack of visibility on the background by many of the larger newspapers. As the ‘Red Pepper’ is so bent on treating the Gays as a danger, publishing a top 200 list, then perhaps all other tabloids have a sworn duty to name, shame and illuminate the people behind this push for discrimination. when people on a global scale see the names like Senator Sam Brownback (R., Kansas) as well as Representative Joe Pitts (R., Pennsylvania) and the many others, on how they are funding prosecution of people, whilst in the NY Times we see this quote in regards to Senator Brownback “In the Senate from 1996 to 2011, he vigorously opposed abortion, promoted low taxes and less government, and worked against the genocide in Sudan, which won him praise from some liberals“, so basically he’ll oppose genocide when it is not against the gay population.

So as we see these facts emerge, we must also look at the additional factors. The Netherlands stopped aid to Uganda, as did Norway and Denmark. It is now up to the US and Canada, as well as all other nations giving aid to Uganda to stop doing that as well. I wonder how steady this law remains when Uganda loses out on billions in aid programs. No matter how wealthy this so called Family is, it cannot support a multibillion drain on their own resources. There is also another side. As other tabloids give visibility to the members of the family, they should also consider giving visibility and naming those involved with the creation of ‘red pepper’. If these people are so active to facilitate a hunt on homosexuals, which has already resulted in fatalities, the people have a right to know, who the facilitators are. We have a right to know who is behind it all; we all should be allowed to see their names. “What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander“, so what does the discrimination support pyramid look like?

In all this I kept on thinking of the term “Separation of church and state“, if anything, these events as portrayed clearly show that America, for an above minor extent is following the foundation of the “Support for power of the church through the assistance of the state“. This is some boast, but in a two party system like we see in the United states, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and Spain, the power that those not in power (the shadow government), still wields a massive amount of power to do the things that some churches, as they are governed by tiny minded people want to achieve.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Anti-Homosexuality Act 2014, Bahati, homophobia, MSNBC, NPR, President Yoweri Museveni, Red Pepper, Representative Joe Pitts, Senator Sam Brownback, the Family, the Fellowship, Uganda

Category Archives: Law

Recent Posts

Archives