Category Archives: Politics

November 5, 2019 · 11:20

The tradesman and the deal

Yes, we all have moments where a deal didn’t sound great, but the way it was brought was essential when the deal was there ready to be signed, the deal was accepted, not because of the deal, but the tradesman involved had brought it in such a way that the deal sounded too great to pass up. We have seen several of these events in the past, it is the literal event where the numbers do not add up when the analyst brings the ‘good’ news, but the diplomat was able to swing it to the direct event where all were looking forward to the fringe benefits that this deal brought. That is how I saw the Nuclear Deal, and one day after April 1^st, the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) was ready for signatures on April 2^nd 2015. Now that the deal is up in smoke we look towards the people setting up the deal, but they are no longer there, there is merely the JCPOA and the Iranian party has decided to walk away from it, already in a stage where several parts have been transgressed upon, but diplomats state “be not afraid, we are on top of it, the injunction is minor” (in various publications in the last 3 months), meanwhile Iran has announced (or was that a promise or a threat) that they are about the increase tenfold the Uranium enrichment process. Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran’s atomic energy organisation has made the statement that enrichment is now up to 5kg per day, up from 450g less than 60 days earlier, also , the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/04/irans-production-of-enriched-uranium-rises-tenfold-in-two-months) gives us “It is not clear how the European Union will react to the latest step, but so far the EU has not put the whole nuclear agreement into review, which would be the first move towards its suspension and possible collapse“, the diplomats are not home, they are out and about on a golf course, on a sabbatical and on long term travels where they are not to be reached, no one wants to touch the toxic agreement, no one wants their nae connected to this, it is the deal that is bringing direct danger to the State of Israel and to the safety of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, so whilst Anna Ahronheim gives us in the Jerusalem Post ‘EU Parliament Members: Support Israel In Fight Against Hezbollah And Iran‘, we seemingly forget that the term ‘EU parliamentary‘ is transient and above all, the 8-person delegation (four MEPs and four European Parliament policy advisers) are close to a joke, 4 MEP doubled by policy advisors are out and about stating (well sort of) ‘We support you against Iran‘, you see 4 out of 751 MEP’s is not much, did they bring the combined voices of 442 coalition members? I do not think so! You see the EU needs to look important, so they keep their options open with Iran and the problem here is that the moment Iran acts with their enriched Uranium, the EU is less than likely to do anything, Iran has oil and the EU needs it, the chance of Iran acting out against Israel is a lot higher than Iran acting out against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the chances of Israel being a first strike victim just went up tenfold. The same can be said for the article by Yonah Jeremy Bob, also in the Jerusalem Post, there we see ‘Iran-Us-Israel’s 40 Years Of Hostility With No End In Sight – Analysis‘, a definite truth, but here too it is all about hostilities. And the quote “One would think the US’s greatest hostility would be for a country that killed 58,000 of its soldiers and that Israel’s greatest hostility would be for a country that killed more than 2,500 of its soldiers in a single war“, but that is not where its at. And he danger is perfectly voiced in one paragraph: “Ironically, 40 years later, it is Iran that is the lasting threat against Israel as many of the moderate Sunni Arab countries are trying to find ways to live a stable coexistence with Israel, even if there is not yet formal peace with some of them” and that is where the danger lies. The two quotes ‘to find ways to live a stable coexistence with Israel‘, as well as ‘even if there is not yet formal peace‘ these two events are the heart of the matter, Iran is not interested in peace with Israel, Rouhani might be president, but he does not represent the Iranian Clergy or the Iranian military, they both merely allow Rouhani to be where he is and they both want to finish off Israel, and remove the power that KSA has, in that order, as such events are required and Iran is on track with it as Uranium enrichment is now allowed by the EU and the US is nowhere to be seen, merely in a stage where they think that more economic sanctions work, in an age where the half time of security is far below the half time of Uranium, and Iran has its targets set. And ever after the first strike on Israel there is EVERY CHANCE that the EU will not harshly react against Iran, they are knowingly selling Israel down the drain to ensure Middle Eastern Oil agreements with ALL OPEC nations, I wonder when the people will figure out that the EU is nothing more than a sheep’s rug that is not being used, it is merely there to give the large corporations the stick they need to deal with individual European nations, it is the result of becoming a corporatocracy.

The corporatocracy wants to find some level of solution, but then we are shown “Europe has made promises to find ways to circumvent the US sanctions“, it was the latest in folly’s, all doomed to fail, corporatocracy on one side, ego on the other, did you actually think that there will be a solution? Even as we see ‘French president Emmanuel Macron’s efforts to set up talks between Iran and the US to break the impasse‘ in the meanwhile the dangers are growing to dangerous levels, because of the Iranian acts, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has no options but to find an equal stick to work with and that is where the Russian and Chinese connections become important to the KSA, one of them has to hand over the technology and that will be the beginning of the end of the EU, because the most prevalent of all reasons are ignored, Israel might seem far away, but they are at the Mediterranean, and any explosion there will give particles all over that sea, optionally directly endangering Cyprus meaning that the radiation is already on European soil, in addition to that Turkey will see the impact and the SE of the Mediterranean will optionally become uninhabitable or fishable.

Yes, that is the direct impact we are looking at and the corporatocratic security that the EU relies on will now be a feigned form of apologies and when the Diplomats wake up it will be too late. That is the direct danger we face and at that point the people get to rely on denials from politicians who proclaim to be working for them. Good luck with that!

We can argue about the validity of the JCPOA and hat nuclear deal, but the direct show-able danger is that Iran has increased its nuclear actions by 1000%, whilst there are no power plants requiring this, do you need a road map to figure it out?

If politicians do not hand over a template of actions within the next 48 hours, to time will have come for citizens to act and ensure that some level of quality of life continues, and for those who are in doubt of it, consider looking at your map, at any map that includes the Mediterranean. Israel is in the SE corner, with radiation having no other course to go but west, the tides will change where that radiation ends up, it includes Greece, Crete, Italy, Spain and the most expensive parts of France (Marseille) as well as Monaco, It will take a while for radiation to move through the waters to those parts but once the radiation is in one part, there is no denying it, it will get to those parts as well. So how irradiated will you like your fish to be when you eat it? Perhaps you like your Paella to glow in the dark when you have dinner at 22:00 in Barcelona.

Feel free to think I am merely having a sense of humour, but that first explosion will be the instant that life in Southern Europe will end and the EU parliament is letting it happen, so what are their priorities? Where are their priorities?

As I personally see it the time to be nice to Iran is over, it has been for a while now and the idea to play ‘soft kitten’ games with someone who is rejoicing on their enrichment program to be 1000% of what it was 60 days ago is not the way to go.

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, Media, Military, Politics, Science

Tagged as Ali Akbar Salehi, Anna Ahronheim, Corporatocracy, Cyprus, Eu, EU coalition, France, Greece, Iran, Iranian Clergy, Iranian Military, Israel, Italy, JCPOA, Jerusalem Post, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, KSA, Marseille, Monaco, OPEC, Rouhani, Saudi Arabia, Spain, State of Israel, the Guardian, Turkey, Uranium, Yonah Jeremy Bob

November 4, 2019 · 11:53

The foundation of a blame game

It was the Independent that gave the headline ‘Tens of thousands of operations cancelled because of staff shortages and faulty equipment, NHS figures show‘ by Vincent Wood about 13 minutes ago, and the by-line gives us ‘Labour blames ‘Tory cutbacks running our NHS into the ground’‘ did anyone catch that? Did anyone catch the issues that were given over the last 5 years, not eventual new issues bu the Conservatives, but the destructive path of Labour? “The Labour party bungled the option to get part of the technological solution implemented that could have helped the NHS (perhaps you remember the loss of roughly £11.2 billion in NHS IT restructuring)” did you think that a loss of £11.2 billion is easy to wipe away? That loss hit out into every corner of the NHS, £11.2 billion in IT, in Systems never delivered and the need to do something, so as Labour make some claim as we see printed: “The simple truth is under the Tories, patients wait longer and longer for vital care. This general election is about the future of the NHS and ensuring quality care for all. Labour will fully fund our NHS, recruit the doctors and nurses we need and safeguard our NHS from a Trump deal sell off that could cost the NHS £500 million a week” my question becomes: ‘Will any Labour MP connected to the initial NHS spending disaster be removed from politics?‘ it is a fair demand, is it not? And as I see “The figures were compiled by the Labour party, is based on responses from 82 per cent of hospital trusts” I wonder what else they wrote up and connected down, now we cannot keep on bringing up the £11.2 billion, but it had to come from somewhere, did it not?

And how did we get to “staff vacancies continue to put the health service under strain, with the NHS reporting last year it was short of 100,000 staff including 10,000 doctors and 35,000 nurses“, shall we take a look at the state of things in 1997 – 2010? Then we also need to look into the state of things from 2010-2019. Shall we take a look on the changes required in 1997-2010 and the impact of the Economic meltdown? Now the second part is not on the heads of labour, but there was a definite impact, it is so easy for Labour to make a definite push to ignore that and in the years when it mattered Labour squandered £11.2 billion, that is a whole boatload of systems and thousands of nurses and doctors. Interesting how they ignore that part of the equation.

So as Labour hides behind “the statistics obtained via a Freedom of Information (FOI) request” shall we ask to include the amount they squandered? And whilst were at it, let’s take a look at the squandered part compared to that nutshell trust charity requiring ‘the amount needed to repair faulty equipment across the service provider at £6bn‘ let’s see what is left when we compare one to the other, it seems that Labour is all about forgetting one element in this equation.

The article (at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nhs-operations-cancelled-tens-of-thousands-official-figures-tories-damage-labour-a9183636.html) has a few more idle hands in all this and I am not stating that the Tories are entirely innocent here, but the joke that is regarded to be Labour’s shadow health secretary seemingly decided to ignore the heart ship that £11.2 billion squandered had on the services of the NHS, in addition the loaded debt on the government corporate credit card did not help any, in that regard the Tories are not innocent, i am not claiming that, but the ignoranus that is Labour better get their part right, because the people should be aware of that £11.2 billion fuck up called Labour IT plan, and the issues from there were widespread because that amount had to come from somewhere. And when we start looking at the surplus that the Labour party should have created but did not we will get to an amount that is a lot less representative of what actually should be the consequence of the NHS, amounts and numbers of staff that has been too low for almost 2 decades. When we look a NHS Digital we get that (at https://files.digital.nhs.uk/publicationimport/pub00xxx/pub00912/nhs-staf-over-1996-2006-rep1.pdf) we might think that a good job was achieved with “The number of staff in the NHS has grown every year to 2005 with a small fall in 2006. The workforce is now 27% larger than in 1996“, yet how many SHOULD have been added? When we look at ‘Total staff employed 1,338,000‘ this includes ‘professionally qualified clinical staff 675,000‘ is that not a low number? Remember the earlier ‘the NHS reporting last year it was short of 100,000 staff including 10,000 doctors and 35,000 nurses‘ how come that this number is so divergent from the initial numbers that at the end of Labour was given? How many positions got fired? Yes, there is something wrong and a place like the NHS is dependent of what the government has available and that part is also missing from the equation, so when we start drilling down the numbers Labour comes off as insincere and the usual yokes that they are. All yellow, icky and not really to any point are they?

Oh, and the numbers also calls into question that training places are lacking in a few corners and degrees, so as we are looking at that part too, how did Labour address that in their term? It is important, not because it stops Tories being responsible, it does not, but it does show a systemic problem in the matter and that goes beyond the political element here, there was a shortage for funds and the so called British professional medical degrees should have made a larger and louder complaint in all; this, perhaps it was done, perhaps it was not, but the article does not give light to any of this and it relates to a direct quote that Vincent Wood relies on. And it all related back to the failings that Labour introduced in their term from 1997-2010, so this issue is a lot larger than anyone realises and leave it to the Labour party to add their own failures onto the Tories back, it merely makes no sense to do so, the numbers are out there and it is time to hit Labour with the long term damage that they pushed onto at least half a dozen directions, or did you think that tapping the £11.2 billion NHS vein was the only bloodletting they allowed for? I also believe that certain questions need to be asked towards British Medical Association chair Dr Chaand Nagpaul. He was a topic of investigation in my article ‘As a Puppet‘ in May 2017 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2017/05/18/as-a-puppet/) when I also had a go at the Labour manifesto, I also wrote at that point: “It states: “The people of Britain are rightly proud of the NHS and we will invest £12 billion over the next five years to keep it working for them“, so we get a little over £6 million a day, or slightly more than £200 million a month, so where does this £350 a week ‘pledge’ come from? The independent (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservatives-must-make-manifesto-commitment-of-350m-a-week-for-the-nhs-say-doctors-a7739401.html) shows us: “Doctors, academics and public health officials have called on the Conservative Party to include in its general election manifesto a commitment to spend £350m a week on the NHS, in keeping with the notorious posters of the Vote Leave campaign“, which makes me wonder where the actual pledge comes from. So it seems that Dr Chand Nagpaul and Norman Lamb are both missing a few parts here (I am happy to be proven wrong)“, so not only is the claim debatable, yet I wonder what the numbers then and now represent, yes a 2017 number in this day and age will show a total lack of change towards today, is that the case? From my point of view Dr. Chand Nagpaul has a few explanations to make and I get it, he is watching his own turf and what he’s in value, there is nothing wrong with that, but how much has he achieved in spreading the love of budget? And all this is also linked to the January 2017 article where we see: ““Coventry and Warwickshire NHS chiefs fork out £340,000 for advice on how to SAVE money” (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2017/01/15/the-views-we-question/)“, so how much money was forked out by NHS chiefs on how to save money and how much did they safe in the end?

There are a few issues that are open all over the NHS and the Labour party, but in case you were not aware, I am happy to inform you.

Have a great Monday! #Justsaying

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Politics, Science

Tagged as British Medical Association, Chand Nagpaul, Conservatives, Coventry and Warwickshire NHS, FOI, Freedom of Information, Independent, labour party, NHS, NHS Digital, NHS IT, Norman Lamb, UK, Vincent Wood

November 2, 2019 · 11:10

The side no one seriously looks at

There was an issue, in the Guardian voiced it less than three hours ago as: ‘WhatsApp ‘hack’ is serious rights violation, say alleged victims‘, yet in all this, in all the banter, in all the accusations, the one side not heard is the one not mentioned in any newspaper, why is that? (the article is at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/01/whatsapp-hack-is-serious-rights-violation-say-alleged-victims)

We all see: “More than a dozen pro-democracy activists, journalists and academics have spoken out after WhatsApp privately warned them they had allegedly been the victims of cyber-attacks designed to secretly infiltrate their mobile phones“, in equal measure we see “malware sold by NSO Group, an Israeli cyber weapons company” yet no one discusses the main frame of the mind. No one discusses the fact that WhatsApp got hacked, the fact that a software solution found the software hackable.

We see Facebook, WhatsApp, Pinter, Twitter and no one makes a larger leap on the How. How are these solutions so hackable? There is one voice in the article giving us “One referred to Facebook as “the world’s greatest privacy violator”” At this point you might think that it is merely a way to look at someone else, but it is not. These software vendors are all about sellable and resalable technologies, so they want to make a deal with large corporations who can mine that data to their hearts content, the problem is how to do it without the overbearing amount of oversight, neither side wants that, it would result in uneasy questions and questions that have answers that a lot of people would not want to work on until forced.

And how do you think that NSO technology, a company etched in cyber intelligence and software solutions to find counterintelligence loops would design a way to get into places like WhatsApp and Facebook?

There is a need
There is the opening
Both one and two represent a massive amount of money.

It is that simple and whilst we all want to shout ‘foul, foul’ are we shouting at the right people?

Are we shouting at WhatsApp and Facebook for allowing these gaps to appear in their software? No we do not and we need to wake up. Did you learn nothing from Cambridge Analityca?

The movements of people is worth a lot of money, whilst we all seem hell bent in locking out governments, we open up to commercial enterprises like there is no tomorrow, like there is no hassle there, but that side is the largest hassle of all, they sell some form of access directly to insurances for ‘advertising’ to healthcare clinics for the same reason and they do not care how that knowledge is used. And there is no reason people forget that a company is often no more than its mission statement: “People use Facebook to stay connected with friends and family, to discover what’s going on in the world, and to share and express what matters to them” The Facebook corporate vision statement in its direct form. There is no mention of data security, there is no need for data arbitration, and none of it is there. The same could be stated about WhatsApp “Our messages and calls are secured with end-to-end encryption, meaning that no third party including WhatsApp can read or listen to them. Behind every product decision is our desire to let people communicate anywhere in the world without barriers” there we see no security affix in regards to from who to who(m). And let’s be direct here the part ‘to let people communicate anywhere in the world without barriers‘ is quite sincere, there is no hiatus on KNOWING who is speaking to who, do they?

That are merely tow basic parts that are ignored and they are open and for sale, places like NSO technology fixed their views on getting to those parts of the equation for their customer. Basically Facebook and WhatsApp let them, that is the part you remain ignorant about and that is why it is happening again and again.

You did not think it was going to be easy did ya!

All these issues would fall away when the stage for secure apps would actually be secure, that is the one part that would stop a lot of this and with smaller apps it will happen, when the app comes to a size of distribution where a few hundred million users will be using it, the need for a secure app will be out in the open, well over a dozen of these apps are out in the open and there is not solution, not until that changes and if it were up to the politicians it will never change, because they need that data too.

So if you want a secure App, you will just have to stop using the one you have until they make a secure edition of the App, now there are a whole range of ideas on how that will be, for example that App will not be free, or in case of Facebook where data is their brainchild, they will figure something out, but until they do none of your data is allowed to be secure.

Doubt my words?

Consider that three programmers were at the foundation of NSO Technology Niv Carmi, Omri Lavie, and Shalev Hulio figured out what internal programmers clearly knew but did not stop to realise and these three founded software to combat terror and crime, Three programmers could see what the 150+ programmers could clearly see in the halls of Facebook and WhatsApp and now we see “the lawsuit described the alleged attacks as an “unmistakeable pattern of abuse” that violated US law” instead of the question: “How was this possible in the first place?”

The need to be able to answer that question will reside far and wide in the scope of software developers, it will reside far and wide in the heads of those using these solutions, but not as much in the heads of the developers or the politicians, they know what was there, they knew what was for sale. And in all this the brief reads “More than a dozen pro-democracy activists, journalists and academics have spoken out after WhatsApp privately warned them they had allegedly been the victims of cyber-attacks designed to secretly infiltrate their mobile phones” and no one wonders why there are no politicians on that list? Or perhaps they are the ‘academics’ in all this.

In all this and no one is asking the question ‘Why was the weakness there to begin with?‘ and in all this the entire how come that the pattern of abuse is the one violating US Law and the weakness in the software is not?

Consider that for a moment! #JustSaying

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as Cambridge Analityca, Facebook, NGO Technology, Niv Carmi, NSO Technology, Omri Lavie, Shalev Hulio, the Guardian, US Laws, WhatsApp

November 1, 2019 · 12:51

The pigs you feed with

There is a notion that is adamant in politics, it is the stage that whatever you do next, will whitewash you from actions you might have taken in the past, it is interesting to see the actions of a politician and now that he had moved on, the stench of a previous post still lingers. That is the consideration that David Javid, the chancellor of the exchequer had to face when trying to shake hands with Hugh Grant.

I found his response to the event “I recognised him and put my hand out and said, ‘Lovely to meet you’, and you know what he does? He refuses to shake my hand“. The Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/oct/31/hugh-grant-defends-himself-after-being-called-incredibly-rude-by-sajid-javid) actually has the nicest ring around it with this piece. So David, it is not the spin you give it with “I wonder if people like Hugh Grant think they are part of the elite and they look down on working class people no matter what station they reach in life” it is the consideration you created towards those victims as a cultural secretary. It is clear that David is not alone in the Hacked OFF accusations. with “Grant attacked the Daily Mail and Telegraph newspapers for failing to include his version of events in their news stories covering Javid’s accusation” we see a larger failing, it is the failing of politicians that refuse to see the light that the emanate and the light that they emanate when they take a political position, it will haunt them an at some point it will be the undoing of them.

And there is more of course, the tidbit “after his suspicions were raised that widespread phone hacking by British tabloids was conducted with the consent of the Tory government”, As a conservative, I take great pride in the fact that we need to stand by our actions, even the bad ones, the bad ones show us what acts of stupidity were the ones that will hold us back and the fact that the press can hack whatever they feel like to get the daily circulation up. There is a price that needs to get paid and the press and anyone stupid enough to hide behind ‘the people have a right to know’ claim to do whatever you please needs to be stopped, I had hoped that both sides of the isle had an illuminated showing of souls, but alas it was not meant to be, in light of all that Leveson illuminated and was sold short by the larger papers as well as the political parties need to learn the hard way, I feel strong in that regard and even as this means that we tighten our wrists to beams where we do not know how deep in the water they end up in, the knowledge that we set the waterline in a humane way that way is the only way to guarantee that these follies will never be allowed ever again.

Javid’s spin cycle goes nowhere when we consider “Hugh would like to point out that the victims in question were not celebrities. They were people with personal family tragedies who had been abused by sections of the press” as well as “the victims of press abuse [who] reported back that his attitude in the meeting was ‘borderline contemptuous’”, which in some way has the benefit of David having to deal with past exclamation and past rhetoric in another way as well. The highlight would have been if “I recognised him and put my hand out and said, ‘Lovely to meet you’, and you know what he does? He refuses to shake my hand” had somehow be changed into: “I recognised him and I remembered the treatment I gave him and the victims, I quickly turned to my left further and gave appraise to whomever I remembered from last week’s meeting and let him or her shine a little”, of course the second version would have created a nice ‘non-story’ item and that would have been fine, at the most the personal assistant to the chancellor of whatever borough would have gotten a little limelight, now he gets to deal with the contemptuous feelings of anyone that will talk to the press on how they were treated, so hacked off wins, the victims win and David Javid loses a little more with every statement they made.

Isn’t it great to know what you are doing?

I think it is, I think it is great all the time, but that is just me

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as Daily Mail, David Javid, Hacked off, Hugh Grant, Leveson, Telegraph, the Guardian

November 1, 2019 · 12:19

Russia backed Constitution

Whilst the US is deciding which side of the isle is supposed to deliver the clown sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Russians have settled on getting visibility on the ‘Syria constitution talks begin in Geneva‘ and the Russians are backing it, more disturbing news is that the foreign ministers of Iran, Russia and Turkey at a press conference on a meeting of the Syria committee in Geneva. This is a moment that should have sprung from the loins of the EU, perhaps even America, none are there in the light of day, why is that?

The Entire Iran – Turkey – Syria triumvirate is now coming into effect, whilst the EU and US had decided to fight a senseless war of posturing, standing by Saudi Arabia they ended mocking up the entire Middle East, and let’s face it, it takes up a whole scoop of people with the gravitas of a comet the size of that one that ended the dinosaurs to do that, but yes, they pulled it off, or at least so it seems.

Even as we read the words “Foreign ministers from Russia, Iran and Turkey were in Geneva on Tuesday night to meet negotiators, even though Pedersen had asked all countries to stay away and leave the talks as an exclusively “Syrian owned, Syrian led process”. The three countries put out a joint statement before the opening” we see that the hands behind the machines are settling what was to be the shakes of agreement, agreements in more than one case 2 years in the making. From that point of view the of UN special envoy Geir Pederson sound as hollow as you might think they are. And where was the EU? Where was America? In all this, oh right! They are not there, they decided not to get involved, there is no meat on the tray, and there is no weight on the scales. Basically two elements in what we call a free western world did not deem Syria entitled to that part of life and Russia stepped in, as did Iran, as did Turkey. Two out of three with too much to win, a place for existential contracts, the price of rebuilding will be heavy, it will not be cheap for Syria, but Syria will be rebuilt, just like I mentioned in ‘Slicing the Tiramisu‘ on April 5th 2018, a little over 18 months ago (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2018/04/05/slicing-the-tiramisu/). The stage where we see: “The three presidents — including Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, Iran’s Hassan Rouhani and Russia’s Vladimir Putin — gathered in the Turkish capital, Ankara, where they pledged to cooperate on reconstruction and aid” we see the present escalate for the facilitation towards President Assad, whilst they now are willing to state “The leaders called for more support from the international community and emphasized their opposition to “separatist agendas” in Syria“, you see now that they are at the table getting rich the rest of the Syrian oversight will be costly thing” which both I myself and the Washington Post looked at in light of the predictions I foresaw in (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2018/02/24/losing-values-towards-insanity/) ‘Losing values towards insanity‘ (almost two months earlier) we see now that the road is paved for the construction companies headed by Yevgeniy Prigozhin and Dmitry Utkin to make the millions they need to, the millions the saw in the endgame, in that entire scramble, troop losses were shallow, meaningless and eventful as we now see unfurl. It is a Russian version of Booz Allan Hamilton with the stage and setting to set up camp and head on over to Saudi Arabia and build a little more once invited. That was the game I saw almost 2 years ago and that is what is unfolding now, so your question might be: ‘How did the other two not predict that?‘ and my words would be: ‘They probably did and someone told them that it was far-fetched and that it had little chance of success‘ well that little chance of success is now a large boulder ready to be rolled over the EU and the USA all at the same time, whilst actions by BAH being thwarted again and again, we see that close to $25 billion in funds will go directly to the three opponents, Iran, Turkey and Russia. I reckon that Russia will open up construction avenues and use Iranian labourers in that setting, the Iranians will grasp at that opportunity, hoping that they will be in a better state when these larger constructions in Iran will fall through, yet in the end it will not matter for Russia, they get the largest slice of that cake. And that is merely the size of things within the first 2-3 years, then we will get the Telecom initiatives where Russia – China will take home the slices of cake for Huawei equipment to be rolled out and that will be the ‘experience’ that Russia will handle to give light to additional buildings all over the Middle East (read Saudi Arabia first). A setting that will ‘ingratiate’ Russia to the largest stage we see in the Middle East that is the stage that is now in debate and with ‘Russia-backed Syria constitution‘ they have set a larger option that had been planned for well over two years.

Even as we see the words: “Pederson, like his predecessor, Staffan de Mistura, is searching for positives, pointing out that the committee – with terms of reference and core rules of procedure – marks the first political agreement between the government of Syria and the opposition” the truth of the matter will be that it will all depend on the Bashar al-Assad and his foreign minister, Walid al-Muallem and on how they see the triumvirate in this whole, no matter how it is sliced, their considerations are for Syria and Syria alone, that is the smallest benefit that gives rise to whatever the EU and the US can push on, the Turkish opposition that is called out through “the hostile Turkish incursion into north-east Syria seriously threatens the work of the constitutional committee“, is the one part that could become the Chisel that stops the Russian Mallet from succeeding. President Erdogan and his need to slaughter as many Kurds as possible is the only part that is now a hindrance to Russian success, so good luck on that part.

Never try to make any agreements with animals, children or people sliding a little too far to the side of insanity, especially long term plans, they tend to blow up in ones face.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as Bashar al-Assad, Dmitry Utkin, Eu, Geir Pederson, Hassan Rouhani, Huawei, Iran, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Russia, Staffan de Mistura, Syria, Turkey, UN Special Envoy, US, Vladimir Putin, Walid al-Muallem, Yevgeniy Prigozhin

October 30, 2019 · 12:03

And the news is where?

Well there was the news this morning ‘World leaders return to ‘Davos in desert’ a year after Khashoggi boycott‘, but I dealt with that 4 days ago during ‘When we say ‘Ney’ to an event‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2019/10/24/when-we-say-ney-to-an-event/), complete with the summit time frame, seems like such an interesting delay. Perhaps the entire Nikkei setting is rather more interesting than that. Nikkei review giving us “Mizuho and SMBC among 15 names planned for historic listing“, whilst also giving us “The roster of underwriters could change depending on where Saudi Aramco goes public“, that part will get more visibility in the stage where ‘Aramco proposes two-stage IPO, shunning London and Hong Kong‘, that partially made sense, especially as HSBC took a flounder in the last year, by itself it is not a explanation, yet the events that overlap Jamal Khashoggi and certain times events in that light have not been considered ‘fair play’ by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and in that light the events shunning London would make sense. And this is the direct consequence of certain tasks made by certain elements who thought that jerking off the market because the going was good some kind of thing. Well, yes, that is exactly how I would phrase it, especially over the year when we saw Saudi Arabia being hunted and nagged in three different ways; I think it is fair to call it that. I see no reason to call it any other way. Now that the initial plans for a petrochemical location in China is ready to be mapped out at $10 billion, China will have new options whilst Saudi Arabia is opening a new vat of tactics, the US is now up in arms to sooth their longtime partner and they better pucker up. The US made sure that the Khashoggi matter got light and then the lost track of their novelty, they were not prepared for the windfall others made of it and now we are given: “The crown prince denies involvement, but told US TV last month that he took “full responsibility as a leader in Saudi Arabia”” an issue that was out in the media, but did you not consider the cost involved? Did you think that this comes for free? Even as we were given “it triggered Saudi Arabia’s biggest diplomatic crisis since the 9/11 attacks as world leaders and business executives sought to distance themselves from Riyadh“, it does come at a cost and Aramco is the first to exact the cost of doing business, it is the first of several steps, the deals with India and China are too soon, too visible and it shows a Kingdom who was sick and tired of two faced options in oil, now that we see that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has options, now that the west is about to learn that you cannot play certain games, now they will all be about the ‘miscommunication’, they will be all about the freedom of the press even as we see that the freedom of the press is some convoluted story, some story that we tended to warn scholars about, like we see in Umberto Eco, the name of the Rose (post-glad infringed upon for this event) ““Until then I had thought each preacher spoke of the events, human or economical, that lie outside books not told of. Now I realized that not infrequently books speak of white papers: it is as if they spoke among themselves. In the light of this reflection, the gathering seemed all the more disturbing to me. It was then the place of a long, annual murmuring upon an imperceptible dialogue between one vision debated on and another ones paper, a living thing, a receptacle of powers not to be ruled by any human mind, but the cistern of wealth merely a treasure of ill spoken events emanated by many minds, surviving the death of those who had produced them or had been their conveyors.””

I recently had to revisit an abbey in northern Italy so it made sense as well and the years are actually in several ways applicable. The Divine Comedy (Dante Aliegieri) finishes at this stage, the era was founded by double entry bookkeeping, the Italian bankers who designed it had no idea what impact it would have on accountancy or that the practice would survive until today. Yet, Umberto Eco placed his novella in an interesting time, Yet that time 680 years later we see that the question of wealth is very much at the heart of the matter, yet not in hands of the Christian church, it is there that we see the actions of certain members of coinage to be handled from. Feel free to disagree with me, but when you place the events as they were played over the last year and who exactly started these accusations, with the preemptive part of evidence that cannot have any further meaning, including the UN Essay by A. Callamard, can we answer in any other way that something is apparently wrong?

We merely need to look at the impeachment of a Trump card, a mere clown in the entire financial orchestra, when we see the steps allocated by intelligence and civic groups, whilst a Crown Prince was indited on paper with no resulting evidence, do you really think that it is merely a farce? Now that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has met with two events, it is stronger than ever to settle Aramco, to settle oil disputes and America might not care, but now that their own surpluses and their own economic value is now under attack, its 21 trillion dollar noose will become more than just the chain around a junkyard dog seeking a larger yard to bark in. And now it is only just that I include the bank that was around in the beginning of Umberto Eco’s tale, in 1327, from brothers financing governments the Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena (BMPS) would grow and from its acquisitions in 2008, the hidden losses and the bailout in 2013 it never stopped being the BMPS, J.P. Morgan, Mediobanca, Banco Santander, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs had signed a pre-underwriting agreement with BMPS in July, with all kinds of assurances, several of them all now shunned in the Aramco deal.

There is part of it that I cannot prove, I am not stating that I found certain links that are personally as shallow as it gets, yet certain people made transfers to other avenues, and in those positions they would if that deal went through made huge waves, if nothing happened, then they would be in an interesting place, so we cannot go on anything that flimsy (I don’t work for the UN after all), but the time line is weirdly skewed in certain visibility graphs, one would consider that certain acts would have been ‘concidental’ top a fault if it would have happened and it would have been the savior of what would be the “the industrial plan of the bank was approved, which the bank would be re-capitalized for €8.1 billion, but only €3.9 billion would be underwritten by the Ministry of Economy and Finance (excluding additional shares that would be buyback from retail bondholders by the government), with the rest were the “bail-in” of bondholders, mandatorily converted the bond of the bank to shares” Some would ask questions on the grounds of Margrethe Vestager, yet they would be wrong, I believe that certain matters had been in the frying pan a lot longer than that. And the entire Saudi Arabia matter does not stop there, where it stops is up in the air, because both Wall Street and a wealth banker that is above all this would prefer it this way, so when some are stumping their chest giving you the goods on some deal, just be thankful that it is not your coinage that is depending on this deal.

That is the underlying sound of more than just an Aramco deal, it is all over the place and even if my view is not to be seen as the correct one, consider what evidence you are going from, I never told you the little evidence that I have based this on, for the mere reason that two or three memos could be seen as mere typo’s, but how could my story exist?

Consider that I gave visibility to certain parts weeks ago, and that I was ahead of the curve for some time, after which my interest merely grew in other directions, I had finished the puzzle, I had no real reason to watch it unfold until completion, it was merely an exercise at that moment and like all other people, I hate exercises.

Yet I left two parts out, it is not important, but it gives a larger play towards the entirety, consider Davos in the Desert 2015, who was there and who absconded, consider that this was BEFORE Khashoggi and who came out of the woodwork? That is one part; I let you figure out the second hint. Now consider what options the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has left when the table is spread the way it is, I wonder if you can see the irrefutable acts of discrimination.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Tagged as A. Callamard, Aramco, Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena, Banco Santander, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, BMPS, China, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Davos in the desert, Davos in the Desert 2015, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, India, J.P. Morgan, Khashoggi, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Margrethe Vestager, Mediobanca, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Umberto Eco, UN report, Wall Street

October 24, 2019 · 11:04

When we say ‘Ney’ to an event

We have all kinds of events going on, some we attend, some we show interest in, some are nice to be at. We have all kinds of events that require our attention. For example if there are 7 events to watch and you can only attend 4, how will you go about it? I for one distinguish it into a whole range of requirements, the first being ‘Have to attend‘, that is number one and in that cadaster 2 of the 7 will be found, then we get the ‘Nice to be at‘ and ‘Show interests in‘, they are of equal footing (in my case), now we have three more and we can settle our differences in to any of the three, it is more of a jumble, for those two out of three we get to watch the travel arrangements, the visitor spectacle and there we are off to the races.

That is how it goes into the normal realm of opportunity, so as I look at ‘Davos in the Desert‘ it would be one in the ‘Have to attend’ group. The heads of states are there, my Trademarks office could optionally score one large fish, the tranquility of having one corporate trademarks revenue is just too lard to pass up on. And that is before we consider the opportunity that trademarks in the Middle East and predominantly Saudi Arabia with companies like SAMA, SAMI, Aramco could have over a much larger setting, apart from the IP that I am holding on to. For Bloomberg this is what I call a ‘must attend’ kind of a show, so as we are given: “Axios reported earlier on Wednesday that Bloomberg reporters were scheduled to moderate nine of the panels in a draft of the program. Ty Trippet, a Bloomberg spokesman, told Axios that “Bloomberg is not sponsoring the event or participating in the program. We will be covering news from the conference, as we did last year.”” gives a stemming sound, a ‘we are there but we are not‘ kind of hustling in the woodwork. For a show like “Davos in the Desert“, seeing Bloomberg to remain absent is almost like a denial of the importance of “Davos in the Desert“. I see it in a larger frame, Bloomberg is doing the bidding of its corner office, Bloomberg called back like the little dog it is, the wonder of this chihuahua would be the Wall Street pound, they want the world to know that they are upset that Aramco went to the Japanese. A given 3.54% of every ticket sold that would be the income of most hedge funds managers who saw Aramco as a nice on the side grown food, now going towards the Nikkei, there is a larger game afoot and Bloomberg gets to be the messenger. I wonder how many US newspapers will hold some kind of a Khashoggi reverent during the October 28–31 window, I wonder how many newspapers will call upon the dead reporter, all whilst the events in Turkey will not call for any events, will they. Yes, the death of one journalist against the bombing of an entire group of people is so much more justified. Yet there is a large group of US people in attendance, we see Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and White House senior adviser Jared Kushner. Former Treasury undersecretary David Malpass, now the president of the World Bank, is also on the list, as is former White House communications chief Anthony Scaramucci. Then there are the top financiers Michael Corbat, CEO of Citigroup, Tidjane Thiam, CEO of Credit Suisse, and Noel Quinn, CEO of HSBC. Fund managers include Ray Dalio of Bridgewater, Robert Smith of Vista, Stephen Schwarzman of Blackstone, Larry Fink of BlackRock, Daniel Loeb of Third Point, and Barry Sternlicht of Starwood. Even Masayoshi Son of Softbank is there and so is Will.i.am. The British entertainer and part of the Black Eyed Peas, beyond that he is a rapper, DJ, songwriter, record producer as well as a philantropist. He gets to be there, yet Bloomberg is calling ‘no show’?

I have no goal or esparations perse, but I would go there because one customer from that isle means that I would not have to go scrapping for customers for at least 8-12 years for 50% of the time. The rewards are that impressive, also the foundation of IP laws would be sought after in such a place, and being one of less than 20 attendance given IP lawyers, it would be interesting, even if a dozen of them end up with my business card, it will gradually mean that business comes my way, now for me it is not a given but for someone like Bloomberg it very much means that the larger corporations will be setting meetings with someone like Bloomberg, but now, we see “the State Department recently booked 45 rooms at Riyadh’s Burj Rafal Hotel in support of the two “VVIP visitors” taking part in the kingdom’s third annual Future Investment Initiative, as the event is officially known“, as well as “including representatives from Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and BlackRock, according to a guest list” and some of these parties will get to grow to a rather large setting especially now that Bloomberg is not appearing.

And when you look at the event: PDF DavosintheDeseert2019

You’ll see that anyone with commercial aspirations would want to attend, which beckons the question why would Bloomberg not attend? More worrying is the setting of making this blaze about a week ahead of schedule. From the very beginning when H.E. Yasir O. Al-Rumayyan, Advisor to the General Secretariat of the Cabinet of Ministers, Governor of the Public Investment Fund, KSA opens the event, until the final event where H.E. Bassem Awadallah, CEO, Tomoh Advisory, UAE moderates the final event, namely the G20, a setting I would presume that Bloomberg has vested interest in, but they give way to absentee. 70 events over 3 days, with all kinds of interim discussion options, yet the absentee of Bloomberg make perfect sense, does it not?

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as Advisor to the General Secretariat of the Cabinet of Ministers, and Noel Quinn, Anthony Scaramucci, Aramco, Barry Sternlicht, bloomberg, Burj Rafal Hotel, CEO of Citigroup, CEO of Credit Suisse, CEO of HSBC, Citigroup, Daniel Loeb, David Malpass, Even Masayoshi, G20, Goldman Sachs, H.E. Bassem Awadallah, H.E. Yasir O. Al-Rumayyan, Jared Kushner, JPMorgan Chase, Larry Fink, Michael Corbat, Ray Dalio, Robert Smith, SAMA, SAMI, Stephen Schwarzman, Steven Mnuchin, Tidjane Thiam, Tomoh Advisory, UAE, Wall Street, Will.i.am

October 18, 2019 · 12:25

When we are merely given a paragraph

It happens, we get offered a paragraph and for some reason we wake up, we think: ‘That’s nice! Tell me more!‘ It can be for the strangest and least connected reasons out there. No matter that the push or the reason, we only get that one paragraph and are left hanging. That feeling came right off the bat when ABC gave me ‘ASIO warns of ‘hostile intelligence services’ using social media in annual report‘ (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-17/asio-warns-of-hostile-intelligence-services-on-social-media/11609726) a day ago. Now, let’s be fair, ASIO is not really the one to play games of open communication, as its employees and governing staff were educated by the people of Sneaky, Peeping and Backstabbing incorporated, they have other markers to work with. As such as I was fed ““hostile intelligence services” using social media to target people across business and government“, which basically is a continuation (to some degree) of the quote we saw at ABC in July 2017 when we were given “help Australian security agencies get access to encrypted messages from suspected terrorists and other criminals“, in itself not an issue one would think, and there is exactly the problem, one did not think. I made references to private chat groups in Social media and extremism before 2016, just nice to know that someone gets around and wakes up every now and then. Or as I would phrase it as ‘What else is new?‘, Yet as Jade MacMillan takes us by the hand in this ABC article, we see: “A report in the New York Times earlier this year claimed China was using LinkedIn to try to recruit foreign spies“, again we go with the ‘What else is new?‘. There is nothing new under the sun as MI-6, CIA, DGSE and optionally ASIS have been using that very same tool to get information. The honey traps, the enticement parties and the stage where you are a winner, the tricks are as old as the very first sign stating: ‘Authorised Personally Only‘. In this the larger issue is avoided, you see financial entrepreneurs have been using these paths to gain information on how to find people with debts and some of them have (allegedly) been reporting those people to international whisper divisions, so that a deal could be struck. So whilst some look for foreign agents, they all ignore the debt collectors mining every bit of social media to gain a momentary advantage to collect on one debt and gain another bonus, and those people will always look for investors, especially investors that have a fluidic opinion of ethics and how to be working towards rewards.

It all comes across as silly and as mindless as “Attorney-General George Brandis said encryption was potentially the “greatest degradation of intelligence and law enforcement capability” in a lifetime“, he could not put gamers in a proper dimensional view, so why would he get this right? It is an easy enough question and there is a link. There was a reason why Facebook suspended and ended all group chat options (there were a few actually), they were off course way late, now that Lone wolves and others have found new means to get this started, they need to be more careful, but the state remains. Mining is the only way to do this and you need resources for that, as well as proper staff who comprehend data and not let some silly deep learning algorithm fix it. For example, consider that a facilitator created an auto fill chat system; it has 250,000 lines an hour, whilst the system has one anchor word, a word you can select. So as we see the chat go through, we make no sense on it, yet the users have set the word ‘الدراجين’ (meaning ‘riders’) even as the initial part makes no sense

WE now get:

يتيح للجميع وقتا طيبا والحزب

الهذيان الكبير في واحة في منتصف الليل

جميع الدراجين سباق اليوم

معلومات السباق في اللعبة

تسجيل جميع الدراجين بعد صلاة الفجر

يجب أن المؤمنين اقتبس مرور البقر

جميع الدراجين يعرفون أن السيارة مائة مؤهلة

Even in this setting the programming cannot make sense, and unless you knew that ‘riders’ was the operative word good luck in finding what comes next. a system like this has been in place for years, now there are dedicated programs, yet in the past there were 4-6 in a group of 100, so those 4 guest gamers would not be noticed and by the time someone woke up, it was already too late, the meeting was over and more secure conversations had taken place, this system worked global and now that Facebook chat groups are a thing of the past other means are used for all kinds of groups to find a way to pass a message along.

We get it, the employees of Sneaky, Peeping and Backstabbing incorporated are not supposed to put it in the open, yet the annual report seemingly ignores one part. Instead of having a dozen systems creating a small solution, we need to find the agencies actually working together to avert “ASIO has limited scope to redirect internal resources to address the increasing gap between demand for our counterespionage and foreign interference advice and our ability to furnish this assistance” and partially find a solution that will take care of the extremists, the organised crackpots and the corporate facilitators, if you do not consider the third group to be important, then you have remained asleep for far too long at the wheel.

So when I mentioned Brandis (never the sharpest tool in my personal opinion) we might consider the 2017 event and the quote: “If the laws are passed and technology companies comply, they could help with investigations into paedophile networks, major organised crime or terrorism”, the man is transparent as glass as he hid in the past behind ‘violent gamers’ and now he uses ‘paedophile networks’. Yet the larger issue not seen here are financial services, there is no oversight and there is no telling what an approached debt collector could find out without setting of ANY red flags. And that is with the players who are on the up and up and playing a proper game taking all the proper guidelines and consumer protection laws as noticed and complied with, this wild west group has a truckload of groups all willing to do what it takes to get the score and a foreign player is a stakeholder in finding needs. That group has been able to remain off the books for at least 2 years. They all seemingly forgot that places like Experian, Equifax, Dun & Bradstreet, have their own customer base and who checked out those credentials?

Yes, we can agree that the entire matter is too large for ASIO to deal with, but there is also the flaw that the scope of what they face is not dimensionalised in the proper fashion, it is openly misrepresented and that is optionally acceptable, as long as they know what they face in-house.

And it is not a rocket science deal; the FBI, MI5, BRGE, AIVD, MAD (yes that is the acronym for the German Intelligence Services) and the FSB all deal with these issues. OK, these players will not be calling the FSB but you get the idea. There are players that are about data and proper intelligence mining (Palantir Technologies), yet the field needs to widen but in another direction. If this is Business Intelligence then Palantir is SAS, whilst we need a more IBM statistics and IBM Modeller based solution rolled out, we do not need a solution that fits all, we need to feed clusters of investigators with power tools that allow them to surf data and mine activities to a much larger degree. We need to set server milestones with collected raw data that different clusters can attack. The intelligence branches have wanted to do it the wrong way around for too long (often pressured by wannabe politicians), what we need is a treasure trove of data that all players can have a go at and actually report findings. We create almost 3 Exabyte of data every day, and we need to find 1% of 1% in that, whilst all this happens before 5G, it is about to become 20 times worse and they cannot even handle what is out there now.

All whilst we know that the 1% of 1% remains a group of 98% which is merely misdemeanours playing around, as such we need to change the premise towards collected data, that is what we face at present so the entire matter of “greater awareness among our stakeholders of that threat — has increased demand for our advice and support”, which is misrepresentation in its own right. The stakeholders have their own needs and their own game to play. Consider the IP needs of Telstra (Australia), the Inside protection and mandates of Novartis (Pharmaceuticals), Insider trading on HSBC (Banking) and their needs are their financial protection needs and in this fearless leader Duncan Lewis (ASIO) has to optionally look out for the needs of Telstra (as some claim that hat Telstra needs, Australia needs) whilst hunting those wanting to harm Australians, in this the Stakeholders are more about the revenue and debatable a source of good (they allegedly merely want their bonus safe), as such we should optionally wonder about the needs of the stakeholders and the difference about their claim and their needs.

So whilst we see another batch of mobile swipe and pay solutions being rolled out whilst there are a few concerns on how that data is processed all over the world, we forget that those out to harm national needs are also out looking into all those apps and finding out that for the largest extent the IMEI number of any smartphone is a much easier anchor to work with and mapping the usage also gives a larger content on data and where the target might be, yet most forgot about how the old is still beneath the new, did they not? So even as we consider the title ‘ASIO warns of ‘hostile intelligence services’ using social media in annual report‘, we need to consider that ‘hostile intelligence services‘ is merely part of a much larger problem and that those services use all kinds of methods that the local knights of the round facilitating table (FBI, MI5, BRGE, AIVD, and MAD) are still not looking at (as far as I can tell).

In all this we were merely given a paragraph and whilst people wonder how to find resources, the matter on how to properly apply those resources so that they can have an impact was left off the table, and that was actually the delicious cream that should have graced the Strawberries, or are those Blackberries? I’ll let you work on that little last line conundrum yourself this weekend.

So have a nice day and let’s not forget that the weekend ends in 48 hours! #JustSaying

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Military, Politics, Science

Tagged as ABC, AIVD, ASIO, ASIS, BRGE, CIA, DGSE, Dun & Bradstreet, Equifax, Experian, Extremism, FBI, George Brandis, Jade MacMillan, LinkedIn, Lone Wolves, MAD, MI-6, MI5, New York Times, Palantir Technologies, Social Media, Telstra

October 15, 2019 · 12:01

It started with a meme

Yes, I ignored the impeachment news for the longest of time, until the act is there, there is no impeachment. Just for the numbers people, this would be the 5th presidential path to impeachment, John Tyler (10) got his overturned 127-83, Richard Nixon (37) resigned before proceedings began and we got Andrew Johnson (17) and Bill Clinton (42) who both did impeached, by the way, I will forever have issues with a girl who keeps a sperm covered dress out of the laundry unless it was intentional the fact that she intentionally kept it for 9 months, and that is all I have to say on that subject. Now we get to the 45th President Donald Trump. When we look beyond the ‘grabbed her by the pussy‘ issues, we see a stage of bad decisions again and again, oh and I am a Republican at heart, so I am not giving you democratic rhetoric.

The first one is his inability to use social media correctly, even if we ignore the grammar issues on covfefe (aka coffee), we see the foundation of a person who apparently states his own frame of mind in all the wrong ways. In addition to this we see his choices on what to tweet, GQ magazine gave us in addition ‘The CIA Reportedly Pulled Its Top Spy From Russia Because Trump Can’t Keep His Mouth Shut‘ (at https://www.gq.com/story/cia-pulled-russia-spy-because-trump), this is actually the very first moment when impeachment became a reality, when an elected official cannot keep proper national security in line, the entire presidency becomes an issue and doubly so when the transgressor of national security is the President himself. Even if he did not do it, the stage of ‘is it more likely than not‘ has been met and for national security that is enough.

Musical chairs with clowns and politicians

The meme did not strike a chord because of John Oliver, even if he is a well-deserved comedian with a critical side towards politics. It was Jon Steward with the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund bill (at https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/29/trump-sign-9-11-victim-compensation-fund-bill-first-responders/1835550001/), where he addressed a nearly empty congress. The idea that congress would not be there to give support to a bill where firefighters knowingly met certain doom is just beyond acceptable, from my point of view; those who were not there should be named and shamed for years to come. It must be mentioned that President Trump signed it into law and that might be the best thing he has done in his presidency.

The impeachment process continues as I get only an hour ago: “House investigators heard from Fiona Hill, the White House’s former top Russia adviser“, the Washington Post also gave us: “Trump renewed his call to unmask the whistleblower whose complaint sparked the impeachment inquiry“, the fact is not that he wants to know the whistle blower, it will be about the materials that the whistle blowers (plural) are bringing. The additional fact that we get: “Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, who is scheduled to appear Thursday under subpoena” that the mess is a lot larger, the mess that hits the media is not a mess that we could avoid, the issue is that this mess should not have existed in the first place. The call from the democrat from Massachusetts is not to be taken lightly: “Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) shared a link to an article about Cheney’s comments. He argued that within the past week, Trump has “endangered our troops,” “allowed ISIS to regroup,” “abandoned our allies” and “empowered” the leaders of Russia and Syria. McGovern used another name for the Islamic State“, basically his own fat tweeting fingers got him into this mess. The foundation of what a fashion magazine brings (GQ) is the cornerstone for a much larger issue, the fact that the president of the United States of America is the national security issue is something America has (as far as I can tell) never faced before.

It all comes to blows with “Republicans have seized on a ruling that Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) cannot participate in Monday’s deposition of Hill as they continue to argue the process should be open to the public“, for those in the dark, watch the movie called the Post, this is a direct stage where Republicans wanted things out of the media, there the issue was: “With help from editor Ben Bradlee, Graham races to catch up with The New York Times to expose a massive cover-up of government secrets that spans three decades and four U.S. presidents“, the Pentagon papers showed levels of folly never before imagined, and there was a need to go public, however, the Pentagon papers was about a stage 4 years after the war, in the end proving that the Johnson Administration “systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress” source NY Times. this time it is different, these are events now playing out, even as the Russian news got out AFTER the agent was safe, the fact that the president is part of a national security danger is just too unacceptable and before this goes to the public, the sources must be heard and vetted behind closed doors, I fully agree and I see the wisdom in that, even if the current president and the current administration does not.

I believe this administration made massive errors in the US China trade wars, and even more errors in the entire Huawei ban, the most visible one is that no evidence was ever presented that Huawei is a national security risk, because of the unproven accusations they are wrong, this is different in the UK where the head of MI6 (Alex Younger) gave the clear premise that no government should be dependent on essential infrastructure from foreign suppliers, which does make sense, but then they order their hardware from Finland and Sweden, so there is still some level of issue in place. the entire matter comes to blows in different ways as the larger group of EU nations (Germany being the latest) has kept the doors open for Huawei, now we get to the stage that America feared, Huawei will enable these nations to make faster headway in Europe, expected losses for the US will go between $5 Billion and $8 Billion in the next three years alone. My own expected IP would be available for implementation by Q2 2021 (if Huawei accepts), implying that there will be a boost to the 400 million small business owners outside of the United States, leaving an optional $4 billion out of reach of the US in that time frame alone, the moment my projection is proven values should double, in addition to that the entire telecom service model will change to a larger degree, giving the small business owners a lot more options to choose from, that part is also part of the impeachment.

When the economic models under this administration fail, the democrats will add that entire cart (whether valid or not) to the blame game. Whether we consider this or not, the current president will to some degree be blamed for not being a Guardian of the Economy. The Huawei and China trade pacts are merely one part in this. This administration has pushed the American deficit to the highest in history, even if we accept that the bulk of that failure are the American corporations who became complacent and flaccid, it is more likely than not that the democratic party will voice this in another way. In addition, the guilty of life for Americans have only gotten worse. At present it seems that the current president failed in at least 6 of his 7 roles, as far as I can tell the other impeachment had less on those presidents, we can argue that an adulterer is supposed to lie about those actions, so let’s not go there.

The roles

Chief Diplomat. Failed, the China trade war, I believe that the acts against Iran were justified.

Chief Legislator. Undecided

Party Leader. Failed, his racist tweets are a clear example and they are not the only one.

Chief Executive. Failed, openly hostile to challenges, his manner towards the National Security Advisors as well as his issue with academic opposition makes him a failed chief executive, He used 4 National Security Advisors in ONE term, which is a record as well.

Chief of State. Failed, the G-20 summit, as well as his dealings with the media gives him a fail mark.

Commander in Chief. Failed, the actions in Syria call his military insight and decision making into doubt to the largest degree.

Chief of Guardian of the Economy. Failed, Chinese trade war could have been prevented, outside factors (like iterative corporations merely added to the failure) and of course there were a few fiscal blunders as well.

The entire national security issue, as well as the connections that are being investigated should have sparked impeachment well over a year ago, perhaps the entire CIA matter ended up being the straw that broke the impeachment camel’s back. #Justsaying

Yet this entire matter is far from over, the Guardian reported: “Donald Trump’s secretary of defense said on Sunday the Pentagon would cooperate with the House’s impeachment inquiry, while cautioning that Trump may try to restrict his disclosure of information“, whilst CNN gives us “Democrats also face extra scrutiny over their strategy as they race to prove that Trump abused his power by seeking election dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden from the President of Ukraine“, the question becomes why focus on strategy? Are the actions valid or not? Can a case be made or not? That is the mother lode of impeachment. Yet the fact that even Republicans are now more and more in support of the Ukraine investigations are making the map of red a hazardous place, it means that not only is there every chance of the next elected president being a Democrat, they have a real chance of winning both congress and the senate in 2020, this would push republicans out of play for 4 years, 4 years on the sidelines with their only option to play interference to some degree.

This was a race with growing chances; the entire impeachment matter merely hastened the shift from red to blue. At present there are numbers giving rise to the chance that the republicans will lose 7 senate seats, with an additional 4 unknowns that could optionally make the next election the biggest loss for Republicans in the Senate since 1936. In that year Democrat Joseph Robinson ended with 74 seats, I am willing to wager my last $1 that there is an option that the Democrats are at present optionally in a position to get 75 seats; it would be a new record. Republican Nebraska has one small advantage as Ben Sasse was openly critical of President Trump, in 1936 they were independent, this time around there is a chance for Chris Janicek to become Senator for the Democrats if he gets the right support, and of course if he plays his cards right.

Impeachment did no start with a meme, but my look at the shift of comedians and politicians did, when national wisdom and honour comes from a man like Jon Steward (never my favourite comedian) we stop and pause to reassess our values and we look at what we hold to be endearing and holy to us, holy values are not religious values, our family tends to be holy, our achievements are enshrined, but the steps we take to enable the next generation (usually our kids) are our step towards holy grace, we all want to leave something behind that lasts and when the clowns are running the asylum (congress) and Donald McDonalds has a large white Kentucky Fried Chicken mansion on Pennsylvania avenue (a little upstream from the FBI building, we see the folly of choices and we tend to demand change, in the case of America it took almost 4 years to figure out the folly beyond the minimum required degree.

When we seriously consider replacing Donald Trump with Jon Steward as President of the United States, at that point we realise that our values need to be restored, and we will elect whoever will give value to the values that truly matter, social media be damned.

I believe that there is a larger need; not merely the separating from church and state, the separation from corporations and state is now becoming a larger imperative, especially with a national debt that at present exceeds $22.8 trillion dollars with absolutely no plan in sight to repay any of it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund bill, Alex Younger, Andrew Johnson, Ben Sasse, Bill Clinton, China, China trade war, Chris Janicek, CIA, CNN, Donald Trump, FBI, Fiona Hill, Gordon Sondland, GQ, Huawei, Jim McGovern, John Tyler, Jon Steward, Joseph Robinson, Massachusetts, MI6, National Security Advisor, Nebraska, NY Times, Pennsylvania avenue, President Trump, Richard Nixon, Russia, Syria, the Guardian, Ukraine, USA today, Washington Post, White House

October 14, 2019 · 13:40

Update to include monsters

I was thinking of some of the old games I used to play, especially one I never mastered. The game was released in 1985; I played the Atari ST edition. The game was called ‘Balance of Power‘ and it was basically the east versus the west and through the interface you could interfere (take control of) the balance of power between east and west. In the end I got overly comfortable to the expression “You have ignited a nuclear war. And no, there is no animated display of a mushroom cloud with parts of bodies flying through the air. We do not reward failure“, yes diplomacy was never my forte. There was an update 5-10 years later when the 1990 edition was launched, I never played that edition.

I believe that the world is ready for a true update of that game. When we add the atrocities by Turkey only a few days ago, when we add the Khashoggi debacle and the impact of social media and spin doctors at the heads of media outlets we see that the world has changed to a much larger degree and the impact of what actually could happen is perhaps worthy of a new game. We need to see and play with the impact of ISIS minded forces as political parties play with the impact on a global stage. The fact that the USA is no longer a real superpower and the fact that the treasury of Saudi Arabia, the consumer base of India as the technology footing of China are much larger influences than foreseen; we get to debate a much larger spectrum of what the balance of power looks like. I believe that when the people see the impact of these elements, we see that the world reshapes almost like some Sim City version with larger repercussions. When we consider the global powers of Google and Facebook we see that the game of world politics gets filtered by economic markers. The evolution of what was once regarded as the ‘Balance of Power‘ is optionally now the stage for a larger form of balance (or is that a forum of balance) staged in a collection of seesaws where one resets the balance of two others. the old balance of power staged on the bear and eagle are outdone, less valid, the entire proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran clearly shows that and the impact of the media as they filter the news is also a larger impact and we have never been able to truly look at the impact there is, hence the idea of a new Balance of power, optionally called: ‘the Power to balance powers‘, the optional new truth that Turkey is the fourth power to instigate multiple genocides (America as it degraded the population of Native American tribes to zero, as well as the Catholic powers who removed well over a dozen civilisations, and Russian combined actions in 1931 and 1932) is something we need to consider in a much larger scope.

It is this stage where we look at the news and we are confronted with ‘The Kurds’ commander in chief explains why his forces are finally ready to partner with Assad and Putin‘, I have no way of seeing how this plays out, but there will be larger repercussions on many stages. It is time that the youth takes a serious look at the large issues that their parents are dumping on their doorstep, we need to figure things out and it is time that this is done out in the open, no longer hidden behind a screen of media filters and silencing diplomatic teams as they are trying to remain ‘non-accountable’ towards actions chosen.

The problem is not merely that we ignore the actions; the larger stage is that all kinds of ‘compromises’ are being made for the long term and the next generation needs to learn what those repercussions are and I believe that the right video game could do this. The previous generation was apparently taught that evil should never be allowed to win, yet 25 years after WW2 we all became complacent and we thought that evil was gone, evil never is and we all have optionally become part of evil as we condone the actions of many, hide behind the shallow needs that social media offers and we remain unaware as the news is decided by the wealthy (read: corporations) as they became the shareholders, stake holders and advertisers; they get to tell the media and the news what is important, what is filtered out. That is the stage where the balance of power can educate a lot of people just how dangerous our status is at present, not dangerous as if a war comes, we are beyond that, I mean dangerous as we have set the stage for multiple generations of anger, hatred and feelings of revenge, and a growing lack of tolerance towards one another. It is almost like a 4 seat seesaw and each of these seats is the balancing point for another seesaw, it becomes a game of trying to stay balanced, it also means that there is a lack of movement available, which implies that some parties will be about claiming actions when none (or that specific one) was not available.

when we see the media, we are pushed to the question ‘What is the omitted Information that Remains Missing?‘, this is a spin on two levels, the first is ‘Which question should have been asked?’, which brings us to ‘Has a quote or testimonial been taken out of context?‘ this is harder to answer, but it is an influence, which gets influenced by: ‘Is someone approaching the issue from a different set of values?‘, as well as the stated answers ‘Are the claims supported by well-done research as well as based on reliable sources?‘ and that is the foundation for merely looking at the media how it filters information, the entire stage becomes a much harder game to program, yet should it not be done because of that?

And that is all before we get to the political and diplomatic stage on “If the answer is not helpful, can we change the question to make it so?” these two elements interacting in media causes all kinds of communication (read: presentation) issues whilst both sides remain intentionally ignorant to the equation. The next generation needs to be educated on what a mess this generation is creating. That part is seen (only in part) with: ‘12 Hours. 4 Syrian Hospitals Bombed. One Culprit: Russia‘ (source; NY times), with the quote “The Russian Air Force has repeatedly bombed hospitals in Syria in order to crush the last pockets of resistance to President Bashar al-Assad, according to an investigation by The New York Times“, which was set to events on May 5^th 2019, many newspapers gave that information when it happened, the repeat from the NY Times gives us the quote “Russia’s position as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council has shielded it from scrutiny and made United Nations agencies reluctant to accuse the Russian Air Force of responsibility“, this is important as the United Nations Security council is now presented as an umbrella that offers a shield from actions it was supposed to stop, a stage we knew existed, but not to the degree we see now.

So when we see the NY Times quote: “Nabad al Hayat Surgical Hospital in southern Idlib Province served around 200,000 people before being destroyed in a Russian airstrike on May 5” which comes with assisted high resolution graphics of 40 mega pixels or better whilst we look at the exploding hospital, we wonder how lucky that photographer was, or perhaps someone knew in advance what would happen, we are left with too many questions and no real explanation that fits the morality and values within us.

It is becoming more and more important that we see the world as it is now being pushed by the monsters among us, we like to set the stage to merely Iran, Turkey, ISIS and Hezbollah, yet the real monsters are the ones claiming to fight the atrocities and in the end merely facilitate to it, it goes beyond the wear events, the technological feats we see in regards to 5G is also a global impact, and we can go on and on on all the events that are part of the stage, and it would soon become too complex. Perhaps that too would be the strength on any new version of ‘Balance of Power‘ the fact that too many issues are intertwined for several reasons. Yet when we add greed to the mix, the game becomes awfully transparent, add to that the actions by some making claims that they cannot prove; the created stage of carefully phrased denials, all out in the open and when we ask specifics we are left with half-baked answers that are not answers at all. This is a part that plays a role in all this, we seem to forget that governments have a duty to properly inform us, yet in the listing from government, through corporations to media to the viewer, we forget that there are three iterations of information, all bound by their own personal issues. It is almost an applied variation from Mark M. Lowenthal ‘Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy‘, the application of stages towards the drive of any policy (governmental or not) is also baked into the media and is subject to what we are allowed to see. Consider that impact, as well as the impact of data on the whole, it might become a massively complex new game, yet when we are able to show the impact of these elements to the people, we would optionally get a much more informed person, one who ends up asking the right questions, the questions that politicians, CEO’s and CFO’s fear. When that part comes out in the open, we get a first stage to truly fix things.

Yet with my sense of humour, we should make a lot more space to include the stages that Darrell Huff introduced us to when we were given ‘How to Lie with Statistics‘, and this gets us to today, we know that the balance of power is not merely what we have, what we get and how we get there. There is an internal stage where political power is also set to the stage of people in jobs (as enabled consumers) that was proven ages ago. Yet how that stage is managed is an entirely different matter. the pushed stage where enablers, facilitators and consumers become the ‘have group’ the rest will be the ‘have not’ group.

As we got told today (source: the conversation), we see this stage in Australia, “Centrelink generally requires evidence of looking for 20 jobs per month in order to keep receiving Newstart“, that sounds fine in theory, yet in the applied practice we see that the job search government links to a job search collector, whilst the seeding player of this group is another matter. So when we look at IT jobs in Sydney we see: ‘594 jobs with 715 positions‘, with the largest bulk (over 90%) being Adzuna, yet the reviews from some are stating that this source is riddled with ‘scam’ mentions, as well as overly positive claimed stages. There is a larger issue afoot and there is not enough scrutiny, even as the people can go to really valid places like Indeed, LinkedIn and Jora; the choice we see in the governmental site calls for question of scrutiny.

Why on earth did I mention that?

We see that the balance of power is set to what is done and what can be achieved, yet when we are confronted with a stage that is not available or realistic, how will we interact? When we are set in a stage of age discrimination on a stage where our issues are not heard, or set in a long winded stage of registration where the IT parts fails too often, the government gets to optionally report that no complaints were received. In Australia the mess with Centrelink data matching, the failing Biometrics Identification Services, the UK failures on IT in the NHS and the list goes on where the costs keeps on adding billion after billion, that directly impacts a government, its budget and its waning options, very much issues on a larger scale and the claim we see with “aggressive ICT outsourcing has led to agencies being left at the mercy of external vendors“, whilst there is no proof that growing the internal options would not have resolved the issue. It is a stage where corporations have a hold over the government, pushing cheaper solutions (another reference to age discrimination get pushed to the backbench and no solutions come forward. this is a direct application of the earlier mentioned ‘in the listing from government, through corporations to media to the viewer, we forget that there are three iterations of information, all bound by their own personal issues‘, which in the application of the Balance of Power means that corporations have a much larger option to disable or limit government actions. That is what the impact of corporatocracy is. In the original games there was no real corporatocracy, nowadays there is. The US is perhaps the strongest example and the impact we see in the FDA and DEA (see yesterday’s article) as well as the ATF limited through the powers of the NRA and by corporations addressing attachments to governmental needs we see a larger impact of where governments show limitations on the world stage.

Yes, the entire game has become a lot more complex which in the end leads us to the question, is any application of the ‘Balance of Power‘ still actual and realistic? That is partially seen in 2013 when the NY Times gave us: “Eight major companies, led by Google and Microsoft, are calling for tighter controls on surveillance of their customers’ data by governments“, yet the opposite was never put in place, the existence of Cambridge Analytics, the application of selling consumer data as well as the abuse of data collection through apps has never been stopped. We get all kinds of options to market through mined data giving a larger rise to corporatocracy, whilst the media remains silent on the dangers of corporatocracy. So when we see ‘This is what happens when corporations run the government‘ (Washington Post, March 2019) and ‘Australia’s march towards corporatocracy‘ (the conversation Feb 2017) we see merely two mentions on Google search page one, whilst he situation set the stage that there should have been dozen of clear mentions and investigations, yet the media seemingly have almost zero mentions, how is that? I think that there is a clear stage where corporations do not want to see any mention if possible and as I mentioned earlier ‘in the listing from government, through corporations to media to the viewer, we forget that there are three iterations of information, all bound by their own personal issues‘, and here we see how ‘through corporations to the media‘ is directly inhibiting exposure. The Balance of Power would be an awesome game if we can incorporate it into a new game, especially when we see how the media and corporations make sure that a lot of the information will not be shown, active censorship in nations that proclaim freedom of speech and freedom of expression, when you own the printing house you get to tell the people what they care about, we apparently forgot about that small part again and again.

It is the beginning of a rigged game where the next generation gets to pay for the screw ups of the current generation, feel free to ignore or deny that, yet when we consider the US with a debt of $21 trillion, the EU has around € 10.1 trillion and on a global scale we see that the Global debt had reached an all-time high of $184 trillion in January 2019, we see that the Balance of Power is a term that has become debatable, a stage where banks are basically in charge, limiting or directing the options that any government is allowed to consider. The original game never anticipated that reality, but there you have it. John Perkins tried to inform the audience with ‘Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (2004)’, yet even after Berrett-Koehler published it, gaining an instant bestseller, whilst the major U.S. media refused to discuss Confessions or the fact that, because of it, terms such as “EHM” and “corporatocracy” were now appearing on college syllabi. A stage where the media claiming to advocate freedom of speech, whilst we see that its absence is allegedly corporation controlled, a direct (still alleged) piece of evidence showing that whatever balance of Power we envision, when it is set to nations and governments we get less than 50% of the players in view, making a larger injustice to the people.

In this, I wonder who exactly the real monsters are; are they identified by the acts of nations like Turkey, Iran and North Korea, are they the acts by organisations like ISIS, Hezbollah and Hamas, or are the corporations and the media they control a lot less innocent in all this. Will the next generation be ready for what we, the current generation have facilitated for?

I honestly do not know.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, IT, Media, Politics

Tagged as Atari ST, ATF, Balance of Power, Berrett-Koehler, Biometrics Identification Services, Cambridge Analytics, Centrelink, Centrelink data matching, Chris Crawford, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, Corporatocracy, Darrell Huff, DEA, Eu, Facebook, FDA, google, Hamas, Hezbollah, How to lie with statistics, ICT outsourcing, India, Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy, Iran, ISIS, John Perkins, Mark M. Lowenthal, Nabad al Hayat Surgical Hospital, New York Times, NHS IT, NRA, Saudi Arabia, Social Media, United Nations Security Council, USA, Washington Post

Category Archives: Politics

Recent Posts

Archives