Category Archives: Media

A larger failure

The Washington Post had an investigation, it had been published months ago (at https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/the-opioid-crisis-15-percent-of-the-pharmacies-handled-nearly-half-of-the-pills/2019/08/12/b24bd4ee-b3c7-11e9-8f6c-7828e68cb15f_story.html) and I did look at a few sides of what was happening, yet the larger failure was never looked at. The fact that the DEA has failed its nation to this degree is almost too weird for words.

The headline might give us: ‘As overdoses soared, nearly 35 billion opioids — half of distributed pills — handled by 15 percent of pharmacies‘, there was a clear need to investigate the pharmacies and the FDA who had been a failing regulator in all this, yet the Washington Post gives us that there is enough blame to go around. When we see: “The DEA has maintained this database for roughly two decades but did not regularly mine the records to identify pharmacies buying unusual quantities of opioid pills, according to current and former DEA officials. The agency relies on drug companies and pharmacies to monitor and report suspicious purchases“, we see more than mere stupidity and laziness, the DEA shows that there is a systemic failure in America. The mere mention of ‘The agency relies on drug companies and pharmacies to monitor and report suspicious purchases‘, shows just how stupid the DEA has been, a stage where a commercially driven enterprise will monitor itself has in all of history never ever worked. Looking at the top 15, the three pharmacies in Kentucky sold enough opioids to hand every citizen in Kentucky 3 tablets each, that is merely the three pharmacies in that list, and there are close to 300 (as far as I have been able to count them). The simplest stage that I could have shown the DEA using IBM modeller/IBM statistics in less than one hour (providing the data was transferred).

The DEA and the FDA failed to this degree. A stage that could have been addressed half a decade ago, it was never mined; that is the size if what I will plainly call incompetence. Even as the New York Times gave us Yesterday: ‘Judge Orders Pause in Opioid Litigation Against Purdue Pharma and Sacklers‘, we see (at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/11/health/purdue-bankruptcy-opioids.html) that there is another stage, it is not about the “mounting costs of litigation”, I see that there is a larger systemic failure and whilst we accept that the people can go after Purdue Pharma and its owners, the Sacklers. There is a clear stage where the FDA and the DEA should have stepped in half a decade ago, they did not!

Even as politicians and law makers are giving rise to the option “They would also give up ownership of Purdue, which would be restructured into a new company, overseen by public administrators. The new company would continue to sell its signature opioid, OxyContin, as well as other medications, but all profits would go to pay the cities, counties and states for the costs of the opioid epidemic“, that sounds nice, but in the end the problem is larger than one company and the failure of the DEA is out in the open and left alone, untapped and not really investigated, the same can be said for the FDA in all this. Large companies had too much hold on these institutions and now that the dam is build, this can all happen again. Sanitation of the DEA and FDA will be essential in all this.

Even as there is in the most extreme some validity to the claim by B. Douglas Hoey, chief executive of the National Community Pharmacists Association when he gives us “There are legitimate reasons small pharmacies can have outsize volumes” so far his words do not sound true. The fact that three in Kentucky and the list of 15 pharmacies where the smallest transgressor prescribed 65 pills per person with a total of 1,294,890 pills (in Oklahoma of all places), we see a large failure and the rods by Hoey come across as hollow. In this the National Community Pharmacists Association should have mined its data as well, that was seemingly never done to any degree. I would have needed less than an hour to see initial top line results and raise red flags all over America. The idea that someone in West Virginia prescribed 70 pills per person and in total prescribed 13,168,350 pills should be out in limelight, none of the three ever gave this, none of them decided to arrest the people in Strosnider in Mingo County and prosecute them (after investigations) regarding the prescriptions of opioids.

When we get the results where over 6 years 15% of the pharmacies received 48% of pain pills is a metric that is too unacceptable and Hoey hiding behind “The numbers don’t always tell the whole story” clearly implies that he needs replacement, in addition the entire facilitation towards pharmaceutical companies must change. In addition, when the Post gives us “Many of the high-volume pharmacies had annual double-digit growth in pain pills and bought far more opioids than competitors in the same counties. The analysis also considered proximity to urban centers“, I feel certain that there is a lot more in those numbers and beyond the need for greed there is no valid explanation forthcoming any day soon. A systemic failure that is now the driver behind an addiction pandemic. The disbelieve merely grows when we are confronted with: “A judge recently ordered the release of seven years of database records, which expose the paths of more than 70 billion pain pills distributed to about 83,000 pharmacies“, this gives us an average of a little over 843,000 pain pills per pharmacy over 7 years, making it 120,000 pills per pharmacy per year. A simple search via:

SPLIT FILE PER YEAR pharmacy.
FREQUENCIES
/NOTABLE
/STATISTICS=mean.

It would have given us the results of something that would have knocked over any junior analyst making that person push every red alert that this person could lay their hands on. One hundred and twenty thousand pain pills per pharmacy per year is a massive result! The fact that the DEA and the FDA fell short of something I typed in 14 seconds shows just how large the failure is (processing that amount of data takes additional time). I reckon that if I started this in 2013, with a monthly dashboard, I feel 99.5% certain that the phones of the top brass of the FDA and the DEA would be red hot from every politician that saw those results.

If I had changed it towards:

SPLIT FILE PER YEAR STATE pharmacy.
FREQUENCIES
/NOTABLE
/STATISTICS=mean MIN MAX STDDEV.

I would get a lot more to work with, in addition as those who do not prescribe pain pills would not be part of the numbers, the results would be rather interesting to read and this is merely top line results, when we start digging into the numbers and start looking into the specifics like Kroger Pharmacies (KY) and Walmart Pharmacies (KY) and look at them per state (merely examples) we will get an even more descriptive stage of the data involved, so when B. Douglas Hoey stated: “The numbers don’t always tell the whole story” he ended up being more wrong than you could ever imagine, it is not merely the numbers, it is about asking the right questions, but he did not offer that point of view, did he?

The failure of the DEA becomes a larger issue when we see: “A DEA spokesman said he could not provide a complete list of all enforcement actions by the agency against pharmacies nationwide for violations of the Controlled Substances Act“, this shows a failure in logistics and organisation, In all this the National Community Pharmacists Association has a larger role to play, if the quality of a pharmacy is everything, any association would need to remain aware of any legal and prosecution issues playing, not merely because it is a prosecution or an action, but it is up to the association to make sure its members are aware of issues that play in the legal and enforcement field in all this, so there is a carpet hiding a truckload of trash, even as we point at the DEA, the failure is actually larger and involves pharmaceutical corporations, the FDA, the DEA, the Pharmacy association, as well as optionally accounting, bought and sold pills should be in the audit, something this big would have had to show up, unless the books were designed to keep such numbers out of view, yet when one player (Strosnider, Mingo County, WV) sells 13,168,350 pills whilst prescriptions are set to $6 per pill, that one place has to book $13 million dollar per year on pain pills only, and that was NOT noticed?

Go cry me a river!

The failure is large, the stage that the Washington Post gives us is merely one side, the NY Times gives another part, but the overall failure where the US government collects all data and does nothing is the real largest failure. As the NY Times gives us: “the eight individual Sacklers who are typically named in the litigation argue that because they have been sued for their roles with Purdue, Purdue’s protection in bankruptcy court should cover them too“, yet the US government (specifically FDA and DEA) had the data and for the longest time they apparently did nothing, in a stage of such a systemic failure, will anything ever get resolved?

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Been there, done that

We all have those moments, we have all seen events where we attend, take notice and basically after 5 seconds we are in the stage of ‘What else is new?‘, that was the stage when I got my fingers on ‘The Name of the Rose review’ by Lucy Mangan. I am not judging her review, the article (at https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/oct/11/the-name-of-the-rose-review-john-turturro-umberto-eco) seems decent enough, yet the very first part where we could relate to the movie (also based on the book), released in 1986, where Sean Connery is the monk, Christian Slater is his apprentice and the prosecutor is seen in the shape of F. Murray Abraham. It is a wonderful movie and we get the story in less than 2 hours. In addition we see the rise of Ron Perlman as ‘La Idiota di stupido‘ (aka Salvatore) is not to be missed; he really puts his print there. In the movie the entire stage makes sense, the people, the interactions and the squabble (Gui versus William), we see that pride lives on many planes.

So when I see the review missing out on that reflection I wonder how much Lucy knew (perhaps the omission was intentional), yet I believe that when we look at stars the size of Sean Connery and John Turturro, both with very distinguished careers that comparison makes sense. When I see ‘Monk Soup’ (according to the reviewer) it is important to see the cast as it is. In that same stage, the shaping of Adso under William first by Christian Slater and now by Damian Hardung is also important, the movie makes that clear, whether the series will is presently unknown to me. It gives us how knowledge is seen and how some is optionally is wisdom but a lot is not, the presentation of evidence that gives rise to Bernardo Gui as the evil tool, first by F. Murray Abraham and now by Rupert Everett is equally important. And it is interesting that both sides have actors and stars that would be on equal footing. So why is the BBC version seen as ‘Monk Soup’? If I were to judge going by: ‘Episode 1: The Name of the Rose Series 1‘ then it would be that the Name of the Rose would be a great movie, optionally a great mini-series, but a TV series with seasons? Let’s not forget that the entire story plays over the time of around a week, so how are you setting that in multiple seasons? As I did not watch it I would speculate that we would be watching paint dry, making Monk soup a nice change of pace for the viewers.

In the end, I am not reflecting on the BBC series (not until I have seen them and I am curious), especially with this cast. My issue will become, where was the wisdom to do this story in series? Why not a mini-series of 3-4 episodes of 1-2 hours per episode, perhaps even merely one season all 8 episodes, the fact that the entire matter played over a week makes that an option, yet to set the stage of 60-90 minutes to cover a day at an abbey might make it long, slow and optionally dry. Abbeys were famous for an absence of wine and hookers, so whilst pharmacies and scrolls will not get the same result, it might have an impact on the people in the now (opposing those who were around in 1327).

In the end, I did not dislike the view of Lucy Mangan, yet the absence of any mention of the movie, the radio play and so on gives an incomplete view, a view absent of comparison, it was her choice and as such automatically a valid one, I merely would have taken a different look, hoping to give an optional clear view for all those curious to see it.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media

Chess with a twist

Perhaps you remember the blog 2 days ago (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2019/10/09/one-failing-director/) where we get confronted with the Malka Leifer case. This case got heated news as the Israeli supreme court (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/10/israels-supreme-court-overturns-ruling-to-release-malka-leifer) gave us about 7 hours ago: “following an appeal by the prosecution to Israel’s highest court, judges decided that Leifer should remain in jail for the remainder of an already five-year long extradition case“. And that is not all, you see the Australian media was interestingly not very forthcoming when we look to the article (at https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israel-s-health-czar-threatened-psychiatrists-in-australian-principal-sex-abuse-case-1.6939570) and we are given: “Deputy Health Minister Yaakov Litzman has been questioned by the Israel Police over allegations that he tried to use his influence, including the use of threats, to get government psychiatrists to have Leifer declared unfit for trial and to block her extradition“, the Haaretz article gives us a larger issue and (obviously) I never knew that part, hence me pointing the finger at Mossad. Consider the premise “Leifer’s subsequent arrest in Israel in 2014, has involved lawyers, media advisers and ultra-Orthodox “fixers.” According to sources in the Gerer (or Gur) Hasidic sect, the campaign has been funded by Leifer’s family, as well as loans and donations“.

If members of the Gerer Hasidic sect are willing to put pressures on so that a pedophile is not prosecuted, what else are they willing to do? I admit that I have to be careful here, my limited knowledge of Hasidic is limited to the movie Left Luggage by Jeroen Krabbe from 1998 (marvelous movie). From a source I got the two interesting linked quotes. The first one is: “Yakov Yosef Moskowitz, told me, between 400 and 500 families receive these packages; this week being Passover, the number had more than doubled. Moskowitz had arranged 76 delivery routes around the county, each carefully assigned to volunteer drivers from other shuls and other villages to preserve the recipients’ anonymity. Drivers were trained to turn off their lights and drop the boxes off silently, on the stoop, so the charity was unseen. Often, Moskowitz hears from wives whose husbands have no idea they are getting food, or husbands whose wives don’t know“, and the second one is: “Some Hasidic acquaintances told me that whenever they encounter another Hasid in a secular environment, even if he is a stranger, they will greet him warmly and often share a meal. One way to understand this embrace is that life inside the Hasidic community has been, for those within it, rendered so complete that simply to see another Hasid is to enter it again, and to enter it is to move from the chimerical to the real.

It is here that we see the danger ‘from the chimerical to the real‘, or in plain English from hoped for but illusory or impossible to achieve towards an actual premise. In my view: ‘to make a delusional state of being a reality‘, the harsh danger is that these people would be in a stage where they could be manipulated by the right person to do the greater harm. From my interpretation when we revisit Haaretz we get: “One source said that the community does not deny the gravity of the acts with which Leifer has been charged or think that she shouldn’t be punished; rather, the argument is that she should be in an Israeli prison, rather than in an Australian facility alongside non-Jewish inmates“, whilst the staged premise was “to get government psychiatrists to have Leifer declared unfit for trial and to block her extradition“, basically leaving Malka Leifer non trialled and free to roam around Israel optionally creating more victims, in addition to that, any elected official giving support to these acts is often willing to close one eye to other actions, for example when we take the other example of ‘receiving packages’, what when the delivery does more than deliver food and when the recipients remain anonymous, the chance that those with non-friendly intentions towards the state of Israel receive goods as well, the larger problem becomes clear. In any cell based structure where silence is key and the higher participants have no real oversight bad things become a larger danger and a realistic possibility. As such Mossad was very much the party to get involved, if only to make sure that the state of Israel is not being undermined.

Even as Haaretz gave us “There was no explicit request for a specific conclusion, but apparently the intention was clear, and a number of the psychiatrists were uncomfortable with it“, the initial source in the Guardian gave us “Her case has dragged on for five years, involved 57 hearings and more than 30 psychiatrists“, slightly opposing the stage of ‘a number of the psychiatrists were uncomfortable with it‘, which indicates that not enough were uncomfortable with it dragging this case on for 5 years, right under the noses of Mossad I might add (it seems cruel and overstated, but it is not). If Deputy Health Minister Yaakov Litzman did this, what else was done? I need to move more careful now, because there are indicators that there is a concern that Haredi support is almost based on blind faith (my interpretation), as such there is optionally a larger non guilty side to Yaakov Litzman, even if his support of Malka Leifer implies the opposite, even as I found “a separate bribery charge for helping to prevent the closure of a food business that his own ministry had deemed unsanitary” (source: Times of Israel), the stage at this point is that the bribery charge is out in the open, even as the Times of Israel gives us: “Litzman attempted to influence officials in the Health Ministry in order to prevent the closure of a food business whose owner “he is close to” — a closure that had been ordered due to “serious sanitary findings found that led to the sickness of a number of people who ate from its products” the stage remains that I do not see all the facts of basically both sides of the equation and in that a ‘just’ point of view is hard to maintain. Yet the revelations by Channel 13 in May (also never revealed in the Guardian article) gives us in addition: “Litzman helped at least 10 serious sex offenders obtain improved conditions, including home visits and other benefits, by pressuring state psychiatrists and prisons service officials” the larger question becomes, how was he able to maintain a larger undocumented presence (something Mossad should have been aware of), and my own premise (not entirely based on facts) that we know scores of terrorists who would never accept or condone the actions of a pedophile, as such those who do would have much less concern not dealing with terrorists, that is the pie that does directly hit Mossad, would a person like that knowingly did one thing also optionally impede the safety and security of the State of Israel. Consider that (almost) nothing is done for free, if a person is able to ‘obtain improved conditions, by pressuring state psychiatrists and prisons service officials‘ exactly what favour was done in return to the people that were pressured? Even if it was to merely hand over a few ‘innocent’ messages, we get to optionally see a much larger issue and the media is seemingly blind to that part.

The fact that in early 2019 Channel 13 gave the people “Earlier in the year, the TV channel had reported that police were investigating suspicions that Litzman and his chief of staff pressured a psychiatrist, Moshe Birger, to ensure that another imprisoned sex offender close to Litzman’s Gur sect of Hasidim was placed in a rehabilitation program” we see the facilitation of people in the Gur sect of Hasidim, as such what else was done? That ‘what else was done’ is almost a given, especially as the facilitation was optionally done by non-members of Gur sect of Hasidim.

It is my speculation that this is not merely the work of one person, merely one front man and as such there are other players under the carpet doing the work for alternative third parties, the question soon becomes what other parties which brings me back to my original placement two days ago when I (accidentally) specifically stated: ‘A case has been out in the open and I cannot fathom how Yossi Cohen left the game this open, and his pieces unprotected and setting them in the optional sunlight of direct peril‘; in all fairness, he might not have left it in the open and for the longest of times Director Yossi Cohen has not shared any issues of state security with me (for reasons unknown), yet the absence of other people in all this merely implies that the case was left in the open, yet that and the fact that this case has dragged on for 5 years gives a larger concern, one that should be dealt with before the end of the year at best. In all this there is still a larger concern in Australia as well, in a case where we see direct criminal transgressions we see the actions of School management moving alleged criminals to Israel, what else did they spirit away? The fact that the actions of Malka Leifer are directly in opposition to what the State of Israel finds acceptable is foundation enough to warrant deeper investigation to all who were involved and facilitated towards the non-prosecution of Malka Leifer; an important factor as the Australian prosecution will dig into that part, I reckon that Mossad would be most interested in setting the premise where they will not face questions that they cannot answer, or facing questions where the answer ends up being unknown to them, it makes for a really bad game of Basketball.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Not a small house for boys

Yes, we all have moments when we want to avoid events, the call to ignore the European Song Festival in Tel Aviv, The Summer Olympics, 1980, the British Empire boycott (1764-1766), some become successful, and some do not. the problem is that it is not always possible to prove its validity up front, in one case, only after that disgruntled clambake (1764) did the boycott succeed and the United States of America were born. Yet when we see the Dutch times (at https://nltimes.nl/2019/10/08/mp-wants-netherlands-boycott-g20-summit-saudi-arabia) are we confronted with: “SP parliamentarian Sadet Karabulut wants the Netherlands to boycott the G20 summit in Saudi Arabia next year“, with the most outstanding reason “The Saudi regime is too controversial, Karabulut said, referring to the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi“, all whilst evidence of Saudi governmental evidence was never shown, merely implied (by that well known UN essay writer).

And it does not end there, Socialist party member Sadet Karabulut was (fortunate for me) rather stupid to boot, when we see: “Crown prince Mohammed Bin Salman is most likely responsible for cutting journalist Jamal Khashoggi into pieces“, it is an assumption, there is no evidence at all that he was responsible, there is no beyond reasonable doubt, moreover, there is no evidence of the ‘cutting into pieces bit‘ in any way as the body was never found. We just do not know what happened, and to let some socialist party hack decide what a nation does and what a nation attends, especially as this (if ever proven) was the act of an individual, yet not of any government (it cannot ever be proven), the stage is merely that of a Dutch Socialist of Kurdish origins that sets the stage of a boycott without proper staging in evidence. In addition, the Netherlands had only been invited as a courtesy, the EU is a member, the Dutch are not, in previous years, HRH Queen Maxima was invited as a representative for her work for the United Nations. more important, the Netherlands are merely one of 27 participants and even as the complete EU decides to boycott it, it would in the end be a really stupid dick move (as the expression goes), however I am quite willing to attend (in their place) and set the stage to get construction jobs away from Dutch players, as well as jobs currently with Smit Tak as well as Nedlloyd (via Maersk) and hand them over to Salini Impregilo and the Evergreen group. I do not think that the Dutch government will mind, and if they do, they can ask Sadet Karabulut to explain herself (phone: +31 88 243 5555). It is time that wannabe limelight seekers like Sadet Karabulut learn that there is a cost of doing business, especially when they make claims that cannot be proven in any way. In addition when you consider that she was elected in 2013, where was her call to boycott the G20 in 2015 (G20 Antalya summit), we can accept that her Kurdish origins would oppose any international stage towards thousands of murdered Kurds, as well as dozens of executed journalists would call for that boycott of the Turkish G20, yet Google search does not reveal anything there, does it?

Boycotting an event is one of the harshest actions there are, even if they are not always successful, they do tend to give a larger rise to awareness and to some degree that is fine, yet when this is done in a stage where evidence is not there, when the case is too largely based on speculation and tainted presentations the entire matter falls apart and at that point a boycott could work in a very different direction. consider that companies like Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Smit Tak (aka Smit Salvage), P&O Nedlloyd (part of Maersk shipping), Unilever and a few others all have sizeable interests in Saudi Arabia, I personally think that politicians better have their facts, ducks and lack of cluelessness clearly on a row. The Dutch brainless rambles of politicians like JanMaat need to be a thing of the past. When the bad thing happens and two of more of these larger players get asked to leave, whilst their competitor walks in, that loss is massive and runs into the billions over time. There is at this point not one economy that can take a hit of that size and to that degree.

We might all shout that it is not about business and you are not wrong, yet when you falsely accuse a party and that evidence cannot be presented, you the presenter become the problem. Even as we can state that Sadet Karabulut was merely seeking the limelight does not mean she cannot get it, I believe that there is great limelight to begotten when Maersk (P&O Nedlloyd) loses the Saudi jobs and they are given to Evergreen shipping, do you think for one minute that Maersk, P&O Nedlloyd, and Smit Salvage directors will be appreciative of the brainless actions of Sadet Karabulut? It’s a sellers’ market in this unstable economy and the Persian Gulf is a treasure trove for several players, and when unfounded actions are called for whilst the outstanding hypocrisy can be proven several times over it all becomes a much larger problem. We can argue on the fine lines in the accusation, yet the fact is that most likely nothing will ever be proven, the lack of evidence is just too big a deal, and whilst you consider the life of one journalist, consider how many died in Turkey, how many are in prison in Turkey and why they ended on one pile or the other. In all that Saudi Arabia should not be a blip on anyone’s radar in that regard.

I can understand that the choice: “Last year the Netherlands cancelled a trade mission to Saudi Arabia due to Khashoggi’s disappearance“, yet there is a difference between a trade mission and a G20 summit, the stakes are a lot higher and when we decide not to attend a place where optional informal deals could be made and informal changes could be proposed, not being there also implies that no success will follow. You have to be in it to win it, the simplest of premises. When you have to hide behind ‘most likely responsible‘, and ‘It is believed‘ you have nothing to work with. You can decide to boycott, but when it is on unproven actions, you better be ready to accept what happens afterwards, after being in office for almost 13 years Sadet Karabulut should have known better. However, I am most willing to see who wants to take over the Dutch interests all over the Persian Gulf (as an unofficial non-elected global participant seeking coinage for services).

And whilst we see another wave of ‘Justice for Jamal’ new messages on the New York Times, the Business Insider, The Guardian and a whole range of papers, consider the murders of Naji al Jurf, Firas Hammadi, and Ibrahim Abdulkader. They were all clearly murdered (cadaver available) on the 27th of December 2015 in Turkey. The NY Times claimed 6 days ago that Jamal is still owed Justice, what about these three murdered journalists? Why are they not in the NY Times, the Washington Post and a whole range of newspapers every day? Can anyone explain that and in that same regard, why is Sadet Karabulut not speaking out for boycotts regarding these three journalists. Merely three of a much larger list, several dead and many in jail, where are their advocates?

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

One failing director?

It does not happen often, it is actually rare to say the least. When I go back to the one I remember the best (former director Admoni), the ranks of Mossad have been nothing but exercises in excellence. when I think of them I remember the words of Robert Graves regarding General Tiberius (before he became emperor). “Every drill was a war, every war a bloody drill“, It is no different for Mossad, I reckon that Nahum Admoni, Shabtai Shavit, Meir Dagan and Tamir Pardo are perhaps the only men I have truly ever feared. Every security drill a war, every war a drill set to perfection, when the directors of the CIA, MI-6, DGSE, VAJA, FSB and GRU have nightmares, these are the 4 men that they dream about, each of them grilled for war, for subterfuge and all masters of intelligence gathering. Going up against them is like Boris Spassky or Anatoly Karpov offering you a game of chess that is unless you really pissed someone off, at which point it will be a smiling Bobby Fischer facing you. No matter how you slice it, you mess with Mossad at your own peril that is until recently. A case has been out in the open and I cannot fathom how Yossi Cohen left the game this open, and his pieces unprotected and setting them in the optional sunlight of direct peril.

I am talking about the Malka Leifer case. After the entire Catholic Anal Retentive Entertainment case (CARE), as nation after nation went berserk with the Catholic clergy, we now see another mess grow to fruition and even as the anti-Jewish sentiments have never been the fault of Israeli’s, Jews or the state of Israel, the antipathy that the Malka Leifer case is growing could have much larger repercussions. People who have always been open to a larger field of more religions, most of them fathers and mothers who are overly protective of their children; that group is confronted with rage, anger and confusion as we see that her extradition case has dragged on for five years, involved 57 hearings and more than 30 psychiatrists. Now we all heard and most of us can accept a second opinion, yet I feel certain that director Yossi (or director Yoshi when he is playing his Nintendo Switch) has no real explanation why the other 28 psychiatrists were needed, especially as most cases in the IDF get one psychiatrist at the most. So why we see Malka Leifer getting 5 years and 28 additional voices on a setting that could have been decided within 90 days with no more than 4 psychiatrists (two for each side) is a little beyond me.

The Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/08/malka-leifers-case-is-shaking-the-australian-jewish-communitys-faith-in-israel) also gives us: “Dassi Erlich and her sisters, Nicole Meyer and Elly Sapper, have mounted a courageous campaign to have her extradited. Their advocacy has given the case a high profile within the local Jewish community“, in light of all this, we see not the case on the law, we see an optional pressure point against the state of Israel that Yoshi could have solved by putting Malka in a drop cloth and delivering her quietly at any Australian airport with a label ‘יהיה לך יום מקסים‘ attached to the package.

In this day and age where observation and deduction is the core stage for Mossad we see: “Leifer’s lawyers claim she suffers from paralysing anxiety and is mentally unfit to face court; yet despite clear-cut video evidence that she is going about her life as normal“, Malka is playing a game that has outreached its timeline and when we consider what she has been and what he is likely to become over the coming year, the case for Mossad is clear. You see, Mossad is responsible to keep the state safe, even as Malka is no danger, she is instilling anti-Israeli sentiments and that is a different matter, in this, as Mossad is by good luck exempt from the Constitutional Laws of the State of Israel, a more secure setting could be reached. In this, as we remember that extradition does not mean execution, it merely means that Malka Leifer has to face a court and a jury in a nation that does not have the death penalty. Can Yossi Cohen sit by and let pressures build that in the end will be poised and aimed at the wrong target? In the end, does Malka Leifer not get what she deserves? Having to personally face those she wronged? Perhaps that is the true fear that Malka faces, the mirror of accountability. It tends to paralyse to fear most people, which is not an acceptable form of defence in the first place, if that were true every taxpayer would get a lifelong reprieve from paying their taxation (that is a lovely idea though).

Yet the non-extradition is also a cloak of protection towards others, as we remember the small part “school management helped spirit her to Israel in 2008“, I feel certain that those so called ‘managers’ must equally be afraid on Malka entering a courtroom and their actions become open to scrutiny, yet that is one part that should not stop Director Cohen, if these managers are willing to do that, what other harm could they propagate? Is that not a valid question? I personally believe that extraditing does not give doubt to the state of Israel, inaction will give doubt, and you merely have to look at the Catholic impact to see that part.

That is when we get to the one debatable part. the quote “there has been an implicit acceptance by the heartland of Australian Jewry that the conflict is intractable, everyone’s hands are dirty and that Israeli governments should not be judged any more harshly than others around the world“, I do not disagree with that sentiment, but in equal matter, the stage of judgement of the inactions by the state of Israel is optionally building weights on the wrong side of the scales for the State of Israel and I believe that there is wisdom of removing all weights that are on the scales that support Israeli opposition, when the scales are set, you want to make sure that the playing field is equal or in favour for the State of Israel and in all this Malka Leifer has become too much of a counterweight to the agenda and needs of the State of Israel.

This should not be allowed to continue as it is.

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

When the cure is part of the disease

Have you seen that issue in your life, the claim that the cure is worse than the disease, or perhaps that the cure is not worth the disease. There are medical situations where this applies and they are usually used in cases of huge risks, but it is always in a stage where it is about optionally curing the person who got that winning lottery ticket, and the cure will hit him or her full on. It happens, yet what is the stage where the cure is the disease? I am not talking about a vaccine where we are making the body stronger by fighting a weaker version of the disease, no this is a stage where we give the person Ebola or Hantavirus to let the body cure it. The problem becomes that once you have the virus you are actually sick and the complications start from that point onward.

This is the stage we are confronted with in ‘IMF accused of ‘reckless lending’ to debt-troubled states‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/07/imf-accused-of-reckless-lending-to-debt-troubled-states). It is not merely “the Fund broke its own rules by not ensuring sustainable debt burden“, I personally believe it to be a much larger problem in all this. It is also not merely: “encouraging reckless lending by extending $93bn of loans to 18 financially troubled countries without a debt restructuring programme first“, I believe it to be a larger play to push revenue away from vulture funds to create a systemic problem for these nations to become part of the consumer feeding frenzy to banks for generations. when we see: “Debt sustainability has come into the spotlight over the past year after the IMF controversially lent a record $56bn to Argentina even though its annual debt repayments far exceeded the Fund’s own limit” the given excuse ‘The IMF said Argentina, the second biggest economy in South America, was a special case‘ the handed excuse should be casted aside and given no value at all. the supporting evidence is seen in “The crisis intensified when, on 5 December 2001, the IMF refused to release a US$1.3 billion tranche of its loan, citing the failure of the Argentine government to reach its budget deficit targets” (source: https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/11/business/argentina-scrambles-for-imf-loans.html). When I asked about the situation about 5 years ago from these so called Australian ‘economic reporters’, none of them had any level of a clear answer for me. The case was clear 5 years ago when certain vulture funds issues got to the surface, and now 17 years later they are giving out $56 billion, whilst refusing a $1.3 billion option 17 years earlier. There is a much larger flaw in all this and there have been whispers (read: gossip) that the IMF is very much into facilitating towards the needs of Wall Street and the financial operators out there. The bottom dollar line of Wall Street needs to be met and no one cares how it is done.

the stage becomes a lot less acceptable when we consider the stage Afghanistan; Angola; Cameroon; Central African Republic; Chad; Ecuador; Egypt; Ghana; Jordan; Mauritania; Mongolia; Pakistan; São Tomé and Príncipe; Sierra Leone; Sri Lanka; Tunisia; and Ukraine, all whilst Egypt, Pakistan and Ecuador are regarded as high risk, I personally feel that the risk factors of Ukraine, Sri Lanka and Jordan are also way above normal with only Jordan being in a better long term position however, if Jordan does not address its water shortage issues, Jordan could drop into the ultra-high risk group a lot faster than anyone could state: ‘Would you like a glass of water?‘, and in all this we see a larger failing.

It becomes a more visible issue when we see the IMF spin doctors at work. We partially accept the statement: “More than half that amount is accounted for by one programme – Argentina, which has unique circumstances“, yet I am much less forgiving when I see: “We have clear guidelines about not lending into unsustainable debt situations and all programmes require approval by the IMF’s executive board“. It is my response that they publish clearly all their guidelines (and policies), but we will not ever get that. In addition, the Argentina matter after the Vultures were done with it is also a failing of the highest degree, the fact that over 17 years $1.3 billion has required $56 billion implies more than merely 4,300% more funds needed. It gives rise that over 17 years a debt increase of 23% year on year was accumulated one way or another. It is a direct optional sign of complete and utter governmental financial malfeasance. It is a failure on a scale never seen before and the fact that no one stepped in shows the larger failure by the IMF. You see, the overall lack of illumination also constitutes evidence that the players wanted this to be kept out of the lime lights.

In addition, when we look at the 17 nations, when we ignore the obvious three, we see a larger issue in Jordan. Jordan stepped up and towards the issue that there are well over 1.4 million refugees in Jordan and Jordan was not ready in any way shape or form to deal with that. In their current state the Jordan desalination plants will not be able to keep up (so far it cannot keep up) and the fact that the Jordan population grew by 14% in 2-3 years due to the refugees was never clearly illuminated and now Jordan has a larger issue, even if another desalination plant is added in the Gulf of Aqaba, the issue will not diminish and the loans towards Jordan would become unsustainable. In addition, when you consider Sri Lanka, the newspapers all gave the same quote a month ago: ‘Sri Lanka’s economy has shown a ‘fair bit of resilience’‘, they quoted that to the letter, yet who was feeding them that information? Only 14 hours ago we see: “Sri Lanka’s tourist arrivals in September were down 27.2% from a year earlier“, those factors did not really change did they? When we consider a month ago, we see an economy that is getting hit hard, especially when Reuters gives us: “a sixth consecutive monthly fall“. It seems to me that Sri Lanka are betting on the required roll of the dice, when we get the clear indication that the dice are loaded and it seems that they are loaded towards the needs of the IMF/Wall Street and not in favour of Sri Lanka.

When we add the Reuters information: “Arrivals in the five months from May to September were down 44.4% to 468,737 from 843,569 a year earlier” we get a level of clear indication that the quote: ‘Sri Lanka’s economy has shown a ‘fair bit of resilience’‘ should be seen as media BS. And there is more regarding Sri Lanka, the quote less than 24 hours ago is “Sri Lanka’s Finance Minister Mangala Samaraweera said all the money the current government has borrowed since 2016 was to repay the loans of the previous government of Mahinda Rajapaksa“, if that is true, then there are additional questions towards the IMF in regards to their spin doctors giving us: “Our decisions to lend to countries are not simply based on numerical thresholds, but on comprehensive debt sustainability analyses and policies needed to address economic imbalances and debt burdens“, which in the case of Sri Lanka shows a much larger issue, the fact that the quote on repaying from a previous government and that loan has been in place for 3 years shows a larger problem, so how much was given to them? In addition to this I wonder how much of the $56 billion is going to Elliott Advisors, so much is the IMF helping out Manhattan bad boy Paul Singer? In my view, the question becomes: ‘How much of the $56 billion goes to Hedge funds manager Paul Singer?‘ Under those conditions I reckon anyone could get their fingers on the penthouse in Sky Lofts building in Manhattan’s Tribeca neighbourhood. If it is good enough for Bobby Axelrod (Damian Lewis), it is good enough for the Lawlordtobe (Lawrence van Rijn), and I could do with a change of scenery, especially if Google buys my 5G IP portfolio.

So if my new address becomes 145 Hudson St New York, NY 10013, I promise that I will not consider the ’13’ in my zip code to be a bad omen and at least I will not have used the IMF to gain my fortune (although I will admit that I am perfectly willing to do that too #weallneedtoeat).

When we see these two issues and we see that I have not even looked at the 12 others (three were known issues) I wonder when any reporter will give us the entire down low on these so called analyses and policies that the IMF has in place, I feel with some level of certain ty that I will find a lot more issues under the waterline than the IMF spin doctors will be able to hide. Especially when we realise the quote in the Guardian: “concerns that a general election later this month will oust incumbent president, Mauricio Macri, in favour of the populist Alberto Fernández and his running mate, the former president Cristina de Kirchner, triggered a flight of investors, a run on the currency and sent the interest rate on the country’s publicly traded debts soaring“, more important, under that change the entire case which would have been part of the $56 billion ‘donation’ that we see through “Argentina agreed to reduce its fiscal deficit to 1.3% of GDP this year, down from 2.2% previously and a balanced budget next year“, especially when we see the required drop of 0.9% deficit, I cannot remember any elected official making that part of their campaign, it tends to leave them unelected at the polls, so in all this, not only does the JDC have a point, we see that Sarah-Jayne Clifton, director of Jubilee Debt Campaign should be considered to be a lot more serious and is in my personal view entitled to massive dose of limelight from the global media, so that she can ask the questions that the IMF would have to explain in a clear and transparent way, would you like to take a bet on the chance of that actually happening?

I believe that people like Paul Singer will set that bet to an estimated 250:1 chance (of it not happening), and as he personally was able to acquire $3.5 billion, I am not putting my hopes on high here. I merely wonder if the people in Argentina have any decent level of Christmas to look forward to this year and the many years that follow.

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics