Category Archives: Media

Stupidity is key

I was almost ready to go to sleep, it is 1:45, so that makes sense. I have been enjoying the devastation of Japanese armed forces (playing Aragami 2) whilst enjoying Philip Glass in the background (Satyagraha), it was a lovely evening. So as I was about to put my head on my pillow whilst imitating a sawmill (I am exceedingly expert at that) the BBC messed it all up by giving us ‘Saudi crown prince suggested killing King Abdullah, ex-official says’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-59032931) and I was wide awake to take notice of this. Now I accept that they are merely reporting the news (according to the needs of their stakeholders). Yet there is a lot missing. So when we see “In an interview with CBS, Saad al-Jabri said Mohammed bin Salman told his cousin in 2014 that he wanted to do so to clear the throne for his father.” So what is up? 

To give you that, we need to give you a small history lesson, I covered it in the past, but to do so again is now essential. 

In the first, we need to take notice of the small fact that he has been living in exile in Canada since May 2017. So why do we get this almost 5 years later? If it was a real thing there would have been a debriefing when he exiled to Canada, Canadian intelligence (CSIS) and CIA would both have debriefed him from A to Z. There is the civil suit of an alleged issue, yet that case was filed in the US. A case of an event in Canada filed in the US? That is weird, in addition we see the Middle East eye giving us “Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst and director of the Brookings Intelligence Project, explained why Al Jabri kept a low profile after arriving in Canada: “I think he’s scared. Wouldn’t you be?”” Which is fair enough, but I reckon that his coins are dwindling down and there is a decent chance that Al-Jabri is playing the get rich a little more game. 

Then there is a part that is speculative from my side, but hear me out. The Guardian and Al Jazeera give us in July 2020 “Senators Patrick Leahy, Tim Kaine, Chris Van Hollen and Marco Rubio wrote to President Donald Trump urging him to press for the release of Al Jabri’s children. Calling him a “highly valued partner” they said: “the US has a moral obligation to do what it can to assist in securing his children’s freedom”. The Department of State noted that it had “repeatedly” requested that Saudi officials “clarify the status” of Al Jabri’s children, and undertook to: “continue to engage Saudi counterparts to resolve this situation in a manner that honours Dr Aljabri’s service to our country.” In this the following points come to bare (or is that bear)?

  1. How is he a valued partner three years after events? I am not saying it is not the case, but the man was out of the game for over three years. 
  2. If this was so important, why is he in Canada and not in the US? Also, no one was able to smuggle his family out in three years?

These two parts are not a given, but should call for all kinds of questions. I get it Canada is beautiful and has better quality hockey, but is that enough for a person like Saad bin Khalid Al Jabry? 

In all this we also see “Mr Jabri warned that Crown Prince Mohammed – Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler and the son of King Salman – was a “psychopath, killer, in the Middle East with infinite resources, who poses threat to his people, to the Americans and to the planet”” this shows that he is out for something else and it is driving his needy ego ‘who poses threat to his people, to the Americans and to the planet’. Perhaps the Americans feel threatened, but that is not the drive, Saudi Arabia has been happy to order billions from the US, so the statement is already flaky. Of course if the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia takes my lead and order the billions in planes from China (and pretty please give me my 3.75% commission) America will feel threatened, but that is in the first on loss of revenue and a few other matters. The planet? That is ridiculous, this is an ego drive and it is to satisfy the need of stakeholders (names unknown at present). The second part is given to us with “he added that the meeting was secretly filmed and that he knew where two copies of the video recording were”, in the first he plays the statistical game with ‘two copies’ in the second he is keeping that until he gets a lot of $$$$$, it is the game he plays and it is decently played, because the moment the CSIS and the CIA know he is fake they will drop him like a bad habit and that is what he fears. Without the protection of the US and Canada he is done for and the interview was to appease certain stakeholders (my personal view).

So whilst you consider that, also consider “He denies stealing any government money, saying his former employers rewarded him generously” Really? How much? Consider that he is a former major-general, consider that his wealth is allegedly creeping towards billion. Which he has been accused to embezzle. So how much did the CIA, FBI, CSIS, RCMP find? And if it is more than 20 million, how could a general in a non-dictatorship get that much? Last time I checked generals made a nice bundle, but not the side of a container full of dollars. All elements that the BBC could have added by vetting the data they had and the data they could investigate. OK, I admit that the BBC did nothing wrong, but there is a larger picture and they are not giving you that one either. As such I am left with all kinds of questions. 

It is OK to think that I am the stupid one, yet in this the facts have been all around us for years, so why didn’t anyone act? In this I actually wonder how valid and how much quality is in his intelligence. Well, it is easily checked, perhaps the ICIJ after they are done with their tall tales on Pandora (and her box), Hesiod already covered that a long time ago. 

So as we see more bashing of Saudi Arabia, I wonder how long it will take Stephanie Kirchgaessner to…. No, I spoke too soon, she is already on it (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/25/saudi-crown-prince-a-psychopath-says-exiled-intelligence-officer) and when you consider this all, also consider the quote at the end. It comes from former CIA director Mike Morell “I don’t know if Dr Saad was corrupt in any way. I wouldn’t be surprised if he wasn’t because he’s such an honourable man. But I also wouldn’t be surprised if he was. Because everybody to some extent had their hand in the kitty. And King Abdullah allowed it, permitted it” Yet the third side is not (allegedly) contemplated and from my side it is mere speculation. The idea that Al Jabry placed the explosives to create a way out it seemingly not investigated. So in all this, how much did he exile with? When I am told to exile it will be with no more than $54.55, but then, I am not a General. So how did he get away with what he did? When you have to run you are either prepared or you set preparations in motion and when was the last time you left with an 8 figure number? The stage is set, the orchestrators are playing and we are the ones dancing. That is how the stakeholders like it, but in this the stakes are a little too high. If Saudi Arabia turns the taps off in Europe and the US, that oil will go to China. Consider the mess you have at that point in the US and optionally Europe too. I find it interesting that the name of Stephanie Kirchgaessner is used in conjunction with anti-Saudi sentiments a little too often, I personally feel that this is about something else. It is speculative and I could very well be wrong. I will let you dig into the events and see where your intellect takes you. That is all I can do, show you the doors and the windows and let you decide for yourself. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

Call for change!

Yes, this is a call for change. A call to take care of some loud mouthed and despicable individuals. I will allow them to be what they are, but they will face the consequences of their choices, as we all need to do at times. 

The first port of call
The first port is that anti-vaxxers and those not vaccinated with a good provable reason will have to pay UPFRONT for any hospital admittance for COVID. So there are no stories about “Anti-vaxxer Kristen Lowery”, or those radio hosts and stories on how sorry they were lying in a comfortable hospital bed. They can tough it out at home and optionally die there. We see and avoid the utterly exhausted nursing staff having to deal with idiots and I for one have had enough. As we see media sources give us that 90% of all COVID hospital admissions are non vaccinated ones, I say stop now!

More important, the fact that the media is not making sure the people realise that certain choices are a stage of utter disbelieve. In data we call a 90% stage EVIDENCE! When the stage of vaccinated versus non-vaccinated is that much off, it should serve as evidence that vaccination is the only way. So when I get to see the WA Today giving us “Mr McGowan’s personal mobile number was plastered across anti-vaccination and “freedom” social media pages and WhatsApp groups on Wednesday night, with constant threats to himself and his family bombarding his phone to the point where he was forced to turn it off” the time has clearly come to stop being nice and do what is essential. Now there is a case that people can decide what THEY want to do, but if we see a person deliberately endangering themselves and optionally intentionally endanger the lives of others, we need to see this as a sign that they need to fess up their coins to pay for the damage they instil ion self and others. So they get to pay upfront for their hospital needs. As I see it, it would relieve pressure on all healthcare workers. And this should be applied all over the Commonwealth, optionally the US and EU could decide to do the same.

In this there will be an upside for the US. Most of these weird anti-vaxxer people are Trump supporters, so as they all die, the US sees a second benefit, Ronald McDonald Trump will no longer have the votes he needs to enter office again. His voters will be spread all over the 144,000 cemeteries, or spread over rose bushes, and I am Republican in nature, so this is not some democrat feud. 

So the call for change is given, I hope that this sentiment will make it all over the Commonwealth, the US and the EU. And in this my anger does not subside. You see people are allowed to be as stupid as they can be, but when we get a video of some anti-vaxxer tosser shouting at an exhausted nurse with a bullhorn, things have gone way too far and now we will give them a sample of consequence. So call your MP, call your Congressman, your Senator. Write them a letter of demanded change and make it clear, if people want to be anti-vaxxer, that is allowed, but on their OWN dime and this might lower the hospital pressures as well, so there are more benefits. Let these people pay, literally let them pay for their own stupidity.

This has gone on for way too long!

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Science

You again?

That was my first thought when I saw the Guardian give us ‘France and Israel hold ‘secret’ talks to defuse phone spyware row’ with the added ‘Stephanie Kirchgaessner’. I have seen her work before and it happened on March 26th 2021 when I wrote ‘The joy of discovery’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/03/26/the-joy-of-discovery/)  there I stated “this was an article that an intern could have written and as such more and more question marks on ‘Saudi bashing’ surface and the ring of those doing this is is becoming more and more debatable. Yet in all this, no one is asking questions, no one seems to notice. I did initially in a previous video article with Stephanie Kirchgaessner, but it could have been an editing issue, now I am no longer sure. I am not questioning the stage we see here, yet such a space for a threat all whilst dying children in Yemen get less space, whilst Al Jazeera gives us ‘People in Yemen are not just dying, they are being left to die’ (2 days ago), I start to wonder what the focal point of a US investigative reporter has become”. Now I see her in this piece and the hair on the back of my neck is standing up. So, let’s see if I am right again.

The first thing I see is “In July, it was reported that the phone numbers of some French cabinet members, as well as Macron himself, appeared on a leaked database of mobile phone numbers which included some selected as possible targets for surveillance by government clients of NSO” I and others reported on this, in several sources thee is debate on the truth of that leaked list, the second part is that the list was also regarded as fake in another source years ago. I discussed this part in ‘From horse to course’ on July 23rd 2021 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/07/23/from-horse-to-course/) it is there that I mention the Guardian who gave “NSO has said Macron was not a “target” of any of its customers, meaning the company denies he was selected for surveillance using its spyware, saying in multiple statements that it requires its government clients to use its powerful spying tools only for legitimate investigations into terrorism or crime”, the setting that the so called leaked list sets the stage that the NSO group must have had an income surpassing $600,000,000 which they never did (they are doing well, but not that well). In addition the lack of any dashboard and a lot of other elements make the stage a waste of time. In this I personally see that Stephanie Kirchgaessner has become the journalistic joke she might always have been. The cranky aunt you keep around on Christmas to entice you to have more eggnog so her voice fades into background noise. 

In this there is (as I personally see it) no leaked list, there might be a list, but it is someone else’s list. And the waste of time is seen with “There is no firm evidence that the phones of the five cabinet members were successfully hacked, but the Mediapart allegations indicate the devices were targeted with the powerful spyware, which can intercept phone conversations, text messages, emails and photographs. It can also turn a mobile phone into a listening device by remotely controlling a phone’s recorder”, so basically through this, the Guardian has now less credibility than Russian news organisation RT? In the second, if there is no evidence, how is behind “the Mediapart allegations” why are we not given that? So as the article ends with “Forbidden Stories, a Paris-based journalism nonprofit, and Amnesty International led the journalistic collaboration”, I personally wonder if that part should read “Fake Stories, a Paris-based glossy joke, and Amnesty Insufferable led the tantrum collaboration”, I personally wish that these jokes were buried (alive) and that these articles will not be allowed again until these so called journalists present a proper dashboard, they’ve had months now. It would have been one of the first things I did, just like the Pandora papers, all alleged claims and no verified substance. And like before why on earth is so called ‘Stephanie Kirchgaessner is the Guardian’s US investigations correspondent’ involved in something that is happening in France? Doesn’t the Guardian have credible journalists in Europe (preferably in France) or Israel? Did no one consider that little hiccup of debatable information?

And what are these so called traces? Its always nice to see anonymous sources and with “citing multiple anonymous sources and a confidential intelligence dossier”, all whilst the debatable sides are out there, it seems that the Guardian is slipping from top tier newspaper to some Murdoch wannabe glossy production. Feel free to oppose me, but do some of your homework and you will se that I am right. 

I wonder when people will catch on that this is a mere ploy, optionally an anti-Israel one. 

Enjoy the weekend!

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Military, Politics, Science

Political tools

We all daydream and I am no exception. Yet I believe that my brain is bonkers (probably related to the casing it is in). This all started last week when I saw Official Secret (2019), now I need no encouragement to watch anything with Keira Knightley, so when I saw the name, I picked up the title. I saw it was a spy story based on actual events. It was seeing the film that overwhelmed me. The movie was amazing, one that John Le Carre would have ben proud of if he had written it (it was written by history). It was still in the back of my mind when it crossed tracks with an event that started to play out two weeks ago. A man named Sywert van Lienden had allegedly “send a series of critical tweets to ensnare the Dutch health ministry, the tweets were arranged to create pressure”. From my side (not the most popular one) I believe that the Dutch Health department was foolish on a few levels. In the first Twitter is not a reliable source, so ego driven politicians jumped up fast and they did not do their homework by testing the tweet origins. Trolls have been using that method for years, so I think that Sywert was aggressively creative, some will call him deviously sneaky. Yet the two parts gave me an idea. In the proposed setting of all these honourable military complex vendors. You see, hackers are always the ones copying data FROM servers. Now consider the setting that an ammunition maker has devised a new kind of shell, a .50 shell that works like a drill, it might only in part get through bulletproof glass, but the delay and impact pressure will change the course. So the inner part like a mercury exploding bullet, there are a few items that [secret patent content deleted from story

So here we are, a manufacturer who has the inside track that no one else has. However, the Pentagon is not willing to buy it, because there is no need. So the maker engages with hackers to insert a secret file into the RFARP (Russian Foundation for Advanced Research Projects) server. The department also known as “Фонд перспективных исследований” will be hacked (the makers arranged that via another channel), so the hackers upload a similar but not identical one, it even has a fixed flaw that the makers left untouched. So when the CIA makes enquiry the report is given (a little) praise with the setting that they will incorporate that design in the next batch for testing. Now with the Russian data the maker secures an initial order of 50,000 bullets with a larger order coming if the first order proves its worth (and of course it does). A station where the CIA is ‘used’ as a tool for selling hardware the Americans never really needed. 

Now consider the setting as the hackers overwrite the server with an inserted trojan over a seemingly empty damaged file. Now they are in the clear and it becomes a CIA versus GRU game. The stage of what some think they need whilst the deciding players never correctly did their homework. A setting that could make for an entertaining (thrilling) 97.2 minutes.

Just an idea.

P.S. To any Russian investigator, I have no idea how this story got on my blog. (Nudge nudge wink wink)

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, movies, Politics

Direction and Course

We are all driven by doubts. We are all driven by needs and we are all enticed by desires. There is no exception, none at all. Not if you are a cleric, Christian or Muslim. Not if you are a farmer or a politician (although too often I think that the first party is more intelligent than the second one). We are all driven by surges, by vectors and by elements outside ourselves. They are the particles that fuel the internal engine in us and the mindset that accompanies it. I remain on the fence regarding the building scandal in Rotterdam, the political power-drive for a place called Vestia. The simplest side is a mere tally, 524 homes are removed to be replaced by 137 locations to inhabit, with an added 101 apartments for higher incomes and 143 apartments for sale, the tally does not add up. A new station is created with -143 locations. This was about money, plain and simple. So whilst Vestia hides behind “We achieve this by taking an effective and innovative approach to rentals, sales, liveability, maintenance, investments and operating costs. We are committed to providing good service to our customers: the people who rent and buy our homes”, so whilst we see one, we also see that they enabled the removal of 387 social housing locations, it was the simplest math problem. Someone got rich here. Yet in the setting of greed, there is so much out there, Rotterdam is not even the smallest blip on any, not even a Dutch radar. 

There is more out there, the stage of the media is getting out of control, stake holders, the setting of lobbyists that are gracing the foundation of media is getting larger, os getting stronger and the media itself does not care, it is like watching a crack whore reach for the goods. Their grasp towards digital dollars without contemplating the larger stage is ludicrous. As an example look at the home page of the Independent (independent.co.uk), the Los Angeles Times (latimes.com), The Washington Post (washingtonpost.com), and Dagens Nyheter (www.dn.se). Notice the advertisements? Let’s be clear, the papers are allowed to do that, yet consider who can afford that. Consider the cost of a front page advertisement in the paper versus the front page of a website. Consider the stage of who gets the visibility and how they got there. Now there is an opposing side to this some are merely advertising, there is no ‘stake holder’, there is no political need, but that stage is fluidic and siding with the stake holders. Consider the past, how many advertisements for some Microsoft device passed you by? How many claims of mobile data for less, how many ads are localised? Consider seeing the LA Times, seeing “Coliving Homes in Sydney. Coliving homes for rent in Sydney from A$1,300/month, inclusive of weekly housekeeping”, now there is nothing wrong with the ad. And it is powered by Google Ads and there is nothing wrong with that. Yet consider that an apartment costing A$1300 a week has an ad on the front page of the LA Times. The setting is so much larger than even I can understand. This is global and this is not some anti-Google setting, I am making the claim that there is a layer between the media and advertisers. Electronic lobbyists, I call them Stake Holders, and they are raking in millions. The view is not easy, and I am not making a claim that I have it, it is so convoluted on the global scale that no one really has an idea, it would require the Google source data and a very powerful computer to suss it out to the smallest degree. I saw glimmers as Microsoft was advertising its Surface pro, but that could just as easily be seen as a glimmer of delusion. The problem is not me, it is not anyone who might not be able to see it, it will be the media, they are part of it. They are setting a new course, they are setting a course towards their digital dollars at the expense of the people, what I often refer to the ‘click bitches’ they create though emotional articles. A newspaper will give you ‘Pandora papers: biggest ever leak of offshore data exposes financial secrets of rich and powerful’, whilst they also give you “the move was not illegal, and there is no evidence the Blairs proactively sought to avoid property taxes” Consider that journalists waste time on non-illegal actions whilst we see some papers give us ‘Houthi blockade restricts aid’, is that not interesting? The UN was all about attacking Saudi Arabia recently whilst keeping (according to media) Houthi and Iranian elements out of that think-tank presentation. So why are we not given the full view whilst some are wasting our time on “the move was not illegal”. I believe that political lobbyists and digital lobbyists are uniting to some extent, optionally the political lobbyists are also on the digital platform calling themselves ‘stake holders’. This is speculation, this is not proven (yet) and there could be all kinds of ‘evidence’ proving me wrong. I do not know yet, but the views I have seen over the last 15 months proving me to be correct more and more. And now, I am taking the light to my work and looking deeper into it all, because anyone not criticising and digging into his own data will fail from the start, and I do not like failure. But that is just me, to seek a direction and course requires energy and it needs a drive, but what that drive is remains open to debate, even for me.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Politics

It was the smell of coffee

We all have this and we all try to ignores it when it is not Sunday. Yet that was for me the setting this morning. I was going through the Guardian with the smell of coffee in my nose. Still half asleep I noticed the words ‘shun workers’ and I saw the picture of a lovely young lady (Genevieve LeJeune) and my mind went ‘whats this about?’ And I started to read the article. As such the title became ‘Sex discrimination: why banks shun workers in adult entertainment’, I saw the word ‘sex; and I am a simple guy, so I was very much in the ‘lets read this’ mood. So the article gives us that the HSBC bank was part of “I didn’t think for one minute they would have an issue with what the business was about. And why would they be concerned, as long as I’m cashflow positive and I do all the right things, and it’s completely legal?” It was basically as was stated “She said she told the bank that she ran a community for the “B” in LGBTQ+ and was not chased for any further information”, by her own account a community with 16000 members. They were suddenly cut off and we get “She has spent more than four years battling HSBC for access to more than £20,000 trapped in those accounts” with in the finale “only regained control of the cash this spring after complaining to the Financial Ombudsman Service”. There are two parts that catch me in the article. The first was the setting given “she ran a community for the “B” in LGBTQ+”, and the subsequent part of the article that paints them all as “sex workers”. One is not the other and even as we accept that Bi curious women might see of there is a penny, it is not a given, it requires evidence and that is even a larger problem because are stated they are not breaking the law. So let’s take a look at the other side. 

In 2018 we get ‘HSBC ‘divests’ from Israeli arms company Elbit Systems’, HSBC only acted when pro-Palestinian voices became too loud and personally I do not think they had to give in. 

. Oh and Elbit Systems is an electronics company (mostly drones), the ICIJ reported only last year ‘HSBC moved vast sums of dirty money after paying record laundering fine’, so a laundering company makes waves over skirts? How is that for irony? So when we are given (at https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/hsbc-moved-vast-sums-of-dirty-money-after-paying-record-laundering-fine/) “HSBC was profiting from an international criminal scheme even while on probation for having served murderous drug cartels and other criminals. HSBC had admitted to U.S. prosecutors in 2012 that it had helped dirty money flow through its branches around the world, including at least $881 million controlled by the notorious Sinaloa cartel and other Mexican drug gangs”, we see a setting where Bi-curious women have less rights than drug gangs in the eyes of the bank? I reckon that the drug gangs didn’t have to go to the Ombudsman (why is that?)

And only last July the Guardian reported (at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jul/28/hsbc-faces-questions-over-disclosure-of-alleged-money-laundering-to-monitors) ‘HSBC faces questions over disclosure of alleged money laundering to monitors’ with the byline “Bank was under supervision by US Department of Justice-appointed team because of previous violations”. I think we need to do something else. Something I have never ever done on this site before. I am calling ALL readers to see if they or their friends use the HSBC as a bank, and ask them all to switch banks, to whatever bank they prefer. It is time to give HSBC an education on hypocrisy. I have no connections to that bank, and I hope the large numbers of readers (especially in the UK) will move to another bank. 

I feel this is the only path open to us. Now if you feel that curious women are to be discriminated against, I leave it up to you, but a bank with these standards acting against people who broke no law whilst they are on the US laundering top 10 with ties to drug gangs should not be allowed to function, should they?

P.S. WordPress still has not fixed colour issue

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Military

We are the tools

Yes, we are, you, me, we all are and the evidence is all out there. So let’s start with the global comic relieve that we call the ICIJ (International Consortium of Investigative Journalists). We all see the headlines, global headlines and 600 secretaries (they call themselves journalists) are out there giving us what we think are the goods. To phrase an example we take a look at the Sydney Morning Herald (at https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/australia-has-become-a-go-to-destination-for-dirty-money-leaks-reveal-nation-s-tax-weaknesses-20211007-p58y2i.html) it is a mere example what is going on out there. A collection of people no one head about, no one cared about. A collection of tits and dicks all striking their own ego, their own needs and the audience is gobbling it up. So when we are given phrases like “ALP senator Deborah O’Neill has launched an inquiry into Australia’s AML-CTF regime and is seeking industry feedback on the costs and benefits of broadening our laws to include accountants and lawyers to bring Australian laws into line with international standards to prevent financial crime” Yet here is the problem. It is ‘prevent financial crime’, in this that we also see from other sources “the line between tax avoidance and tax evasion has become so blurred we need to act against both” and there is the real problem, a stage I told people for well over a decade. Tax laws need overhaul on a global stage. And the setting too often is that there were no laws broken, these people might act against the spirit of the law, but they NEVER broke the law. And that is the stage, 600 typing tutors cannot give us the goods, because as I speculate, the real goods were never there. Yet someone in the ICIJ decided not to investigate the origins. Interesting not? So whilst we focus on “Avoidance meant arranging your affairs so tax wasn’t due”, whilst we consider that politicians have given the wealthy and rich a little too much leeway these politicians are now hiding under rocks and they do not want the limelight. And whilst some are considering “It isn’t illegal for the celebrity or a politician to move their money (so long as it is theirs to begin with). Assets within the trust are subject to local tax laws (sometimes zero tax) and local secrecy laws (sometimes complete secrecy)”, they will get the idea that places like Monaco, Cayman Islands and Dubai have appeal to many people with a piggy bank that holds an 8-figure number or more. So when we see all these papers give us “the documents were linked to more than 330 politicians and public officials, including 35 current and former national leaders, in more than 91 countries and territories”, as well as mentions of billionaires and no one gave us a clear top-line setting, I saw one, just one in a stage with dozens of papers and on less than 50% of the politicians involved. Yet none in the US, none in Canada, none in Australia or New Zealand, it is optionally possible, but 50% of that rundown was missing. And 600 secretaries had no time to look into it? As papers keep on handing us “a two-year effort to sift through 11.9 million confidential files leaked to it, aided in that effort by more than 600 journalists from 150 media outlets.” No one had the idea to give us a tally, a top-line? So far how many give us a list of ACTUAL criminal events? Tax Avoidance is not illegal, owning and residing in a zero tax nation is not illegal, so what is this about?

Now consider another station I made mention on. Consider the names Jacob A. Frenkel, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Guillermo Ortiz, Jean-Claude Trichet, Geoffrey Bell, Roger W. Ferguson, Jr., Arminio Fraga, Kenneth Rogoff, Janet Yellen, Zhou Xiaochuan, Domingo Cavallo, Mario Draghi, Yi Gang, Carmen Reinhart, Maria Ramos, Klaas Knot, Philipp Hildebrand and Kenneth Rogoff. All part of the G30 bankers list, no mention at all? These people move trillions, there is no way that there is no mention of them in any way, but the press seemingly avoided that small part, or the source data was stricken of them, making this an exercise of some sorts and no one caught on? How come?

And this is not in you, that is on the members of the media (including those who think that they are journalists, or got the degree and faked their way through life). 

A simple setting of bankrupt nations painting the wealthy as the criminals, all whilst the politicians were a lot more to blame in all of this, 2 decades of ignored overhauls and no one catches on? 

The sanctimonious BS that the media is feeding us sickens me, it really does.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Was I wrong?

That is something I have been accused of plenty of times. Mostly they were wrong (as anyone might who thinks that they are right), in this case it was my take on the debt ceiling. I wrote it in ‘Two items’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/10/07/two-items/). Consider the fact that the debt is at present $28 trillion and there is no real debt ceiling raising, there is merely a stand off of 10 weeks. So the people in the USA will go through this again during Christmas, and if we are picky about this. At present the interest in the debt is well over $280,000,000,000 a year, that is if anyone was stupid enough to give the USA a 1% credit arrangement, even houses get more, so at 2% it is $560 billion. Consider that and consider that this extension costs a little more than $107,500,000,000 for 10 weeks. How much tax was collected? A setting that goes nowhere EVER. As I personally see it the total annual tax receipts. One source gives us “In 2020, the total revenue of the U.S. government sum up to about 3.42 trillion U.S. dollars and consist of individual and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes. Individual income taxes totalled up to 1.6 trillion U.S. dollars in 2020, whereas corporate income taxes totalled to 212 billion U.S. dollars.” As such we see two elements, corporate tax would not. Cover the debt, not even 50%. Yes the total tax collected covers that interest, but it will take 15% of all collected taxes to make that work, as such if we take the simple road (I need to because I have no economics degree) it amounts to 43% of the collected taxes to pay for the interest plus enough to pay the debt off in 30 years. As such a debt accumulated in 25 years will take 30 years as well as push a large part of the US nation into pure poverty. No infrastructures maintained, no education, a massive cut on defence spending (not the worst idea), yet in this logistics takes a hit, so consider standing in long lines in ANY setting that requires you to get any help at all and healthcare is damaged beyond repair. That is the station that the Americans face and as this happens, Japan goes over the edge and the EU will be in all kinds of states. You see, Russia and China do not have the engage in war, they can merely stand on the sidelines watching it all implode. This is not a new setting, this was clear in 2012/2013 as we were watching the middle east expenses explode. Politicians who were all in a stage of ‘We will overcome this’, so where are these politicians now? Sitting pretty on a large bag of money, thats where! In all this, I do not want you to take my word on this. Do the math, check the numbers and see where it is coming from. 

Now consider what I gave you earlier and consider that sources stated that the 2020 Budget for the US was $4.79 trillion. A budget that comes $1,370,000,000,000 short of what was available. Are you getting a clue that the 10 weeks is a laughable excuse? Yes, the republicans have a good case, but they are not innocent either in all this, both sides got you in this mess and now the Credit Card with the connected address of 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW is getting cancelled on a near global scale. We see how Wall Street is presenting itself to be happy, but it is short lived and those people are filling their pockets and they will go wherever they (and their family) can have a sweet lifestyle for 40 years. I reckon when it all implodes it will take that long to get up again and whatever gets up will not be very human, or humane any more. 

These are numbers that are out there, so do you still think I am wrong? It’s fine, you should never just agree with anyone, especially a person you do not know. You should check yourself, because when the social system in the US (and several other nations) collapse, the upside for those governments will be that suicide numbers will go through the roof. 

Why upside?
Housing prices collapse, homeless numbers go down, unemployment numbers go down. If an unemployed person commits suicide, the cost falls away, if an employed person does it a job becomes optionally available. The numbers are at this time THAT COLD. You think it makes me happen, but it does not. I admit, on the Covid side I made fun of the non-inoculated people, but a social collapse suicide wave is nothing one has ever seen before. Consider that 2018 had the highest male suicide rates since 1950 and then triple it, (an estimated number created with a wet finger). The US will be looking at 67 per 100,000. That amounts to 217,750 suicides and it will not be one year, it will be a setting of a percentage annually of the 217,750 for 3-5 years. It will surpass the 733,575 covid-19 deaths in the US. That is the setting and beware, this is speculated on my side. I cannot prove this and I have no data supporting any of this, a mere impact of expected events when a social security system collapses. It is set to about 70 million people in the US getting assistance in one form or another from the Social Security Administration (SSA), now consider it falling away completely. Rents cannot be met, hunger all over the place and no healthcare. A situation that comes from a badly managed debt by both the Democrats and the Republicans. So, feel free to ignore this, but I do hope you will check the numbers, they are all out there and they are all over the place. So when you see the impact that 70,000,000 people face, my number set to 217,750 might turn out to be extremely conservative. If it gets to be seriously higher I honestly hope I will not live to see that day, it would be depressing beyond measure and if you think that this is bad, I expect Japan to equal those numbers and optionally surpass them. They merely have a population of 126 million, a mere 38% compared to America, so when I see them surpass that number, we can see that the larger stage will be a nasty one. A stage where China and Russia can claim the lands by clearing the corpses, not one weapon used, not one bullet fired. That is the deep dark future we are all heading too. So whether I end up saying ‘я не говорю по-русски’, ‘我不懂中文’, or optionally ‘मैं हिंदी कहां से सीख सकता हूं’ We are all heading towards an abyss, one that was created by people who were smitten with ego’s stating ‘We are too big too fail’. History taught us that nothing is too big too fail. We saw the examples in Julius Caesar (44BC), Napoleon Bonaparte (1821), Adolf Hitler (1945) in this their opponents had a nice party (the one in 44BC was awesome), will I be wrong again? That is a decent setting, you see the people getting wealthy on the debt the US has wants the debt ceiling to be raised again and again. And as I personally see it, there is no real solution, there is no debt management, there is no halting overspending in too many places and as such these nations will grab whatever they can and however they can. IP values will be end up being based on on national products, and corporations will need to align with a nation. You see there is a larger danger for Big Tech and the US (EU too) doesn’t like true global companies. As such we see court play after court play, yet in the end players like Apple, Facebook, Google, IBM, Microsoft and others will optionally face a new setting a domestic office and non-domestic offices that will have to report to the domestic office. A setting that happens to some degree, but now there will be a tax focus. In this both the US and the EU have no choice, their credit cards are stretched too thin. However, I doubt that they will become sensible and plan for an end to debts, Wall Street for one will not like that and the IMF will have its own reasons to object. Debt is big business and the people you never elected in any nation are getting decently wealthy in the process. I am not talking about people like Jeff Bezos, Sergey Brin or Bill Gates. I am talking about Mario Draghi and his friends, the banks who are collecting the interest. You forgot about them did you? The so called ‘secretive club of bankers’, did you think they were having a drink and talking about the good old days? Did you think that they were letting $560,000,000,000 to chance? A club with 33 member, and if they only get 10%, that implies that these 33 people are optionally at present getting $17,000,000,000 each EVERY YEAR. You still think that the debt is making your life better? 

Do not take my word on any of this, find the numbers, find the links and see what else is there, there is enough out there and as far as I can tell the larger issue was never seen in the IDIJ, or showed up in the Pandora papers, did they? Why was that? Try finding any of these 33 people in the Pandora papers, what are the chances that you will find none?

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics

Choices that some make

We all have this. We make choices and that is not against anyone (or anything for that matter). So I was a bit on the fence when I saw ‘Frances Haugen takes on Facebook: the making of a modern US hero’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/10/frances-haugen-takes-on-facebook-the-making-of-a-modern-us-hero). First off, let’s start by saying I have nothing against Frances Haugen or her point of view. I do find the setting ‘the making of a modern US hero’ debatable. I feel certain that it was not her setting to become a hero or to see heroism. It is the paint stage that the massively less than credible media is taking. If big tech was not under attack the media would most likely have been more moderate in their colours of painting brushes. 

We get told “The 37-year-old logged out of Facebook’s company network for the last time in May and last week was being publicly lauded a “21st-century American hero” on Washington’s Capitol Hill” yet where was the media these last three years? Collecting Facebook advertising money I reckon. So when we are given “I believe Facebook’s products harm children, stoke division and weaken our democracy” I do not disagree, I have no data to disagree, but the media had that, they have had a clear picture for years, but for the media flaming creates emotion, it create click bitches and it generates digital advertisement income. But Facebook was an eager tool for a long time and you do not bite the hand that feeds you and the media has shown itself very protective of ANY hand that feeds them. If there is one part I disagree with (to some extent) then it is “She repeatedly referred to the company choosing growth and profit over safety and warned that Facebook and Instagram’s algorithms – which tailor the content that a user sees – were causing harm”, it is the “which tailor the content that a user sees – were causing harm” part I cannot completely agree with. I do believe that Frances Haugen is sincere in her approach, but ‘causing harm’ requires evidence, evidence that is a lot harder to obtain. Perhaps that was given, and I did not look at all the documents, but there is a stage, optionally two. The first is “choosing growth and profit over safety”, that seems clear, the entire emotional flames might be part of that, yet there is a stage of “choosing growth and profit over increased safety”, it seems like a small step, yet the stage is proving that it was all against “profit over decreased safety” that matters. We create safety, or we stop increased safety, none of that is on Facebook, only if a clear view of “profit over decreased safety” is shown Facebook will have a larger problem. You see, no matter how we point the fingers on ‘flaming’ in the end it is the view of the less than articulate person lacking a decent education and the US is so protective of its First Amendment, that nothing goes anywhere. The Media has been using that stick to slap donkeys, horses, dogs and people for decades. In this I have some issues with Democrat Senator Ed Markey (D-MA), when we are given   “Facebook is like big tobacco, enticing young kids with that first cigarette,” said Senator Markey at the hearing. “Congress will be taking action. We will not allow your company to harm our children and our families and our democracy, any longer.” I cannot completely disagree, yet in the 70’s and 80’s there was clear evidence on Big Tobacco, but the US government and corporations had no issues taxing and grabbing marketing dollars wherever they could. (Example at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Vg_QVAEJtg) If Facebook is just as bad, you should have had years of evidence and I believe you had it but these political big wigs were unwilling to act. A model based on selling advertisements that brought in billions, what was there not to love and for the most the media loved it too. So I am not arguing with the views that Frances Haugen is bringing, it is the views of those heralding her now. And too many of them should be seriously afraid. When hackers and others start looking into data and the timeline of decisions a few people in the Senate, Congress and a few other players will sweat drops of death. 

And my view? Well CNBC did that work with ‘Facebook spent more on lobbying than any other Big Tech company in 2020’ (at https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/22/facebook-spent-more-on-lobbying-than-any-other-big-tech-company-in-2020.html) at the beginning of the year. So when someone grabs an abacus and digs on where the $19 million plus went, some politicians might not like the answers the people are given, and that is the part that is out in the open, the setting of Stakeholders and media for Facebook might optionally double or triple that amount. It is the highest of all the FAANG group and almost twice as much as Microsoft, so what do you think will happen next? 

It took 20 years for big tobacco to get into real trouble, as such if there is a parallel there is every chance that something is done by 2040, as such Facebook has plenty of time. But in all this, there is a part missing, which is not on anyone (and not on CNBC either). The stage where the people get to know the names the lobbyists and how these politicians voted on Facebook and other first amendment issues. That is the part no one gets to see and I very much doubt that this will change any day soon.

And my point of view is seen with Christopher Wylie when we get “Wylie said he had relived his own experience as a whistleblower by watching Haugen. But he also found the flashbacks frustrating – because nothing has changed.” The Cambridge Analytica is out there and even as the New York Times gives us 2 days ago “We’re Smarter About Facebook Now”, I personally am considering that they are full of it. They needed to be smarter about it close to 2 years ago, so weren’t they? Isn’t that equally a decent question to ask? So as Wylie gives us “The fact that we are still having a conversation about what is happening, not what are we going to do about it, I find slightly exasperating,” shows us clearly the inaction of politics, of policies and the lack of actions by the law, global law no less. Fir we look at the US, but the laws and the actions by the EU and the Commonwealth is equally lacking, so why is that? It is due to the choices some make and the consequences we all have to face and in a stage where every coffer is empty and every nation has a credit card that has a maximised debt, acting against a company bringing in millions in taxable dollars is often not considered.

We all make choices, that is not a sin, but after the Catholics, a second deal where the choosing parties are giving sanctum to those endangering kids is debatable on several levels, that being said, those opposing Facebook will need to prove it and that is not an easy matter to do, because as I state, it is not about “choosing growth and profit over safety”, it will be about “profit versus decreased safety” and that is a very different data stage and the evidence will not be easy to obtain, mainly because the users are often the problem too. Facebook gives us “Facebook’s policy is to delete accounts if there is proof that the account holder is under 13 – they won’t be able to take action if they can’t be sure of the child’s age.” And they try to adhere to that, yet there have been plenty of indications that some were younger, but the stage of “if there is proof that the account holder is under 13”, as such the account stays in place. And when we see several sources give us (unverified for honesty) “A friend has a 9-year-old son and they have allowed him to create his own Facebook account” how can Facebook be blamed and that setting will taint the evidence as well, as such it will take a long time for actual action to start, it is not a setting that Frances Haugen might have seen coming, but in a land of laws, evidence is key (unless political issues take precedence). 

There is a lot more on the Facebook front and it will take months for it all to surface and when it does there is more than likely several months of contemplation and inaction, all because those who could act would not. Who is to blame there? I will let you work that one out.

Have a great day!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

Paradoxical thinking

This is not reality, this is not what is happening, but it could have been. Surprised? I actually was when my mind (the back of my mind) came up with a third idea for a TV series. Perhaps that is the wrong setting, a mini series is better. You see any story needs to have a beginning, the substance, optionally with twists, plots and loads of question marks. After that we get an ending, the satisfaction of any story is that there is completion. Now, I love the works of Terry Gilliam and as such I loved 12 monkeys and Brazil, they leave question marks. It is not a fine refined story from beginning to end. A setting I homaged to in the third season of Keno Diastima. The series needs to keep a question mark or two in place, let the watcher, the reader, the appreciator of any story find their own epilogue in this. If a story draws in the person taking notice of that story continues and sparks their own imagination, the story goes beyond success. That is how I believe that stories need to go at times. Here I giggle towards Jimmy Carr who stated more than once that women watch porn movies to see if they get married in the end. Or as I see it an alternative to ‘Try before you buy’ or is it ‘Fit before you commit’?. So in any paradoxical setting we need to take the stage of ‘a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true’, here we see the use of ‘perhaps’ and that is fine, only history is to some degree is set in absolutes and even those are at times debatable. You see, in the two elements of what could be we need to see the stage of what could be possible and that is where we need to go. A stage where it is not about what happens when X and Y do not happen, but a stage where we see what is happening because X1 and Y2 never did happen, and we can set a stage to adhere to this and that was the stage my mind was tinkering with the last 2 days (it might have been longer but I was not aware of it) and seeing this come to pass is important. 

It does not interfere with any of my IP, so I have no issues making that public now. Yet is it interfere or inter phere? Weirdly enough it is a larger setting that applies and there my mind keeps me out for now. 

So when I stated in the past “being able to test” there is a stage where we see what happens, but because some elements are in play it did not happen. So when I talked about the assassination of a fictive character named Marty Walsh there was a larger stage, that stage was that fictive character Patrick Pizzella would have served longer and he would have given his seat to a person named Julie Su in 2024. Because that is no longer happening certain labour adjustments were never made and that is the rub, for some players that change would have been detrimental to their profit margins. Yet how can you set the stage of what never happened? Well if you think of the Patents in play, if the change happened, the stage for 2026 would alter slightly, not a lot but enough. Because of a stage Julie Su favoured, 3 students would enter the halls of ISG, they started having lunch together and they come up with an idea that would set the foundations of 5G in a new direction, it would create 4 patents setting a new direction that creates the partnership of Rogers Wireless and Amazon and that 5G goes into new directions, this never happens but the changes towards that were really small and even if you cannot prove it, the stage was close to alter economic boundaries and more important Technological settings on nanotechnology and 5G, three people were essential to that part and as Marty Walsh the threshold is shifting towards the not happening. A paradoxical stage that becomes a non-event and Julie Su would never know, because she was not where she needed to be for the events to happen. 

So when we see the story evolve we do not merely see when did not happen, but we get a glimpse of what else was never a reality and what more is on the stage to be considered an option. Paradoxical settings are never the stage of one stone in a pond and watching the ripples, they are the second, third and fourth stone that interfere with the ripples seen. The caster will hope that the second stone will create enough chaos, but that person knows that more might be required. The story is then an almost given certainty, and the story evolves as it had the caster, the stones and the ripples to focus on, and as such the paradoxical parameters are set to the audience. Yet in all this there is a finite amount of actions that we can take and that too sets the stage towards a maximum stage that any story can hold. I believe that this is a stage that American producers can never comprehend, they watch the story and see how the spreadsheet goes green, yet that part had nothing to do with either the caster, the stones or the ripples. That person needs to trust the finite approach to the storyteller and so far they either over manage or merely cut off hoping to get better grounds elsewhere. A sad stage, but in this the storyteller does not care, that person can revert to books to tell the story for those who care, for that person the story was everything and in this FX has always been right from the moment they gave that slogan to their audience.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, movies, Science