Category Archives: Politics

September 29, 2020 · 20:42

Using the limelight

It all started a few days ago and for the most I kept you all informed. The latest news was in my possession for well over an hour. I waited because I wanted to see how the others were reacting. And I was not disappointed, they did exactly what I expected, basically, they did nothing.

It all started with ‘Saudi Arabia says it took down ‘terrorist cell’ trained by Iran’ (at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/9/29/saudi-arabia-says-it-took-down-terrorist-cell-trained-by-iran), so should we say it is real or not? It is a fair question to have, yet the quote “Saudi Arabia says it has taken down a “terrorist cell” that had received training from Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, arresting 10 people and seizing weapons and explosives”, leaves me with the setting that this is factual. We are also given “Among the items seized were improvised explosive devices (IEDs), dozens of stun guns, kilos of gunpowder and a variety of rifles and pistols, according to the statement. It did not say where last week’s raid or arrests were carried out”, yet the western media has nothing. Not the BBC, not Reuters, not European news offices, and not FoxNews. It seems to me that Iran is given an option to get away with any action that is not set in America or Europe. And this is where we get the larger issue, the news is filtering what they think we need to know, as such we see a totally destabilised view of what is going on. 

This news matters because it gives strength to something else I stated, which was speculative at the time. I speculated that someone was painting the Aramco targets so that the drones would be more effective. These 10 men could have done just that. The arrest off the 10 men does not make my setting any less speculative. It does however open a larger stage, the news was avoiding a lot of what happened, eager to use ‘speculative’ and ‘alleged’, which is not unacceptable, yet it sets the stage that the western media is optionally complicit is setting a stage that is not part of what happened (like the Khashoggi disappearance). We see even the UN side with Turkey (where the most incarcerated journalists in history are), blatant statements even as there is no evidence is supporting any of it. 

So in this we have a much larger guilt, we are part of the problem, the media is filtering what is happening and no excuse makes up for that. It goes beyond the media, there is some indication that Google and the social media are part of this. Google calls them omitted results, social media merely hides the events on the timeline altering most results and chronological results, the last part is speculative, but the seems to be happening.

Why does this matter?

The UK, US and EU have been throwing the ‘terrorist’ word at us for the longest time, and we merely had to swallow it, now that there are additional indications that Iran is part of the problem we are left in the dark. The Saudi government gives us ““The competent authorities will conduct investigations with all those arrested to find out more information about their activities and the persons connected to them in the kingdom and abroad,” the statement read”, yet I wonder if the is enough, I wonder how much shielding Iran is receiving, Yemen and the Houthi actions made it clear that this was happening, now we are set in a stage where shielding is a lot larger making the media less reliable, I wonder who they are working for, because as I personally see it, it is not the advertisers. This all does not make the 10 men guilty, but it sets a stage of questions that most do not want to entertain, what is Iran actually up to?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 29, 2020 · 14:37

Lack of information

As I was browsing along, I saw a picture with the text ‘Why are we so misinformed?’, I did not read the article, but the question struck home. You see, we tend to ask questions when we need them, information tends to stop commercial traffic and getting justly informed is very very bad for commerce.

To comprehend this we need to take a look at the telecom drivers. In 2018 I needed a new phone, my Huawei P7 was on its final legs after 3 years and there would soon be no more updates, because that is how Android tends to work. More important, when your phone is 2 full versions behind, the setting is there to upgrade quickly or face other consequences. In this setting I was looking for an affordable phone the had 64GB Storage. You see, the current phone had 16GB and even as it was a massive upgrade from the previous one (with only 4GB), time would tell that 32GB would not do it and I was almost right. So I set out to look for a larger phone and would you know it, Telstra, Optus, Vodafone, none of them had ANYTHING that I could use, they merely had the models to keep the now people happy, but the tomorrow people would suffer. It is now 2020 and I am using a little over 34GB, as such what they had then would no longer suffice and that is AFTER I deleted Facebook, and I never use WhatsApp, Instagram or Pinterest, so the damage could be worse. The other phones were great contract captivators and to set a long term need some see the path of a little above board to hand the people what they think they need, not what they actually need, that is my translation and mobile phones are in a rough setting. Now the iPhone 11 will offer enough, as do some of the previous models, but $1800 is a little much for a lot of people, so there we are in a bit of a fix, for me it was fortunate that the Huawei Nova 3i offered what I needed, but I found it because I was looking intensely, not because people were informing me. Also, there was a Samsung 64GB, but none of the phone shops had it at the time, merely the 32GB. The addictive need of connection is seemingly required. It does not stop at mobile phones. The media has been protective of its advertisers and advertising opportunities since well before 2012, when I alerted them to a situation that would optionally bring pressure to millions of gamers, the news outlets ignored it, there were screenshots and there was evidence, but for them it mattered no, as I personally see it, the advertisement needs of Sony went first. 

As such, was there a lack of information, or were people optionally intentionally not looking in specific directions? I will let you be the judge of that, yet consider that even as mobile phones are the most visible ones, they are not the only ones and we will know in 7 weeks whether my setting (given yesterday) is a path that was exploited correctly. You see, how many news outlets, all crying and boasting US BS, on how far 5G is? When we look (at https://www.rcrwireless.com/20200911/5g/zain-completes-5g-network-deployment-saudi-arabia) and we see that Saudi Arabia finished the rollout of 5G to 38 cities, we see that we all are second to a Middle Eastern nation that embraced the 5G challenge rolling it out pretty much nationally. Scandinavia, Western Europe, the US, Canada, Australia, none of them are anywhere near that stage for at least a year, optionally 2 years. So what are we proud of? When we see a lack of information it also includes the screw ups that our political and business big wigs signed up for. So when we see Europe and in this case Ireland boasting “at launch it has about 35 per cent population coverage, but that will increase with the addition of 500 sites next year”, we see that they are not ready yet, they are a year away, and that whilst Saudi Arabia is 31 times bigger than Ireland and it was completed 2 weeks ago. Ireland is seemingly more ahead than anyone else in Europe and there is the kicker. You can only develop true 5G apps when the nation is ready and for the most none of them are, so when we see a lack of information, it is also because the information bringers have nothing to be proud of, and most importantly, no evidence against Huawei was ever brought, merely old farts in the intelligence community, all with links to others (big business) who are missing out and those people are really really sad (a lack of funds will do that).

So whilst I am applauding the question ‘Why are we so misinformed?’, we need to consider ‘What are we not allowed to know?’, a setting that favoured Sony in 2012, Microsoft multiple time and we can go in several directions when it is about 5G.

Have fun!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

September 29, 2020 · 01:30

The A-social network

That is a stage, it is a big stage and it does not care whether you live of whether you die. So let’s take this to a new level and start with a question: ‘When did you last cause the death of a person?’ I do not care whether it is you mum, your dad, your partner, your child. When did you cause their death? Too direct? Too Bad!

You see, we think that we are innocent, some are risk programmers into debt insolvency programs, yet there it is not about the people, it is about the business that needs maximisation. We pride ourself in compartmentalisation, yet in the end the programmer is just as efficient a murderer as the sniper is. When I look through the sight of a .308 rifle, the sight allows me to go for a target 450 metres away, an optimum distance, the silencer will make is silent enough so that anyone more than 4 metres away will not hear a thing and 450 metres away, a person falls to their knees, the chest wound is damaging enough to ensure that the target will be dead on arrival, even if it happens at the entrance of a hospital, for the target it is over. You think this is bad? 

The programmer writes the formula that sets a different strain of insolvency. It is a form of credit risk, as such we get “In the first resort, the risk is that of the lender and includes lost principal and interest, disruption to cash flows, and increased collection costs”, as such the credit firms hire programmers that can stretch the case to lower the risk to the lender, set the stage where there is an increased option to pay back at much higher cost. In that same way we see programs and risk assessments being created where the facilitators are not at risk, they are not to blame and they are not to be held accountable. 

So here comes Molly Russell and the BBC gives us ‘Molly Russell social media material ‘too difficult to look at’’, it starts with “The 14-year-old killed herself in 2017 after viewing graphic images of self harm and suicide on the platform”, so what ‘platform’ was that? How much was viewed and what time frame was in play? These are the first questions that rise straight from the bat. It is followed by “A pre-inquest hearing on Friday was told not all the material had been studied yet as it was too difficult for lawyers and police to look at for long”, basically at least two years later lawyers and police are unable to view what a 14 year old did, and this does not give us the hard questions? So whilst the article (optionally unintentionally) hides behind “The inquest will look at how algorithms used by social media giants to keep users on the platform may have contributed to her death”, the basic flaw is at the very basic level. How did this stuff get uploaded, why was it not flagged and hw many viewed it, in addition towards the small setting of who was the uploading party? So someone gave a 14 year old the settings and the access to materials that most adults find unwatchable and I think there are bigger questions in play. It is the line “He added certain parts of the material had been redacted and lawyers and police were trying to find out why”, as I personally see it, redaction happens when you need to hide issues and this becomes an increased issue with “the investigation was seeking the cooperation of Snapchat, WhatsApp, Pinterest, Facebook and Twitter, although until recently only Pinterest had co-operated fully”, as well as “Snapchat could not disclose data without an order from a US court, WhatsApp had deleted Molly’s account and Twitter was reluctant to handover material due to European data protection laws, the hearing was told”, On a personal footnote, Twitter has been on a slippery slope for some time, and the deletion by WhatsApp is one that is cause for additional questions. As I see it, these tech giants will work together to maximise profit, but in this, is the death of a person the danger that they cannot face, or will not face in light of the business setting of profit? Even as I am willing to accept the view of “Coroner Andrew Walker said “some or all” of those social media companies could be named as interested parties in the inquest as they would be “best placed” to give technical information for the case”, are they best placed or are we seeing with this case the setting where Social media is now the clear and present danger to the people for the case of extended profits into the largest margin available?

That is a direction you did not see, is it?

We have never seen social media as a clear and present danger, but in case of Molly Russell that might be exactly what we face and there is every indication that she is not the only case and it is possible that the redactions would optionally show that.

Yet in all this, the origin of the materials and how they were passed through social media remains a much larger issue. I wonder how much the inquest will consider that part. You see, for me, I do not care. I am sorry, the picture of the girl in the BBC article is lovely, she is pretty, but I do not care. It is cold, yet that is what it is. In Yemen well over 100,000 are dead and the world does not seem to care, as such, I need not care about one girl, but the setting, the setting I do care about. It is not for the one case, under 5G when the bulk of the people will get drowned in information and all kinds of movies, one girl will end up being between 8 and 20 people. The setting is larger, 5G will make it so ad if you doubt that, feel free to wait and watch the corpses go by.

Suddenly sniping seems such a humanitarian way to pass the time, does it not? 

We need to consider that one process influences another, as such the process is important, just like the processes risk assessors write to lower risk, the stage of what goes one way, also has the ability to go the other way. This translates into ‘What would keep Molly Russell with us?’ Now implies a very different thing, it sets the stage of a lot more. It is not merely who messaged Molly Russell, it becomes what else was send to Molly Russell on WhatsApp, so suddenly the deletion of her account does not seem that innocent, does it? It goes from bad to worse when you consider on how social media links and how links and usage is transferred. Like footprints the links go form one to the other and no one has a clue? It is in my personal view more likely that they all have a clue and for the most it is extremely profitable, Molly Russell is merely a casual situation of circumstance, so under 5G when it is not 1, but up to 20 times the victims, what will happen then?

I will let you consider that small fact, the setting where your children become the casualty of margins of profit, until death deletes the account, have a great day!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

September 28, 2020 · 22:41

When is a summit not a summit?

This is a more important question than you might gather. You see we accept the meaning of summit “a meeting between heads of government”, yet the entire virtual thing is not really a setting that most governments are happy with. Any summit allows for the high placed people to have a little tete-a-tete (A face-to-face meeting, or private conversation between two people). In such an event the Dutch King can assure people on clean water projects, all off the books. And plenty of people want them to be off the books. So when I see “Saudi Arabia will hold the scheduled G20 summit online on November 21 and 22” I wonder how effective it will be. And virtual meeting tend to spill, on a global level. In this, when I see “Summit organisers said on Monday they planned to build on the success of the virtual special G20 summit at the end of March and on the results of more than 100 virtual working groups and ministerial meetings”, these will all be on the books and the data would be leaked the moment it is received somewhere. Even as we agree on “The G20 brings together the leaders of both developed and developing countries from every continent”, in a v brutal setting, I doubt that this will be the case. And in this setting the stage we are given with “With its one-year chairmanship of the G20, Saudi Arabia wants to focus on issues such as women and climate protection. The originally planned in-person meeting in Riyadh would have been the first regular G20 summit in the Arab world”, I am actually somewhat doubtful if anything clear will be achieved. When we see “such as women and climate protection”, we accept that in some meetings people will not oppose certain actions when there is a personal conversation between two parties, yet one person in a digital setting is not willing to submit to a decision by himself when the other 19 listen and no agreement will end up becoming a case. As such for this summit, Covid-19 is perhaps the worst thing we could ever face. 

Yet the stage is one that could be powerful, but not for them. If Huawei had prepared correctly, there will be a chance that this is the first summit where it will be completely 5G indoors. You see to weeks ago ‘Zain completes 5G network deployment in Saudi Arabia’ implying that Saudi Arabia is one of the first nations ever to deploy 5G, moreover, the US is nowhere near that setting. This summit could be the first visibility of active 5G solutions, which would be also a first and it is happening in Saudi Arabia, all whilst Sweden in May only had “Sweden’s first 5G base stations in Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö”, whilst Denmark gives us “Denmark customers in several Danish cities are now enjoying the benefits of 5G connectivity as Ericsson’s rapid deployment of new 5G”, the list goes on, but in Saudi Arabia we see that Zain completes network deployment, as such there is optionally a need for Saudi Arabia to show off its 5G ability, making it the first nation to have any official stage where we see the power of 5G, the stage is that much bigger. And the people who set the stage on ‘we are going to be there too’ need to realise that they weren’t there, as I expected they are slow, slow by almost 1-2 years and that stage is evolving against those who wanted to play the anti-Huawei card, now they get to see first hand what it is to be second to Saudi Arabia. And it was not a small deployment, we can see that with “Zain KSA’s 5G network now covers 38 cities across the Kingdom” their deployment is a lot larger, it is not three cities in Sweden, or a few suburbs in Denmark and when you consider that only 17 cities in Saudi Arabia are over 200,000, we can see that this is the first true victory of Saudi Arabia over the west, the first time where we see that a lack of evidence and dragging ou heels is going to be the downfall of us. Politicians will make bombastic speeches on how for now 4G is good enough, but they know that they are spilling the BS as wide as they can. Saudi Arabia is now officially a 5G development platform location and as such we would most likely get to see what else is possible and it will be visible first in Saudi Arabia and China. So when is a summit not a summit? When it is a presentation platform, and there is every indication that we are in for a whole range of goodies pithing the next 8 weeks.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

September 28, 2020 · 15:05

It is up to someone

Yup, there is always a person to point at, a person to blame, a person to delegate to and a person to expect from. We tend to be all alike in the common things, the things that need doing and it tends to motivate us. This all started a few hours ago whilst I was waking up (without coffee mind you), and I saw all kinds of news the involved $70,000. All kinds of celebrities and politicians were commenting on it. It took me a few seconds to find out the this was about the tax returns of president Trump. He had set a tax deduction of $70,000 towards that mangy coiffure of his.

I pondered as people were laughing at him and people were making claims of fraud and prosecution. Yet in all this not one voice raised the issue on the IRA, his accountant and the others involved signing off on that. Is that no interesting? Consider that a person spends $5800 a month on a haircut, it is even less likely than someone who is impotent requiring $4000 in condoms each month. In light of the setting that President Trump had set the stage with large losses I wonder who was checking his books and why the IRA approved it all. 

In all this I found that the Independent, via The Times, (at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-tax-report-apprentice-hair-expenses-b659155.html) did spend some time on this. They went further by stating “The Times report also found that Trump has been feuding with the Internal Revenue Service for the last decade over a nearly $73 million tax refund he previously claimed. If the IRS were to prevail in its audit, which has seemingly stalled in recent years, Trump could be responsible for paying over $100 million to the government”, consider that he states that criminals cannot vote, can the Americans demand that a politician cannot be elected with outstanding tax bills? 

It is not merely what President Trump believes is due, or what the IRS believes is outstanding, this one case alone proves what I have been claiming for over 2 years, until tax laws are overhauled the mess in America (and the EU) will continue. I would go further that anyone opposing tax bills must do so visibly for all to see. I wonder how much opposition we see at that point. 

A stage that fuels the setting of “It reported that the former reality television star reported making a combined $427.4 million from 2004 to 2018 by selling his name and image through various endorsements and licensing deals” with an additional “The Times reported that Trump appeared to be responsible for $421 million in loans coming due in the next four years”, it gives rise to a few issues where the IRS is falling short. 

So whilst we consider the opening setting “In a bombshell, 10,000-word report following an extensive investigation, The New York Times published claims that Mr Trump, who prides himself on his business acumen, pays a minuscule amount of tax”, it seems to me that no one has been talking to his accountant and the IRS, I know that his accountant will not talk, yet the setting is not on what happened, but on the small issue whether tax laws were breached. That is the centre stage and whilst every one is in a stage of the blame game whilst attending musical chairs, the question not answered, we merely focus on “paid no federal income tax in 10 of the past 15 years and only $750 in the year he was elected”, everyone is overlooking the fact whether he broke the law. That is the stage we need to see, we see that good accountants are expensive and they are so for a reason. For those with a sense of humour, consider that Star Trek gave us the Ferengi rules of acquisition over 20 years ago, there we see in Laws 255 “A wife is a luxury… a smart accountant a necessity”, as such TV stations were more clued in towards tax needs 33 years ago. Yes, it is that disgraceful, the setting of taxation and proper taxation was an item 33 years ago and over that time NOTHING was done. This is not a Republican flaw, because over 33 years several democratic presidents were in charge; but it was never a good time, was it? I have given light to flawed tax settings for well over 5 years, not just in the US, it is a flaw all over the EU as well, the Apple issue is proof of that. Yes, we can all blame and curse at President Trump (your right to do so), but consider that the IRS is central in this mess, so who is taking the limelight in that direction?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

September 28, 2020 · 00:33

Exit stage right

Yup, I am back. In the first there is the Swiss issue I discussed earlier today, as set the free movement ending is not reached, 68% rejected that part. So in this the larger stage were (as I personally saw it) the fear mongering side, but that is merely my view on one part. The election was on a few items and the Swiss have spoken, they rejected the ending free movement part and I am fine with it, yet I do feel that the term of all those benefits, I wonder if we ever get to see a list on that. But no matter what it was up to the Swiss and they rejected the notion.

Then there is the corona issue (not the beer), as per now we have 33 million infected and one million are dead. I believe that this number is actually higher, but I cannot prove it, the top three are USA, India and Brazil. In this I partially reject it because I believe that Indian infected is most likely a lot higher and those who died are cremated rather fast, so even as the numbers are too low, I cannot say that there is intent here, consider that in India the alleged personal need for ignorance is high, a nation where the Mumbai region alone has 55 million people, so 6 million over all India and only 95,000 deaths does not add up. When we apply the global mortality rate, the death count in India is close to 50% too low, a nation where population pressure is through the roof. I get it, not every person gets tested, there are not enough test packages to get even close to the testings required, there is no blame, no one is at fault, but we need to realise the setting and in a lot more places than India, the setting does not add up. 

And in the third setting, we see that there is every indication that President Trump will be exiting the stage on the right side. There is an overwhelming amount of push on places like Twitter where we see the Rock, George Takei, Billy Baldwin, David Cross and numerous others are giving their voice to Joe Biden, there is even a growing amount of Republicans on that list (including me) and the stage that President Trump has set is for the bulk of all the people no longer acceptable. I reckon that if the voting amount is raised from 55% to 65% it will be over for President Trump. As far as I can tell, at no time in history have Americans united against an elected president ever before. These events are making the anti Vietnam and anti Lyndon B. Johnson events fade. Even as Joe Biden has presently a 10% lead, it is a dangerous setting. Some people will fall asleep and will not bother voting, but the is the danger that got President Trump into the Oval Office in the first place. I would hazard a guess that if only 65% votes, one could argue that the USA does not deserve saving, not t this stage. The active people seem to realise that and their voice is simple “please vote”, they do not say who to vote for, they seem to think that this will be enough to get them to vote and hopefully not for President Trump. People like Dwayne Johnson are more eloquent in this, they name the people they endorse and give additional information. Still, I am to some extent in awe, I have never seen such a level of unison coming from America since WW2 (the Hitler is bad group) and perhaps it is important to pause at this notion. Yes, I remember my last piece, yet that was not about being pro-Trump. That was about the law and the constitution, little pesky things all kind of people want to avoid, I do not. 

What else is on the table? 

Well, games would be my guess and even as we are all still reeling from the Bethesda, now Microsoft decision, PC Gamer gives us a past overview (at https://www.pcgamer.com/au/what-happened-to-12-of-gamings-biggest-studios-after-they-were-sold/). I understand what they bring and I do not oppose it, but what stands out is that Bethesda is bought for more than the amount spend on 12 other acquisitions (not all Microsoft), there we see the the purchase of Mojang by Microsoft implies that all is not lost for Sony, yet this close to release of a new console makes it a question mark at best. In this there is also the thought that EA has options for Mass Effect and even the original trilogy, yet that is for another time. For the most the countdown clocks are running for Cyberpunk 2077 and the PS5/Xbox series X. November 19th 2020 for Cyberpunk and the consoles will come at November 12th (PS5) and November 10th (Xbox). The mayhem starts in 43 days 6 hours and 34.2 minutes.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 27, 2020 · 21:22

What is the law? 

That is the question I got myself wondering about. Now consider the law, the US and Commonwealth nations have common law, other nations like most in the EU have civil law, all nations that embrace the rule of law. I myself am largely in favour of the law (alas it does not suit me all the time, but the is life). So when I saw Reuters give me this morning ‘Democrats hammer Trump’s Supreme Court pick, say she could jeopardise Obamacare’. Yes, I get it, democrats are not in favour of conservative judges, the setting is however that the elected president gets to nominate whomever they want, yet it is the Senate that elects them by majority vote. In all this we see “Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and others in his party on Saturday blasted President Donald Trump’s choice of conservative judge Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court, focusing in particular on the threat they said she would pose to healthcare for millions of Americans” (at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-barrett-healthcare/democrats-hammer-trumps-supreme-court-pick-say-she-could-jeopardize-obamacare-idUSKBN26I00H). Yet here is the kicker, it seems that there is too large and too polarised a view in America for the situation to continue. Now, I have nothing against judge Barrett, I do not know her, and I don’t know any of the supremes, actually I knew one when she was a supreme (Diana Ross) and there is the case where I optionally know two judges, both named Dredd (Sylvester Stallone and Karl Urban). I will admit that I am making light of the situation (apart from the fact that I can), but consider the setting here. The nominated judge (at https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/barrett-amy-coney) gives us:

  • Law clerk, Hon. Laurence H. Silberman, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 1997-1998
  • Law clerk, Hon. Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court of the United States, 1998-1999
  • Private practice, Washington, D.C., 1999-2001
  • George Washington University Law School, 2001-2002; adjunct faculty member, 2001; John M. Olin Fellow in Law, 2001-2002
  • Professor of law, Notre Dame Law School, 2002-2017
  • Visiting associate professor of law, University of Virginia Law School, 2007

This youthful youngling of 48 summers has experience, as such she is eligible. And this is where we get to Jo Jo Biden. This is important as they claim “the threat they said she would pose to healthcare for millions of Americans”. Now, I am not stating that she is not, I merely wonder how a judge with so much years of experience might optionally invalidate a setting unless it is an illegal one. Let’s not forget the this is a supreme court judge, not the election of Judge Fish (again the Dredd connection). 

It leaves me with questions, one of them is what would be illegal about Obamacare? If the second president keeps on unravelling on what the previous president put in motion, how useless has the American legal system become? That is a valid question, is it not?

All this whilst the vote of confirmation has not passed yet and this is where the Democrats panel members get to ask all the questions that could interfere with the nominee being confirmed. The Sydney Morning Herald gives us (at https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/the-trap-democrats-must-avoid-in-the-supreme-court-nomination-battle-20200927-p55zm0.html) “Republicans want to turn the confirmation process into a grievance-fuelled culture war by portraying Barrett – a devout Catholic conservative – as a victim of left-wing bigotry. Democrats want to use the Supreme Court showdown to highlight the precarious status of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, and elevate it as an election issue”, I believe that this is right on point. Yet when we look at this, would either ever elect the best nomination? Lets not forget, the even as we accept “There is no precedent for a US Supreme Court vacancy to be filled so close to election day”, the reality is “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law”, this is what Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 states. There is nothing about how close to election it is. It is about the elected president of the United States, the constitution is actually that simple (no fish required). And none of it can happen without the consent of the Senate, and they are elected by who? Yup, you guessed it they are directly chosen by the people of the State, in this those 55% (the part that actually showed to the election) made their decision known and these senators, elected by the people will confirm (or reject) the nomination to the supreme court, but those parts are not really that highlighted by the papers are they?

Now, I will happily agree that I am not the greatest expert on the matter (apart from a master degree in law), but there is a lot we need to consider. How can the USA move forward when the setting is created that optionally the next term undoes the actions of the previous term? Is anyone considering that non-productive stage? Apart from the stage where we see the confirmation that the Affordable Care Act is in a precarious situation, implying that it was never properly set into law, and if that is so, whose fault was that? If we focus on the law, let’s make it about the law and there, the current president has been fortunate enough to elect 3 supreme court judges. The last one to do this was former President Reagan and he got to nominate 4 of them, just like former President Nixon, only President Eisenhower nominated 5. And so far, do the people of the USA have anything to complain about? Reagan nominated Judge Scalia, where some state that he was he was one of the most influential jurists of the twentieth century. Nixon elected Judge Blackmun, who was seen as became one of the most liberal justices on the Court. He is best known as the author of the Court’s opinion in Roe v. Wade, which prohibits many state and federal restrictions on abortion. Then there was President Eisenhower who nominated Justice Brennan, and ended up being known for being a leader of the Court’s liberal wing. So when I see all the tears on a lack of liberal judges, I wonder how valid it is. OK, I have an actual life, so I did not dig into EVERY nominated and elected justice, yet I hope that I am raising enough questions for you all to wonder and lets face it, unless you went in and actually voted, you have no real right (unless you were younger than 18 during the last election). 

In the end, we have to wait and see, mostly if the confirmation succeeds or not, because that is the next step. Let’s wait and see, the next step starts on October 12th.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 27, 2020 · 16:11

That foul stench from Denmark

Yup, it is a line that has nothing to do with the Monarchy of Danske (or its nation), it comes from Hamlet and the loser translation gives us “everything is not good at the top of the political hierarchy”, it is what the EU faces. This is seen in ‘Switzerland gets ready to vote on ending free movement with EU’, it was given to us yesterday by the BBC. So as the people in Switzerland decide today “Swiss voters will decide on Sunday whether to abandon their free movement of people agreement with the EU”, we see two parts. The first is “Supporters say the move will allow Switzerland to control its borders and select only the immigrants it wants”, which I will set in green as the positive view, then there is “Opponents argue it will plunge a healthy economy into recession, and deprive hundreds of thousands of Swiss citizens of their freedom to live and work across Europe”, which I will label fear mongering bullshit; the additional “The justice minister says that would create a situation “worse than Brexit”” does not help. It seems to me that there is a growing EU fear, the people have suffered for a decade whilst those on gravy trains have been filling their pockets and the people have had enough. The total lack of checks and balances is a first the so called virtual checks and balanced that are set to promote silence is the other one. A two part harmony sets against the prospering of the people of the EU and merely helping out big business and the Swiss are considering to walk away. To be honest, I am not certain what is the best for the Swiss people, I reckon the those living in Switzerland and those either benefitting or suffering because of it will cast their vote and there is every chance that the bulls of them are not prospering. 

So when we see “Switzerland decided long ago not to join the EU, but it does want access to Europe’s free-trade area, and it wants to co-operate with Brussels in areas like transport, the environment, and research and education”, so there is a setting of cooperation all whilst the Swiss were never part of the EU. And this is countered with “The EU has consistently told the Swiss there will be no cherry-picking: leaving free movement would mean leaving those lucrative trade arrangements too”, as such my question becomes “Please present a list of lucrative trade agreements”. In all this Thomas Aeschi of the SVP seems to be in favour of abandoning the open borders policy, and even as his setting is overly simplified. I am not convinced that we have to see it any other way. I have been to Switzerland (before the EU coin was a reality), it was expensive, the cheese was great and the chocolates were nice. The people were friendly and there was a lot of white (snow), I reckon the in summer it will be green. I went up the Matterhorn (the easiest side), and in all this food was good. It seems shallow, but that was the view of a person being there for a few days with 5 days and 3 meetings looks at. I considered to open a Swiss bank account (for the fun of it and to be able to boast the I had a Swiss bank account), but in the end and the lack of confidence that I would be there any day soon ever again made me not do it.

When we look at the opposition we see “There will be a clear cost because we depend so heavily on trade with the EU”, which comes from Stefan Manser-Egli (Operation Libero), yet when we re consider the quote “it does want access to Europe’s free-trade area, and it wants to co-operate with Brussels” which was decided long ago. And when we look at a list of ALL the depending imports, how much is at stake and what will the difference be for the Swiss? Now consider that this world is a buyers market, so why is the Swiss choice a bad one? I can see why it stings for all on the gravy train, but the others, the people on an actual income, will they hurt more, less or the same? Unless someone proves clearly to the Swiss people that they are in for a lot more pain, is opposing the open borders policy a bad idea for the Swiss? The Swiss must do what is best for them and for Switzerland. There is more going on in Switzerland and the fear mongering through “worse than Brexit” is not the worst overbearing statement, but it is up there and it is false, Brexit is a much larger issue, which everyone in Europe will know when you see the impact of actual change, yes, I believe that some Swiss people will be hit, but will it protect more? Thomas says Yay, Stefan says Nay. I am not certain but there is a larger issue, and it was voiced through Hamlet, the $13 billion Apple bill is merely a first sign. The issue might be “The European Commission plans to appeal against a ruling that Apple does not have to pay 13bn euros (£11.6bn) in back taxes to Ireland”, the fact that the European Commission and the EU’s General Court cannot agree on simple tex matters, gives a first rise, the fact that two settings reset on a stage to avoid taxation for a $2 trillion dollar company? It seems to be that appeasing large companies is way too important for the EU and when the people end with nothing, hell comes a knocking, and it has. Lets not forget that this did not start with the UK, it all started in 2009 with the Greek government-debt crisis, it showed the EU to be toothless and in the pocket of greed driven people. Up to now not one of the people involved in the matter has seen a prison cell or saw their money captured. It seems to me that several laws are a decade late for overhaul and the is now a stage that sees the escalations. The quantitive easing issues of the last few years was the first stage, the limits it is about to hit will be second and the unforeseen Covid-19 is the third. The EU depleted of reserves becomes a large empty machine and I hoped that the UK would be out already, yet the Swiss are now following, one of the nations I did not expect to leave and this sets the expected steps of the EU collapse a lot faster than anticipated. And it is the last part we see “This Swiss referendum was in the pipeline before the UK voted to leave the EU”, as such, why is it only now on the b ig screen radar? If it was that important, why were the people not given a clear account of the pro’s and the con’s all over the EU? Is that not an interesting question too? 

So whilst we wonder what will be next, we see that the UK has a new player that optionally would like to expend its import and export stage. And as these two are optionally in a stage to do what is best for THEIR nations, we see the EU scramble for any scraps that they can get, that is how it goes in places where allegedly greed is the deciding factor.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 26, 2020 · 02:00

View of a different nature

We all have a view, we all have a way of looking at things. I am no exception, that is the sight we have. Yet some people (and I personally count myself among them) have a much stronger ability to adjust the views we have. Some (like myself) have the ability to adjust when needed. In this age of being told a story, it is important to be able to look at the data.

My adjustment started in early 2018 when I was made aware of Neom City. The new city that was to be build by Saudi Arabia. Its foundation was so overwhelming that it was enticing to applaud it. Never in the history of mankind was something like this ever conceived. A city around 20 times the size of New York was to be build. That setting was inspiring and it drove me to create some of the IP I ended up having. The setting of a new all tech city was overwhelming, yet that was only the beginning, it was then that we got to see an increasingly amount of anti-Saudi events and articles. So when the Guardian gave us ‘Revealed: Saudi Arabia may have enough uranium ore to produce nuclear fuel’, I decided to dig. The first thing I noticed was the presence of Stephanie Kirchgaessner. I saw her name on ‘Jeff Bezos hack: Amazon boss’s phone ‘hacked by Saudi crown prince’’ in January this year. There we are introduced to “that had apparently been sent from the personal account of the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, sources have told the Guardian”, I had an issue with the hatchet approach, no matter what Kirchgaessner calls herself. I basically debunked the hacking issue, as well as security forensics firm FTI Consulting in less than an hour, the Guardian was that thorough before publishing what they would call at best ‘highly probable’, yes that is what we need from those so called investigators and the fact that I was able to pump holes in the setting within an hour, in addition to actual electronic forensic experts giving even more evidence that led to believe that the accusations were debatable at best, completely ejectable at worst, that is not a good setting to be in and now that same name comes back to the Guardian article. Now we see “The disclosure will intensify concerns about Riyadh’s interest in an atomic weapons programme”, yet the monarchy of Saudi Arabia have always stated the they would not go near an nuclear arsenal until Iran does and it seems that the pussies of this world (politicians and journalists all over the world) have not been able to do anything ab out Iran, so they have another go at Saudi Arabia. In all this the entire setting that the quote: “Confidential Chinese report seen by the Guardian intensifies concerns about possible weapons programme” is driving this all. Let’s be clear, the two places where journalists have no access, the Guardian gets a report? And the evidence is debatable, it is all linked to “These are “inferred deposits”, estimated from initial surveys”, so it is based on estimations, a debatable source. Now we can accept that it is possible the there is Uranium in Saudi Arabia, and it was never a secret, there has been plans that go back to 2016 that Saudi Arabia has had plans to extract uranium for the domestic production of nuclear fuel. The UN nuclear watchdog, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was also assisting Saudi’s nuclear ambition (at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-15/saudi-arabia-s-atomic-ambition-is-being-fueled-by-a-un-watchdog)

Yet the Guardian gives us “The greatest international concern is over the kingdom’s lack of transparency. Under a 2005 agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Saudi Arabia avoided inspections through a small quantities protocol (SQP), which waives IAEA monitoring up to the point where fissile fuel is introduced into a reactor. The nuclear watchdog has been trying to convince the Saudi monarchy to now accept a full monitoring programme, but the Saudis have so far fended off that request”, And in this Reuters gave us 3 weeks ago “IAEA providing support for Saudi Arabia as it plans to adopt nuclear energy”, it seems that the Guardian is giving us an adjusted negative view, with a lacking support on several fronts and I wonder why that is happening. In all this the Guardian also evades the entire enrichment issues the are required for nuclear warheads in opposition to enrichment for fuel, why is that part missing? All this, whilst the escalating party (Iran) is given leeway after leeway. You see, in this the one party is fuelling the other and Saudi Arabia has been up front about the from the beginning.

The Guardian gives us that with “The kingdom’s nuclear ambitions have become a source of heightened concern in the US Congress and among allies, particularly since Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman declared in 2018 that if regional rival Iran develops a nuclear bomb, “we will follow suit as soon as possible”” Yet part from the Iran drive, the Saudi drive was for fuel only and that part is missing, there is a lot missing and when we consider the quote “who have been scrambling to help Riyadh map its uranium reserves at breakneck speed as part of their nuclear energy cooperation agreement” whilst this started in 2017, I merely wonder if the writers at the Guardian have any clue of the concept ‘at breakneck speed’, as I see it, in 3 years mapping is not breakneck speed, especially when we add the ““inferred deposits”, estimated from initial surveys” it smells like something it is not and yes, we should keep our eyes open (both Saudi Arabia and Iran), yet IAEA part is merely a small paragraph, and part of that is inferred, not the way I would go, but the is me. I think that the Guardian went wrong here, I would have made the entire IAEA a lot more important, and as the headline gives us ‘may have enough uranium ore to produce nuclear fuel’, my question becomes, why is there a ‘may’ in the headline? I would consider the setting that if there is a ‘may’ after the entire setting had been going on for 3 years, we have a larger issue and the stage of ‘confidential documents seen by the Guardian’ becomes a lot more debatable when there is a massive absence of ‘enrichment’ in the entire article. Did anyone notice that? So where is the fuel getting enriched? So whilst the article goes on with “for either an energy or weapons programme” we need to consider that enrichment is essential for weapons, so where does Bruce Riedel (the expert from the Brookings Institution) get his information? Why is the article skipping enrichment, the most essential element towards weapons? We are happy to see “The Guardian could not independently verify the authenticity of the report”, yet that merely makes the article more debatable, not less so.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 22, 2020 · 23:46

Choices

We all see them, we all have them and we often have a feeling of polarisation when we are hit by them. It all starts with a tweet by George Takei. I greatly admire the guy, not in the least as Lt. Sulu on the Enterprise. The man is intelligent, direct and has (as I personally see it) ownership of the statement ‘Oh my!’ George has an impressive history as an actor and as a humanitarian. He is also an activist and all that does not break down in any way of the person he is. I have no problem s towards him as a person or as a republican, he is the kind of person that actually makes America great and we have to accept that. I have no issues with him and I have no issues with his stance against President Trump, even as I agree with him on this matter, no matter how republican I am, we need to be held to account for what we say and what we do and I believe the fits with the republican point of view.

So when I saw the tweet, I was a little miffed. You see, in the directness of the setting Senator Gardner is actually correct. When we look at the constitution we see “When a vacancy occurs, the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints a new justice”, it is however a little more complex. The president can choose whomever he wants, yet it must be settled through a majority in the US Senate. As such 51 senators need to confirm the appointment and that is where it gets to be complex. 

“Candidates are nominated by the President of the United States and must face a series of hearings in which both the nominee and other witnesses make statements and answer questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which can vote to send the nomination to the full United States Senate. Confirmation by the Senate allows the President to formally appoint the candidate to the court. The Constitution does not set any qualifications for service as a Justice, thus the President may nominate any individual to serve on the Court”, yet feel free to read up (at https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Nominations.htm). 

It is the series of hearings the are the big issue in most cases, yet here to President Trump has an advantage, or does he? To see this, we need to voice the opinion of an individual. This was done with “RIP to the more than 30 million innocent babies that have been murdered during the decades that Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended pro-abortion laws”, the issue is not one I agree with, but that visibility will aid us. Some republicans and especially the pro-life people will want a different type of judge, they will have a polarising look at the entire situation, yet when we examine congress we get a grasp of PEW research (at https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/18/three-in-ten-or-more-democrats-and-republicans-dont-agree-with-their-party-on-abortion/).

No matter how we want to see the data, we need to see the top-line net numbers. In this only 64% of the Republicans agree with this stance. Moreover, the 7% of the democrats agreeing with the Republicans will not be enough to carry the call of a majority, the hearing will be on many issues, but as you can see depending on the hearing, there will be any number of issues that the senate will be dissenting on and the hearings will be a task on a few items and even as there is a Republican senate, it might not be enough for a few reasons. 

As a law graduate I have to believe in the process and the US has a larger process, as I see it the constitution sets a large protective fence around the nation of law setting and that is good, so as such the selection of any Supreme Court judge is a big thing, it will be a big thing for either side of the isle and it is the right for the Republicans to select one (for now) and if the US senate confirms the choice, it will be a one deal.

When we see “When a vacancy occurs, the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints a new justice”, why does anyone assume that the presently elected president would not try to select a Supreme? It is one of the greatest things any president gets to do. So for the Democrats it kind of sicks that the timing is off, but that does not matter, there is a vacancy, and this president gets to nominate the next one.

And before we give rise to the ones making noise on the fairness of it. Consider the this president got elected by the 55% the voted, if Demo(c)rats are so about the issue, remember, 45% could not be bothered getting out of bed to vote. That sucks doesn’t it?

So as we are confronted with the choices of people, we need to accept the we might not agree with all, but we accept the they have a right to chose. I might not agree with George Takei all the time, but his choices tend to be intelligent, as such I will take notice. So whilst we see all kinds of flames are started on Twitter and Facebook, we have to consider to reset a lot of them (99%) from the get go and learn what is involved with certain choices and nominations. Who of you knew of the hearings? Who knew that a nomination requires a majority approval? Who knew that the last one elected (also by President Trump) got there after a grilling that took 48 hours and well over 1250 questions. As such there is a stage we need to consider, if the last two were not bad choices (Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh), why is there so much opposition? We all accept that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an amazing judge and filling those shoes will be a hard task, but the rules of the game (the constitution) are clear, There is a vacancy and a nomination can be put forward, the vacancy happened in the age of President Trump and unless there is actual evidence that the previous two were wrong choices, we get to blame the US senate, I merely wonder who dug through those 1250 questions and came optionally to the conclusion of wrongful election?  

I made a choice, George Takei made a choice, Senator Gardner made a choice, the US Senate made its choice and President Trump made a choice. I am not wise enough to proclaim who was wrong, optionally none were. Could you be wrong?

This is the beauty of subjectivity, it is our right, it is the right of most people living in a free democratic world.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,